When there is more than one negotiating opponent, only one of them actually has the final decision. Let's call this person "the person in charge of the other party" and call the deputy negotiator of the other party "the other party's party member". "The other person in charge" is the person we need to pay special attention to in the negotiation, but we should not ignore the existence of "the other team members" because of this.
When negotiating, sometimes no matter how hard you try, you can't convince the other side's head. In this case, you should shift your target and launch an offensive against the "opposing team members" so that the "opposing team members" can understand your thoughts and influence the "opposing team leaders". The process may be more difficult than ordinary negotiations, but no matter what you do, the most important thing is to persevere and make persistent efforts in order to achieve final success.
When you can't convince "other leaders", you should find another way and point the attack at "other team members". It's just like attacking cities and plundering land in ancient times. As long as you take the fortress outside the city first, you can March.
To capture the city, we must first take down the fortress that protects the city. The result is like nobody's business. By the same token, when you can't convince, you should change course and try to shake the position of "other leaders" through "other team members".
When using the tactics of "attacking the fortress", the key lies in "repeatedly explaining with change" Obviously, it is to let the "other leader" listen to your opinion more than once. Now you have to use the same words to lobby the "players on the other side", and the "head on the other side" naturally feels boring. And "other team members" are the same, and it is impossible to listen attentively to your unchanging statement. Therefore, although the purpose is the same, in the process of repeated explanation, special attention should be paid to variability to avoid the opposite effect. In addition, it should be noted that even if you have persuaded the "opposing team members" seriously, there is no guarantee that the "opposing team members" will be as serious as you convince the "opposing leaders". If the "opposing team member" refuses to do so, even if you do your best, the "attacking the fortress" tactic is still difficult to play a role.
Third, "white face" and "black face"
Once, the legendary billionaire Hughes wanted to buy a large number of planes. He plans to buy thirty-four planes, of which eleven must be acquired. At first, Hughes personally negotiated with the aircraft manufacturer, but it was impossible. Finally the monopoly flew into a rage and left. But Hughes still refused to give up, so he found an agent to help him continue the negotiations. Hughes told his agent that he would be satisfied if he could buy his favorite number 1 1. As a result of the negotiation, the agent actually bought all 34 planes. Hughes admired the agent's skill and asked him how he did it. The agent replied, "It's very simple. Every time the negotiations are deadlocked, I will ask them-do you really want to talk to me? Or do you want to ask Hughes himself to talk again? After I asked, the other party had to say obediently-forget it, do whatever you want! "
To use the tactics of "good police" and "bad police", it is necessary to have two negotiators, and these two negotiators cannot participate in the first round of negotiations together. If two people attend together, if one of them leaves a bad impression on the other, it will inevitably affect his impression on the other, which is very unfavorable to the second round of negotiations.
The first negotiator plays the role of "bad face", and his duty is to arouse the reaction of "this person is not easy to provoke" and "it's really unlucky to meet an opponent in this negotiation". The second negotiator played the role of "white face", that is, played the role of "angel of peace", which made the other party feel "finally relieved". In this way, the two men appeared alternately and took turns to go into battle until the negotiation reached its goal.
The first negotiator makes the other side feel that "I really don't want to talk to such people anymore" is enough. However, such tactics can only be used when the other side is eager to get an agreement from the negotiations. When the other party intends to seek a solution through negotiation, it will not stop the negotiation because it has a bad impression on the first negotiator. Therefore, before the negotiation, you must try to control the other party's attitude towards the negotiation. If it is "negotiable", then the tactics of "bad face" and "bad face" are useless.
As mentioned above, it is more advantageous to negotiate in your own territory, but when using the tactics of "good face" and "bad face", it is best to negotiate in the other camp. No matter how the first negotiator "challenges" the other side, if the negotiation is held in the other side's camp, based on a sense of security of "this is my place anyway", the other side usually won't react too emotionally. Therefore, when the second negotiator appears, their attitude will naturally not be too bad.
