One of the keys to successfully negotiating any deal is letting the other side go first. It gives you a parameter to work from and provides insight as to what the other side is thinking. Letting them go first gives you the upper hand so you can negotiate better. But how exactly do you get the other side to go first? You can’t just say, "Go first.  I said so."There needs to be a strategy. Consider the following next time you are stuck in this situation. Defer to the other side’s expertise: Say something like, "You’ve done more deals of this type than we have. What are going terms in similar deals? What’s fair?" Turn discussions into offers: Once you start talking, the other side is likely to give enough information to suggest an offer even if they don’t make one formally. Probe their thoughts, fleshing out more and more details. Then paraphrase what they’ve said as an offer. Force a counteroffer bid: If it appears there’s nowhere to go in the negotiations, ask the other side where they want to go. "You say the list price is too steep. What price could you afford?" Make a tangential first offer: Offer something important the other side wants in exchange for something more important to you. "We know your company wants to ship fast while the produce is fresh. We can take delivery immediately, if the per pound is right." Set a range without making a first offer: Use exploratory conversation to learn what the other side expects. "Say, I’ve heard houses in this neighborhood sell for as little as $200,000." There’s no risk. It’s just what you’ve "heard". See what kind of response you get. It should give you a price range of their first offer. Still don’t think it’s important to let the other side go first? Read this story told by Dean Jernigan, Chairman of Storage USA. It is highlighted in the book "The Power of NICE" by Ron Shapiro, Mark Jankowski, and Jim Dale. A piece of property was for sale on the Mississippi River. Its original purchase price was $3 million. The property had sat, unused and undeveloped, for years. One day, a potential buyer from a Los Angeles entertainment company asked for a meeting.  The property owner’s lawyer was sent to negotiate the deal with explicit instructions. "Let them make the first offer but take nothing less than $4 million." The prospective buyer started the meeting with a simple statement. "We are not going to negotiate. Our offer is $20 million and if you are not willing to accept it, we are prepared to walk." It turned out, the entertainment company was betting on a future legalized gambling boom to increase land values and, therefore, thought $20 million was a "fair" price. Of course, so did the property owner’s lawyer who only had one regret. He hadn’t handled the case on a contingency basis.

When actors like Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro are filming a scene for a movie, they become entrenched in the script.  They go over it forwards, backwards, and sideways to get into the character and deliver their lines with power and emotion.  Hollywood, however, isn’t the only place that scripts come in handy. When preparing for a negotiation, scripting can be an extremely valuable tool. Scripting is taking the time to write down the anticipated dialogue for a meeting. It prepares you for what you will say and what you anticipate the other side will say. You may not be able to predict the exact course of events, but you can rehearse the scenarios you anticipate. By thinking through and writing down scripts for the way you think events will unfold, you will have a solid foundation for dealing with the twists and turns of actual events. Scripting allows you to gain confidence in the message you are trying to deliver. It’s valuable for crafting not only the message you are trying to convey, but also how you will do it. If you want an "ask" of $1 million per year, make sure you say exactly that. Don’t say things like "something in the range of $1 million" or "between $750,000 and $1,000,000"—this already puts you below your projected ask. When you write and practice your script, you’re not only rehearsing your message, but you’re considering things like word choice, tone, use of persuasive precedents, probing, and even silence. These types of considerations will make a difference in communicating effectively and closing the deal.  

Preparation is vital in any negotiation. We say it all the time, but we wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t true. If you don’t prepare, you’re missing out on the opportunity to be in control of the negotiation. If you have prepared for all the possible scenarios, you will have the confidence to negotiate the best deal possible. One great way to prepare is through precedents. They can be common steps or shrewd maneuvers, logical decisions or risky bets, strategies or strokes of luck, prompt or last-minute adjustments, great achievements or simple mistakes from the arc of your career, from other people, or even from the grand stage of history itself. Analyzing the past with an objective microscope can help shape your preparation for your present endeavor. History has a tendency to repeat itself, so you might as well take advantage of what has taken place before. One example of using precedents could be if a competitor is undercutting your prices for a service or product. Because dropping your price is not an alternative, you look for transactions in which you or others have successfully warded of pricing challenges. You uncover instances in which your competitor failed to meet promised distribution times, a factor important to your customers. You make guaranteed delivery dates a key part of your deals instead of reducing prices. Your customers are convinced and you fight off the pricing threat.

