• What are the tough negotiation strategies
• Examples of tough negotiations

Tough negotiations differ from the usual ones in that they are carried out using prohibited techniques. Such methods are practiced, as a rule, when the transaction is one-time and you need to get the maximum benefit from it. Each step forward in such situations means the loss of one's own benefit.

How to Prepare for Tough Negotiations

1. Determine your strengths and weaknesses. Try to understand how you can influence the interlocutor (for example, the prospects for cooperation with your company) and how he can put pressure on you (for example, more favorable conditions offered by your competitors).
2. Designate the desired result. Set for yourself "pessimistic" and "optimistic" boundaries, beyond which it makes no sense to negotiate. Then you will be able to defend your interests and not go beyond the established limits. It is also important to know what your partner wants from these negotiations, and develop a strategy depending on this.
3. Determine what you are willing to sacrifice. It is better to immediately indicate how much you are ready to “pay” for the result of negotiations to move from the “pessimistic” value of some parameter to the “optimistic” one.

CEO speaking

Mikhail Urzhumtsev, General Director of OAO Melon Fashion Group, St. Petersburg

I am not a supporter of hard methods and try to avoid conflicting partners. In no case should you leave your partner with the impression that he was “squeezed out” as much as possible. Further cooperation in such a situation is quite problematic. Negotiations should take place in a comfortable environment, and even business communication should not be devoid of a touch of humor.

Of course, there were situations when we firmly defended our positions. For example, quite recently I had to use a non-standard method of persuasion, but it can be described more as a conversation between a man and a man. In addition, our side has attracted another level of negotiators - people holding higher administrative positions.

The first stage of negotiations should include managers who are able to make decisions on their own and get out of unusual situations correctly. Communication at the level of directors or owners is already the last stage, since there is less room for maneuver.

Tough Negotiation Strategies

There are two strategies for conducting tough negotiations - defensive (defensive) and attacking.

Protective strategy. It should be used if you assume that the opponent is stronger than you professionally, emotionally and mentally. In this case, it is necessary to strictly fix those parameters below which it is impossible to fall. Ideally, the person who enters into such negotiations should not have the authority to make the final decision. For example, you are negotiating, and the contract itself is signed and endorsed by people who were not present at the negotiations, for example, members of the board of directors.

Usually, negotiations with the authorities follow this scheme. A businessman who decides mainly commercial rather than political issues is a weaker negotiator compared to a politician.

Attack strategy. It is better to use it if you are counting on winning. It is better to send a person to such negotiations who will be able to quickly navigate and make the right decision. For an attacking strategy, conflict is often beneficial: during a conflict, a person loses control over himself and becomes easily controlled. In a state of passion, the negotiator is able to make mistakes, which you can then use to your advantage.

An example of such tough negotiations is public debate, when it is extremely beneficial for the opposing side to lose control of itself. Literally a couple of phrases - and your opponent starts screaming, spitting, slurring his own thoughts, saying too much, and this makes a negative impression on the public. As a result, you, calm and reasonable, find yourself in a more advantageous position.

It will help you become an expert in negotiation.

How to deal with tough negotiations

Daria Ageeva, practicing psychologist, Master of the Faculty of Psychology, St. Petersburg State University

1. If the partner shouts or bursts into a furious speech in response to your proposals, then it is better to stop the negotiations or listen in silence (deep slow breaths and exhalations help to keep calm). When the partner stops screaming, say that you think this behavior is not constructive, and offer to focus on a specific problem. You can also politely say, “Sorry, we had a misunderstanding here.” If you can’t pause (due to time limits), go back. Re-state the main provisions in the thesis form. This will slow down the pace of negotiations.

2. If you receive a lot of information and do not have time to think it over, or they try to overload you with it, you need to slow down. Keeping records helps. In addition, if you did not take notes and suddenly start taking notes (with the words: “This is really curious, let me write it down!”), The person begins to think that he said something superfluous and slows down the pace of the conversation.

3. If you feel that they are openly trying to manipulate you, switch roles. Counter with the phrase: “Good idea, what do you think about it? Personally, I'm not entirely sure."

4. When faced with an indisputable fact, use an emotional response. An expression like “I don’t like this” or “This offer doesn’t make me very happy” is often stronger than good arguments.

5. If you are insulted, you can, in order to remain calm, switch from auditory to visual sensations - begin to carefully examine any object. You can play the situation in your imagination and present your partner in a funny way (for example, reduce the height of the person who caused the anger, presenting him as a bug).

6. If you feel that your emotions are on the edge, try to become aware of what emotions you are experiencing. Name them: I'm scared, I feel guilty, I'm irritated. Next, trace where tension arises in the body, and try to relax, stretch this place. Transfer the focus of attention from emotions, thoughts to physical sensations - pull the soles of your feet towards you so that tension appears in the calves, then slowly relax. A great way to relax is deliberately slow motion. Slowly take a bottle of water, slowly pour water into a glass, drink in small sips while looking at the bubbles.

How to Smooth Out Tough Negotiations

Tough negotiations can and even need to be translated into soft ones, especially in cases where you are aimed at long-term cooperation. Use the following methods:

Be open to the interlocutor. To translate tough negotiations into soft ones, you must first of all be flexible and open yourself. Clearly state your position: perhaps this will make your interlocutor go the same way (see. Seller and Buyer).

Talk about neutral topics. At the beginning of tense negotiations, it is sometimes useful to touch on topics that are not related to the conversation, but are interesting for the interlocutors, for example, hobbies (see. Tactics "become your own").If you are meeting for the first time, you can tell a little about yourself and your company. Naturally, you will achieve a greater effect if you do not turn the conversation into an official presentation.

Examples of tough negotiations in practice

Hayk Lazaryan, General Director of VIP Cruise, Moscow

Example #1. Once we had important negotiations with a German cruise company, the purpose of which was to conclude a very lucrative contract giving the exclusive right to sell cruises of this company on Russian market. Naturally, the Germans considered several more similar proposals.

The German partners who arrived impressed us with their unfriendly appearance and closeness. First, we laid a chic table in our office. After lunch, negotiations began, which were very difficult, and at some point we had to take a break.

After the coffee break, the tense tone of the German side softened a bit. But two hours later, when the main issues were discussed, the Germans made it clear that they were hungry again. Then I decided to take the guests to a good restaurant. But the discussion of possible cooperation that continued in the restaurant was not easy. The partners offered unacceptable conditions, did not listen to our arguments at all and did not want to make any concessions. There was no compromise. At some point, it began to seem to me that the Germans were hesitating and were not yet inclined to make a final decision in our favor. Then I wanted to hit them with something. Estimating that our competitors, most likely, took them to restaurants and Russian cuisine with nesting dolls will not surprise them, I suggested that the guests go to the Russian bath. Naturally, they agreed. We rented VIP apartments, which had everything: a steam room, relaxation rooms, and our own bar. The Germans rested from seven in the evening until half past four in the morning. As a result, the costs paid off: we won the tender and signed a contract on favorable terms for us. So sometimes in a situation of tough negotiations one should find non-standard solutions: the method of switching attention works flawlessly.

Example #2. It happens that people call and express their claims to me personally. Such negotiations cannot be called soft, and my task, as a leader who is interested in his clients, is to relieve tension and transfer negotiations to a peaceful course.

I make it clear to the person that I hear him, I delve into his problems. This is achieved by an elementary repetition technique. For example, he says: “You didn’t deliver the goods to us!”. I support: “Understood. We didn't deliver the goods to you." Claims continue: "Even in the delivery was a marriage." I answer: “Clearly. Also a marriage in delivery. And I even ask the client to speak more slowly, as I really write down the details of the claim. If a person understands that his dissatisfaction is taken into account, he will not aggressively demonstrate his "fi". The result is a useful, constructive conversation for both parties.

You can successfully repel an attack by asking: “Introduce yourself, please. What is the name of your legal entity? The more details you specify, the closer you will be to a conflict-free conversation. You asked a question, you answered it - this is already a constructive interaction. If there are professionals on both sides, any deal turns into soft negotiations.

Example #3. If the situation is heating up, then any abrupt action will help, a blow to the table, loudly said “Enough!”, An unexpected comparison. Incorrect questions should be answered openly and symmetrical questions should be asked as soon as possible. For example, in the framework of cooperation negotiations, you are asked: “Do you want to cash in on us?”. The answer should be: “Yes, we want to make money. You are not?".

If you are forced to do something, say loudly: “You are putting pressure on me!”. Once this is said, the possibilities of manipulation by your interlocutor are greatly reduced. Then you can turn the conversation into a peaceful direction (if you are planning a long-term cooperation) or even launch an offensive.

