5 ms·

I really don't like these "do this way ALWAYS" or "NEVER EVER do that" advices. In my eyes it will not help the reader. A good plan is not one that magically po

by erikb 15y ago

I really don't like these "do this way ALWAYS" or "NEVER EVER do that" advices. In my eyes it will not help the reader. A good plan is not one that magically pops up in your head, but one that you refined many thousand times through sweat and experience. The upper bound (in terms of success) of most strategies is much higher then most people think. Just choose one that makes you feel comfortable. If people want to negotiate piecemeal, they SHOULD! If they do that often and work out how to act in different occuring situations (good and bad ones will come with EVERY strategy), then their plan will gradually improve. I claim that the worst strategy, but with very well worked out details and executed by a practitioner with a lot of experience and who is well shaped for that strategy, will beat most people applying the best strategy. Of course with 26 years in age, I can't say that my theory is true or not. But my experiences until now support that theory. What do you think?

mwd_ 15y ago
Can you think of an important, common situation where it is definitely better to negotiate piecemeal? Maintaining leverage and being able to trade off concessions in different areas is very important in a wide variety of situations. "Never do X" advice can be useful as a heuristic when it pays off in the average case. One probably could develop his own good negotiating techniques over time, but that would only come after being destroyed repeatedly by highly-skilled negotiators. I think it's way better to shorten that process by learning from others.
- erikb 15y ago
  The funny thing about your request is, that one of the most well known books about negotiation called "Bargaining for Advantage" by G. Richard Shell (was talked a lot here and on other Start-Up/Tech related sites some time ago) starts with an example where it turned out bad for him, to negotiate the package and not point by point. In the introduction (not to find in the amazon preview, sadly) he bargains with a class mate of one of his children or a neighbors daughter or something like that. She wants to sell fruits in different boxes, he of course not wanting to be impolite but not in need of fruits, orders the cheepest. And then without closing this one point, started by his wife he asks the girl if she can take care of the family pets, while his family is on a trip. So the girl says "Of course, but then you buy the big box, right?" Is that good enough an example?
- mainguy 15y ago
  Software Development, I see now why the process has been broken for so long, we're emulating corporate law contract negotiation tactics as a model for how to do things.
TheCowboy 15y ago
ALWAYS/NEVER has a lot to do with attracting clicks. You ALWAYS see headlines like this getting voted up, but NEVER see articles titled, "It may usually be a good idea to not negotiate piecemeal," getting much traction. Your latter claim is debatable but isn't wrong. I would just say that if one is willing and capable of adapting and adjusting to the situation, that you're going to be at least competitive with if not ahead of most people with an inflexible strategy. Only in solved games does the 'fixed' game theory optimal strategy beat anyone who deviates.
- erikb 15y ago
  I agree with that headlines must be catchy. But I talk about the article and not about the headline. If after clicking I would've read a great, meaningful article, which analyses the pros and cons of bargaining peau a peau and/or comparing both strategies with each other, giving the reader a better sense of when to use which, I would've silently "upped" the article. But the text itself is flawed with that idea, that there is this one strategy that beats all the others and is always correct. At least that is how I understand the authors point. And that is also what I can't agree with. That thinking itself leads to bad results, because after making mistakes (and everybody does) you think "oh gee, I did the wrong strategy again, which else can I choose?", which won't get you anywhere.
kelnos 15y ago
Disagree. I don't want to see a title like "Don't Negotiate Piecemeal Most of the Time". Using a little bit of hyperbole is a valid writing technique. Remember that language is not the same as formal logic. "Never" can easily mean "just about all the time except for these odd circumstances". And that's fine. It makes language more compact and conveys enough useful information. In the case of a headline, its job is to hook you and make you want to read it. The less wordy and the less your brain has to parse, the easier it is for that to happen. A good plan is not one that magically pops up in your head, but one that you refined many thousand times through sweat and experience. Certainly true. And articles like these take the result of all that refinement and try to distill it down to some best practices and tips so others don't have to expend the same amount of sweat. If people want to negotiate piecemeal, they SHOULD! If they do that often and work out how to act in different occuring situations (good and bad ones will come with EVERY strategy), then their plan will gradually improve. Unlikely. Negotiating piecemeal is sub-optimal. I think the article did an excellent job explaining why. It would be better to focus on the reverse: apply the best strategy in all cases, and try to figure out the (likely few) situations where it may not work out best, and learn from that. I claim that the worst strategy, but with very well worked out details and executed by a practitioner with a lot of experience and who is well shaped for that strategy, will beat most people applying the best strategy. This doesn't really make sense to me. A bad idea with great execution is still a bad idea. Wouldn't you rather focus your energy on developing good strategies instead of wasting time and effort on a flawed model? You're also assuming that most people will apply a good strategy poorly, or at least below average. I don't buy that. At this point it feels like you're disagreeing with the article just for the sake of disagreeing...
grok2 15y ago
I agree with you and have actually seen this in action. Another effect I've seen is with someone whose reputation precedes them -- their reputation for always negotiating piecemeal. No one wants to deal with this person, but since the person is important enough to the negotiated deal that people often compromise without too much effort just to avoid the unpleasantness of dealing with this. So in effect, the piecemeal negotiator has won all their points of negotiation in advance!

