The Kremlin School of Negotiation

GENTLY AND DISCREETLY CHANGE YOUR OPPONENT’S POINT OF VIEW

We should take others’ interests into account, for only in this way can we influence them.

– ANDRÉ MAUROIS

Having completed the previous exercise, you will now recall the strings a tough negotiator will do their very best to pluck. In addition, I hope that with the help of these exercises you will by now be more aware of what your most sensitive strings are. Still, I feel I ought to reiterate: psychological influence is exercised through this emotional instrument.

You might remember me mentioning this principle before: described by Robert Cialdini in his book Influence, it is known as the ‘click’ and the ‘whirr’. That is to say that the person who wants to influence us will pluck our sensitive strings and in response we will begin to ‘whirr’, reacting in a way that the manipulator has anticipated, but that we have not.

Let’s list the main strings once again:

1. Pity.

2. Fear.

3. Greed.

4. Lust.

5. A sense of duty.

6. Curiosity.

7. Vanity.

Having probed an opponent for their sensitive strings, the manipulator will use these to obtain a great deal. This chapter is entirely devoted to the principles of influence in negotiation. By knowing these principles, not only will you be better able to withstand your opponent’s influence; you will be able to influence them yourselves.

As a side-note, I am often asked how ethical it is to use techniques of influence in negotiation. My attitude is ambivalent.

On the one hand, there is nothing unlawful or illegitimate about these techniques. We are all human, emotional beings (indeed, our emotional often prevails over our rational), and as such it would be foolish not to acknowledge or use this fact. The only question is, to what aim? If you are in the middle of a competitive fight and want to gain the upper hand over your opponent without causing them any damage – to simply nudge them towards a sensible decision – then using these techniques is quite ethical and legitimate.

However, if you seek to use the principles of influence to deceive or mislead others, then I would fiercely object. But, incidentally, this is why I am going to describe them in detail; so that you can both use, and resist, this influence.

I should also note that applying the principles of influence is no 100 per cent guarantee of success. However, I can say that they are a powerful weapon. The important thing is knowing how, when and with whom to use them.

Before turning to a detailed examination of these principles, I will first present to you a list of tenets based on Robert Cialdini’s evidence-based principles of influence.

Principles of psychological influence

1. Reciprocity. According to this principle, we are obliged to try in some way to repay the treatment we receive from others. As Niccolò Machiavelli noted, we strive more to do good than to receive it. Virtually all societies are united by a shared concept of gratitude. This feeling prompts a person to respond to politeness with politeness, a gift with another gift and a concession with a concession.

2. Consistency. People strive to be consistent in their words and deeds. Having given their word, they will endeavour to keep it. Striving to be consistent, a manager who has made a decision will see the matter through, even if their actions will have negative consequences. This desire to appear consistent frequently prompts us to act against our own interests.

3. Social proof. According to this principle, we decide what is right and what is not based on what the people around us think. There is a strong tendency to consider an action ‘right’ if many people act in the same way. In short, ‘herd mentality’. Constructions like ‘The majority of our suppliers were open to us deferring our payments’ or ‘Practically the whole team agreed to do some work on Saturday’ are used to prompt us to make the ‘right’ decision.

4. Liking. As a rule, we are more willing to agree to the demands of those we know and like. This isn’t simply a question of pleasantness; a ‘similarity’ factor is also involved. We like people who are like us – be that physically, psychologically or socially. Here Mowgli’s principle is important: ‘We be of one blood, ye and I.’38

5. Authority. We have a deep-rooted need to show obedience to authorities. From the cradle onwards, it is ingrained in us that we should listen to our parents; that mentors and teachers are always right. ‘You should act more like your grandfather,’ etc. This system of authority is highly developed, allowing for many other systems of relationships to be developed and reinforced within it.

6. Scarcity. Virtually everyone is, to some degree, liable to be influenced by this principle. In essence, the value of something we view positively significantly increases if its availability decreases. The thought of potentially missing out on something influences us much more than the thought of obtaining it.

SHOWING YOUR OPPONENT THE BENEFIT OF YOUR PROPOSALS: A PLAY ON CONTRASTS

I would like to open this section with a rather long quote from Robert Cialdini:

There is a principle in human perception, the contrast principle, that affects the way we see the difference between two things that are presented one after another. Simply put, if the second item is fairly different from the first, we will tend to see it as more different than it actually is. So if we lift a light object first and then lift a heavy object, we will estimate the second object to be heavier than if we had lifted it without first trying the light one. The contrast principle is well established in the field of psychophysics and applies to all sorts of perceptions besides weight. If we are talking to a beautiful woman at a cocktail party and are then joined by an unattractive one, the second woman will strike us as less attractive than she actually is.’39

Let’s do a quick experiment. Go into a supermarket, take a basket and, as you pick up products, guess how much your shop is going to cost. If you predict that basket will set you back 5,000 roubles, then when you reach the checkout and see the total is 4,000 roubles you will feel good – you’ve saved money! However, if the total comes up as 6,000 roubles, you’ll get something of a sinking feeling and think that you’ve overspent.

Moshe comes to the rabbi and says, ‘Rabbi, life is so hard: I’ve got ten kids and we all live in one room, we’re broke, our house is filthy to the point of reeking, the kids are always screaming and jostling each other, there are dirty nappies everywhere . . . it’s terrible!’

