people sometimes give away too much. Never forget, the goal should still be WIN–win– at least maximize and ideally, the big win is yours.”
How Can You Achieve WIN–Win in the $10 Game?
Start with this premise:
Maximize your interests. Determine what is the most you can come away with. Don't give away more than you have to. Get the most of a good deal, not the least of a bad deal. (That's another way of expressing WIN–win.)
Here are some interesting solutions we've seen in the seminars:
● Look for points of agreement. Rather than leaping into battle over who gets the most money, look for an idea upon which you both can agree. For example, “If we don't make a deal in 30 seconds, we both get nothing. So, let's start by splitting $8 of the money, $4 for me and $4 for you. Now let's just negotiate over the last $2.” Once you've found one basis for agreement, you may well find more.
● Remove ego. Take subjectivity out and replace it with objectivity. Use a coin flip. “Heads, I get $6 and you get $4. Tails, you get $6 and I get $4.” Both sides now have an equal chance to “WIN” or “win.” And, regardless, it happened “fair and square.”
● Listen carefully to the rules. They're limiting but not totally restricting if you're really creative. No one said you can't make change. Split the money $4.99 and $5.01. That's only a 2-cent windfall for the supposed winner.
● Be creative – look for new approaches. Increase the pie. Again, the rules allow for imaginative solutions. No one said you can't add to the total. Let's say, you put in an extra dollar. Now you're dividing $11. You take $6 and the other side takes $5. Both sides “WIN” by increasing the pie before dividing it.
Unfortunately, most people don't reach these solutions. They fall into the conventional traps of win–lose negotiation.
The Real or the Apparent Adversary?
What most people lose sight of in dividing the money is who they're up against. Each of the two negotiators generally sees the other as the opponent. They're wrong. In reality, they're up against the person holding the money. If the two negotiators don't succeed in making a deal, the one holding the money keeps the money. Before negotiators can find solutions, they have to identify their real obstacles, not just the apparent ones.
Filling the Negotiator's Toolbox
How do you avoid the pitfalls of negotiation? Don't revert to the same old methods to solve your problems. If your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails; if the only tool in your negotiator's toolbox is I Win–You Lose, then everything turns into an I Win–You Lose situation. Negotiating becomes a battle of wills and/or egos. It isn't a good deal unless you defeat the other side in the process.
Conversely, if the only tool you have is I Lose–You Win, every negotiation will look like you have to give in, sacrifice, or settle for less in order to appease the other side's appetite.
Turn a mirror on yourself and ask, “What tools am I using in my negotiations?” The goal here is to put more tools in your negotiator's toolbox. By giving you the appropriate tools and an understanding of how and when to use them, you can become a more confident, and ultimately more successful, negotiator. Instead of dreading negotiation, you may even look forward to it.
What Negotiation Is
Knowledge is power.
If negotiation isn't laboratory science or a bloody war, if it isn't the macho drama portrayed in the movies, what is it?
Negotiation Is the Commerce of Information for Ultimate Gain
Let's take that definition apart. First, the commerce of information: Commerce is the business of trading. It's the stock market in New York, the commodities floor in Chicago, the street vendors in Tangiers. The difference here is that you're not exchanging corn futures for sowbellies or Moroccan francs for Persian rugs. You're trading what you know for what you need to know. In the negotiation market, information is the commodity. And in a negotiation, nothing is more valuable than information, whether it's two countries trying to make peace, two companies merging, two workers trading office gossip, or two kids swapping baseball cards. Is one veteran's card worth three up-and-comers? It all depends on information: What one kid wants and how bad. What the other kid has and is willing to give up.
Buzz
I'll give you a Ichiro Suzuki. What'll you give me?
Bob
I'll give you a Joe Mauer. But I won't give you my Derek Jeter.
Buzz
That's okay, my cousin's got a Derek Jeter – he'll trade me.
Bob
This one's in mint condition.
Buzz
Well, all I got is a whole mess of rookie cards.
Bob
Really? I got a rookie collection. Which ones you got?
Buzz
Let's see. I've got an Adam Jones and a Matt Wieters.
Bob
Not bad, but not enough for a mint Jeter.
Buzz
Okay, see ya.
Bob
You sure you don't have any others?
Buzz
Well, my little brother has this Mike Trout.
Bob
Too bad it's your brother's.
Buzz
He's only five and he says I can do whatever I want.
Bob
Really? Well, I have to think about it.
Buzz
I gotta go in for dinner.
Bob
Deal.
Kids swapping cards are no different from grown-up dealmakers. The commerce of information determines whether there can be a deal at all. Does one side have something of possible or real value to the other side, and vice versa? Do the sides want to make a deal or are they fishing? Is there competition? How deep are the buyer's pockets/resources? What are the terms of the deal? Who has decision-making power? Does either side have a deadline?
After feeling each other out with two players' cards either side would give up (fishing), Bob revealed he had the Derek Jeter card (possible value). Buzz wisely explained that he already could get a Jeter from his cousin (competition), which led to getting the information that Bob's Jeter card is in excellent condition
