4 ms·

I think of it differently. There are maximizers, satisficers, and doormats. Maximizers are the ones who will go all-out to get the best deal, and sometimes even

I think of it differently. There are maximizers, satisficers, and doormats. Maximizers are the ones who will go all-out to get the best deal, and sometimes even play the system. They're the ones who know that you can get a box of cereal for $3.79 instead of $5.29 at another store. They'll also come up with excuses to line their job interviews on the same week so the offers roll in at the same time and they can start a "bidding war". Most people look at maximizers, in the context of negotiation, as being a bit sociopathic. I disagree; I think it's sometimes quite reasonable to take a maximizing strategy. It can be exhausting, but I wouldn't call it sociopathic. Satisficers have a goal and a sense of "good enough" and, as long as they're north of it, they're happy. Doormats are the ones who take what's given to them. Being a doormat is the worst. You never win by being a doormat. The problem with "ask for nothing at all", in the workplace, is that it makes you a doormat, not a satisficer. On the other hand, you have to know when to maximize and when to satisfice (is that a word? It is now.) There's a time for each. Usually, you want to satisfice on salary and maximize on project quality and work culture. But there are exceptions to that rule.

pja 14y ago
"Satisficing" has been in Wikipedia since 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing and it's in /usr/share/dict/words & the wordnet dictionary. The OED dates the earliest use in the sense you use to 1957: "1956 H. Simon in Psychol. Rev. LXIII. 129/2 Evidently, organisms adapt well enough to ‘satisfice’; they do not, in general, ‘optimize’." So it is a word :)
Adrock 14y ago
The author seems to be recommending that you present as a doormat. You're exposing your jugular as a sign of trust, similar to the practice of shaking our right (weapon) hands as a greeting. If the other party is going to try to take advantage of you in this situation, walk away. You've now seen how they'll behave when they think you're in a weak position.
- kyllo 14y ago
  This only works if you are actually in a strong negotiating position (you have or can get equivalent/better offers elsewhere), but you are willing to pretend to put yourself in a weak one, to test the other party's good faith. Risky. If you expose your jugular, you might establish trust, but you also might get your throat slashed.
  - Poyeyo 14y ago
    Or, psychologically speaking, it puts you in a strong position. Think about poker. Do you really know the other player knows all your cards when he/she bluffs?
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  That's a really good point. Often, the best way to get a sense of someone's character is to see that person in a stronger position. As a long-term career strategy, it's a bad one, but that's not what the OP is talking about.
  - nostrademons 14y ago
    It works fine as a long-term career strategy as long as you always have a strong BATNA. If you can walk whenever anyone betrays your trust, then eventually you'll end up surrounded only by people you can trust. That's a very strong position to be in, and usually makes for both a happy life and a solid professional outcome.
- err_badprocrast 14y ago
  > similar to the practice of shaking our right (weapon) hands as a greeting Being a lefty makes that gesture very meaningless.
Spearchucker 14y ago
Indeed. Negotiation is about understanding what "finished" looks like. Winning is not always a desired outcome. There are two drivers in a negotiation - concern for self, or concern for others. There are five approaches to negotiation depending on the degree of the drivers - integrate; oblige; compromise; dominate; and avoid[1]. There are times where you dominate your counterpart, and there are times when it makes sense to capitulate. You choose your approach based on your objective and your drivers. No mention is made of strategy, however. Negotiation is tactical, and it is useful to understand its place in a wider context. [1] http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/uploads/file/Organizational%20Conflict.pdf http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/uploads/file/Organizationa...
- 6d0debc071 14y ago
  This strikes me as a very good point. I've read How to Win Friend and Influence People, and the 48 Laws of Power. Do you have any books you can recommend that take a more nuanced approach to negotiation and working with people?
  - rgraham 14y ago
    Bargaining for Advantage is a good look at different tactics, positions, strategies, and how you can balance them.
    - 6d0debc071 14y ago
      Thanks :)
coldtea 14y ago
>They're the ones who know that you can get a box of cereal for $3.79 instead of $5.29 at another store. That's not a "maximizer" (in the sense that you describe his other characteristics), that's an el cheapo, "my time is worthless", "I use coupons at dates" case.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Sure, but the point is that if you maximize on the wrong things, you end up losing overall.
6d0debc071 14y ago
He may not be asking for nothing, at least not in the sense it seems to me at the moment that you mean. He seems to be saying something to the effect of: we'll both show our cards at once and if we've got inconsistent upper and lower boundaries, I'm walking. Given that: "The typical approach is for both sides to demand something unreasonable—but not let on that they consider it unreasonable—and then negotiate a “compromise” in the hopes that you will end up closer to your side than the midpoint." He can be seen to be cutting out the negotiating part. They're not going to offer $0 because they expect him to be asking for a fair bit. Saying 'this is the minimum I'll accept and I'm not going to discuss anything lower' is quite a hard bargaining position for the other person to match under most conditions. If he were actually interested in asking for nothing he'd undercut their offer if it were higher than his minimum, and keep insisting on being paid as little as possible. But he doesn't seem to have done that. Whatever he's done he's not actually talked them into letting him pay for the meal, so to speak - and I can't imagine that doing so would have been particularly hard.
jrs235 14y ago
In "Pricing With Confidence" by Reed Holden & Mark Burton, Rule 4 breaks everyone down into four types [of buyers]: price buyers, value buyers, relationship buyers, and poker players. Price buyers only care about one thing: maximizing the amount of money in their pocket. (Your maximizers) Value buyers understand that there is value in some offers that are worth paying more for. (Your satisficers) Relationship buyers prefer to find trust worthy partners and build solid long term relationships with them, even if it means not getting the cheapest price. (Your doormats) Poker players don't like to show their cards and play a tough game. They often say price is all the matters but you can often call their bluff by removing some value of your offer in order to reduce the price to something they claim they are aiming for. (Negotiators, those that know when to maximize and when to satisfy and when to give in a little [a short term pain for a long term gain])
pekk 14y ago
Funny that individual maximizers are "sociopathic" but the exact same tactics from a corporation are just what they're supposed to do. 'satisfice' is a word at least in academia