A little while back, a member of SNI purchased a new condo. The market in this particular area had continued to be hot through the recession and as a result it was very likely there were going to be multiple offers on the property. While most potential bidders tried to take advantage of time with the seller to express why they were such great candidates for the condo, this member used the time very differently. He told the story like this: When I went in to speak with the seller, I didn’t do much speaking about myself. I sat with the owner and her fiancée and just asked and listened - why are you selling the apartment? Where are you moving to and why? What is important to you in this transaction? What else? What else? What is most important and why? It turned out they had bought an expensive house with the intention of making a few modifications but they got carried away and had started a full renovation. As a result, the house was going to take substantially longer to return to livable condition and the couple was unsure as to what they should and would do in the meantime. When it came time to submitting offers, I extended the close date by several months and added a note about being flexible in order to let them settle in to their new home. I was not in a hurry to move, I just wanted the right place at the right price. Knowing they had been slightly over their heads with the renovation and wanted to ensure the sale would go through, I included a substantially larger than average deposit with the total bid that was about 5% lower than what I expected to be the highest bid. I also included a note about my two apartments that offered short term leases at reasonable prices - friends of mine had used them in the past and raved about the value. It turned out my bid was about 4% lower but I still came away with the best property I had seen in over 6 months of searching. Like in many other situations, the price was important, but it’s wasn’t everything. Ask the right questions, figure out what is important to the other side, and find a way to give it to them. In order to get what you want (the condo at a good price) you have to give them what they want (a reasonable price, a sense of security, a later close date, and help figuring out their living situation).

At some point in your life you will have to deal with a difficult person. It may be when you least expect it or when you’ve been warned far in advance. Regardless of the situation, following the N.I.C.E. system can help you handle a difficult person without becoming one of them. N—Neutralize your emotions. Dealing with difficult people can be an emotional challenge. The more emotional you are, the less rational you behave. Conversely, the more your emotions are in check, the more you can be in control of a positive outcome. I—Identify the type. There are three basic types of difficult people (and several permutations of each). • The Situationally Difficult: those people whose situation or circumstances make them difficult • The Strategically Difficult: those people who believe being unreasonable is effective • The Simply Difficult: those people with an ingrained personality characteristic C—Control the encounter. Once you know which type of difficult individual you face, you can employ the appropriate techniques to help shape and determine the outcome of the encounter. If you utilize the right techniques, you can change the fate of deals, meetings, and everyday confrontations. E—Explore options. Even after shaping the encounter, you may still be at an impasse. The process of getting "unstuck" often requires the development of options—alternative solutions—so both sides can give and get. (This includes the option of ending without escalating, reserved for those instances in which the best deal is no deal, which can preserve the possibility of a future deal.)