The rabbi says to him, ‘Buy a goat.’

Moshe says, ‘What do you mean, a goat? Why? How will I get it into our room?’

The rabbi repeats, ‘Buy a goat.’

Moshe thinks and thinks, and in the end he buys a goat. He takes it back home.

One week later he comes back to the rabbi, who asks him, ‘Well, how’s life?’

Moshe clasps his hands together and shouts, ‘It’s even worse, that goat in one room with ten people – it takes dumps everywhere, breaks everything, snatches things and butts everyone. Then the kids start riding around on it, they’re even wilder now. And everything reeks . . . it’s awful!’

The rabbi says, ‘Sell the goat.’

Moshe is shocked. ‘What? Then what did I buy it for?’

The rabbi says, ‘Sell the goat.’

Moshe thinks and thinks, and in the end he sells the goat.

One week later Moshe returns to the rabbi and says, ‘My God, rabbi, life is great!’

This method can be used to good effect in negotiations concerning a material benefit.

Negotiators often make the mistake of naming their lowest price early on in negotiations. Don’t ever name your lowest price straight away. You have to resist this urge. We’re all aware of the inexplicable pull a person feels to focus on low cost right off the bat: they think that if they name their lowest price straight away then they can avoid haggling. Nothing of the sort. No matter what price you name, even your very lowest, people will try to haggle with you. The only difference is that in this case any deal will become completely unprofitable to you.

I recently wanted to change my TV and internet plan at home. A young man came to see me and made a short presentation of the services his company could offer. After listening carefully to what he said, I thought it sounded good, so naturally I asked about the price. The price I was quoted (249 roubles) was absolutely fine for me. But then it turned out that I would have to pay additional fees for the connection unit, touchscreen controls, installation and more, quickly driving the total up to almost 550 roubles. And my desire to subscribe to this service vanished. Why? Because the contrast principle kicked into action. I had heard the lowest price – 249 roubles – first, so the price of 550 roubles simply filled me with frustration and distrust.

So what should you do in a situation like that? Bearing the principles of influence in mind, it is important to always begin with the most expensive proposal. It is rare that you will escape any attempts to haggle on price. If you are providing a product, service or package proposal, then you should reveal your most expensive offer first.

Take a lesson from the salespeople at famous car dealerships, who always present to their clients the most expensive cars first. When you refuse that option and go on to look at other models or specifications, anything even slightly cheaper will begin to look much more appealing.

On holiday in Israel, my wife and I decided to take a group tour to the Dead Sea. On the way there, our coach was scheduled to make a stop at a cosmetics shop. Of course, everyone was sceptical about this little diversion, but what can you do? Anyway, on our way there, our guide – who, by the way, was a very skilled negotiator – told us that this shop sold this incredible specialist skincare set. He did a great hard sell of this product before mentioning the price, at which point he slipped up and admitted that it was very expensive. This miracle set cost 2,500 shekels (25,000 roubles), or in other words, it was ridiculously expensive. A wave of disappointment flooded through the tour bus.

But when we reached the shop, what did we find? That precious, big-spender set – and a huge selection of other creams. All of which, when compared to the set, were very reasonably priced: 700–800 roubles. Of course, many people made purchases, because on a subconscious level the contrast principle had sprung into action.

In negotiations, it is crucial to introduce your own comparison system. But to ensure that the options you are proposing appear maximally attractive to your opponent, you need to think about what they will consider most beneficial – a discount described as a percentage or as a sum of money? And what should you compare it with – the previous year or the previous month?

Note: an experienced estate agent will always show prospective buyers the most expensive property first. Conversely, if the clients are renters, they will show them the worst, least attractive option first. A discount of 5 per cent might not sound like much when a big transaction is being made (1 million roubles, say), but saying that the saving is 50,000 roubles makes it immediately more compelling. The opposite is also true: when selling an item for 100,000 roubles, telling the buyer that they can save 5,000 roubles won’t hold much weight, whereas a 5 per cent discount might give them the push they need to buy.

Try to come up with a pitch that uses the contrast principle:

You represent a gym. You are eager to sell subscriptions for 50,000 roubles per year. How can you present your proposal to the buyer in the most favourable light?

Try to re-write the following copy so that it uses the contrast principle:

Three patients out of ten who are treated in our clinic feel results almost immediately.

A TRUSTY WAY OF NUDGING YOUR OPPONENT TOWARDS THE ‘RIGHT’ DECISION

The principle of reciprocity (or, more specifically, the principle of reciprocal concessions), when combined with the contrast principle, can be a supremely powerful force.

Encouraging a person to accept your proposal requires a thorough, considered approach. It is also important to introduce your own comparison system that builds on the principle of contrasts.

A buyer demands a 10 per cent discount from their supplier, taking a fairly tough and unflinching position to do so. Then, having ceded slightly (to 8 per cent), the principle of reciprocity and the contrast principle kick into action. Their opponent will now view this shift from 10 to 8 per cent as a concession from the buyer, and they will instinctively want to respond with a concession of their own. In reality, however, 8 per cent was the discount the buyer intended to get from the supplier from the outset.

An American is walking down a busy New York street with his friend from India. The Indian suddenly exclaims: ‘I hear a cricket.’

‘You must be hearing things,’ the American replies, looking around at the noisy street brimming with rush-hour commuters. There are cars zipping around everywhere, builders operating heavy machinery and aeroplanes passing overhead.