During tough negotiations, it is important to learn how to control your condition. Try to look at yourself from the outside, evaluate your actions. This approach will help to timely determine the line beyond which you can become a puppet in someone's hands. You should be concerned if your gestures have changed, you have begun to perform strange actions: tapping on the table, unreasonably rubbing your hands or feet. So, stroking the thighs with both hands is a subconscious gesture that means that you want to leave the place of negotiations. If you notice this, it means that the subconscious mind is signaling you about the danger. In this case, it is best to go out for a while, calm down and decide whether you want to continue negotiations or not. It is very useful to wash your face: the impact of water on the forehead triggers reflex mechanisms that calm the heartbeat and regulate metabolism. In three to five minutes, you can regain your balance and decide whether you need to continue the conversation. If not, say that, unfortunately, an urgent call has come in and you are forced to leave the negotiations. If you think that it is necessary to bring the matter to the end, calm down, gather your strength and go for the next "portion".

With some feeling of internal resistance, I proceed to this section of the book. Very often, after such information, people's mood deteriorates, as they begin to understand the real rules of the game, according to which they can play with them as well. And someone will recognize situations from their own lives in the described technologies.

Once again I want to emphasize that the mission of this book is to strengthen your personal security. Understanding the rules of the game makes it easier to work with them. And it doesn't matter what country you live in. Thank God that we have already gone through the stage of illusions, that everything is bad with us, while everything in the West is “in chocolate”.

Study an excerpt from the instruction of an employee of the purchasing department of a store of a fairly well-known global chain (slightly adapted to our mentality):

In the first rounds of negotiations, demand the impossible from partners;

Never agree to an offer made right away, even if it is beneficial to us;

Leave the most important questions for the partner at the end of the negotiations, influence the time limit;

Negotiate correctly, but take the opportunity to accuse the other side of being incorrect;

Negotiate mainly on topics that are beneficial to you;

Make your opponents pay more time for an agreement;

At every stage of your agreement, demand concessions beyond the standard;

Push the other side in negotiations with the positions of their competitors, provoke them to compete for the right to work with us;

Make them prove the attractiveness of their offer to us ...

Life is what it is. Therefore, take the information below, not as instructions for action. It's just another opportunity to "get off the trail."

Method 1. "Psychological breakdown of resistance"

Tough negotiations don't always look like that. On the contrary, they can be tactically implemented according to the principle of "lay softly, but sleep hard." It is this principle that is used as part of the strategy of the so-called demolition of the opponent's psychological position. Let's analyze the algorithm of the influencer's behavior step by step. Perhaps, once in a similar situation, you can find the best way to avoid breaking the psychological position.

The task of such methods is not negotiating, but what? A person is consciously guided through a series of stages, each of which affects his psycho-emotional state.

At the same time, it is not necessary to nod only at the power structures. The same thing happens in commercial negotiations. Therefore, I will outline the actions at each stage for both power and commercial negotiations.

The general goal of the technique is to psychologically break a person, deprive him of rational resistance, pushing him to spontaneous affective decision-making.

Stage 1. "Pseudo-victory"

Actions: a person is involved in a calm dialogue, his sense of comfort and security is enhanced. By describing the situation, there is an increase in the feeling of control of events on his part. “We just invited you, in general, to talk. We will really need your help, of course, as a witness ... ”At the same stage, intensive work is underway on a person’s self-esteem: compliments, encouraging communication, and so on and so forth. But already at this stage, a connection will be established between a person and compromising evidence (if this is an example of the activity of law enforcement agencies). What is compromising? When a person is forced in advance to confess to an event that compromises him, but he does not know this yet.

Purpose of the stage. It is quite transparent: reduce the psychological security of a person, his control over what is happening, but at the same time draw him into the subsequent action.

Stage 2. "Emotional attack"

Actions: what's happening? A sharp change in the style of communication with a person. In commercial negotiations, they just talked to you as a friend (at the previous round of negotiations), a comrade and a brother, and when you come to the next level of negotiations, they tell you: "Yeah, but you set me up!" At the same stage, the management of the intrigue often begins: we are not told the fact, but the feeling of guilt is untwisted. “I come to you as to a friend ... Do you know how I was at a meeting yesterday for you? Literally torn to pieces! I trusted you, and what did you slip me? I thought you had quality conditions".

If it's a force structure: “Well, you got it! Do you want to name the article right away or guess it yourself? Well done for even admitting it." It's the same thing, just different methods. In the mind of a person, anxiety is created through a reference to the presence of information that the other side did not know about. That is: “Everything would be fine if it weren’t for…” Work with obscure information (a method of managing negative intrigue) continues until a person begins, roughly speaking, to “twitch”, until his anxiety increases. What is required in this step? If a person has already confessed to something - an instant transition to psychological pressure. But not in relation to the fact, which has already been admitted. If attacked here, a person can still remain in a protected situation. The task is to keep a person in this state for a long time (overexposure, like a racehorse at the start).

Purpose of the stage: to involve a person in defense. Why? Remember from the course of physics: the voltage is higher, the greater the potential difference? This effect is used at this stage. The weak will be crushed already here. If a person is involved, while still holding a blow, trying to negotiate, the next stage comes.

Stage 3. "Mechanism"

A kind of soulless, automatically working process immediately appears. What happens in the negotiations at this stage? The representative of the influencing party demonstratively withdraws from the negotiations. They say to a person: “Listen, what are you telling me? The decision has already been made at the top. Goodbye already! At the same stage, a detailed story is presented about the consequences of compromising evidence for the object of influence.

There is a very fast logical attack through the threat of the future: new information is given out, a set of facts is presented that justifies the negative scenario of consequences for a person. That is, "everything would be fine, but ... everything will be bad." Note that here the attack is already in a specific direction - on the fact that the opponent confessed. Attack - it is valuable in itself. Here the reaction of the other side is no longer important, what happens to it is not important.

And at the same stage, there may be pressure by objective criteria, in which the other participant in the negotiations understands better. An example of such a move. The beginning of the 90s, when the importance of obtaining contracts and money for many Russian enterprises becomes a matter of survival. A representative of a German company visits a Russian woodworking plant. The topic of the meeting was the participation of the plant in a tender for the production of beer tables for Oktoberfest (a beer festival in Germany). In principle, the goods are situational. These tables are still allowed to be recycled after the event.

By the arrival of the “distinguished guest”, several cabinet makers manually make a sample of such a table. Imagine how much effort was expended! The Germans are greeted, as it should be with us, in the hope that a warm welcome will push him to make the “right” decision. After that, they offer to look at the sample. The representative of the German company walks around the table for a long time without saying anything. Then he takes out three balls, wooden, metal and plastic. Puts them on the table. He measures the distance they have rolled away from each other and marks it in his notebook. Then he puts a glass of water on the table and measures the deviation of its level, also marking it in a notebook. After doing a few more of the same simple measurements. And then comes his verdict: “Gentlemen, your product has not passed five evaluation parameters according to our quality system for this product category. If I measure further, and the results turn out to be just as negative, then you will not only be unable to work with us. In principle, you will have difficulty entering our market. Because we provide information about the quality of the products offered to us for general use. Based on this conclusion, pressure is later made on the terms of delivery. And, of course, the result is a significant drop in price. Of course, not in favor of the plant.

A similar move - a description of the inevitability of consequences - is also used in the communication of representatives of law enforcement agencies: “I think that if you are lucky, then seven years. No luck - tell your grandchildren, let them remember you a good man. You know, the law is the law. And your term is spelled out exactly in it. ” At the same time, the person who influences psychologically removes himself from the space of negotiations. He seems to rule out the possibility of influencing his position. In this case, for example, he says: “You don’t need to communicate with me, I don’t participate here anymore. What are you trying to convince me? There are objective criteria ... " Even a strong man who was ready to defend himself gives up when he is told : “And you have no one to solve the situation with! There are already coming objective consequences of your mistake. I'm not here!"

Purpose of the third stage- creating an active search behavior in the object of influence, feverish thinking about how to get out of the situation with less losses. It can be seen from the eyes that the person begins to rush about. Very often at this stage they take a break. If we are talking about the power structure, then the phrase sounds: “Sit down and think, we have the right to keep you for two weeks or three days.” If these are business negotiations: “Well, listen, think, call us sometime, better next summer. In fact, I wouldn’t call again!”

Understand that in this way the other side is trying to hold a pause! Through this, a person is pulled into the so-called “orientation behavior”: according to the emotional state of a person, it becomes clear that the “object of pressure” is rushing about and looking for a solution.

Stage 4. "Straw"

The name of the stage speaks for itself. What is offered to the person? Emotionless, without providing guarantees, moreover, a negative offer of help. “Listen, since we have some kind of relationship, I do not advise you to do this. Anyway, the situation is stalemate, you will do this. If you want. Even so, I think it's…” Notice how it sounds, right? It won't save you anyway, but you never know what happens! It's like they're throwing this offer of help at you. The task is clear again! "Let's just do it! Okay, let's at least talk."

Purpose of the stage: if at the first stage a person is relaxed, at the third stage he is unexpectedly tense and did not have time to calculate his scenario, then here he is depressed and begins to try to look for an ally. The task is to bring the opponent to readiness to look for exit options - to ask: “What to do now?”, “Maybe there are some options?”, “Maybe we’ll try something different with you?”, “Why so much about this right away ?!”