Earlier this month, our Chairman, Ron Shapiro, traveled to Israel and the West Bank through his involvement with PeacePlayers International, a non-profit organization that uses basketball to unite and educate young people in divided communities around the world. We recently had the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Shapiro and learn about his transformative experience.   Why did you go to Israel and the West Bank with PeacePlayers International? Nearly ten years ago, a group of young men from what is now called PeacePlayers International visited my office and asked if I would join their Board and help them with fundraising. I initially resisted, but they and their cause were so persuasive that within six weeks I was a member of their Board. Within a year, I agreed to be the Chair of their Board for one year on an "interim" basis. Somehow that one year became five years. During that period, I saw videos and heard stories of children in areas of conflict like Northern Ireland, South Africa, and Israel who, with the help of PPI, were building bridges and inspiring hope. I felt the power of the work we were doing. Yet despite invitations, I did not make any site visits, because of what I misperceived as an overwhelming professional and personal schedule. Although my involvement continued when I stepped down as Chair and assumed the role of Chairman Emeritus, I still had not interacted with the kids and the people of PeacePlayers working in the field. Thankfully Brendan Tuohey is a persistent guy. As a result of his persistence, I ultimately agreed to make a site visit in July 2012. I never suspected, at this stage in my life and after three other trips to Israel, to have a transformative life experience while visiting the PeacePlayers team and children in Israel and the West Bank. I am so glad that I chose to share that experience with my granddaughter, Kate, who recently celebrated her bat mitzvah; my daughter, Laura; my son, John (Herb) Beatson; and my business partner, Michael Maas; and that I was able to have the opportunity to travel with Brian Ross, Ann Curry and their children, Walker and Mckenzie; Irina Pavlova; Leslie and Joe Schaller; Brian Kriftcher; Amy Selco; and of course, Anna and her father, Brendan Tuohey. How did you spend your time? Aside from spending 24 hours in airplanes (and I might add meeting a new friend, Joey Low, on my journey over, who accepted my invitation to join us on a visit to our program on a kibbutz in Sdot Yam, and after the visit was moved to support PPI going forward), we would rise early and retire late so that we could maximize our exposure to some sites, but more importantly to the people and the program. From the very moment we arrived (when we were graciously hosted by the parents of one of the leaders of the PPI M.E. team, Samer Elayan, for dinner in the Arab village of Bet Safafa), to being given a geopolitical tour of East Jerusalem and part of the West Bank, to visiting the religious sites (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) in the Old City, to the Foreign Ministry in Ramallah, to the moving stories from PeacePlayers staff members on bus rides as we travelled from PPI programs in Jerusalem, the West Bank, Tel Aviv, and Sdot Yam, and the ancient ruins of Caesarea, our eyes feasted on unbelievable sites and our ears and brains were treated to a cross-current of views and ideas from morning to night. And most of all, our hearts were filled with hope because of the young people we met ranging in ages from five to eighteen and the way they played together as well as their interactions with the PPI staff members throughout our stay. I might also add that we had the opportunity to visit with Laura’s uncle who is a Judaic scholar, Broadway level musical comedy actor, and peace blogger, and has lived in Jerusalem for the past forty years, and we had breakfast with Laura and Kate’s rabbi who was studying in Jerusalem. Both tried to help us maintain some perspective on the divergent and, at times extreme, views that we encountered during our visit. In an email to Laura addressing some of the harsh realities of Israel, her rabbi exhorted her to recognize that, despite troubling places and things about our own country, such realities do not make us renounce the totality of American society or the veracity of American democracy. He wrote then about Israel: "…I encourage you to be inspired by amazing people who continue to struggle to right the ills of Israel. There is so much here that is beautiful, honorable, profoundly ethical, and wholly inspirational." What impacted upon you most? To use the rabbi’s words, those who were especially "beautiful, honorable, profoundly ethical, and wholly inspirational" were the children and staff of PeacePlayers International. The "twinnings" we saw at the various PPI sites in Israel were simply amazing. The Jewish and Arab children interacted - from practice to games - as if they were lifelong friends and with no gaps in religion, ideology, or politics separating them. They were even tolerant enough to accept people like me participating in their practices despite my total basketball inadequacy and frequent air ball shots. The sheer joy of the littlest PeacePlayers children (ages 6-8) dribbling their own personal basketballs (given to them by PPI) and going up and down the court in their games touched hearts and inspired all of us who came to see them. At the other end of the age spectrum, we spent substantial time with PPI Leadership Development Program (LDP) boys and girls (ages 15-18) who played hard, hugged lovingly, and shared of themselves and their lives openly. To say that those of us on the trip wanted to not only embrace them, but also to take them home with us, would be an understatement. What powerful lessons they taught us not only on the court, but also in their every interaction with each other, with the PeacePlayers staff, and their new American friends. Just as dinner at Samer’s house touched our hearts and opened our trip with feelings of warmth and hope, our closing dinner on the beach at Dag Al Hayam with our fellow PPI travelers, the PPI leadership team, and the wonderful girls of the LDP, reaffirmed for us the mission of PeacePlayers International: to close divides in areas of conflict by building bridges between children from all sides - in this case Jews and Arabs - through the game of basketball. From time to time, I was consulted on the trip for perspective as a "negotiation expert". The real experts on bringing people together, however, are in the field every day on behalf of PeacePlayers International. Just as I will never forget the children dribbling their basketballs, sharing their experiences, hugging each other and us, and igniting our hopes, I will not forget the greatest bridge builders of all, the PPI team, including: Karen, Samer, Nissreen, Githa, Sharon, Galit, Edniesha, and "younger, taller" Samer. Any other thoughts? Let me share some from our family group: Laura: "Kate and I are still struggling with explaining to our family the true impact of this incredible trip. It is difficult for Kate to discuss it without getting emotional. The opportunities that we had to not only witness, but to join in and befriend these incredible PeacePlayers children were truly the gift of a lifetime….." Michael: "The wonderful smiles of the girls, you, and everyone on the journey have been with me constantly since we left our new family last night. Amazing how small the world is, how much we all have in common, and the goodness of most everyone we come in contact with. I’m sure we will be downloading impressions, lessons learned and relationships developed for quite some time…" John (Herb): "We learned a lot about the conflict from both the Jewish and Arab perspectives and I left more convinced than when I arrived of the importance of the PeacePlayers International programs. Actions from both sides are making the situation increasingly intractable, increasing the importance of establishing some common ground between the two sides. To the extent the children in our programs can establish this common ground, perhaps a sustainable solution to the conflict will one day be achievable. I would have far less confidence in the probability of such a solution if PPI was not actively bridging divides on the ground…"    

