Counterparts in negotiations always face more than one possible outcome. Many times, the possibilities or options, are many. However, when it comes to choosing between attractive courses of action, most people would rather have a bird in the hand, so to speak. This is a basic tenet of human behavior, most commonly referred to as risk aversion. Being conservative, playing it safe, or watching your back is quite a trait carried by most logical thinkers. More than  85% of students from past MBA and Executive negotiations courses would rather have $10,000 than a 50/50 chance at having $20,000.

Negotiators, that is, expert negotiators in business and in all other walks of life do not begin to focus on a situation only after it begins to turn into a crisis. They prepare for the eventualities well in advance.  

Sometimes we have a very high interest in the outcome of a negotiation and our personal interests or the risk we are undertaking cloud our judgement, or at least do not allow us to see or weigh all the issues objectively. It is human nature to surround ourselves with like-minded people and those who agree with our strategies or pander to our ideas. This is a good idea if we want to boost our confidence or gather support for a specific initiative. However, in business negotiations, many times we are dealing with serious consequences, escalation or even litigation. What we need here is objectivity, reason, clarity of thought and solid good judgement.

In our rush to wrap up a negotiation and show good faith, many times we make concessions that are either too quick or too costly, or both. This is why, as a negotiator, you need to plan what the likely "asks" might be from your counterpart, and have some trades or concessions to offer up as alternatives. 

I recently read an article that talked about how a team member, during the beginning of a deal had "expressed need – the death-rattle of any negotiation." I see two problems with this quick assessment. First of all, it unequivocally highlights the value of having internal alignment when negotiating a deal. Does every team member understand what the negotiation strategy is, its details, what tactics to use and expect in return? Before you can adequately execute a negotiation strategy, internal alignment on the deals' objectives, elements and ranges is a key success factor. Clearly understanding your alternatives, as well as your opponent's alternatives, allows you to put things in perspective and develop gainful communications during the negotiation process.

I came across a blog post on Paul Castain's Sales Playbook entitled "A Good Reason NOT to Negotiate."   It seems to me, many people feel this same way about negotiating business deals, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on it with you... 

Suppose your company could make the exact product or service each one of your customers needed and suppose you could price it and sell it so it maximized your returns. That does sound like a bit of a stretch, but if we think about it, in many instances we can come pretty close to this scenario by doing three things.  We need to:

Selling is a process through which the seller identifies how the solutions he offers resolve a buyer’s needs at a given point in time. Whereas negotiation is the process through which both parties agree to the terms of a deal, which is better for both than any other alternative deal. Some people have stated there should only be a negotiation when there is a genuine commitment from both the buyer and seller towards a conditional sale. However, I think this approach is somewhat short-sighted.

I recently heard a renowned negotiation guru refer to Professional Sports Agents as “Parasitic Intermediaries.” I immediately had a flashback to the movie Jerry Maguire, and the famous line: “show me the money!” However, if we think about it, it does make quite a bit of sense. Why would someone hand over their power to negotiate to another? Agents will usually tell you it’s because they have more ‘experience’ negotiating and are more ‘familiar’ with the details and mechanics of negotiating with major league franchises; and in most cases, that may be true. However, they do not know, better than you, what it is you value, want or need.

In many respects, hiring an agent is similar to a company hiring a purchasing manager that buys on behalf of his company, but is solely focused on his interests (political or financial). If he is not focused on the needs of the company as a whole, or of the specific stakeholders he serves, he is in effect an agent. Companies, as well as professional athletes need to make sure that they are protected from possible conflict of interest issues. These items increase trust and collaboration, and promote better long-term results: 

1. Manage:
   1. Mutual understanding of long-term goals and objective’s ranges.
   2. Limited authority to make commitments.
   3. Communication throughout the process.
   4. Alignment of compensation with your interests.
2. Insist on expanding the pie:
   1. Find creative ways to make the pie bigger for both parties.
3. Analyze all options:
   1. Understand the moving parts of the deal, and;
   2. The consequences of no-agreement for both sides.

I was struggling with a concept this morning and a friend of mine sent me this quote:  “When you plant lettuce, if it does not grow well, you don't blame the lettuce. You look for reasons it is not doing well. It may need fertilizer, or more water, or less sun. You never blame the lettuce.

Yet if we have problems with our friends or family, we blame the other person. But if we know how to take care of them, they will grow well, like the lettuce. Blaming has no positive effect at all, nor does trying to persuade using reason and arguments.

That is my experience. No blame, no reasoning, no argument, just understanding.”
- Thich Nhat Hanh