Grabbed a straw - the next stage is coming.

Stage 5. "Cap"

What is at this stage? Direct dictate of actions, but always with the shift of responsibility. "Well done! Once you decide…” So: “Sit down and write!”, “Well, if you think this is right, then call the boss”. First, responsibility will be pushed aside, then the direct dictate of actions!

The situation is classic, in life I meet constantly.

It is clear that this is one of many methods. I do not suggest using it, but forewarned means protected. I'm just asking you to evaluate each situation: what are they doing to you - are they negotiating or are you being dragged into script communication? If we find ourselves in such a situation, then at what point should we start to strain?

You can only interrupt the script at the second stage. On the first one, it can still be prevented; on the second, it can still be interrupted. If you have already begun to tense up, twitch, actively react, the promotion of everything else will go on. Be carefull. And careful.

The problem is not to get out from under the sight of a sniper rifle. The problem is that you can't get under it.

Method 2. "Creating an agent of influence"

Thoughts at the start...

A man walks around the city with a lantern, they ask him:

- "What are you looking for? Success?

- "Wealth?"

- "Why is it ?!"

- "And what about glory?"

- "I do not need her!",

“So what?”

- "Interlocutor!"

I would be sincerely sorry if among your loved ones you find people who use this technique. I want to remind you that the evaluation of actions should be based on an analysis of a person's motive. If the motive of a person's actions is positive, then he is not necessarily a “bear, bourbon, monster ...” After all, a doctor also sometimes hurts.

Now about the technique itself. Its main goal is to create an emotionally close contact with a person for the subsequent use of this contact in scenario communications.

Stage 1. "Mowgli"

A person is involved in a free dialogue, a feeling of trusting communication is created. In the process of dialogue, emotional support is needed for the interlocutor's story, work with his self-esteem. The task already known to us is being implemented - achieving the effect of psychological relaxation, creating a feeling of comfort in communicating with this interlocutor.

All this happens to obtain (read from a person) an indicative need. An indicative need is something that a person really wants (a thing, position, status, sexual partner, recognition of something, some kind of event, etc.), but he cannot afford to have it or even want it. He is not ready to talk about it (he is embarrassed, afraid, does not consider himself entitled), but at the level of subtle, emotionally reinforced signals of behavior, this breaks through (cast an envious glance at someone's car, said with anguish that it is difficult for him to grow quickly in his company). count, spoke irritably to his own leadership, etc.).

Stage 2. "Consent"

As soon as this is fixed by the recruiter, a careful dialogue around this need begins. This does not apply to a specific person, he is not asked direct questions about this problem or need. The conversation is in general on this topic. At the same time, the idea is strengthened in every possible way that it is right to want this, there is nothing shameful in this. Examples are given from the life of people who are authoritative for this person. As soon as it becomes clear that a person has begun an internal dialogue, he begins to think about the event, and there is a transition to the next stage. One important point needs to be emphasized here. A clear desire to convince a person usually only increases his resistance. Resistance and criticality are reduced if you managed to start an internal dialogue in the mind of a person. In a situation of internal dialogue, a person begins, as it were, to consult with himself. It remains only to throw in the dosed information correctly so that he moves towards making the right decision.

Stage 3. "Strengthening" I "

If it is clear that a person himself is moving towards a reassessment of the event, expresses agreement with the opinion of the interlocutor, then his readiness to solve the problem increases (change of job, readiness to commit some act, etc.). On the example of his life actions, the rightness in the possibility of this decision is emphasized. An experienced recruiter will never actively push the "object of development" to take action. This is dangerous because a person can delegate his responsibility for making a decision. And this is fraught with either a loss of autonomy (it will no longer be possible to say: “you yourself decided”), or an increase in his individual criticality in relation to the decision being made: “Yeah, it seems that they are imposing a decision on what needs to be done to me.”

At the same time, a re-arrangement of values ​​is carried out very clearly, a change in emphasis in the assessment of events: “It's not a bad move. You are not setting anyone up. You just honestly achieve what you have long deserved! Why should you work under this person if you already know more professionally than him? After all, he delegates to you all the main issues for key customers! At the same time, it is worth considering how such an overload is taken into account in the salary received..

Stage 4. "Help"

If a person joins the opinion of the recruiter, then and only then should an expression of readiness to help. Moreover, it is emphasized that this assistance is provided disinterestedly, solely for the sake of relating to this person: "We are friends. If you want, I can introduce you to the right people. And then decide for yourself. Most importantly, try to achieve what you have the right to.

Stage 5. "Dependency"

After the consent of a person to some act, the right of access to his personal space is fixed, the effect of an emotional umbilical cord is created. “You do it tomorrow, and in the evening I will call you and discuss your impression. The main thing - do not go in cycles. If it doesn't work here, let's move on. Just don't stop, keep moving forward. Life is not as long as it seems."

What is done with the recruited agent of influence? A person is emotionally dependent, it seems to him that a number of services have been done for him. And as they say, "over time, the cost of a free service increases dramatically." This created a good personal contact with this person. Usually agents of influence are used "in the dark", more often to receive or leak information. With their help, they also indirectly influence events in a competitive environment to which there is no direct access.

Once again I ask you to pay attention to the fact that it is important to understand the motives. There are people who are actually willing to help us disinterestedly. Therefore, it is extremely important to understand whether a person does this for the sake of friendship or pursues his own selfish goals. All the same rule from the series "Brigade": "Understand in this life: either you play, or they play you." The main thing is not to be on an emotional or value “hook”.

Why are we talking about the hook? Because the recruiter will definitely check whether you followed his advice. He was kind to you, so you will not upset him and say that the advice was good. For the recruiter, this is an opportunity to emphasize their importance to you in the future. You are emotionally grateful and willing to continue to share your difficulties with the person in the hope of getting advice. Giving you advice, a person influences you. At a certain point, you do not notice how you become a conductor of his ideas. If, for example, your colleague-competitor becomes the same conductor of his other ideas, then... Together with this colleague you are not immune from the fact that the ideas inspired by you will not contradict each other. The recruiter gets the opportunity to manipulate you, influencing you and your environment.

Understanding what you can expect from another person, let's look at how to get out of the script.

Diagnostics of the "recruiter"

While specific tactics vary, certain commonalities are highlighted below. The American Family Foundation brochure lists four signs of a recruiter.

1. This is the friendliest person you will ever meet.

2. This person is TOO interested in what you, as he found out, like to do.

3. Someone who showers you with compliments and praises and coolly assesses what can be taken from you: enthusiasm, energy, physical or intellectual strength, money, an apartment, etc.

4. The one who has all the answers to all questions.

When the prospect appears to be receptive, the recruiter makes a deliberate, calculated attempt to engage him in conversation, pique his interest, and captivate him in the following ways:

Showing concern for the intended client's well-being by expressing unusually high awareness of their feelings and emotional state, which leads the intended client to believe they are truly understood. For example, after learning about the travels of the recruit, the recruiter might say: “So you've been on the road for two months. You must be tired, feeling lonely, without any real roots?”;

Demonstrating a keen, unifying interest in the recruit's ideas, interests, hopes, goals, saying, for example: “Oh, you are a musician. Well, I just happened to be living with a group of musicians…”;

By maintaining eye contact, maintaining close physical intimacy, "attacking" sexually (in a psychological sense);

Retrieving personal information about the current position of the recruit, about his worries, problems, stresses. For example, a recruiter might ask: "What do your parents think about your travels across the country?", or "Do you have an intimate relationship with anyone?", or "Do you know what you want to do with your life?"

If the recruiter is successful, the recruit will feel an emotional connection to the recruiter and a willingness or desire to keep in touch. When recruited clients are considered ready, which may be after fifteen minutes of conversation or after a few random meetings, they may be invited to join or attend an event. Recruiters often tailor their descriptions of the proposed events (meeting the right people, getting the right information, overall usefulness, etc.) to suit the interests of the recruit. As always - already, perhaps, a boring parting word: be careful ...

Technique 3. "Counter attack"

This technique is a more detailed and technologically described “hit towards” strategy. It is used at the moment when the partner is clearly destructive and there is no reason to continue the dialogue yet. Such methods work especially well if it is necessary to make a positive impression on a third party watching the fight, as a person who knows how to take a punch and defend his position.

Like the previous ones, this technique consists of a number of steps.

Stage 1. Holding the punch

In response to an obvious provocation of the interlocutor, a demonstration of the degree of personal security is made. It can manifest itself in defiantly ignoring an attack or in an aggressive comment on a meeting: “Of course, I was counting on a smart question, but oh well, I’ll answer yours too ...”

- Do you want, like many others before you, to collect money from people and disappear?

- I will probably upset you very much with my answer, but I will have to do it: no, we don’t want to!

If it is important for you to demonstrate your constructiveness, you need to indicate the positive topic of your counterargument. In this case, it is better to reformulate the opponent's thought by joining it.

You are offering a poor quality product!