‘But I really can hear a cricket,’ his friend insists. He then steps over to a sliver of flowerbed in front of a large building, bends down and pushes some leaves to one side. There, a cricket is indeed chirping away happily.

‘I can’t believe it,’ his friend replies. ‘Your hearing must be fantastic.’

‘Oh no. It’s just what you’re tuned in to,’ he explains.

‘I find that hard to believe,’ says the American.

‘Here, watch this,’ says the Indian, and he drops a handful of coins on to the edge of the sidewalk.

Passers-by immediately turn their heads and reach into their pockets to check whether they’ve lost any money.

‘You see,’ says the Indian, his eyes shining, ‘it’s just what you’re tuned in to.’

So people tend to be drawn to compromise. From this, there are a few different strategies that you can employ in negotiations.

1. Concede. That is to say, immediately try to strike a deal on the compromise. This is a bad strategy, and experienced negotiators will avoid it. Why? Because in denying your opponent the chance to haggle with you, you are also denying them any psychological participation in the decision-making process. You are immediately imposing options on them, and in a visible way. On the whole, attempts to move straight to a compromise will lead nowhere.

2. Choose one position and stick with it to the end, without any give-and-take – i.e. demonstrate no leniency. This behaviour model often provokes resistance. Newton’s law kicks into action – every force has an equal and opposite force. So your opponent will start to push back. And if you stand resolutely by your initial plan and insist on having things only your way, your opponent will start to resist simply to frustrate you.

3. Assert your proposal for a long time, but when the opponent shows signs of pushing back take a slight step down from your initial demands. This is the strategy often employed by skilled negotiators. For example: in negotiations with a potential tenant, a landlord names the rent as 100,000 roubles, and does not budge from this figure. However, when it’s clear that the potential tenant is walking away, the landlord makes some sort of movement in their direction. But what is the right way of doing this? Give and take: ‘OK, you’ve talked me into it, I’m prepared to decrease the rent to 90,000 roubles if you pay me two months’ upfront.’ And here, as we see, we have a compromise.

It should be noted that the latter strategy is the most widely used negotiation model in Russia. Even as far back as Soviet times, American diplomats noted that Soviet diplomats would always overstate their position and firmly stick to it, only slightly softening their demands at the very end of negotiations.

In negotiations, you can make use of a person’s desire to reach a compromise, combined with the contrast principle, to put forward your demands effectively.

Let’s take a look at an example:

‘We would like to propose a collaboration.’

‘On what terms?’

‘The first delivery needs to be paid for in advance.’

‘That won’t work. We only work on a deferred payment basis.’

‘For us it’s important that the first delivery be paid for in advance.’

It’s clear that these negotiations have reached a dead end. Let’s try to construct a dialogue based on the aforementioned principles.

‘Would you be prepared to start doing business with us?’

‘Yes. But the terms would be important.’

‘We propose three collaboration models.’

‘What are they?’

‘Advance payment and a 1 per cent discount off the base price.’

‘We’re not interested in that. We don’t do advance payments.’

‘The second option would be a deferred payment, but with a 2 per cent charge added to the price.’

‘That won’t work. We don’t want to pay added charges.’

‘Then I’d like to propose a compromise. Payment upon delivery, at the price we have agreed.’

In this dialogue, the seller prepares and presents their opposing number with three packaged proposals one after the other, in doing so creating their own comparison system (making use of the contrast principle) and activating the rule of compromise.

Here, to get results, you need to come up with three packaged proposals. By ‘packaged’, I mean proposals that bring together a number of interests into one bundle. For example, price and payment terms, pay and annual leave, etc. (By the way, when putting together such packages, the polygon of interests that we looked at in Chapter 2 will come in handy.)

The first proposal should always look as disadvantageous as possible to your opponent. The aim of the first proposal is to introduce a comparison system that we can use to activate the contrast principle.

‘Honey, let’s go fishing with the guys this weekend. Relaxation, a few beers, a tent, a campfire . . . what’s a few mosquitoes and a bit of rain? It just adds to the romance!’

‘Well, if you don’t want to go fishing, then . . . why don’t we get a film, and then you can cook us dinner and we’ll watch it on the TV?’

Finally, the third option is the compromise that you would like to encourage your opponent towards. Remembering our polygon of interests, the third proposal should be around the area of your stated position.

‘Hey, why don’t we get out of town with our friends? We can rent a house, do a barbecue . . .’

If you package these proposals up properly, you can feel confident that your opponent will more than likely plump for your third proposal.

A travel agency was selling spaces on a wine tour in the French wine regions. The price of this trip was around 180,000 roubles. When the manager of the travel agency presented this tour, everyone would listen enthusiastically to begin with, but when she came to the question of price then almost everyone would refuse. The agency came to me to ask for assistance on selling this trip. That is to say, to develop a sales technique that would help them to actually make these tours happen.

We changed their sales technique, applying the principles of influence. So, instead of costing 180,000 roubles, the first tour the agent presented cost 300,000 roubles. We artificially increased the price to its maximum. Of course, the clients were stunned. They would say the price was too high, at which point the agent would give them the reason: the flights were all business class, the hotel rooms luxury, and guests would be personally accompanied by a sommelier. The majority of clients would then say that they didn’t need all of those services or bonuses. That they would be happy to fly economy class.