On the contrary, if the negotiations are held in their own territory, the other party is angered by the first negotiator, and may refuse to come again or simply ask for a different venue. Once the negotiation venue is changed, it may be convenient to get rid of the unhappiness caused by the last negotiation, cheer up and face your challenge with high morale again. If this is the case, the effect of the "white face" and "bad face" tactics will be greatly reduced.
The effect of "white face" and "black face" tactics comes from the "online operation" between the first negotiator and the second negotiator. The second negotiator is to take advantage of the other party's bad impression of the first negotiator and continue his work of "connecting the past with the future". If the first negotiator's "performance" fails, the second negotiator will naturally have no chance to sing.
"However ..." This "however" is a frequently used speaking skill. A famous TV presenter skillfully used this technique when visiting a special guest. I'm sure you don't like being asked about your private life, but … it's "just like a warning to special guests", "even though you don't like it", "I still want to …". In everyday language, there are also synonyms of "but", "however", "even so" and "however" Taking these turning words as "introduction" when asking questions will make it easier for the other party to answer and will not cause the other party's disgust.
"However ..." has the function of inducing the other party to answer questions. The host mentioned above then asked, "However, the audience in front of the TV wants to know more about your private life, so …". When asked this question, it is hard for the special guests to refuse even if they don't want to answer it.
Third, ease tensions.
In negotiation, when the question itself is complicated, it is difficult to talk about, but it must be asked, so we usually have to use the "slow motion" technique. The skill of speaking slowly can prevent the other party from getting angry and make the negotiation go smoothly.
In the process of negotiation, it is inevitable that we sometimes become emotional, sometimes we have to ask some questions involving personal attacks, and sometimes we have to meet the negotiating opponent you defeated again. What should you do in this case? Here is an example. Suppose your current negotiating opponent recently talked to you about selling land. At that time, the other party thought that the price he proposed was reasonable, but later he thought less and less.
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I feel that the price is too low and I have suffered a big loss. In this case, it will be unfair and angry when this negotiating opponent discusses another issue about land sales face to face with you again. Therefore, no matter how reasonable your offer is, the other party will not agree easily. The reason why he refused to agree was not that the price was unreasonable, but that he had made up his mind to sell the land at a higher price to make up for the last loss.
Examples like this often happen. Therefore, when you find that your current negotiating opponent is not satisfied with you, you should handle it carefully and deal with it carefully. The best way to bury the hatchet is to explain to each other sincerely and directly from the beginning, eliminate the dissatisfaction and resentment accumulated in their hearts, and let everything start again.
Maybe you can say, "The last land sale is over. Now that I think about it, I'm really sorry, but ... ". Then we must find a way to let the other side know that there is no resentment in our hearts, so that the negotiations can proceed smoothly. This is the so-called skill of speaking slowly.
Fourth, insert a word.
The slow-moving skill of "interrupting" has the power to change the whole negotiation situation.
If a person brings a lawsuit that has been decided by the court. However, the two sides are still controversial about the validity of the court's ruling, and after several discussions, there is still no concrete result. However, if the man has seen some subtle signs of wavering in the other person's confidence.
Whether the court's judgment is valid or not has a great influence on the outcome of the negotiations. Therefore, although the other party thinks it is unnecessary to talk about this topic again, if the man repeatedly uses the slow method of "verbal interruption", he tries to pull the topic back to the question of whether the judgment is valid or not. If the man repeatedly tells the other party, "Although we have fully discussed the court decision, it is a bit disappointing to mention it again." But ... ",and then explain your views on the verdict. In this way, if a man has the opportunity, he will repeatedly state his views on the court decision. Finally, the other person's confidence was completely shaken and he accepted Ruonan's proposal.