– You know, many doctors also say that eating meat is harmful, and sugar is just “white death”. However, you and I eat it and live quite well. Moreover, if we ate it less, we would live much worse.

Stage 2. Attack of a weak position

Never need to counter-argument all the statements of the opponent. Find the part of him that is rationally or emotionally weaker and attack it. There is a fragmentation of the enemy's resource: his position of the enemy becomes weaker, yours is strengthened, since he is forced to go on the defensive. And when a person prepared to attack, his ability to defend decreased.

Stage 3. Point strike

A counter attack of the opponent's position minimizes his claims, the meanings of his statement may change. You can use the classic “interpretation” pressure technique. It is also possible to collide the opinion of the opponent with the opinion of a significant group of people. In this case, the opponent's position is opposed to the common interest.

Step 4. Closing reaction

Reinforces the opponent's desire to defend and justify in response to your attack. It is important to prevent communication with your opponent from going into conversational mode. Close the possibility of further communication on your own, put an emotional point, after which a return to this topic will seem like a weak emotional reaction.

"Hard" options for a "counter attack" are given in A. Kochergin's book "Fireproof Tips".

Below are examples of the author's discussions and counterattacks on attempts at emotional provocations of the type of training he proposes in martial arts.

- Dear Andrey Nikolaevich, I do not agree! You might think that training can and should be done only by limited people. But none of those with whom I managed to talk a little makes an impression ... Hm ... How should I put it? .. Say, intellectually limited people.

Counter attack:

- We are all sick with something - some with obesity, some with a violent love for our people, some with gonorrhea, and some with a passion for koi (combat school of karate). I am sure that the prerequisites for each diagnosis were in our hands, so "limitation" should be read as "violent determination." I don’t believe otherwise, because since childhood I have been untalented, but hardworking.

“I am not a koi representative. They are not allowed to lose.

Counter attack:

We are not allowed to surrender. Agree, it's not the same thing.

A more correct version of the "counter attack", a version of the reformulation of questions at a press conference:

How do you want to surprise people? Just high prices in a poor area?

Counter attack:

– You know, we don't want to surprise people at all. I'll answer your question about how low-income people, according to your information, living in this area experience when looking at expensive products. It seems to us that it is very important that such stores appear in such areas, because it shows people the modern level to which they can aspire. Indeed, some people experience negative feelings, but this is on the surface. For the majority, this gives additional motivation for work, in order to earn money.

Lord Ramsay returns home from his club in the evening. Suddenly, a man in a mask stepped out of the darkness of the street, pointed a revolver at the lord and shouted:

"If you move, you're dead!"

“I don’t understand,” the lord replied. “If I move, it will be proof that I am alive.”

And a bit more…

The merchant came to the shepherd and said:

“Can you choose the sheep I want?”

“There is no such sheep in the world that is not in my flock,” the shepherd answered.

- Then find me one that is not white and not black, not red and not motley, not big and not small.

“Please, just come for her not on Monday, not on Tuesday, not on Wednesday, not on Thursday, not on Friday, not on Saturday, and certainly not on Sunday,” the shepherd replied.

So let's drink to the fact that we always know what we want!

In a counter attack, the following must be considered and used:

Focus on your opponent's belief system;

In response to incorrectness, you have the right to be incorrect as well, since it was not you who "unleashed the war";

Speak in the language of the opponent: "The thought expressed should be only a couple of degrees above the level of the crowd, otherwise her brains will boil";

If a more correct version of the reaction is important for you, then join the positive side of the interlocutor's statement as much as possible and evoke positive feelings; reduce the negative image and increase the positive;

It is important for people that we agree with them;

People painfully experience the loss of face in the eyes of other people, this can also be influenced;

Don't start a response without understanding its content, rather take a controlled pause;

Influence values ​​that are difficult to attack back.

Technique 4. "Intimidation"

A very unpleasant topic, but how often such a situation occurs in real life in an explicit and veiled form. The given definition of this type of impact is taken from one handbook for special services.

Intimidation is a dramatized threat of physical or psychological violence against a person and his loved ones with the aim of subordinating the object to someone else's will. Unlike refined blackmail, compromising information is not involved. Intimidation is most often used for:

Receiving information;

recruitment;

Violent coercion to any action;

Correction of the behavior of the "object".

A few points that we are forced to note in this (how I don’t want to use the word!) Technique. Intimidation is expressed in an explicit, covert or indirect form. What I suggest you remember if, by the nature of negotiations, you either have to deal with this phenomenon, or resort to this technique.

The professional never threatens directly. Serious people regard this as an inability to take a hit and as what is called “rotten show-off” in the criminal world (sorry for the slang). The task of an effective threat is to demonstrate your intention to go all the way. The main effect is to make a person spend more energy on defense than the attacker does. The real threat should not be demonstrated, but implied (the partner himself guesses about some resources that will be introduced into the game, if not ...).

When trying to exploit someone else's sense of fear, it's helpful to know that:

Each subject has a limit of mental endurance, beyond which he is not capable of further resistance to the emotion of fear; in this case, there are two types of reaction: a) chaotic behavior or some kind of numbness; b) an uncontrollable, often irrational threat attack: "A cat cornered can become a tiger";

Tactical shock resulting from intense fear typically lasts 15 to 30 minutes; this time is used to enhance the effectiveness of the impact;

The most effective force effect is when it does not follow the principle of flickering "stronger - weaker", but when its effect increases with each new stage;

Influencing the psyche, fear causes disturbances in perception, upsets memory and thinking, and makes it impossible to focus on the professional task being solved, in our case, negotiating; that is why its use in negotiations sometimes becomes effective - it can well break the prepared scenario of the opponent;

When the subject believes that there is some way out of the created situation, but he cannot use it, then panic arises; the fear of the unknown is always more painful than the fear of a visible and understandable danger;

When people don't know what to expect, they usually expect the worst;

The incitement of fear is facilitated both by forced inaction, and by the loss of hope and uncertainty;

People who are physically or mentally tired are much more submissive and pliable than those who are rested and self-confident. That is why the effective use of threats at the beginning of negotiations is rare: first, psychological exhaustion (physiological, intellectual, energetic) or removal of a person’s psychological protection (through emotional relaxation) is carried out;

A sudden shift in established relationships in people with a weak type of nervous system usually causes mental trauma, or, more simply, confusion, fear and despair, which is why emotionally weak people negotiation games begin, which consist in transferring responsibility for the collapse of relations;

In people with a strong type of nervous system and adrenaline addiction, the threat can provoke not fear, but, on the contrary, increased energy of resistance, excitement, increased vitality (the Sherlock Holmes effect). This is especially true of intimidation when there is a specific object that can be resisted.

Technique 5. "Chattering"

It is used in a situation where the partner is more in control of the situation and can go to extreme measures. It is used not only when taking hostages, working with demonstrative blackmailers and suicides. It can also work if your partner is ready to start an irrational fight against you both in negotiations and in business interaction.

There are several rules that are implemented in this technique:

The technique is used in situations where the partner is emotionally excited and may not be aware of the rationality of actions;

It is necessary to determine the events with which the object is associated with positive emotions (life experience, family, significant relationships);

In a situation of communication, joining goes precisely to these events, the goal is to shake the interlocutor at least for a small dialogue;

The most effective move is a conversation for two, discussing the situation as if on behalf of the interlocutor;

It is necessary to create an identification with the object, the person must feel that they understand him and are ready to talk with him, that his interlocutor is also looking for options to solve the situation together with him;

It is impossible to destroy a person's feeling that the situation is under his control;

Defiantly make concessions on insignificant things, comply with minor requirements;

At the same time, as a gesture of goodwill, insist on reciprocal concessions, which should demonstrate the seriousness of the intention to agree; this is necessary in order for the negotiator to act as a guarantor of this person before some third party;

Tighten the time for making decisions and actions, try to psychologically exhaust a person with uncertainty;

Change the psychological time of the situation, put the interlocutor into the mode of thinking about the past and the future; try to make a person realize the responsibility for his act;

At the same time, it is important to psychologically justify him through understanding the motives of his behavior;

The tone of communication is by no means commanding or asking;

Negotiations should be carried out by a person who has the authority, but does not have the right to make a decision; while constantly emphasizing that everything possible is being done to resolve the situation;

It is necessary to bring a person to a conversation about the motives of his act;

The ideal is to get the person to act in a positive way;

In the worst situation, try to push him to take action to eliminate him as a threat.

Method 6. "Definition of false information"

This technique is based on several sad conclusions from the experience of each of us in conducting or analyzing situations of negotiations.

Point the first and the most banal. The point is that people don't always tell the truth. This also applies to negotiations.

We do not always have the opportunity to double-check the veracity of the interlocutor through additional clarification of the facts.

Often, even when telling the truth, people try to embellish it in order to make a better impression.

Catching your partner misrepresenting the facts is a good way to counterattack in negotiations, as he now needs to restore trust in your tactical interaction with him.