Then the second option would be proposed, costing 180,000 roubles. But the agent would point out that that package would involve them staying in a shared room (two to a room). And once again, the majority of potential buyers would agree to fly economy class, but not to share a room.

At which point all that remained was to propose the third option, costing 220,000 roubles. And what do you think? The majority of packages were immediately sold, even at 220,000 roubles! The tour agency was then faced with a quite different problem: they didn’t have enough single rooms, and so they had to come up with another plan to sell more doubles.

By then I had done my bit: the agency solved the other problems on their own, after thanking me for the knowledge I’d shared.

Now I would like to encourage you to do a similar task, but one involving a different package that is closer to your own experience.

How to increase the price of a package costing 180,000 roubles?

Now let’s talk about how we can resist plays like these. What should you do when you are pitched packaged proposals encouraging you to choose the compromise?

It is crucial that you always keep your own benefit in mind. Ask yourself the question: does the option I am being offered fall within my zone of interests, or does it contradict them?

As Eliyahu Goldratt, originator of the Theory of Constraints, states in his book The Goal (which I have already mentioned in this book),40 it is important to be ‘paranoid’ in the good sense of the word. This really helps us to ask ourselves the questions we need to ask to stay out of troublesome situations that harm us above all. It is also worth making use of a polygon of interests. When you are being pushed into making reciprocal concessions, you need to see how much that will cost you in your own system of interests. Particularly if you are being asked to exchange a relationship for material benefits.

Not so long ago I bought a car from a dealership. As soon as I walked inside the showroom, the salespeople of course showed me the most expensive model and configuration. When they realised that they would need to show me other options, they led me straight to the cheapest models and specifications, knowing full well that those cars wouldn’t cut it. After that, they suggested another option – with a mid-range configuration. On the face of it, a compromise. I was almost ready to buy.

But then I asked myself: what is my benefit? My benefit was not to overpay! And, naturally, to buy a nice, new car with the functionality that I needed. Nothing more, nothing less. So then what did I do?

Remember the predator technique? Well, ‘getting closer to the deer’, I asked them to show me the different packages and specifications in detail. As a result, I saw that the difference in price between the cheapest and mid-range configuration was 200,000 roubles, but that the difference in functionality was virtually non-existent: a navigation system was all that separated the two.

Now, for some people a navigation system may be so valuable as to justify an additional cost of 200,000 roubles. But for me, that’s a very expensive map. So I made an informed decision and bought the car model and configuration that matched my benefit.

So let’s sum up what we have seen.

If we want to encourage people towards a certain decision, we need to bundle up our proposals into packages. Ideally, there should be three. Don’t forget to package your options in the following way and to present them in the correct order:

1. Unfavourable proposal. Immediately sweep this aside yourself: oh, that option isn’t great for either of us.

2. The cheapest, but also less attractive option, to offer a contrast.

3. Finally, the contrast option. A compromise for both sides. Only by doing this will you achieve your benefit.

In negotiations, the best tactic is to choose a position, maintain it for a fairly long time and then make a slight stepdown while asking for a reciprocal concession from your opponent.

The antidote and resistance are one and the same – always remember your benefit, and stick to it. Keep within the polygon of interests that you have constructed and remember that you can only exchange one material value for another. So if you are being asked to exchange a material value for a non-material one, you need to know exactly what it’s worth.

Read this case and do the exercise below:

Anna and Sergei have been married for six years. Anna has a seven-year-old daughter. The girl’s biological father doesn’t pay child support and isn’t particularly interested in raising her. He has a new family and lives in another city. Sergei treats the girl as his own and very much wants to adopt her so that she takes his name at school. ‘Head-on’ negotiations with the biological father have led to nothing.

Think about how, using the contrast principle and compromise plays, you might be able to encourage talks to progress. Prepare three packages.

DON’T FALL FOR A QUICK ‘YES’

I would like to begin this section with an example, particularly as this, much like the preceding one, is about a car purchase.

An acquaintance of mine, an influential man who is moderately well-known in the city he lives in, decided to buy a car. He went to the main multi-brand car dealership in town and was immediately drawn to a high-end brand of off-road vehicle. The dealer showed him the car and told him the price: almost 2.5 million roubles. A lot.

By now he was having second thoughts: he still wanted the car, but he had no desire to spend that much money. Picking up on this, at exactly the right moment the dealer suggested another option: he could look at a slightly less well-known brand. The car was still a high-performance off-road vehicle, but it came in at a significantly lower price: 1.7 million roubles.

My acquaintance looked at the car, assessed it and decided to make the purchase. He paid an advance of 100,000 roubles, and he was told that the car he had chosen would be built to his specifications for collection in three months’ time. However, two months later, the manager of the dealership called him and started apologising profusely. He asked my acquaintance to come into the dealership so that they could give him a refund. As he put it, the situation was as follows: the car factory had made a mistake, and a car was waiting for him in the dealership but with the wrong specifications. It had higher-end features and as such was more expensive, coming in at 2.6 million roubles.

So what do you think: how does this story end? In an incredibly banal way: my friend bought the less prestigious car brand for 2.4 million roubles.

How often do we get hit below the belt by a quick change in terms? This happens everywhere. Everywhere.