Verb (abbreviation of verb) document strategy
A financial company held a board meeting, and twelve directors sat around the oval table for a heated discussion. There are eleven directors with pens and paper in front. What about the other one? Besides pen and paper, there are piles of documents and materials, each pile is almost ten centimeters thick. The directors spoke boldly and expressed their opinions on the central topic of the meeting-the change of the company's management policy. For a time, it was difficult to draw a conclusion from the four statements. In the chaos, the director who carried a lot of documents remained silent, and everyone who stood up to speak would look at the pile of documents in awe. After all the people present spoke, the chairman asked the director who seemed ready to say a few words. I saw the director stand up, pick up the top stack of materials, say a few words briefly, and then sit down. Later, after a brief discussion, 1 1 directors all thought that the director who made the last speech was "reasonable" and agreed with him, thus ending the chaotic and lengthy debate.
After the meeting, the chairman rushed to shake hands with the last director, thanked him for his valuable advice and paid tribute to his efforts in collecting information.
"What? These documents and materials are fundamentally different from today's meeting! These things are sorted out by the secretary. Let me see them first. If there is no need to keep them, they will be burned. Besides, I plan to go on holiday after the meeting, so I brought them to the meeting. As for the note in my hand when I expressed my opinion, it was just a summary that I jotted down while listening to your speeches. To be honest, I didn't make any preparations in advance for this meeting. "
The "misunderstood" director made this explanation.
You can't just look at the surface of anything. At ordinary board meetings, everyone brings nothing but paper and pens. This time, a director who brought a lot of materials to the meeting suddenly appeared, which not only surprised the people present, but also naturally reminded people that he must have made sufficient preparations in advance with so many reference materials to the meeting. Because of this association, no matter what the director says, it will make everyone feel "weighty" and "reasonable" and thus adopt it without objection.
Different from meetings, if you want to use "document tactics" in negotiations, then the "tools" you carry, that is, all kinds of documents and materials, must be related to the negotiations themselves. If you bring a lot of materials unrelated to the negotiation and want to "mix" the past, once it is discovered, the negotiation credit will go bankrupt, and it has been repeatedly stressed that once it is lost, it will be difficult and irreparable. Therefore, we must be cautious when negotiating, and never make the mistake of "credit bankruptcy" for expediency. This is the principle of negotiation.
In any negotiation, it is very important to pay attention to whether the tactics or skills you use are suitable for the content of the negotiation. If the tactics or skills used are not clever enough and are not suitable for the content of the negotiation, it will make it difficult for the negotiation to start smoothly.
The effect of "document tactics" is mostly produced in the early stage of negotiation, that is, when the two sides sit down across the negotiating table. Why? Imagine that if a large number of documents are suddenly moved out after the negotiation reaches a certain stage, can the other party not be suspicious? The purpose of carrying a large number of documents to negotiate is to let the other party know in advance how thoughtful he is and how deeply he understands the contents of the negotiation. But if you move out a lot of documents in the middle, the other party will not think so.
Secondly, it should be noted that once the "document tactics" are adopted, it is necessary to finish what is started. In every negotiation, don't forget to bring all the documents, otherwise, it will arouse the suspicion or even contempt of the other side. If there is a reason why you can no longer carry your certificate, you should explain it to the other party in detail so that the other party can understand.
When the negotiation reaches a certain stage, all the important issues have been solved, leaving only two or three small issues, and you can end your "document tactics". However, before all files are removed, it is still necessary to explain to the other party that "all important issues have been discussed"! These materials are no longer needed to avoid suspicion. Also, if you want to change the venue of the negotiation and make it inconvenient for you to carry a lot of documents and materials, you must also explain to the other party that "those things are too heavy to carry." In short, when you feel that there is no need to use "document tactics", whatever the reason, the most important thing is not to make the other party suspicious.
Naturally, it is more advantageous to negotiate on our own "territory" However, sometimes, they have to go deep into each other's camp to start negotiations.
If you go to the other side's camp to negotiate, you have to consider the carrying of documents and materials. It is inconvenient to carry a large number of documents by bus, and it may be lost by taxi. When the other party sees that you have painstakingly "moved away" the mountain of documents, the first thing that comes to mind is that this must be a "document tactic" against me.
