Negotiating with friends, family, co-workers, competitors and even strangers happens every day. “Your real world is a giant negotiation table, and like it or not, you’re a participant,” said Herb Cohen, a corporate and government negotiator and strategy consultant, in his book “You Can Negotiate Anything.”

“How you handle these encounters can determine not only whether you prosper, but whether you can enjoy a full, pleasurable, satisfying life.” 

“Winning” conflicts has little to do with personal competencies. “Traditionally, rewards presumably go to those possessing the greatest talent, dedication and education,” the book said. In reality, “life has illusioned those who hold [these] virtues, and that hard work will triumph in the end … The ‘winners’ seem to be the people who not only are competent, but also have the ability to ‘negotiate’ … to get what they want.” 

Negotiating table

Cohen sees two individuals who stand out as “the greatest negotiators in history … Jesus Christ and Socrates.” He noted that neither was part of the “establishment” or had formal authority, but they had objectives and standards and were willing to take risks. 

They “won” because they “were win-win ethical negotiators, and they were power people … Both of them used many of the collaborative approaches” preached today. 

Cohen explained winning negotiations consistently “isn’t [about swindling someone], and it isn’t intimidation of an unsuspecting market, [instead] it’s analyzing information, time and power (the ‘three crucial elements’) to affect behavior [of others].” As such, “almost everything is negotiable.”

Holding power

“Power” can be easily abused to create win-lose scenarios and outcomes, even if deliberations target win-win results.

“Knowledgeable people complain about power [when] they don’t like the way it’s being used [to] manipulate, coerce or domineer [the other side],” Cohen said. The other reason is they “don’t approve of the power’s goal [if it is] corrupt and exploitive.” In such cases, “even the most appropriate means won’t make that end acceptable.” 

He also warned “power should never be a goal unto itself,” adding that negotiators need to “use it to sensibly implement objectives that are important to [them].” 

The book classified “power” into several “types.” The first is the “power of competition,” where one party has something others need, for example, money. “The more people who want your money, the further [it] will go.” 

The second “type” is the “power of legitimacy,” which the book defines as “derived from perceived or imagined authority.” For example, having rules printed on a public sign or given to participants. “Printed words, documents and signs carry authority,” Cohen wrote. “Most people tend not to question them.”  

The book noted the “power of risk-taking,” but stressed that “involves mixing courage with common sense. If you don’t take calculated chances, the other side [will] manipulate you.” 

“Power of commitment” requires the “commitment of a large number of people [in a negotiation].” That enables the negotiator to spread risk among the whole group, lowering stress levels and giving their side a better chance of winning.

The “power of expertise” also provides leverage in negotiations. “When others perceive — or believe — that you have more technical knowledge, specialized skills or expertise, they treat you with a consideration that ranges from respect to awe.” 

Another type of power is “knowledge of needs.” It comprises “the specific issues and demands, which are [discussed] openly” in the negotiation and “the real needs of the other side, which are rarely verbalized.” 

The book also noted the “power of investment,” where the negotiator increases the other side’s vested interest in concluding the discussions by offering bigger concessions. Achieving that usually comes down to “the power of identification,” where “you will maximize your negotiation ability if you get others to identify with you.” 

The powers of knowledge of needs, investment and identification could magnify the “power of morality,” where the other side makes exceptions or even overlooks the law because it is the moral thing to do. 

The “power of precedent” cuts both ways. The negotiator can use similar past cases to argue against the virtues of their outcomes. Conversely, a precedent could be an excuse to keep the situation unchanged if it favors the negotiator.

The “power of persistence” is usually not evident as “most people aren’t persistent enough when negotiating,” the book said. 

The power of “persuasive capacity” comes from making arguments relevant to the other side, ensuring evidence is “overwhelming” and indisputable, and making the other side feel their needs were recognized. Cohen stressed its importance as “most often logic doesn’t work.”

He also noted “the power of attitude,” evident when negotiating on behalf of someone else. The book argued that when negotiating for yourself, “you care too much … That puts you under [more] pressure and stress.” 

Lastly, the book noted “the power of rewarding and punishing,” whether real or perceived. This “power” is almost always evident in adversarial (win-lose) negotiations. 