My wife and I were recently looking to buy a plot of land near Moscow. We were told the price and agreed to it. However, the next day, when we arrived at the office to pay the deposit, the sales manager told us that the price had gone up since the previous day. When we asked why we hadn’t been told, she was all surprise: what do you mean you haven’t been told?

Upon which she started to blame the associate we had dealt with the day before, who had taken us through all the details of the deal. The new manager tried to persuade us that her colleague had had no authority to withhold that information and that she would be punished. Now, by this point even we were starting to feel somewhat responsible for the situation; that we should agree to the new terms for the associate’s sake as much as anything else. This is what I term a ‘blow below the belt’ in negotiations.

It often happens that, instead of a ‘no’, a well-trained negotiator will open the negotiation game with a quick ‘yes’: yes, I am prepared to work with you; yes, I am prepared to buy from you. Do you remember my story about Dimitriy – my sales colleague we met in Chapter 3? This is the blow that buyer had so cunningly prepared for him. In that story, we were able to ward off that powerful, painful blow. But this isn’t always the case.

The play we’re about to look at is based on a few principles of influence, namely reciprocity, social proof, consistency and scarcity. And, as is so often the case, a stratagem lies at its core: ‘Invite your enemy onto the roof, then remove the ladder.’

‘Invite your enemy onto the roof, then remove the ladder’

The enemy is urged on with the promise of a large benefit and easy success, only to discover that all is not as it seems. This benefit should seem very achievable, otherwise it won’t entice.

The ‘blow below the belt’ play works in the following way: once someone has reached an agreement with their opponent and taken that step towards collaboration, they will be filled with positive feelings and expectations that cause them to expose themselves. This continues until the cunning negotiator is sure that enough parties are implicated – the negotiator, managers, friends – to make backing out difficult. And that all of these parties – even those who are only indirectly affected – already have great expectations.

Then, all of a sudden, an obstacle will appear that completely changes the course of the deal: competitors have come along with better offers, for example, or it emerges that the supplier can’t supply the item the buyer needs because the original offer was only applicable when paired with another, redundant item. But by this point, pulling out would be difficult. After all, plans have already been finalised, and that particular buy or sale has already been incorporated into those plans.

In the case of my acquaintance, in his own mind he had already started driving his new car, and he had already celebrated the buy with his friends. When it became clear that there were new terms, he, wanting to be consistent, started to sell the new car to himself: ‘Well, it’s still an excellent car, and the specs are great.’

Company A holds a tendering process to select an equipment supplier. They receive a range of proposals and, on the results of all of the indicators measured, they choose company B. Their proposal meets company A’s needs most fully – including their technical specification – and it is also the most attractive proposal, price-wise. When the agreement is signed, company B starts to claim there has been some sort of misunderstanding: the price proposed was for basic equipment. Meeting the exact technical specifications will require additional charges for a number of items. By this point, however, the results of the tender have already been announced, so the buyer at company A is faced with a choice: they can either cancel the results of the deal-making process (which would be labour-intensive and reflect badly on them) or convince their own management that these additional charges are necessary. They decide to go with the latter.

To this, many of you will probably say that this sort of deal will be a one-off: there’s no way the buyer would go near a company that had pulled a move like that again. Of course, that may be true. But my experience has told me time and time again that we keep falling for the same bait; we are pulled, as though by magnetism, to step on one and the same rake.

Once upon a time there were three mice who wanted to become hedgehogs, so that they would have spines to defend themselves against fox attacks. They went to ask the owl for advice. The owl said: ‘Travel to the west of the forest and find the tallest oak. Next to the fattest root of this oak, you will see a green cucumber. If you eat it all, then you may be able to grow spines. If you start to feel a prickling in your mouth as you eat, don’t be afraid. That simply means that your spines are growing.’

So the mice went to the west of the forest and found the tallest oak and its fattest root. Lo and behold, there was a cucumber standing there, a big, spiny one. The mice each took one bite, then two, and their mouths started to prickle. But when they remembered what the owl had told them, they sank their teeth into the cucumber with added gusto, painful though it was.

And so was born a legend about three little mice who ate an entire cactus because they thought it would give them spines.

However, a word of warning: be very careful when employing this method. If your opponent knows how to react to it, how to put up a block (i.e. how to block a ‘blow beneath the belt’), then their response will be both strong and very painful. If you are preparing to use this play, it needs to be planned down to a tee and packaged up both beautifully and flawlessly. Another one of the Chinese stratagems can aid you in this.

‘Point at the mulberry but curse the locust’

This stratagem is all about hiding the true offenders or the true cause of an event by pointing at false or imaginary culprits. It is the stratagem of the buck-passer, and it is what the car dealer in the example above does. He elegantly passes the buck towards the factory, in doing so hiding the true cause.

Resistance

When someone suddenly changes their terms, you should ask yourself a very important question: if I knew what I now know about this deal or agreement, would I have agreed to these terms?

Remember that a desire for consistency is one of the methods of psychological influence. As Robert Cialdini points out: a desire to appear consistent often causes us to act against our own interests. Or, as American philosopher and public figure Ralph Waldo Emerson put it even more sharply: ‘A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.’

My wife and I asked ourselves the same question about the plot of land. Would we have bought it had we known it would cost 5 per cent more? Yes, we would have. In that instance, we assessed the situation and grasped what was going on, and we decided to take the negotiation process further. Of course, I tried to haggle some better terms, but I knew that the decision we had made was a conscious, informed one.