Therefore, when negotiating in the other camp, it is best not to bring anything except the necessary documents and materials that will be used in the negotiation. Doing so, in addition to being happy and relaxed, will not make the other party suspicious, but also help to improve credit.
And credit is the key to successful negotiation.
Sixth, the term effect.
From the statistical data, we found that many negotiations, especially the more complicated ones, reached an agreement before the negotiation deadline. However, there are also many open negotiations.
If there is a deadline for negotiations, negotiators will not feel any pressure unless the deadline has passed; This is the so-called "no tears when you see the coffin".
For example, people are usually not afraid of death. Although they know that everyone will eventually die of illness and death, they always feel that it is still a "distant future." However, if one day, the doctor suddenly announces that you have only one month to live, who can bear such a blow?
It can be seen that the closer the negotiation deadline is, the more anxious and uneasy the two sides will feel, and this anxiety and anxiety will reach its peak on the day when the negotiation ends-this is the best time to use negotiation skills.
Do you still remember the 12-day talks held by US President Carter with former Egyptian President Shaddat and former Israeli Prime Minister Bijin at Camp David? The purpose of this summit is to solve all the outstanding problems in the 30-year confrontation between Israel and Egypt. These issues are very complicated, so the negotiations have been very slow from the beginning and often interrupted. No one is sure what results can be achieved. As a result, the person in charge had to set a deadline for the negotiation-just next Sunday. Sure enough, as the deadline approached, some problems of the general manager were solved. Just a day or two before Sunday, the atmosphere of negotiations suddenly became smoother than before, more problems were solved, and Israel and Egypt reached a final agreement.
In such an important negotiation process, the "deadline" of negotiation can still produce amazing results, so if you can also apply this psychology to various negotiations, you will naturally get the expected results.
A cowboy in the western United States broke into a hotel to drink, drank a few cups of yellow soup and then began to mess around, making the hotel a mess. Not really. Later, he took out a pistol and shot at the ceiling, even at the guests in the hotel. Just when everyone was at a loss, the hotel owner, a thin and gentle man, suddenly walked up to the cowboy step by step and ordered him to say, "I will give you five minutes, so you can leave here in five minutes." Unexpectedly, the cowboy really put away his pistol, took the bottle and left the hotel with drunken steps. In shock, someone asked the boss, "What will you do if that rascal refuses to leave?" The boss replied, "It's very simple. Just extend the deadline and give him more time. "
The above story can only prove that the shopkeeper is "lucky", but his behavior is of great reference value in the negotiation. In order to make the "deadline completion" of negotiations play its due role, negotiators must take responsibility for everything that may happen before the negotiation deadline, which is the premise of "setting limits". The time limit can only be "extended" if new circumstances arise or there are sufficient reasons. If the other party thinks that you are a person who does not abide by the established deadline, or you have a "criminal record" of arbitrarily extending the deadline, then the so-called "setting limits" will not play any role in the negotiation. Even if the deadline comes, no one will feel uneasy and anxious, because they have figured out that you "don't take the deadline seriously."
Your opponent in the negotiation may intentionally or unintentionally reveal a deadline for the negotiation, such as "I have to be at the airport within an hour" and "I have to attend an important meeting within an hour". Doesn't this "self-restriction" give you a chance? . In this case, you just have to wait slowly and wait for the "last minute". As the time for the plane to take off or have a meeting is getting closer, the other side's nervousness will certainly become more and more serious, and even the two sides can't wait to reach an agreement within one second. At this time, you can slowly put forward various requirements "? I think my proposal is fair. I'll wait for you to say it. As long as you promise, you can rest assured to do the next thing! "Time is short, the other party is likely to reluctantly agree to your proposal, dare not have any objection.
The above is an example of the negotiating opponent setting a time limit that is not conducive to himself. This is also a reminder that you should never make the same mistake. This kind of mistake will never happen to a master negotiator.