Trial by time

The book noted that “time” is the most complex “crucial element” in negotiations, as “we cannot control the clock,” so “we must examine how the passage of time affects the negotiation process.” 

The first challenge in maximizing time in negotiations is that “most people speak of negotiation as though it were an event — something that has a definite beginning and ending.” In reality, negotiations start when one side begins investigating the “other side.”

Negotiations also have no definite end as outcomes are made as close to the pre-negotiation deadline as possible, and usually stretch after it has passed. “Your best strategy is not to reveal your real deadline,” the book said. “Always keep in mind that … deadlines … are more flexible than most people realize.”

The ‘knowledge’ factor

Cohen stressed that information “can unlock the door to the vault called success. It affects our appraisal of reality and the decisions that we make.”

Gathering “information” for negotiations must start as early as possible to ensure the odds are in your favor, Cohen stressed. Delaying the process “until the occurrence of a crisis or a ‘focal event’ … creates a cascade of dysfunctional consequences.”

The book also stresses the importance of how to collect information. “Some assume that the [more] intimidating or flawless we appear to others, the more likely they will tell us [the information we need].” That almost always backfires. Instead, “the more confused and defenseless you seem, the more readily they will help you with information and advice.” 

Cohen stressed that while it’s in the best interest of one party to conceal information, they may have no choice but to share it to receive new information in reciprocity. Accordingly, negotiators need to “carefully word and control information, [presenting it] slowly in bite-size fragments” to avoid giving too much to the other side.

While all sources of proven information from experts and cohorts are vital, Cohen stressed the importance of collecting information from “your adversary’s competitors,” as that gives a “tremendous bargaining advantage.” 

Vital information is also present during the “formal” negotiation event from the other side’s unintentional, verbal, and behavioral cues. However, Cohen warned that seasoned negotiators often give false cues to confuse and misdirect their opponents. 

Win-lose negotiator

In the book, Cohen highlights the traits of win-lose, manipulator and win-at-all-costs negotiators, stressing that spotting them early is essential to changing negotiation tactics or walking out.

The first telltale sign is that “win-lose” negotiators start with an “extreme initial position,” making “tough demands or [presenting] ridiculous offers.”

Secondly, they often have limited or no authority to make concessions or compromises. They also likely view concessions as “weakness.” That means the other side will be effectively “negotiating against themselves,” offering better deals with almost no reciprocity. 

“Win-lose” negotiators also have short tempers, act angrily, raise their voices and play the victim if they feel backed into a corner. Sometimes, they may even “walk out of a meeting in a huff.” They also “ignore deadlines, … acting as if time is of no significance” to the point of frustrating seasoned “win-win” negotiators. 

Cohen believes “win-lose” negotiators tend to represent someone who would harm them if they “lose” and sometimes if they “let the other side make gains.” 

The way to win against such negotiators is to give them no option but to bring those with decision-making powers to the negotiation table by crafting lose-lose scenarios.

That is usually easier said than done, as win-lose negotiators “always start out knowing more about your real needs, priorities, and deadlines than we know about theirs.” The other reason is that they almost always have “more time,” using it to “wear [the other side]  down through endless delays … and making meager concessions separated by long intervals.”

Ultimately, win-lose negotiators thrive if they are sure they will not negotiate with the other side again, have no remorse and the other side is not aware of their unfair tactics.

Getting to win-win

Cohen stressed win-win negotiators must ensure they are not “abrasive, avoid using absolutes in responses… and lean to preface … replies with ‘What I think I have heard you say …” 

Another characteristic of a win-win negotiator is they “state [their] case moderately [and] address the other side with tact and concern for their dignity, even if they have a reputation for being [otherwise].” 

Lastly, win-win negotiators focus on getting “everyone looking at [the] end result.” That ensures both sides will “spend their energy and creativity searching for different alternatives … that might accommodate the needs of all concerned.” Starting by stressing the differences will get everyone “bogged down in disagreement.” The book added, “From this point, demands and counter-demands follow, [leaving] the group … polarized into winners and losers.”

This book review first appeared in March’s print edition of Business Monthly.