for some new document or other. Exasperated, he has found some leverage over the person handling his case – through their boss. The boss has assured him he will have a word with the handler.
Returning to the passport office with all the swagger of a champion, the man kicks open the door and says, ‘Didn’t I tell you? Now give me my passport!’
‘Yes sir, here it is.’
This story has a very sad ending. At the border, the chip in the passport turns out to be defective. Now what are the chances of that happening? Oh well, better luck next time.
All because the young man didn’t give his opponent the chance to save face and lose with dignity.
Treat your opponent not as the role they perform, but as the human they are. Everybody has emotions, and these are often what govern our actions.
Instead, this man should have rolled out the red carpet for his opponent. For example:
‘Maria Stepanovna [the handler, after her manager has already had a word with her], last time you told me to re-write my statement. Could you check everything is in order this time?’
‘All right, I’ll take a look. Oh, will you look at that, it’s fine.’
A simple gesture like this in no way detracts from your status – quite the opposite. After all, it brings you closer to the outcome you want.
The red carpet rule is the essence of the fourth postulate
of the Kremlin school of negotiation: making the opponent an offer they can’t refuse.
This play might sound something like this: ‘Well, fine, seeing as you’re here, if you can offer me a discount I’ll take a look at your proposal.’ In the majority of cases, your opponent will happily accept.
So, to begin with we listened to our opponent carefully. Then we asked questions, steering the conversation towards our objectives. As we did this, the opponent gave us lots of unnecessary information, things we hadn’t even thought to ask. And then we smoothly and discreetly introduced our own scale of values and gave the opponent a sharp dip in importance. And now our opponent finds themselves in a role and position they would very much like to get out of.
Now is the moment to roll out our red carpet, giving them the way out they’re so desperate for. Of course, our opponent will seize this opportunity with both hands: the position they have unexpectedly found themselves in is so unpleasant. Not to mention the fact that the terms of this ‘surprise escape’ do go some way towards achieving what they wanted. But only to some extent, and only at first glance.
If statistics are to be believed, then this method gets results in roughly 80–90 per cent of cases. But is 90 per cent always enough? At times only 100 per cent rock-solid results will do.
Which is why one more lever is brought into play, one that allows the user to crank their negotiation success rate up to 98 per cent.
Postulate 5: put the opponent in the zone of uncertainty
As a buyer I know from a major federal chain once put it: ‘No one has ever squeezed better terms out of a supplier than those the supplier squeezes out of themselves.’
So what does it mean to put someone in the zone of uncertainty?
You say something like ‘I’m not sure how my management will react to your refusal,’ or ‘I don’t know if it’ll be possible to bring you into our distribution network.’
It’s hard to put in words what happens in a seller’s mind when they hear this. You see, the seller has already been picturing all of the upsides of this deal, and the knock-on effect it will have for their business. Faced with uncertainty, who wouldn’t start to ask, beg, even plead – whatever it takes to coax out another chance? Who wouldn’t promise their opponent all imaginable (and unimaginable) bonuses, agree to any number of concessions?
Why does this happen? Fear gets a hold on us. Fear is a most powerful weapon.
Fear can also be described as a state of over-motivation, of ‘need’. The term ‘need’ is described well in Jim Camp’s book Start with NO.3 This is when a person feels compelled, for whatever reason, to conclude a deal, get the sale, get the documents signed.
And this isn’t the preserve of business relationships. A sense of ‘need’ is not uncommon in interpersonal relationships – for example, when one partner feels they ‘need’
All of this is a state of over-motivation. When a person can’t take a step back and soberly evaluate the current situation, their brain starts to see all manner of negative consequences. As a result, they latch onto any bones they are thrown. And who’s throwing these bones? The tough negotiator. You can find any number of examples of this in films depicting the events of the ‘hard nineties’ in Russia and other former Soviet states.
The nineties saw many groups of racketeers approach local businesses to suggest the use of their ‘services’. The majority of businesses would agree on the spot, fearing possible reprisals if they refused. But some strong-willed individuals refused to do business with such groups. That’s where things get interesting for us.
At this point, let’s say one of the gang members says to one such businessman: ‘No problem. You don’t want our help, that’s your business. Just tell us straight: if it’s a no, then it’s a no. Just say the word.’ And then they walk away.
Now, at this point all the businessman can think about are the grimmest possible consequences of his refusal. He’s in a state of fear, of over-motivation. Before long, the businessman comes crawling back to the criminals, the roles now firmly reversed: he is the one persuading them to let him take advantage of their valuable offer. He automatically falls into a dependent role.
This tactic has a 98 per cent success rate. But there are situations in which even this tactic won’t work – namely if the person feels no such sense of fear or ‘need’.
The zone of uncertainty is, nevertheless, a very powerful play, and using it can easily secure some movement in your direction from your opponent.
Let’s imagine a manager is yet again asking his subordinate to stay late after work to finish a project. The subordinate is neither prepared nor willing to work in his free time. Now, at this point many managers would start to threaten the subordinate, barking out a list of orders and acting in a way they consider to be ‘tough’. In fact, this is exactly the sort of behaviour that will provoke further resistance and disloyalty in their colleague.
This is when it’s time to remember the ‘zone of uncertainty’ play. All you need are a couple of phrases: ‘Fine, Ivan, if you don’t want to stay, don’t. I’m sure we’ll manage without you.’ With this, the manager puts those toughest of negotiators – fear and uncertainty – to work in their subordinate’s mind. And believe you me, those two certainly are persuasive.
So now we have seen all five postulates of