But to the bigger question. Let’s get back to my example about my acquaintance’s car. When he decided to buy his off-road car for 1.7 million roubles, would he have made the same decision had he known it might cost 2.6 million roubles? If you are unsure, then don’t shoot from the hip. Instead, pause.

I’m not suggesting that you necessarily pull out of a decision you’ve already made. I’m simply saying that you should think it through again: do I really need a car right now? And do I really need all the specs that this one has? In short, you need to weigh up the pros and the cons. And it is very important to ask yourself this question not in the now, the point at which you are today, but to take all of your knowledge with you and cast your mind back to the point at which you made the original decision. If you ask yourself whether something is favourable once the change in terms has occurred, then you are more likely to tell yourself it is, because the rule of consistency will have come into force. You will even start to persuade yourself.

If you have been caught by a blow below the belt, then take your time and keep your emotions in check. You need to tell yourself to stop and make a clear-headed assessment of the situation. Take another look at your polygon of interests. If the new offer is still favourable, then move forwards in the negotiation process. But if not, then go back to the drawing board and look at everything afresh: the goal posts have changed, which calls for more negotiations, plain and simple. Otherwise you will simply keep on letting blows past you.

Every time someone tries to deliver a blow below the belt – i.e. suddenly change the terms – in negotiations you are participating in, it is then your job to reassess the situation and cast your mind back. In fact, casting your mind back can be a very useful thing in general. It will immediately give you answers to a wide range of questions, from whether to hire a candidate to whether to work for a company or enter into collaboration.

Casting your mind back to the initial point of agreement is crucial. If you are certain that your interests aren’t being met, then it is very important to go back to the drawing board with negotiations based on this new information.

THE ANSWER TO THE HARDEST QUESTION

What makes you better than the rest of the pack? What is your USP? How are you different to your competitors? These questions have the power to stump many negotiators. They will begin to search for assets that the opposing side will then easily dismiss.

‘You have talked me through everything, but I still have one question: what makes you unique?’

‘Well, you know, we have a unique personalised approach.’

‘Which is?’

‘You will be guided by your own dedicated expert.’

‘Well, that’s not unique.’

By attempting to prove how unique and reliable you are, your arguments, no matter how weighty, will activate a resistance in the opponent. And for every one of your arguments you will hear a very ponderous ‘So what?’

A Georgian and an Armenian are sitting on a train. Suddenly the Georgian says: ‘Georgians are better than Armenians!’

The Armenian says nothing. The Georgian repeats: ‘Georgians are better than Armenians!’

Still the Armenian says nothing. The Georgian repeats again: ‘D’you hear me? Georgians are better than Armenians!’

The Armenian can no longer contain himself. ‘In what way?’

The Georgian: ‘Way better!’

This is where the principles of social proof and authority can help you to come out on top.

If you have to talk about yourself, then use some sort of intermediary where possible. Your opponent will trust information coming from a third (disinterested) party far more than from an interested one.

‘You have talked me through everything, but I still have one question: what makes you unique?’

‘You know, if I start singing my own praises it probably won’t hold much weight. Better that I let my actions and achievements speak for themselves. Or, where necessary, reviews from our clients. By the way, you’re welcome to contact Mr/Ms XX personally to hear how they found working with us.’

TO CATCH SOMETHING FIRST LET IT GO

One of the questions I am most often asked at workshops and consultations is how to win the opponent’s interest. How to get them to even look at a proposal. Reader, I can assure you that if you build a dialogue along the following template, you will be unlikely to see any results.

‘I wonder if you might take a look at my proposal?’

‘OK. Leave it with me.’

‘When should I expect a response?’

‘I don’t know. If we’re interested, I’ll call you.’

‘I hope to hear from you soon.’

I’m not sure what a proposal would need to contain to make someone interested in looking at it after that damp squib of an introduction. The same goes for commercial proposals sent via email. Most people don’t even read them.

This next principle of influence will allow you to significantly increase the responses you get to proposals, emails and cold calls.

This move is based on the following Chinese story:

Representatives of the northern state, Wei, persuaded the leader of the southwestern barbarian tribes, Meng Huo, to lead a rebellion against Wei’s main rival, Shu Han. Zhuge Liang, regent of Shu Han, marched against Meng Huo, but his goal was not simply to seize the territory; it was to win over the hearts of the southern rebels themselves. Zhuge Liang defeated Meng Huo’s allies one by one, but instead of putting the rebels to death, he magnanimously released them. And when he captured Meng Huo himself, he simply released him. He knew that he would never win the hearts of the people by putting the rebels to death – that would only happen if the rebels themselves submitted.

Meng Huo once again gathered his forces against Zhuge Liang, but he was captured once again and – you guessed it – released. This happened seven times. Zhuge Liang even pardoned Meng Huo when the rebel’s own fellow-fighters tied him up and personally delivered him to the regent.

In the end, upon his seventh capture, Meng Huo showed remorse for his actions and swore eternal obedience to Zhuge Liang. After that, peace reigned in the southern frontiers of the Shu Han state.

The play we’re about to look at builds on a few principles of influence: reciprocity, social proof and scarcity. It goes as follows.

