4 ms·

I'm pretty sure that these strategies work, but I would just feel "wrong" doing some of them. I can't help thinking of them as trickery and deceit. Perhaps I'd

by ipince 15y ago

I'm pretty sure that these strategies work, but I would just feel "wrong" doing some of them. I can't help thinking of them as trickery and deceit. Perhaps I'd be a crappy negotiator, but I'd much rather take a more honest approach. Maybe I'm being naive, but I would argue that two negotiators behaving honestly can come up with a better outcome than two negotiators trying to trick each other. Of course, the world is so full of these deceitful negotiators that any practical advice must emphasize those techniques. I think it sucks though..

bdclimber14 15y ago
I see where you're coming from, but if you take your emotions out of it you won't feel as bad. Think of it as a game, one where both sides are trying to see just how low (or high) the other party will get. Negotiation is a mental game of chicken. You may have to say things like "Sounds like a good price, but I'll have to check with my partner" even if your partner is your loyal German Shepard. But the bottom line is that the final result is open and agreeable.
- JoeAltmaier 15y ago
  Also take your morals out? Changing a contract after its been agreed to, and sending the changed contract out with a check, is underhanded. No, its not just silly emotion that's in the way. Some of the techniques are wrong, and done by people of little or no integrity. You can't trust these people. Don't do business with them.
  - bdclimber14 15y ago
    Changing a contract is unethical, but that's not the technique described here. The strategy is with clarifying the contract. For example, if you agree on a price, that price should be set in stone, but that's only part of the contract. What about payment terms? That's when you write a contract that says payment is due upon receipt, and not net 30 or longer.
    - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
      "Fait accompli"
microarchitect 15y ago
I used to be like you. But then I realized that I was getting paid well below market because I was trying to play fair. In fact, when I took my current job I was unhappy with the money but happy with the job description. So I said, listen I'm taking the job, but I'd like you to increase the offer. They said they can't and give me a bunch of BS reasons why. Then they went ahead and also hired someone else I knew, who had similar (IMHO worse) qualifications than me, for the money I'd asked for but not got. Funny how the tune changed when I realized what was afoot and hinted at quitting if it weren't fixed soon. I got a 30% raise and a 15% bonus. No questions asked.
- T-R 15y ago
  You can do it without hardball tactics, though - if you keep your eye out for other opportunities (i.e. have a better BATNA), then you can present it honestly as "the best move for me right now", and if they don't want to give a raise, you can discuss alternative benefits that would satisfy both parties. On the other hand, if they're trying to screw you, they're trying to screw you.
  - shawndrost 15y ago
    Is that better for any of the parties involved? It's work for you to find a BATNA, work for the org that offered you your BATNA, and neutral for your employer. Seems more straightforward to just negotiate.
    - T-R 15y ago
      I'd say it's better - it's not more or less straightforward, both distributive and integrative approaches are still negotiations. You need to know your BATNA anyway, whether it's leaving or sucking it up, so doing more research just puts you in a better position, no matter which route you choose. Bluffing might get you lucky, but not likely as lucky as if you can back it up, and if they call your bluff, or it doesn't work out for some other reason, you'll have less bargaining power in the future. It's also good to keep in mind that the best deal someone else got doesn't necessarily relate to the best deal you can get - just because someone negotiated a higher salary doesn't mean you can; it's not your BATNA unless someone makes you the offer. Also, if nothing else, distributive approaches tend to leave one or both parties feeling like they lost, which will likely sour future negotiations. Taking the integrative route means that the only losers are the companies that don't get you - assuming that's in their best interest (which it might not be, if they have a better BATNA than matching your BATNA). Also, if the amount of effort and time that the negotiation takes is amongst your interests, then that's really on the negotiation table too (regardless of approach), it just means that you'll be negotiating away other things, like your salary, in order to satisfy that interest.
T-R 15y ago
That's the difference between distributive and integrative negotiations. The tactics listed in this post are mostly for distributive bargaining, which works more when you have some set pie that you're dividing up (it's a zero-sum game), as opposed to coming up with out-of-the-box solutions, and particularly if you don't expect to have to deal with the other person again. Part of the beginning of a negotiation is figuring out which path the negotiation is going to go down. Textbooks on negotiation cover both - distributive approaches just make for better "quick advice" and "self help" content, particularly since advice on integrative approaches is a bit less actionable.