Being able to identify the tactics used by strategically difficult people is key to being able to overcome them. Consider this lesson about Admiral Hyman Rickover. He employed the Physical Surroundings tactic—when the other side controls a venue to gain an advantage, such as controlling your comfort level, location, resources, and so on—to make others feel off-balance (literally). It was effective because people didn’t identify what he was doing and make changes to alleviate the problem. The following is an excerpt from the book "Bullies, Tyrants, and Impossible People" by Ron Shapiro, Mark Jankowski, and Jim Dale. Admiral Hyman Rickover, child of a Jewish immigrant family, entered the Naval Academy in 1918, almost immediately in conflict with its traditional W.A.S.P. aristocracy. According to much of the history written about him, Rickover was unpopular with other midshipmen and was resented as a loner. He graduated from the academy and went on to an early career that was largely undistinguished. He volunteered for submarine duty and served, but he was not selected for command. Shortly after, he was selected, almost randomly, for a limited assignment to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where nuclear research was being performed. He quickly determined that the military use of nuclear power represented a future opportunity for the navy and for Hyman Rickover. From then on, it became his obsession and eventual path to a historic role in U.S. naval history. However, despite his increasing renown and respect in the field, rising to the rank of admiral, gaining international eminence, Rickover never seemed to lose the insecurity that came with being an outsider in his early years. The father of the "nuclear navy" and developer of the world’s first nuclear-powered submarine, the admiral became infamous for his subtle but highly effective interpersonal tactics. The classic Rickover maneuver was to position visitors—be they important government officials or departmental subordinates—in purposely unbalanced chairs. He literally kept those he dealt with off-balance when they were in his office. The admiral was employing Tactic 11—Physical Surroundings—to gain or maintain a sense of superiority and, consequently, an upper hand in dealing with others. Most of the people who sat in his office probably could not identify the physical manipulation—the rocky, uneven chair legs, their own literal instability versus Rickover’s solid, steady position—but they would say that they simply felt uncomfortable or at a disadvantage in his presence.

Before you meet with a person, you should do a little homework. Making identification an automatic habit will help ease this step and better your skills. First do some research to learn about the person and their background, reputation, and even quirks. The more you know about the person before you meet him or her, the better prepared and less surprised you’ll be by their behavior. Next make observations each time you encounter the person, watch closely, and listen carefully. Being aware of subtle cues from and verbal and nonverbal communication including body language can help you pick up on feelings and intentions. Finally, probe to help bond and find common ground even with challenging personalities. There are three types of difficult people: 1. The Situationally Difficult: Those people whose situation or circumstances make them difficult • Normally nice people who become difficult under stress • Their reactions are out of proportion to the event Success Technique - Once you address their emotion, negotiations can proceed 2. The Strategically Difficult: Those people who believe being unreasonable is effective • People who make you feel as if they are "up to something" • People who try to make you "play by their rules" Success Technique - If you address the tactic, they will modify their behavior. 3. The Simply Difficult: Those people with an ingrained personality characteristic • People who make demands but do not explain why • People who are difficult regardless of the situation Success Technique - If you balance the power, you have a better chance of success.