We give our opponent the opportunity to refuse us. We give them the very thing they have always had: the opportunity to say ‘no’. According to Jim Camp’s definition, negotiation is the human effort to bring about agreements between two or more parties with all parties having the right to veto. At the core of this play lies yet another Chinese stratagem: ‘To catch something first let it go.’

You see, it is very easy for people to reject us, or to fail to read or get the point of our proposal. They are not burdened by any responsibility for their rejection; they can simply say, ‘we aren’t interested’, ‘no good’, etc.

Interestingly, it’s quite a different matter when we reinforce someone’s responsibility for their decision. We put the ball into their court and say: ‘your turn’. This is when the real decision-making takes place. It means that they have to make a conscious decision, with all of the consequences that entails. That’s less simple to do.

A workshop participant told me the following story:

One day, my ten-year-old son came home from school and said: ‘I’m not going to school tomorrow, it’s boring.’

I tried to talk him around, but he wasn’t having any of it. Then I decided to try a different tack: ‘Ivan, it’s your decision. If you don’t want to go, then don’t.’

The morning after, Ivan didn’t go to school. He wandered around our apartment in silence for a whole hour, then he got his things and ran off to class. That evening he came up to me and said: ‘Mum, I’m not going to skip school again.’

This example is a very clear indication of the importance of letting people make their own decisions. When going into negotiations, you need to know that the opponent has every right to refuse you. But if we make a show of giving them that right, we are a) demonstrating our assertive position and b) encouraging them to take a closer look at what we have to offer.

For months Roman, a young entrepreneur, had been unable to break off his burdensome ties with a business partner. I should note that this business partner was much older and more experienced than him; the sort of man who was active in Russia in the nineties and who had a shady and complicated past. Whenever Roman tried to cut the final ties and dump this extra weight he was carrying, his ‘partner’ would deal him a blow that would take them right back to square one.

Roman came to me. We analysed the situation closely, and this is what we found. In their conversations, the nineties man kept using phrases like: ‘Well, if you’ve made a firm decision to part ways, then go on, but remember – it’s your decision’; ‘Look, if you want to stop working together just tell me, no problem’; or ‘If you think our company doesn’t need me, then just say.’ Every

time he heard a phrase like these, Roman would make a complete turnaround.

His partner was exploiting psychological mechanisms that forced Roman to take full responsibility for himself, something he found hard to do. There is only one thing for this. You need to learn to pursue your interests and say no. One fine day, that’s exactly what Roman did. He cut the tie and strode forward, to great success.

Using the following phrases in negotiations will significantly increase your effectiveness.

In emails/letters:

‘Of course, I hope that we will be able to do business together, but should you decide that this isn’t of interest to you then please let me know. I would really value any feedback that you are able to give on whether my proposal is of interest to you or not.’

‘I don’t know whether this proposal is of interest to you, but if not please let me know. If, however, you would like to find out more, I would be happy to answer any further questions.’

‘Of course, you have every right to turn down this proposal. Please let me know in either eventuality.’

Face to face:

‘Do feel free to give me a “no”. Really.’

‘It’s your decision, and I’ll respect it either way. Just let me know.’

On the phone:

‘I’d like to make you a very interesting offer. Though, of course, I don’t know if it’ll be of interest to you or not. Let’s just say that if you aren’t interested, then you can hang up, and I won’t bother you again. Is that fair?’

‘I don’t want to waste your time. So if you aren’t interested in what you hear, then just say “no” and we’ll end the conversation. OK?’

By giving your opponent the opportunity to reject you, you aren’t actually giving them anything at all. They already have that. But by doing so, you take a slight step back, which makes them intuitively try to get closer to you. If people want to lumber you with a sense of added responsibility by giving you a right that you already have, then simply weigh up the pros and cons of their offer carefully and, if it goes against your interests, give them a firm ‘no’.

DO I NEED TO RECIPROCATE GIFTS?

Some two thousand years ago, the great Roman poet Virgil wrote in The Aeneid: ‘Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.’ Well, in short, in two thousand years little has changed!

Negotiators will often encourage reciprocity. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours. Of course, reciprocity is natural. Machiavelli noted that people don’t like to feel indebted; that when people do us some kind of service or favour, we try to respond in kind to avoid that very feeling of indebtedness. But many negotiators exploit this desire of ours to not feel ‘indebted’. So they will give us some small service or insignificant gift, in the hope of drawing some quite significant pampering from us during the negotiation process in return.

This is a good point to bring in another quote from Robert Cialdini:

. . . [T]he power of the reciprocity rule is such that by first doing us a favor, strange, disliked, or unwelcome others can enhance the chance that we will comply with one of their requests. However, there is another aspect of the rule, besides its power, that allows this phenomenon to occur. Another person can trigger a feeling of indebtedness by doing us an uninvited favor.

Recall that the rule only states that we should provide to others the kind of actions they have provided us; it does not require us to have asked for what we have received in order to feel obligated to repay.41

The regional manager of a major trading company earned a reputation of being a real go-getter, capable of winning over even the most unaccommodating buyer. He had a secret technique for this. Instead of forcing his way in and talking himself up to potential partners, at the beginning of the business relationship – during the first meeting or by post – he would give his opponent a very interesting gift.

Now, when I say interesting, read: valuable. Sparing no expense, he would commission quite pricey market research on the development tendencies in the branch in which his opponents operated. Then he would go through the reports and pull out the key findings.

This gift would be so valuable to the buyer that he would of course be in their good books immediately.