by erikb 15y ago

mwd_ 15y ago

Can you think of an important, common situation where it is definitely better to negotiate piecemeal? Maintaining leverage and being able to trade off concessions in different areas is very important in a wide variety of situations. "Never do X" advice can be useful as a heuristic when it pays off in the average case. One probably could develop his own good negotiating techniques over time, but that would only come after being destroyed repeatedly by highly-skilled negotiators. I think it's way better to shorten that process by learning from others.

erikb 15y ago
The funny thing about your request is, that one of the most well known books about negotiation called "Bargaining for Advantage" by G. Richard Shell (was talked a lot here and on other Start-Up/Tech related sites some time ago) starts with an example where it turned out bad for him, to negotiate the package and not point by point. In the introduction (not to find in the amazon preview, sadly) he bargains with a class mate of one of his children or a neighbors daughter or something like that. She wants to sell fruits in different boxes, he of course not wanting to be impolite but not in need of fruits, orders the cheepest. And then without closing this one point, started by his wife he asks the girl if she can take care of the family pets, while his family is on a trip. So the girl says "Of course, but then you buy the big box, right?" Is that good enough an example?
mainguy 15y ago
Software Development, I see now why the process has been broken for so long, we're emulating corporate law contract negotiation tactics as a model for how to do things.

TheCowboy 15y ago

ALWAYS/NEVER has a lot to do with attracting clicks. You ALWAYS see headlines like this getting voted up, but NEVER see articles titled, "It may usually be a good idea to not negotiate piecemeal," getting much traction. Your latter claim is debatable but isn't wrong. I would just say that if one is willing and capable of adapting and adjusting to the situation, that you're going to be at least competitive with if not ahead of most people with an inflexible strategy. Only in solved games does the 'fixed' game theory optimal strategy beat anyone who deviates.

erikb 15y ago
I agree with that headlines must be catchy. But I talk about the article and not about the headline. If after clicking I would've read a great, meaningful article, which analyses the pros and cons of bargaining peau a peau and/or comparing both strategies with each other, giving the reader a better sense of when to use which, I would've silently "upped" the article. But the text itself is flawed with that idea, that there is this one strategy that beats all the others and is always correct. At least that is how I understand the authors point. And that is also what I can't agree with. That thinking itself leads to bad results, because after making mistakes (and everybody does) you think "oh gee, I did the wrong strategy again, which else can I choose?", which won't get you anywhere.

kelnos 15y ago

Disagree. I don't want to see a title like "Don't Negotiate Piecemeal Most of the Time". Using a little bit of hyperbole is a valid writing technique. Remember that language is not the same as formal logic. "Never" can easily mean "just about all the time except for these odd circumstances". And that's fine. It makes language more compact and conveys enough useful information. In the case of a headline, its job is to hook you and make you want to read it. The less wordy and the less your brain has to parse, the easier it is for that to happen. A good plan is not one that magically pops up in your head, but one that you refined many thousand times through sweat and experience. Certainly true. And articles like these take the result of all that refinement and try to distill it down to some best practices and tips so others don't have to expend the same amount of sweat. If people want to negotiate piecemeal, they SHOULD! If they do that often and work out how to act in different occuring situations (good and bad ones will come with EVERY strategy), then their plan will gradually improve. Unlikely. Negotiating piecemeal is sub-optimal. I think the article did an excellent job explaining why. It would be better to focus on the reverse: apply the best strategy in all cases, and try to figure out the (likely few) situations where it may not work out best, and learn from that. I claim that the worst strategy, but with very well worked out details and executed by a practitioner with a lot of experience and who is well shaped for that strategy, will beat most people applying the best strategy. This doesn't really make sense to me. A bad idea with great execution is still a bad idea. Wouldn't you rather focus your energy on developing good strategies instead of wasting time and effort on a flawed model? You're also assuming that most people will apply a good strategy poorly, or at least below average. I don't buy that. At this point it feels like you're disagreeing with the article just for the sake of disagreeing...

grok2 15y ago

I agree with you and have actually seen this in action. Another effect I've seen is with someone whose reputation precedes them -- their reputation for always negotiating piecemeal. No one wants to deal with this person, but since the person is important enough to the negotiated deal that people often compromise without too much effort just to avoid the unpleasantness of dealing with this. So in effect, the piecemeal negotiator has won all their points of negotiation in advance!