The Intelligent Negotiator by Charles Craver Read Free Book Online Page A

would have on the opposing party.
    T IP
When Intelligent Negotiators measure their own bottom line against those of their counterparts, they often undervalue their own options and overvalue those of the other side. It is human nature to become intimately familiar with our own circumstances. We often dwell on the negative aspects of our situations, assuming our counterparts are aware of those matters. When we are upset, we even magnify the negative factors that affect us. When we attempt to evaluate our opponents’ circumstances, however, we tend to do the opposite. We see the strengths the other side possesses, and often miss the negative pressures affecting that party. When you evaluate the circumstances affecting the other side, try to look behind the facade being projected and speculate about the problems likely to be influencing that side. What hidden pressures may be driving the other party? How much does that side need what you can provide?
No matter what the balance of power, Intelligent Negotiators project their strengths and conceal their weaknesses. What you must ask yourself when preparing for bargaining is not what weaknesses you actually possess, but what weaknesses you have that your opponent is likely to recognize. Think about the impression the other side has of your situation. If you do a good job of hiding your problem areas, you should be able to create an image of greater strength.
    When comparing settlement and non-settlement options, always include the transactional costs associated with both alternatives. What are the financial and emotional costs of agreement, and what are the economic and psychological costs associated with no agreement? Even when the monetary transaction costs may be relatively equal, other considerations may lead you to favor a negotiated resolution.
    The fact the underlying situation will be resolved now instead of months from now may provide financial and/or emotional relief. On the other hand, a bad settlement is almost always worse than a preferable non-settlement, because of the post-settlement “buyer’s remorse” experienced by those of us who consent in haste to poor agreements.
Felicia Brown realizes that present employment market considerations enhance her bargaining position. Unemployment in the Metropolis area is low, and businesses are finding it hard to attract skilled workers. She thus thinks she can get at least $60,000 elsewhere if she rejects the Andersen offer, and has decided not to accept an Andersen salary below $62,000 or $63,000. By examining job announcements for similar firms, Felicia believes she should be able to get Andersen to cover the cost of at least some of her training programs and agree to three weeks of vacation.
Felicia is aware of the number of network manager positions available, and appreciates the difficulty Andersen would have finding a proficient person if she turns them down. Even though she does not want to apply for many of these vacant positions, due to the extended hours and high stress situations involved, she knows that Andersen has to compete for people who might be willing to work for larger firms if the employment terms were sufficiently generous. Felicia thus appreciates the fact that Andersen probably needs her services more than she needs their job.
    Establish Firm and Appropriate Aspiration Levels: Those Who Want Better Deals, Get Better Deals
    By now you know your bottom line and your non-settlement options, as well as those of your opponents. It is time to establish your aspiration level. Begin the process by asking yourself: What do I hope to achieve through this bargaining encounter? How well can I possibly hope to do?
    As stated above, Persons who want better deals get better deals. So set your goals high. If you think in terms of your bottom line, you are unlikely to obtain terms any more generous than that initial level. When in doubt, raise your goals. If your new objectives seem unattainable, take the time to