Therefore, this technique assumes several stages of organizing a conversation with a partner, which allow you to tactically, “by eye”, double-check the truth of the events described if you did not participate in them and cannot clarify through other channels.

Stage 1. Finding out

Ask your negotiating partner about the events in question. Show genuine interest, pretend that something “hooked” you in the interlocutor’s story. It is important not to show that your attention is due to distrust of the partner's information. In the process of questioning, strive to create a comfortable space for communication. Force you to turn in information and focus your attention on capturing the details of the story.

At this stage, it is important to cluster the interlocutor's story: decompose it into a logical sequence of events: “Yeah, so you spent half an hour negotiating, and then went to their representative’s office.” At the same time, in the mode of clarifying the story, you can ask a leading question. The question can be related to a detail of the story of the event, or even better, to the emotion experienced: “... Was it not disgusting to drink in such a company? Can't you relax with them? At the same time, be sure to take into account the situations in which the interlocutor, as you think, swam. But as long as you do not express active doubt about their truth.

Often the interlocutor can be caught already at this stage: since many people can immediately see (without any eye access signals, forgive me NLP apologists), a person begins to remember or quickly invent.

Stage 2. Change the background

Act as the initiator of the transition to a new topic within the general outline of the conversation. It is important to continue communication until the interlocutor is distracted from the main topic of the conversation, has removed rational control over it. Best of all, if at the same time he is sure that you "swallowed" the information. Therefore, consolidate his success with a compliment: “Yes, it looks like you had to endure a difficult situation. Not everyone could." Sometimes you can see after such a "move" a sharp increase in the psychological relaxation of a person. This may also indicate a distortion of information: he was glad that the “disinformation” had passed.

Stage 3. Attack

In the process of a relaxed conversation with the interlocutor, in the mode “by the way, I remembered that I wanted to ask a question ...”, an additional question is asked - detailing according to the information of the previous stage of the conversation. The question should be tied to the most specific detail that the interlocutor could not miss. It can also be associated with direct provocation, catching a person on contradictions in his story. If it is clearly visible that a person internally “rushes about”, begins to make excuses, counter-aggresses, then it is possible to use psychological pressure to obtain tactical advantages in this round of negotiations.

Stage 4. Evaluation and decision making

If the distortion of information becomes obvious, increase the pressure. Otherwise, return to step 3. Even if you failed to catch a person in contradictions, then you demonstrate to him your tight control over the information provided. In most cases, this does not harm the negotiations.

The methodology seems to be complicated. But in the situation of studying it at trainings, the vast majority of participants easily manage to reveal the moments of the conversation in which a person is trying to provide distorted information. There are not so many people in their lives who are really "trained" in the process of managed communications.

Method 7. "Psychic exhaustion"

A non-standard method, often used as a psychological move, will be described here. It is proposed its variety associated with the method of psychological pressure. You may be familiar with the broken record technique. Its main rule is: you do not get involved in an argument with your opponent, you just insist on your own. In a more rigid version of the use of this technique, it is constructed as follows. For example, a person does not want to fulfill his obligations, which you agreed on earlier. At the same time, he must be ready to argue them with a mass of his own objective reasons. This technique does not work if the partner just rested. It is effective only if the interlocutor wants to "save face" in contact with you. So you answer his reasoning for why he can't do what he promised using the following steps.

1. Repeat the interlocutor's argument, but at the same time reformulate it in a way that is unfavorable for the interlocutor: "I understand that you want to refuse your promise, but ..." Ideally, it is better to choose a reformulation that makes the interlocutor feel uncomfortable.

2. In the second part, you continue to insist on your options for action.

3. With the resistance of the interlocutor, you gradually build up psychological pressure. This can be achieved through a pause, an increase in the negative emotional background of communication, a demonstrative indifference to the opponent’s statements, an emphasized lack of emotion in communication, the use of “hidden quotes”: “... I wouldn’t even talk to another, because I would perceive such an act as meanness and therefore immediately ... I understand that you have problems with ... but we have a normal relationship with you ... and therefore I hope that you will do what you promised.

4. The blame for the negative development of the situation must be shifted to your opponent: “Our relationship was built normally, but if you see the need to develop it in this direction, then this is your choice, and I will have to take it into account in our future relations.”

Method 8. "Hidden provocation"

Since the previous method indicated the option of using the “quote mark” technique in communication, we will dwell on it in a little more detail. This technique is used as a method of hidden aggression and hidden threat. At the same time, the attacker cannot be blamed for this, since the effect of contradictory denial is at work. Moreover, the person being attacked seems to be assured of their positive attitude. As a small example from life - the phrase of a person to whom you came on a business or personal matter, and he knows this: “It's great that you came! And then in the morning there are only idiots with bad requests. What are you complaining about?" Note that the person is kind of glad, but just “as if”. The phrase of the owner of the office already contains a hidden assessment and the ability to inflate the conflict of expectations: “Well, I thought, at least you will come with a normal topic.”

Having agreed to sell their house, having received an advance for the transaction, the owners packed their things and were ready to move. At this point, the buyer asked for a delay of a couple of months, as he could not sell his own apartment. At the same time, he refused to increase the amount of the advance or, moreover, to pay compensation for the forced delay. The owners reasonably noted that they could not promise anything, since they were forced to look for another buyer and therefore were ready to consider the issue of returning the advance. The buyer's response was as follows:“I always try to be correct and try to negotiate. One of my friends in such a case would connect various organizations, including the judiciary. The situation, you see, is controversial. Until the court has made a decision, there is no possibility to sell the property. But we are reasonable people, I am sure that we will avoid all this. .

Often in a situation of using the “quote mark” technique, people retreat because there is no possibility of a direct counterattack. And there is a feeling that the person seems to have remained correct in relation to the current situation.

Method 9. "False freedom"

A person is able to resist more actively when there is someone to do it against. This technique is based on the principle of providing choice without choice. Remember the proverb: "Wherever you throw it, everywhere is a wedge." This is the principle that people who use this technique operate on. Here, too, there are a few rules.

1. The situation is prepared in advance to the extent that to launch a negative scenario, it remains to do minimal actions.

2. You must be ready to demonstrate this convincingly for the target.

3. You really need to be ready to do what you say.

4. In this case, demonstrative indifference works as a communication style.

Moscow office of one of the regional factories. The owner of the plant received information that the director of the representative office "stole a lot of money to the side." For your personal needs, of course. Without any conflict, the task is given to collect all the necessary evidence base and initiate a criminal case. At the same time, communication with a person is superficial and remains normally partner-like. When everything was ready, a conversation took place:“So it is, dear. Here is the data on how much money you spent on your interests. Here are the materials for the establishment of a criminal case. Over there in the reception area are representatives of the relevant organizations that will continue to deal with you. It's not a threat. For me, as the owner, two options are possible. Option one, using your example, I show everyone how not to act in a relationship with me. And I don't care how much money I lose. Life doesn't end. Option two, we will now agree on the amount that you must return. Naturally, it will be somewhat larger than the one you stole. At the same time, we will designate the terms and guarantees that you will do it. Which option do you choose?"

Already according to the logic of the organization of the situation, it is clear which option was chosen.

Method 10. "Value conflict"

The deepest misconception is that people are most often recruited through pressure to make a decision. The most effective recruitment occurs through changing the weight of values ​​in a person's decision-making structure. Every person has values, and there are many of them. Values ​​constitute the structure of personality, and their destruction leads to the disintegration or change of a person's personality. A person is the least protected in a situation of internal value conflict, when significant values ​​clash in the mind of a person, and he cannot determine which of them is more significant. Remember in childhood the most sadistic question to a child from not very smart parents: “Who do you love more: mom or dad?”

Even an adult in a situation of serious value intrapersonal conflict begins to change the external conditions of his life.

All the same negotiation techniques that we outlined in the third section work. But the main task of the negotiation script is to provoke a person into an internal conflict and offer his algorithm of actions as a solution. There are very good examples from films. Let me remind you of one of them.

As an example, the film "State Counselor"

The situation of recruiting one of the representatives of the militant group, Akhmet (Seleznev), who fell into the hands of the police.

SELEZNEV: "If you please, frighten me, but I am not one of the shy ... Comrades know me well, they will believe me."

INVESTIGATOR: “Yes, how not to believe the hero of the revolution? Only a hero is a knight, without fear and reproach, and you are a mischievous one with us!

(The investigator turns to the guards.)

INVESTIGATOR: “I took some little things with me ... Admire, gentlemen! This is Mr. Seleznev in the most vile institution on Ligovka. Here it is, I wanted thrills ... And this is him with a ten-year-old girl ... "

SELEZNEV (in a preface): “What ten year old? She is fourteen years old, the whole Ligovka has been going to her for 3 years!”

INVESTIGATOR: “Ah, well, that changes things, mister revolutionary! This radically changes things, fourteen years is the time for a revolutionary! Here, gentlemen, look again, because this is a secret filming, a new technique, admire!

SECURITY: "What a disgusting thing! .."

