Exchanging Information

Much of the materials with the tag bfa comes from the Bargaining for Advantage book.

3 aspects to it:

• Rapport development
• Discovering latent interests, issues and perceptions
• Testing of expectations based on leverage

This is the point where we test the norm of reciprocity (will exchanging information occur in an equitable manner?)

Establishing rapport: Need a plan to do this! Find common interests, passions, and background - not tied to the negotiation.

Liking Rule: People are more likely to say “Yes” to someone they know and like. Familiarity breeds trust. Common affiliation in a group helps (club, religion, college, nationality)

Study of Stanford negotiating with Harvard (students): Those instructed to exchange social information with counterparts had a higher success rate.

So do put hobbies on resumes.

Establishing rapport does not give a significant advantage in the negotiation! If the opponent is trying to gain concessions purely based on this, reject them!

Obtaining information:

• Who are the opponents?
• Why are they here?
• What is important to them?
• Do they have authority?

Test hypotheses and gain information without giving up anything.

Do not try any surprise attacks (e.g. the Sony Betamax case). It erodes trust and kills rapport.

Do not talk a lot. Listen more, and listen first! Disclose later. Ask questions first.

Skilled negotiators do more of:

• Asking questions
• Testing for understanding
• Summarizing

People are happy to talk. Let them talk!

Good opponents will want you to talk first. Much of it may be bluffing. Pointless commitments are made due to bluffs.

If you must deliver ultimatums or deal breakers, do it early, clearly and credibly.

If you have attractive alternatives or good sources of normative leverage, or can do fine without the other party’s cooperation, the information exchange stage is the time to signal this. If you have none of this, you better have a plan for dealing with this!

If your leverage is weak, emphasize the uncertainty in the future. Talk about comfort with the status quo, or plans you will have if things do not work. These are not strong signals.

If you are in a weak position, try bluffing. It may work, but is of high risk. If someone delays a response (e.g. waiting a week), consider a possible bluff is being used against you. The longer they keep you waiting, the more they want the deal.

If your weakness is obvious and they know it, personalize the situation as much as possible. Arrange face to face, acknowledge the other side’s power, and stress gains from cooperation.

If weak and all else fails, ask “What will it take to get a Yes?”

If you are in a strong position, you can:

Send a firm signal you are in a better position, and will insist on a favorable deal.

Show your power, then indicate you intend to be flexible to build goodwill for the future. In this case, though, do not be flexible unless you know the other side thinks you have power. Otherwise he may think you are bluffing and are weak.

If you have the upper hand and the opponent is competitive, and you are a cooperative type, and you want to signal strength, be assertive from the outset. This is because your opponent responds better to familiarity. So if the opponent is stubborn, ranting & raving, then demonstrate harshness and make ultimatums.

If you have strength, but want to be flexible, make sure you get the credit! Convince the other party of what you could have done.