
The Art of Bargaining, Positional vs. Interest-Based Negotiation - loscoconuts
https://f3fundit.com/the-art-of-bargaining-positional-vs-interest-based-negotiation/
======
motohagiography
To add to this (writing too much today), most people you will encounter have a
positional bargaining approach because it's the default position of a buyer
mentality. Persuading them to see value in an interest based approach is a lot
of work and the biggest risk is they will walk away and find someone else they
can bully. You dodged a bullet, but also the value was destroyed.

The more recent work on negotiations includes things like salience models,
which are more about building coalitions to apply leverage on a point person
instead of persuading them with reason and principle. It reflects reality
better.

Enterprise sales are a good example, where instead of just winning a feature
bake off or doing a good pitch, you need a full coalition of parties to
prevail over the alternatives and move the sale forward. This makes sales more
of a complex political campaign than arguing and demonstrating to win a
judgment and verdict.

The strategy in these negotiations is different, and more about eliciting
information about needs and motives of coalition parties to align them toward
your decision. The tactics involve some traditional negotiation techniques
like inventing options and proposing if/then points of incremental agreement,
but they are part of a more abstract play.

So, learn negotiation , but short version: the map is not the territory and
the fastest way to select-out is to go in with expectations that people
conform to a map.

~~~
wenc
How does one learn more about these topics outside of googling -- which I just
did? (i.e. salience models and building coalitions)

I have to do this daily -- and I'm learning as I go -- but I'm finding books
like Getting to Yes (with BATNA and all that) to be a little too theoretical.

~~~
scottm01
I’m certainly just learning myself, but quite enjoyed Never Split the
Difference...

[https://info.blackswanltd.com/never-split-the-
difference](https://info.blackswanltd.com/never-split-the-difference)

~~~
BeetleB
One day I'll write a detailed review of Never Split The Difference. It's both
a great and a terrible book. Do read it, but keep the following in mind:

Ignore all his complaints about MBA/Ivy league programs and how they teach
negotiations. A lot of what he accuses them of are not true - he mostly sets
up strawmen arguments against them. The majority of his book is in alignment
with what those other books/programs teach, including many of the cases where
he claims otherwise.

Consider his rationale for criticizing other books so much. He could have
simply written his own book on negotiation without spending so many pages
throughout the book complaining about _other_ books. Why does he do this? He's
playing psychological/marketing games with the reader. Similar to the dialogue
in _Thank You For Smoking_ :

Joey (the son): so what happens when you're wrong?

Nick: OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending
vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream',
you'd say...

Joey: No, chocolate is.

(dialogue goes on for a while)

Joey: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best...

Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm
right.

Chris Voss seems to be playing that game: He's trying to elevate his book by
claiming other books are wrong.

The other thing about the book: It works well in a somewhat narrow scope. In
particular, some of the advice in the book will damage relationships. This
isn't surprising, given his whole negotiation career involved scenarios where
he would not have a continuing relationship with his counterpart on the other
side.

As an example, his tip on "But how do I do this?" My last manager was very
skilled in getting her way with this approach. Within a year of her becoming
the manager 3 people had left the team. Sure the tactic works initially, but
people will wise up to it if you use it often, and they resent the mind games
involved.

A good negotiations book will differentiate between strategies where the
relationship is important vs one where it isn't.

Not to deter you from reading the book. It does have some pretty good advice
I've not found in other books. And it definitely is more practical than other
ones. Just do not stop after reading it.

~~~
scottm01
Thank you! I should’ve also warned that the whole business feels a little
spammy (sign up for the secret 1 page cheat sheet!), but as someone who
doesn’t come to negotiations naturally I did enjoy some of the practical tips
and theoretical background.

Any recommendations for other sources?

------
tvladeck
This article really, _really_ needs to cite Getting to Yes, or at least their
authors, William Ury and Robert Fisher, who developed these ideas, and even
this terminology.

~~~
ribs
Quite; their Harvard Negotiation Project was the incubator for this line of
research and their book one of the outcomes. It’s strange not to see it cited.

------
AcerbicZero
The goal is to appear to be a "integrative" bargainer, while actually
bargaining for your own position. There is no "1 size fits all" negotiation
strategy, and while I appreciate the article for what its attempting to do,
going into a negotiation with the intent on making everyone happy is likely
going to end with you being the unhappy one.

This is why when you buy a car, (In the US anyway) you _usually_ "negotiate"
with a sales person, who will be running to a back office to relay the
negotiation with the manager who is actually the decision maker. The sales
person will attempt to (or sometimes even genuinely try) to be the
"integrative" negotiator while the manager will act as the adversarial
negotiator in the process. This can actually work in your favor on occasion,
as I've had a great deal of success by understanding the mechanics of the
process, and leveraging the sales persons desire to sell the car against the
managers desire to make the dealership (more) money. (Usually by establishing
myself as a serious buyer, walking away from a bad deal and then getting a
call ~3 days later when someone needs to hit their monthly/quarterly number)

~~~
Ididntdothis
I always thought the sales man/sales manager thing is just an act. I wouldn't
be too surprised if the sales manager didn't even exist or care about about
the deal. I have heard this described as "higher authority". The person who
does the talking never makes a decision directly but always defers to a real
or pretended higher authority like a wife, boss, company board or whatever.
Seems like a variation of good cop/bad cop.

Walking away while keeping the door open is almost always the most powerful
negotiation technique.

~~~
techslave
no, GP is correct. only in the tiniest 2-3 man lots does the salesperson also
set the price.

~~~
Ididntdothis
This may be true but I think there is definitely an element of wearing people
down. Last time I bought a car I t9ld the salesperson to just call the manager
in so we could duke it out in five minutes instead of him walking back and
forth and making me wait each time. He wouldn’t do that.

------
tempguy9999
Seems like it's stating the obvious, then it says "One other thing that can be
used in negotiations is neuro-linguistic programming..."

ISTM the comments here have more value than the article (thanks, commenters).

------
a13n
It sounds nice in theory, but in practice when you're negotiating dollars
(whether with a street vendor for $20 or a procurement department for $200k),
their "interest" is in making/saving as much money as possible.

~~~
wenc
Well, not always. Personally and professionally I don't optimize for expense
alone (often the wrong KPI) but the ratio of value / expense, subject to
constraints around expense, cash flow and specifications.

If you optimize for expense alone, you can get things for cheap but you trade
off other things like quality and time. Also, ensuring business continuity for
good suppliers is an important KPI -- and if you don't take care, in the end
you'll end up with only bad suppliers where it's a race to the bottom and
everyone loses.

~~~
gav
On that second point it's important to differentiate one-off or recurring
items. It's great to beat up a car salesman as you'll likely never see them
again, but not somebody that provides a critical service, say IT support.

I used to work for somebody who would negotiate until the other side wasn't
making any money, and I'd talk to vendors who'd lost money dealing with us. No
surprise that they would be attempting the minimum required to get paid.