INVESTIGATOR: “Yes, you, my soul, Seleznev, should go to the anarchists, you would be more comfortable there, with simpler morals ... And yours will not forgive you for this ... Such, my friend, feasts for the bright cause of the revolution ... After that, any dirty tricks will be believed about you , I know that!”

SELEZNEV: "How do you know?"

INVESTIGATOR: “Listen, honestly speaking, I just feel sorry for you. It's sad to see a talented person die. Well, why do you need these flour worms, these dreary worms? You are a person, in fact, cheerful, reckless, unrestrained, in this we are similar, I am also a gambler, also a gambler. Therefore, I propose to you, think, Seleznev! You and I can play such a game, as in British football, with one touch. Spit on all your bombs and daggers ... everything will be, and risk, and excitement!

SELEZNEV: "Give me a drink."

INVESTIGATOR: "Would you like some tea?"

INVESTIGATOR: “Agree, today you are a puppet in the hands of your party leaders, and I suggest that you become a puppeteer yourself. Well, isn't it tempting?"

SELEZNEV: “I will pull their strings, and you me?”

INVESTIGATOR: “Listen, I trust you with my life, I will pray for you. You break, I'm finished. What is your nickname among the revolutionaries?

SELEZNEV: "Akhmet."

INVESTIGATOR: “Akhmet, it's funny. And I suggest you ... And let's you be Guidon?

SELEZNEV: "Why Guidon?"

INVESTIGATOR: "Well, why not... You will fly from this island of Buyan to the kingdom of the glorious Saltan either as a mosquito, or as a fly, or as a bumblebee, how many people are there in BG?"

SELEZNEV: “Not counting me, three. The eldest is Green, Grinulya, no one knows his real name. Also Emelya, such a smart man, he loves risk and the kid is still quite. Bullfinch, Green is training him.

INVESTIGATOR: “Do you have an emergency connection with them?”

SELEZNEV: "That's all!"

INVESTIGATOR: “Calm down, calm down, Gvidon. I'm not going to keep you on a short leash. I'm not going to, and there will be no surveillance of you. You are alone, you choose, all decisions are yours alone. You are the player, the fisherman and the hunter."

There will be an opportunity, reconsider this scene from the film precisely as a technology of value conflict. Values ​​form the structure of a person's personality. Their collision sharply reduces the resistance to external influences. In this method, they receive information about the basic values ​​that are important for a person, establish control over them, and then begin to control the choice of a person. The conflict of values ​​always causes internal tension. Looking for a way out, a person often acts in accordance with a scenario defined by someone.

Let me remind you once again of the basic rule: "Forewarned is forearmed." When we encounter any kind of influence on our own consciousness, we first turn on mental protection. Understand where is the “path” that they are trying to push you onto. And then who will beat whom. Let's summarize this section.

We have considered only some of the techniques used in tough negotiations. Like any tools, they are out of value. I do not recommend them and do not ask you to use them. These are regular pictures from life, showing how it sometimes happens (when fortune shows us different parts of its body). Once again I want to remind the motto of the survival school: “To anticipate, if possible, to warn, if necessary, to act”, because “Nothing prevents you from enjoying life as much as life itself.”

Try to remember simple rules that can help you avoid more hits in situations where harsh communication technologies are used:

In each situation, determine the degree of your guilt and have the courage to admit it;

Do not stoop to revenge and slander, it is better to learn how to control the dosage of the truth;

Have the patience to improve yourself;

Don't become dependent on other people's opinions, just consider them;

Avoid value conflicts and be able to negotiate with yourself;

Enjoy the quality, not just the standard of living.

“Joy begets a smile. Smiling brings pleasure. Pleasure is the source of satisfaction. Satisfaction is the mother of victory."

Confucius

Perhaps these words of Confucius will prompt you to think about your own path to happiness.

Negotiations in a tough style, regardless of their outcome, as a rule, do not improve relations with the opponent. If you achieve a solution to the conflict in your favor, its hostility towards you can be considered guaranteed (if it was not, it will arise, and if it was before, it will increase significantly). It's even worse if you don't get your way. Then, in addition to the hostility of the opponent, a feeling of superiority, and perhaps even contempt for you, will almost certainly be added. This will greatly reduce your chances that the next negotiation will succeed in a win-lose approach and that the conflict will ever be resolved favorably for you (unless you find some additional resources to influence your opponent). And if your opponent also adopted a tough style and the negotiations as a result reached a dead end, then you will “mirror” experience the same feelings for him as he does for you. Here, the worst destructive effects of conflict can hardly be avoided.

Hard style is a dangerous style. Paraphrasing the appeal known to motorists: “I’m not sure - don’t overtake!”, You can say in relation to this style: “Not sure - don’t use it!” It is worth negotiating in a tough style only when, firstly, you are not interested in establishing good relations with your opponent, but only aim to insist on satisfying your requirements on controversial issues and, secondly, you are sure that the balance forces you have a clear advantage over your opponent.

In the absence of these conditions, it is better not to resort to this style. True, if you are in an extreme situation and feel that you have nothing to lose (you have no other choice), then there is nothing left but to embark on tough negotiations. But this is a risky decision, and one should be aware that the probability of losing here is high. There are some other situations in which a hard negotiating style is justified. For example, when you lead a team and know what needs to be done, while your employees do not know the state of affairs or are not competent enough to understand it, and are opposed to you, and circumstances do not allow them to give them the necessary information or do not leave time for explanations and discussions.

The technique of hard negotiation style comes down mainly to various methods of demonstrating one's strength. This power may be real or only apparent, but the only important thing is that the opponent recognizes it. If he is sure that forceful actions will be carried out, there is no need for real actions.

There are two main tactics in hard-line negotiation: the ultimatum tactic and the concession-squeezing tactic.

Ultimate tactics: essence and conditions of application

This tactic is one of the toughest and is used, as a rule, when implementing the "win-lose" or "lose-lose" strategy. It is characterized by the presentation of an ultimatum at the very beginning of negotiations. Ultimatum - demands made by one of the parties to the conflict to another in a categorical form, indicating specific deadlines for fulfilling these requirements and the threat of applying measures of influence in case of refusal.

The main reception of the ultimatum - the threat. In addition, in the process of presenting an ultimatum, the following can be used: blackmail, demonstration of force, bluff and other means of manipulation. Often in the ultimatum tactics, special techniques are used: "reception of alternatives" and "shutter reception".

An ultimatum is presented to the opponent at the very beginning of the negotiation process; in a categorical, non-controversial form, it is indicated what he should do with the threat to apply measures in case of refusal. Usually, this also stipulates a period during which a final answer must be given to the ultimatum. The calculation is made on the fact that the enemy, realizing the danger of the threat, will fulfill the requirements.

Here is how Ostap Bender delivers an ultimatum to the "underground millionaire" Koreiko:

“According to my information, you have seven or eight million. The folder is selling for a million. If you don't buy it, I'll take it to another place right away. They won't give me anything for it, not a penny. But you will die. I am telling you this as a legal entity to a legal entity...

"Show me the case," said Koreiko thoughtfully.

“Don’t fuss,” Ostap remarked, opening the folder, “I’ll be in command of the parade.”

It is more desirable for Ostap Bender not to carry out his threat, since this will give him nothing; he wants to use her only as a means of blackmail, because only in this way can he get his million. Therefore, Ostap presents Koreiko with the threat that accompanies the ultimatum demands, openly and in the brightest colors, striving for her to make a proper impression on the "underground millionaire" and force him to give up the money.

But when Koreiko, having made sure that the folder really contains materials that are detrimental to him, tries to bargain, to bring down the asking price, Ostap does not enter into trade: he makes it clear that he will rather go through with his threat than reduce the ultimatum demand put forward.

“Goodbye,” Ostap said coldly, “and please stay at home for half an hour. They will come for you in a wonderful lattice carriage.

"That's not how things are done," said Koreiko with a merchant's smile.

“Perhaps,” Ostap sighed, “but, you know, I am not a financier. I am a freelance artist and a cold philosopher."

And Koreiko accepts the ultimatum.

The ultimatum tactic is good because it shortens the negotiation process and makes it possible to resolve the conflict "in one fell swoop." But one can hope for such a quick outcome only on the condition that the threat will make the right impression on the enemy. If he neglects it, then he will have to face a dilemma: either carry out the threat or retreat. A retreat would mean that the ultimatum tactic didn't work. Therefore, before applying it, two questions must be considered:

1) How great are the chances that your opponent will react to the threat and fulfill the requirements shown to him in the ultimatum, so that the threat will not need to be carried out?

2) If it is not possible to “frighten” the enemy, do you really have sufficiently formidable measures of influence at your disposal, will you decide to use them, and will this not be too high a price for you to get out of the conflict?

It is possible that before entering into negotiations, some preliminary steps should be taken to create conditions under which the enemy will be more receptive to your ultimatum.