There is no doubt that the majority of negotiators apply this rule and (rather ‘altruistically’) give gifts to their opponents. However, their gifts can also blow up in their face.

What basic errors do negotiators make?

Error 1: giving a gift and expecting an immediate reaction

Once, just before the winter holidays, I happened to be in the sales department of a trade organisation. The sales executives were busily gathering gifts and talking among themselves, the gist of which was: ‘I’ll wish them happy holidays and then I’ll immediately try to get a supply agreement out of them.’

This, reader, is completely the wrong approach. If you give gifts in this way, you immediately reveal the self-interest that lies behind them. The opponent will see right through it. Better to simply wish them happy holidays and leave it at that. Then, in the New Year, you can come back to talk business.

Error 2: insincerity

When we give gifts in a contrived and insincere way, we turn the process into a charade and our opponent against us. If you must provide a service or give a gift, then at least try to do it sincerely.

Error 3: giving to the wrong people

One company’s sales department decided to distribute gifts to mark 23 February, Defender of the Fatherland Day. They divided these gifts into categories based on the recipient: VIP, business and normal. As you might expect, the VIP gift was intended for owners and directors, business was for heads of departments, and normal was for your average associates. After the gifts were distributed, the managers went to see their business partners in person. It soon became clear that many of these people had started to cool off towards the company: they were buying less, paying less regularly, and more. What had happened?

What had happened was that, because the company’s managers had no direct access to the upper management of their partner companies, they had given the VIP and business gifts to their opposite numbers to pass on up the ranks. But their opposite numbers, being only human, are not immune to resentment or a sense of being belittled. Of course, when they saw that they had been given the ‘worse’ gift, they had felt cheated. And you can guess what comes after that: retaliation.

In a situation where you would like to single people out, then it’s best to give the gift personally. If you aren’t able to do so, then give identical gifts or one large shared gift.

Error 4: thinking about themselves

When preparing a service or gift, negotiators often fall into the trap of thinking of what they, rather than the recipient, would appreciate. In general, many negotiation errors come down to this same lack of understanding of what is valuable to their opponent.

My wife and I decided to get a juicer. So we went to a home appliance store, where a young man approached us and asked if we needed any assistance. We gladly accepted his offer. He started to tell us about all of the models in stock, listing each one’s revolutions per minute. We listened to this fascinating little tale and promptly went home empty-handed. Why? Because we still didn’t know what we needed: we had no idea what that information meant in practical terms. A month later, while in the USA, we went into a similar store. With a quick look at the display cases, everything was clear. The price labels didn’t say anything about revolutions. Instead, in normal, everyday English they said: two glasses of juice per minute, three glasses of juice, etc.

It is important to remember that value varies from person to person. But it can always be calculated by the equation: value = benefits – cost (equation courtesy of Neil Rackham). To return to our example of the go-getting regional manager who had success with gifts, he was clearly thinking, first and foremost, about what his opponent would find valuable. And it paid off.

If you would like to give someone a gift and force them into some back-scratching, then follow these rules:

1. Show sincerity and expect nothing in return.

2. If you are giving gifts to more than one person in an organisation, the gifts should be of equal value. If you would like to single out one individual, then it is best to do so personally to prevent others from finding out.

3. When choosing a gift, work from your opponent’s benefits, not your own. For many people a smile, compliment or attention are more valuable than an expensive material object.

Resistance

To prevent yourself from becoming a victim of ‘professional’ gift-makers who know how to use this play, remember these two rules:

1. Always consider what might be expected in return from someone who ‘altruistically’ offers you an enticing service or gives you a gift. Sincere gifts require no response, and you do not need to feel ‘indebted’. If someone has given you a gift and is demanding something in return, then they were deliberately manipulating you. This also requires no response.

2. Do not accept a gift if you are certain you will have to settle your tab later.

In his Memories, Andrei Gromyko offers a clear illustration of how to behave in such situations:

Shortly after the signing, I had a meeting with Foreign Minister Scheel, who in a free moment told me: ‘You know, Mr Gromyko, we’ve had an addition to the family. We have a daughter and we’re going to call her Andrea, in your honour. My wife and I agreed on this.’

I must agree I was somewhat embarrassed, so I decided to make a joke of it: ‘That is a decision, you realise, that remains entirely the responsibility of yourself and your wife. In this you have 100 per cent sovereignty. And I am very happy to hear the news.’42

But what should you do if you have accepted a gift from an opponent and realise there’s a possibility they might start hinting at reciprocity? In such a situation it would be only natural to feel a certain unease, and a desire to repay them. In such matters it’s best to get pre-emptive – even prior to negotiations.

I once had a similar experience in Armenia. I arrived in the country to a very warm welcome, but I knew that any gifts would have to be met with gifts in kind, so I was very careful about how I behaved. Still, there was one situation I wasn’t able to get out of. On my way back to the airport, one of the partners held out to me a big basket full of the most beautiful, mouth-watering fruits, with the words: ‘For your wife and child.’ I had no choice but to take the gift and go. Back in Moscow, I thought long and hard about what to do, and made the decision to send a gift back to them. Because I was born in Belarus, I bought a souvenir bottle of Belovezhskaya Pushcha, a Belorussian liqueur, and sent it to them as a gift. With this, I relieved myself of the responsibility of being ‘indebted’.