pja 14y ago

"Satisficing" has been in Wikipedia since 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing and it's in /usr/share/dict/words & the wordnet dictionary. The OED dates the earliest use in the sense you use to 1957: "1956 H. Simon in Psychol. Rev. LXIII. 129/2 Evidently, organisms adapt well enough to ‘satisfice’; they do not, in general, ‘optimize’." So it is a word :)

Adrock 14y ago

The author seems to be recommending that you present as a doormat. You're exposing your jugular as a sign of trust, similar to the practice of shaking our right (weapon) hands as a greeting. If the other party is going to try to take advantage of you in this situation, walk away. You've now seen how they'll behave when they think you're in a weak position.

kyllo 14y ago
This only works if you are actually in a strong negotiating position (you have or can get equivalent/better offers elsewhere), but you are willing to pretend to put yourself in a weak one, to test the other party's good faith. Risky. If you expose your jugular, you might establish trust, but you also might get your throat slashed.
- Poyeyo 14y ago
  Or, psychologically speaking, it puts you in a strong position. Think about poker. Do you really know the other player knows all your cards when he/she bluffs?
michaelochurch 14y ago
That's a really good point. Often, the best way to get a sense of someone's character is to see that person in a stronger position. As a long-term career strategy, it's a bad one, but that's not what the OP is talking about.
- nostrademons 14y ago
  It works fine as a long-term career strategy as long as you always have a strong BATNA. If you can walk whenever anyone betrays your trust, then eventually you'll end up surrounded only by people you can trust. That's a very strong position to be in, and usually makes for both a happy life and a solid professional outcome.
err_badprocrast 14y ago
> similar to the practice of shaking our right (weapon) hands as a greeting Being a lefty makes that gesture very meaningless.

Spearchucker 14y ago

Indeed. Negotiation is about understanding what "finished" looks like. Winning is not always a desired outcome. There are two drivers in a negotiation - concern for self, or concern for others. There are five approaches to negotiation depending on the degree of the drivers - integrate; oblige; compromise; dominate; and avoid[1]. There are times where you dominate your counterpart, and there are times when it makes sense to capitulate. You choose your approach based on your objective and your drivers. No mention is made of strategy, however. Negotiation is tactical, and it is useful to understand its place in a wider context. [1] http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/uploads/file/Organizational%20Conflict.pdf http://www.negotiationlawblog.com/uploads/file/Organizationa...

6d0debc071 14y ago
This strikes me as a very good point. I've read How to Win Friend and Influence People, and the 48 Laws of Power. Do you have any books you can recommend that take a more nuanced approach to negotiation and working with people?
- rgraham 14y ago
  Bargaining for Advantage is a good look at different tactics, positions, strategies, and how you can balance them.
  - 6d0debc071 14y ago
    Thanks :)

coldtea 14y ago

>They're the ones who know that you can get a box of cereal for $3.79 instead of $5.29 at another store. That's not a "maximizer" (in the sense that you describe his other characteristics), that's an el cheapo, "my time is worthless", "I use coupons at dates" case.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Sure, but the point is that if you maximize on the wrong things, you end up losing overall.

6d0debc071 14y ago

He may not be asking for nothing, at least not in the sense it seems to me at the moment that you mean. He seems to be saying something to the effect of: we'll both show our cards at once and if we've got inconsistent upper and lower boundaries, I'm walking. Given that: "The typical approach is for both sides to demand something unreasonable—but not let on that they consider it unreasonable—and then negotiate a “compromise” in the hopes that you will end up closer to your side than the midpoint." He can be seen to be cutting out the negotiating part. They're not going to offer $0 because they expect him to be asking for a fair bit. Saying 'this is the minimum I'll accept and I'm not going to discuss anything lower' is quite a hard bargaining position for the other person to match under most conditions. If he were actually interested in asking for nothing he'd undercut their offer if it were higher than his minimum, and keep insisting on being paid as little as possible. But he doesn't seem to have done that. Whatever he's done he's not actually talked them into letting him pay for the meal, so to speak - and I can't imagine that doing so would have been particularly hard.

jrs235 14y ago

In "Pricing With Confidence" by Reed Holden & Mark Burton, Rule 4 breaks everyone down into four types [of buyers]: price buyers, value buyers, relationship buyers, and poker players. Price buyers only care about one thing: maximizing the amount of money in their pocket. (Your maximizers) Value buyers understand that there is value in some offers that are worth paying more for. (Your satisficers) Relationship buyers prefer to find trust worthy partners and build solid long term relationships with them, even if it means not getting the cheapest price. (Your doormats) Poker players don't like to show their cards and play a tough game. They often say price is all the matters but you can often call their bluff by removing some value of your offer in order to reduce the price to something they claim they are aiming for. (Negotiators, those that know when to maximize and when to satisfy and when to give in a little [a short term pain for a long term gain])

pekk 14y ago

Funny that individual maximizers are "sociopathic" but the exact same tactics from a corporation are just what they're supposed to do. 'satisfice' is a word at least in academia