Example. Ostap Bender, before deciding to negotiate with Koreiko, does a great job of extracting information that compromises him. But this is not enough: the “great combine”, in addition, indulges in additional tricks aimed at “bringing confusion into the enemy’s camp”, depriving him of peace of mind. He directs a sassy beggar to Koreiko, who grabs the underground millionaire by the hand and mutters: “Give me a million, give me a million, give me a million!” Sends him the book "Capitalist Sharks" with the first phrase crossed out: "All the great modern fortunes are acquired dishonestly." He sends mysterious telegrams: “The Countess, with a changed face, runs to the pond,” “The meeting continues for a million kisses.” "Load the barrels of oranges brothers Karamazov." And this really sows anxiety in Koreiko's soul, which, according to Ostap, should make him more pliable when the time comes for negotiations.

Special Moves

Depending on the circumstances, various techniques can be used to increase the impact of the ultimatum on the enemy.

Choice of two evils (acceptance of alternatives). This technique allows you to somewhat soften the position of the enemy and create for him at least the appearance that he has some kind of initiative in resolving the conflict, and not just forced to agree with a decision unequivocally determined by you. The technique consists in the fact that you outline two (or maybe and more) options for ending the conflict, which are equally good for you as an example, and offer your opponent in an ultimatum form to choose one of them. This gives him the opportunity to "save face" to some extent, even if he understands that the choice given to him is actually fictitious. The proposed alternatives, in fact, are identical in importance for the opponent, and he has no choice as such.

Shutter tactics. Its essence is to make it clear to the enemy that you are in a hopeless situation, which simply does not give you the opportunity to change your position ("I have no choice"). Invoking this technique assumes that you are not just unsubstantiatedly claiming that you are in such a situation, but also providing your opponent with information that confirms your words. Sometimes a "leakage of information" is specially organized, which should reach the enemy.

Shutter reception differs in that the ultimatum impact and the enemy is through their own weakening of control over the situation. In this case, the initiator of the ultimatum imitates the creation of a hopeless situation for himself, tying it to grave consequences if the other side fails to fulfill the requirements. This technique is widely used by terrorists. .

Example shutter tactics . Two trucks are moving towards each other on a narrow road. Someone needs to pull over to the side of the road to pass. Nobody wants to give in. And then one of the drivers, in front of the other, tears off the steering wheel and throws it out the window. Now he has no way to turn, and the other driver has to make a concession and pull off the road.

The paradox of this technique is that you strengthen your position in the conflict by weakening your control over the situation.

When analyzing an ultimatum tactic, it is important to take into account the conditions for its use. The professional issuance of an ultimatum implies an extremely disadvantageous position of the opponent in the conflict. Therefore, to achieve this situation, waiting techniques: delaying the start of negotiations, deliberately being late or not arriving at an established meeting, avoiding contact with an opponent, etc.

Estimated Delay . Negotiations are postponed until the escalation of the conflict reaches such an extent that the enemy will be in a very disadvantageous position. At this point, he is presented with an ultimatum. For example , negotiations between the trade union committee and the administration are being put off, and meanwhile preparations are underway for a strike. And, when literally a few hours remain before the announced start of the strike, the trade union leaders offer the administration to start negotiations and give it an ultimatum in the hope that the pre-stormy atmosphere that has created will make it more compliant.

In addition, you should be aware that an ultimatum can be put forward not only at the beginning of negotiations in order to carry them in the desired direction, but also in the process of negotiations. As a rule, in this case, the ultimatum is aimed at transferring negotiations into the mainstream of power tactics (for example, "win-lose"), or at ending the negotiations altogether. In the second case, the ultimatum is presented in a form that is obviously unacceptable to the opponent. In this case, the ultimatum is deliberately constructed in such a way that the opponent rejects it. Here, in addition to unacceptable content requirements, insults, violation of legal and moral norms are used. All this is used in order to use the enemy's refusal to justify their planned violent actions against him.

In international relations, ultimatum tactics are commonly referred to as a last resort followed by emergency measures. In recent history, for example, the United States resorted to ultimatums to stop the aggressive actions of the Iranian ruler Saddam Hussein and force him to comply with UN decisions. An ultimatum acts either as a final attempt to resolve a conflict through diplomacy, or - when deliberately delivered in an unacceptable form - as a de facto declaration of war. Refusal to comply with the ultimatum serves as a basis for the outbreak of hostilities.

The tactics of squeezing concessions

This tactic differs from the ultimatum in that the requirements are not presented to the opponent immediately, but in stages. Moreover, each of the requirements presented is presented as exhaustive.

First, they formulate the most acceptable requirements for him and ensure that they are accepted. Then, as he makes concessions, more and more "sacrifices" are sought from him. The sequence of demands is built taking into account the reaction of the opponent to each of them and what methods of persuasion or coercion will be most effective in each case. Obviously, the tactic of wringing concessions is used in the win-lose strategy, but it can also be used to achieve the main goals in other strategic approaches.

Example. Due to the fault of A., a traffic accident occurred: his car collided with B's car. The drivers decided to settle the matter amicably. After inspecting his car, B. said that repairs would require approximately 3,000 rubles. A. did not have this amount with him. We agreed that B. would come to A. for money tomorrow. Upon arriving, B. said that his car had suffered more damage than it seemed at first glance, and listed a number of damages that he had not noticed yesterday. The amount of repairs increased to 3600 rubles. A. gave this amount on receipt. However, a day later, B. said that due to inflation, repairs would cost more, and demanded another 700 rubles. When A. rejected this demand, B. began to threaten him with various troubles, including physical violence and a car. A. again conceded and gave B. the required amount against a receipt that B. had no claims. But after some time, B. again demanded an additional amount, and in response to the refusal he warned that he “turns on the meter”, so that the refusal to pay the “debt” will only increase its size. A. understood that B.'s threats are quite real, and this forced him to make concessions several more times.

Anotherexample from the field of diplomacy. The Prime Minister of Malta used the tactic of squeezing concessions in negotiations with Britain in 1971 over British military bases on the island. Every time the British thought that an agreement had already been reached, he said: "Yes, I agree, but there is one more small problem." And the little problem, it turns out, was 10 million pounds. Art. in cash, then in job security for workers on bases with a lifetime contract, then in something else.

When applying the tactics of squeezing concessions, various means of positional and psychological pressure on the opponent are used, weakening his will to resist.

Positional pressure

It consists in creating conditions that force the opponent to make concessions in order to achieve at least some useful result for him. Let's take a look at some typical positional pressure techniques.

"Closed door" - refusal to enter into negotiations. This is the first symbolic sign of positional pressure: it demonstrates that only the enemy needs negotiations, and at the same time forces the latter to take the position of a “beggar”, who is forced to “beg” to at least talk to him. A demonstrative refusal to enter into negotiations is applied on the condition that the enemy is interested in negotiations. In this case, he is ready to make concessions in order to attract the opposite side to the negotiations.

"Pass Mode" . A demand for a preliminary concession is put forward as a condition for the further continuation of negotiations. Such a demand can be put forward at the very beginning of the negotiations, and at any other stage. A concession on the part of the opponent plays the role of a pass that allows him to pass to the next stage of the negotiation process.

"Sight". The "approval" technique is used when an agreement on some issue is almost reached, but it does not fully suit the initiator of squeezing concessions. When agreement is almost reached on some issue, a statement is suddenly made that the opponent’s proposal “goes beyond our powers” ​​and needs to be agreed with higher authorities. A break is made, after which it turns out that higher authorities are ready to endorse the adoption of this proposal only if certain amendments are made to it. This technique is calculated on the fact that the enemy cannot wait and is ready to make new concessions, if only an agreement was concluded now.

"External Danger". A willingness to accept some proposal of the opponent is demonstrated, but at the same time a warning is made that it will not be possible to fulfill it due to the intervention of some extraneous, external forces. The opponent is given a choice: either to withdraw his proposal himself, or to recognize the admissibility of its non-fulfillment “due to circumstances beyond the control of the contracting parties”. Such conditions are nothing but a form of forced concession.

Psychological pressure

tricks psychological pressure somewhat different from the positional pressure. If the methods of positional pressure are based on the creation of specific conditions that force the opponent to make concessions, then psychological methods are aimed at weakening the will of the enemy, at inducing him to a subconscious desire to quickly end the negotiations at the cost of unplanned concessions. Let's look at some of these methods.

Belittling the Opponent . This can be done in various forms:

personal attacks (“fool”, “talking nonsense”, “I see that you do not understand anything in this matter”, “it is difficult to negotiate with such an idiot”);

instructive instructions (“no need to be nervous”, “do not use rumors”, “think quickly”, “it would be better to write it down instead of twirling a pencil in your hands, otherwise you will forget”);

remarks about appearance, clothing, etc. (“It looks like you didn’t sleep at night?”, “You look kind of wrinkled”, “what are you doing here with your dirty boots”);

ignoring (the opponent does not seem to be noticed - he is made to wait, the conversation with him is interrupted for phone calls or communication with other people, they do not respond to his questions and comments).

distortion of generally accepted norms of contact (“Are you going out?” - “What do you care?” - “So I have to go out!” - “What do I care?” - “Well, skip it, please.” - “But this is another matter ").

confusing the opponent with vague and incomprehensible arguments that baffle him. Not knowing how to answer them, and not wanting to look like a klutz, he often also says something indistinct (“Hmmm ... In general, of course, partly so ...”). And this subsequently allows us to refer to the fact that he already agreed with a certain proposal.