In the process of negotiation, no matter who puts forward the "deadline", once the deadline is decided, it cannot be easily changed. So, in any case, you must go all out to complete all the preparatory work within the deadline to avoid the pressure of the deadline. If the other party puts forward an unreasonable deadline, the deadline can be extended as long as you protest. But if the other party refuses your proposal to extend the time limit, or thinks that the set time limit is quite reasonable, it will be in trouble. In this case, the only thing you can do is to redouble your efforts, collect information and make strategies. If you are still angry with the other person's "irrationality" and waste your limited time, then you fall into the trap of the other person. No matter how much time you have, it is the cleverest thing to formulate countermeasures calmly and check them carefully.
For example, if you want to buy a batch of real estate, the other party will only give you ten days to decide whether to buy the real estate at its asking price within ten days. At this time, you should first check the other party's proposal from all angles. If you think the price is unreasonable, you'd better explain your opinion to the other party as soon as possible before the deadline. If possible, you can set a new deadline according to your own wishes, so as to avoid becoming a victim of setting a deadline.
Seven. Adjustment problem
Once, I took a truck across a winding road. There are many steep slopes on the road, up and down, up and down, which makes me feel scared and cold. However, the shifting technology of truck drivers is really ingenious to the extreme. He seems to shift gears completely by instinct. He doesn't slow down when going uphill, and he doesn't rush forward quickly when going downhill. In short, the people sitting in the car are always flat and steady, without any uncomfortable feeling.
So, what is the so-called "transformation" in the negotiations? The so-called "shift" in the negotiation is to try to change the central topic while the negotiation is going on. And if the "gear shifting" technology can be as skilled as that truck driver, then, no matter any negotiation, the dominant position is in your hands.
Soviet negotiators are experts in shifting gears. In the arms limitation negotiations, they used the "diversion" method many times to change and divert their arguments, and they have spread all over the audience.
As far as arms limitation negotiations are concerned, both the United States and the Soviet Union are eager to reach an agreement on arms limitation, that is to say, no matter what difficulties the negotiations encounter, they must sit at the negotiating table and continue their discussions until they have a result. In fact, many negotiations, such as negotiations between companies, governments, autonomous organizations and various trade unions, are also true. Even if the negotiation fails to reach an agreement, it will lead to the worst situation, such as go-slow, strike and so on. Both sides must continue to work hard to find a reasonable solution. In short, even if the negotiations are suspended, both sides must sit at the negotiating table again. Assuming that you represent the management, you may be dissatisfied with issues such as salary, medical care and even vacation. This is a skill of "shifting gears" and changing topics at any time. However, in order to take the overall situation into consideration, in any case, you must meet the basic requirements of "let the negotiations go on".
Sometimes, one or both sides of the negotiation will be eager to reach some kind of agreement. For example, you want to buy some influential assets (companies, patents, land, famous paintings, diamonds, antiques or horses). ) Being held by the other party, the most important thing is not to let the other party know your intention, so that the technology of "shifting gears" can play a role in the negotiation. You can talk about him from left to right, pretend to be indifferent, or make a diversion. In short, if the other person senses your "strong desire to buy" intention, he will try his best to deal with you, making it difficult for you to get what you want.
If the other party intends to suspend the negotiation, it is impossible for you to change the topic at will, unless the topic is of great interest to him or is very important to the negotiation itself. Of course, if your negotiating partner is an inexperienced or unmotivated person, that is another matter.
In unimportant negotiations, when you want to change the topic, you should explain the reason for changing the topic to the other party in advance so as to gain the understanding of the other party, and then accept your proposal without objection.
I have participated in a very complicated negotiation, mostly involving securities and real estate, and some literal interpretations involving trust property. In order to take the lead in the negotiation, I made full use of the technology of "shifting gears" from the beginning of the negotiation, from the evaluation problem to the text explanation problem, and then from the text explanation problem to the credit problem, and so I changed the topic repeatedly and randomly. But before changing the topic every time, I always explain the reason for changing the topic in advance to get the other person's understanding. In this way, the other party finally got lost in the "transfer" technology and retreated to the defense line.
In negotiation, once the other side retreats to the defensive line, you will take a big step forward and gain an advantage.