by ipince 15y ago

bdclimber14 15y ago

I see where you're coming from, but if you take your emotions out of it you won't feel as bad. Think of it as a game, one where both sides are trying to see just how low (or high) the other party will get. Negotiation is a mental game of chicken. You may have to say things like "Sounds like a good price, but I'll have to check with my partner" even if your partner is your loyal German Shepard. But the bottom line is that the final result is open and agreeable.

JoeAltmaier 15y ago
Also take your morals out? Changing a contract after its been agreed to, and sending the changed contract out with a check, is underhanded. No, its not just silly emotion that's in the way. Some of the techniques are wrong, and done by people of little or no integrity. You can't trust these people. Don't do business with them.
- bdclimber14 15y ago
  Changing a contract is unethical, but that's not the technique described here. The strategy is with clarifying the contract. For example, if you agree on a price, that price should be set in stone, but that's only part of the contract. What about payment terms? That's when you write a contract that says payment is due upon receipt, and not net 30 or longer.
  - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
    "Fait accompli"

microarchitect 15y ago

I used to be like you. But then I realized that I was getting paid well below market because I was trying to play fair. In fact, when I took my current job I was unhappy with the money but happy with the job description. So I said, listen I'm taking the job, but I'd like you to increase the offer. They said they can't and give me a bunch of BS reasons why. Then they went ahead and also hired someone else I knew, who had similar (IMHO worse) qualifications than me, for the money I'd asked for but not got. Funny how the tune changed when I realized what was afoot and hinted at quitting if it weren't fixed soon. I got a 30% raise and a 15% bonus. No questions asked.

T-R 15y ago
You can do it without hardball tactics, though - if you keep your eye out for other opportunities (i.e. have a better BATNA), then you can present it honestly as "the best move for me right now", and if they don't want to give a raise, you can discuss alternative benefits that would satisfy both parties. On the other hand, if they're trying to screw you, they're trying to screw you.
- shawndrost 15y ago
  Is that better for any of the parties involved? It's work for you to find a BATNA, work for the org that offered you your BATNA, and neutral for your employer. Seems more straightforward to just negotiate.
  - T-R 15y ago
    I'd say it's better - it's not more or less straightforward, both distributive and integrative approaches are still negotiations. You need to know your BATNA anyway, whether it's leaving or sucking it up, so doing more research just puts you in a better position, no matter which route you choose. Bluffing might get you lucky, but not likely as lucky as if you can back it up, and if they call your bluff, or it doesn't work out for some other reason, you'll have less bargaining power in the future. It's also good to keep in mind that the best deal someone else got doesn't necessarily relate to the best deal you can get - just because someone negotiated a higher salary doesn't mean you can; it's not your BATNA unless someone makes you the offer. Also, if nothing else, distributive approaches tend to leave one or both parties feeling like they lost, which will likely sour future negotiations. Taking the integrative route means that the only losers are the companies that don't get you - assuming that's in their best interest (which it might not be, if they have a better BATNA than matching your BATNA). Also, if the amount of effort and time that the negotiation takes is amongst your interests, then that's really on the negotiation table too (regardless of approach), it just means that you'll be negotiating away other things, like your salary, in order to satisfy that interest.

T-R 15y ago

That's the difference between distributive and integrative negotiations. The tactics listed in this post are mostly for distributive bargaining, which works more when you have some set pie that you're dividing up (it's a zero-sum game), as opposed to coming up with out-of-the-box solutions, and particularly if you don't expect to have to deal with the other person again. Part of the beginning of a negotiation is figuring out which path the negotiation is going to go down. Textbooks on negotiation cover both - distributive approaches just make for better "quick advice" and "self help" content, particularly since advice on integrative approaches is a bit less actionable.