What makes a great influencer? In many cases, people try to get things done without understanding the other individuals involved in the process, their motivations and needs, and how they make decisions. SNI believes that to become as influential as possible, one must understand and implement four basic steps. First, one must build credibility, since without credibility and trust, no amount of logic will convince the other side. Second, one must engage emotions, since people tend to decide emotionally and collaborate with people they can connect with. Third, one must demonstrate logic, because everyone uses logic to hone in on interests and issues that are important for them. And fourth, one must facilitate action, since a decision is just a conversation until action has been taken. Mastery of these steps will improve one’s influence, facilitating the completion of more successful deals. One of America’s most influential individuals was George Gallup. During the presidential election of 1936, he created the Gallup Poll, which became one of the most reliable measurements for determining the public’s opinions. Gallup identified a successful trend in the business world and facilitated it to fit a specific need. After listening to dinner conversations, discussions during the long trip to work, and various other daily interactions, Gallup decided to use market research, the same methods used successfully to sell dishwashers, and sneakers, for politics. Using the data he gathered from his polls, Gallup predicted that The Literary Digest, the main source of political polling at the time, would publish an article predicting Landon’s victory based on its faulty survey results. Gallup was right. By thinking logically, he knew that the Digest used mailed-in ballots from addresses found from phone numbers or car registries to generate its polls. However, due to The Great Depression, millions of voters lived without cars or phones. Therefore, their voices would be left unheard. By surveying the "average voter", Gallop was able to determine that America would favor Roosevelt for President. He did his polling by conducting door-to-door interviews. Unlike most polls at the time which surveyed large, unscientifically selected groups, Gallup used significantly smaller groups that were methodically chosen to gather his research Gallup gathered his facts by engaging the public’s emotions, being approachable, and making a personal connection with the public. He accomplished this by conversing with people from all social classes rather than just waiting passively to receive a marked up piece of paper. Gallup sought to not only cover the populist views on politics, but also on education, hopes, fears, hobbies, ethics, religion, economics, law, and equality as well. He was able to identify what interests/ issues were the most important to Americans and to shed light on their current status. It was of utmost importance to Gallup for the integrity of his work to remain untarnished, swearing never to conduct solicited polling from a special interest group or from an organization with a specific plan. He also made the personal choice never to vote himself to ensure that he would not influence the views of those he was polling or raise any question about bias in his reporting. This sacrifice built credibility for his work. Lastly, just as with many other great influencers, he was able to change his procedures to maintain his trustworthy reputation. In 1948, when he ceased polling two weeks before Election Day, Gallup predicted the wrong outcome. After this incident he stated, "We are continually experimenting and continually learning", and the Gallup Poll has never been wrong about an election since.

For years, win-win has been taught in all kinds of negotiation curriculums. At SNI, we format the phrase WIN-win. We firmly believe that the best way to get what you want is to also adequately satisfy the other side’s wants. The following is an excerpt from the book "The Power of NICE" by Ron Shapiro, Mark Jankowski, and Jim Dale that explains the myth vs. reality of win-win and the difference in our use of the phrase. The Myth of Win-Win Negotiation experts (and amateurs) have been preaching win-win for some time. The trouble is, it’s unrealistic. The expression win-win has become more of a pop cliché than a negotiating philosophy. It’s either a winner’s rationalization for lopsided triumph, a loser’s excuse for surrender, or both sides’ phrase for when everybody is equally unhappy. There’s no such this as both parties winning identically, that is, both getting all of what they want. One party is bound to get more and one less, even if both sides are content with the outcome. The latter is possible. Both parties can be satisfied, but both cannot win to the same degree.   The Reality of WIN-win If someone is going to come out ahead, our aim is to make sure that someone is you. That’s WIN-win. Both parties win, but you win bigger. WIN-win is realistic. It isn’t easy-it requires focus and discipline but it is achievable. And it doesn’t turn negotiation into war. Because it’s not WIN-lose, WIN-clobber, or WIN-ransack-pillage-and obliterate. You don’t have to destroy the other side. On the contrary, you want them to survive, even thrive, in order to make sure the deal lasts and leads to future, mutually beneficial, deals. That’s The Power of Nice and WIN-win is what that power delivers.