An example Ostap Bender’s speech at the meeting of the Union of the Sword and Plowshare can serve here:

"Citizens! Life dictates its own laws, its cruel laws. I won't tell you about the purpose of our meeting - you know it. From everywhere we hear groans. Help is being called from all over our vast country. We must lend a helping hand, and we will. Some of you serve and eat bread and butter, others are engaged in seasonal work and eat sandwiches with caviar. Both of them sleep in their beds and are covered with warm blankets. Only small children, street children, are without a guardian. These flowers of the street, or, as the proletarians of mental labor put it, flowers on the pavement deserve a better fate. We gentlemen of the jury must help them. And we, gentlemen of the jury, will help them.” And even the unthinking Nikesha and Vladya understood the secret essence of Ostap's allegories. And the owner of "Quickpack" Dyadyev was extremely pleased. “Beautifully composed,” he decided, “with such sauce and money to give can". What, in fact, Ostap needed.

Manipulations aimed at humiliating the opponent

Behavior	Expected response	Method of counteraction
Indication of possible criticism of the actions of the opponent by his clients or the public	Awakening a sense of danger and uncertainty	Express outrage that the other side stoops to such methods
Constant demonstration of stubbornness, self-confidence	Force the opponent to be a suppliant by showing him that his methods are not successful	Be skeptical of the other side, do not lose confidence
Permanent emphasizing that the opponent's arguments do not stand up to scrutiny	Arouse a sense of powerlessness, the attitude that other arguments will be untenable	It is polite to say that the other party did not quite understand you correctly
Constantly asked rhetorical questions about the opponent's behavior or argument	Generate a tendency for the opponent to respond in the expected manner, or not to respond at all due to feelings of powerlessness	Do not answer questions, unobtrusively notice that the other side does not formulate the problem quite correctly
Manifesting himself as "sweet and mean", that is, a demonstration of friendliness and at the same time constant indignation	Generate uncertainty, disorientate and frighten the opponent	Be cool with both friendliness and indignation on the part of the opponent
The desire to show that the opponent's dependence is much greater than it actually is		Continue to ask critical questions, respond in a defiantly cool manner

"Reading in the Heart". This trick consists in the fact that a secret meaning is attributed to the words of the opponent, the true motives that force him to express them are exposed. In this way, he can be accused of various bad intentions and forced to make excuses that he does not have them. A skilled lover of "reading in the hearts" can, if desired, find anything in the opponent's heart and make any insidious and irresponsible hints. And it is difficult to refute these accusations and allusions. For example , it says: “You only insist on this because you are afraid of the boss”; “You yourself understand that this is wrong, but you don’t want to admit your mistake”; “You say this out of envy”; “You really think differently”; “You really just want to derail the negotiations,” etc.

Another form of "reading in the hearts" is also possible: they look for a motive for which the opponent does not say anything. For example , why didn't he express "patriotic enthusiasm"? Apparently he is not a patriot. “You kept silent because you feel your screw”; "You didn't tell me anything about it on purpose to put me in a stupid position," and so on.

Reception "reading in the hearts" is a ploy, according to which one can attribute anything to the opponent and make him make excuses for what he did not do. As a rule, it is very difficult or even impossible to refute an accusation, since the emphasis is on the principle of "alien soul - darkness."

Artificial delay in negotiations (by diverting the discussion from the case, a long discussion of obvious things, nit-picking over trifles, heavy silence, etc.);

The "Last Call" Trick: when the negotiations are almost completed, at the last moment another demand is put forward. A tired opponent, already looking forward to the end of difficult negotiations, usually finds it difficult to give up the results achieved, which cost him a lot of work, and this forces him to agree even with what he would previously categorically reject.

Opposition to hard style tactics

Hardline negotiation tends to be largely manipulative. In conflict situations, one of the parties, which has a superiority in power, often turns to a hard style in order to manipulate the other side in the most shameless way. In order not to become a defenseless victim of such manipulations, you must be able to recognize the techniques used against you and resist them.

"Keep a hit"

The most important thing is not to give in to fear of the strength of your opponent's position. First, it should be borne in mind that from the threat of the use of force to its actual use is "a huge distance." Your opponent is far from always ready to move from threats to actions. Often this can cost too much for him, which is why he negotiates! Second, it's useful to remember that bargaining power is relative and largely a state of mind. G. Bellman argues that even when you do not have a sufficient level of formal power and strength compared to your opponents, there is no reason to believe that nothing depends on you.

Example . In 1968 Czech liberal leaders were arrested by the Soviet secret services. In seeking their release, the President of Czechoslovakia Ludwig Svoboda, it would seem, had no power that could influence the Soviet leaders. The balance of power was clearly not in his favor. But he told Brezhnev: “I will commit suicide. My blood will be on your hands. And no one in the world will believe that you didn't kill me." The Czech leaders were immediately released and took part in the negotiations.

It is not uncommon for a negotiator who has a lower status, a worse financial situation, or is losing on other relatively objective indicators, to assume that his chances are negligible and set himself up for failure in advance. However, the objective weakness of the position does not necessarily entail defeat. Even in today's harsh, unsentimental conditions, subjective factors play a very significant role.

Example. The bank employee made a mistake in the text of the contract with the client, due to which the client had to receive interest on a much larger amount than it should be due to the nature of the deposit. The client understood this, but kept silent. After a while he came for money. Having discovered her mistake, the employee wanted to correct it, but the client was indignant and demanded to pay interest in accordance with the wording of the contract. The boss invited to resolve the conflict admitted that payments should be made in accordance with the contract. But he said that since the bank cannot bear these costs, the culprit - the worker herself - will pay this money. And since her income does not allow her to pay the entire amount at once, she will make a partial payment, and then 30% will be deducted from her salary every month. The client received the first part of the money and left, but after a while he returned and said that he could not take this money. He returned the amount received and refused the remaining debt. Thus, self-respect and a sense of his own decency turned out to be more significant for him than the material benefit that the conditions fixed in the contract provided him.

Whether in business, in international or family situations, people often overestimate the strength of their opponents and underestimate their own capabilities. As a rule, you are much more capable of achieving your goal than you think, and there are many different possibilities for this.

Neutralize manipulative tricks and tricks

The general rule here is this: after making sure that a manipulative technique or trick has been used, make it clear to your opponent that this will not bring benefits to him. Of course, in each specific case, it is necessary to find the most appropriate way of acting according to the given rule.

So, if you understand that the opponent is “closing the door” for negotiations or resorting to their calculated delay, then you can bring to his attention (directly or through third parties) that you are using the time available before the start or resumption of negotiations to implement your alternative possibilities. . For example, you take some measures without his consent, attract new forces to resolve the conflict, enter into negotiations on a controversial issue with other people. The same can be done when the opponent artificially drags out the negotiations.

If you are given a “choice of two evils”, you need to analyze it and indicate options other than those offered. At the same time, the question of the principles for choosing possible alternatives can be raised for discussion.

The shutter tactic can be thwarted by the fact that it counts on your knowledge of the position of your opponent trying it on. After all, if in the example with two trucks the other driver did not see how the steering wheel flies out of the window, then this trick would not lead to the result expected by the first driver, and a collision would occur. By not giving your opponent information about your knowledge of his position, you significantly increase the risk of such actions for him, forcing him to be more careful and leave himself some escape routes.

It is expedient to openly fix the "access mode" and discuss it with the opponent. In order to demonstrate to him the unacceptability of this tactic, one can use a counter-technique - to choose some non-essential point and stubbornly defend it, preventing further progress in the negotiations. On the one hand, this will give you the opportunity to test your opponent’s restraint and the degree of possibility to persuade him to make concessions, and on the other hand, by withdrawing your demand after a while, you get the right to demand that he act in the same way and not put forward demands that must be accepted without discussions as conditions for the further continuation of negotiations.

It is not difficult to neutralize the "sighting" technique if you find out the opponent's powers from the very beginning. When he nevertheless interrupts negotiations to agree on some clause of the contract with his management, he should be warned that if a change is made to this clause, both of you should have the right to review and amend all previously agreed decisions.

Psychological gimmicks are usually best dealt with by pointing out directly that they are unacceptable. With regard to the opponent's confusing reasoning, it is advisable not to hesitate to ask for clarification. Attempts to "read in the hearts" are usually not worth refuting: it puts you in the position of the defendant who is justified, and besides, it diverts the negotiations from their goal. It is enough just to point out the lack of evidence of such attempts and bring the opponent back to the discussion of the problems that make up the topic of negotiations.

The "last call" ploy must be taken seriously. This demand must either be rejected outright, or there must be a thorough discussion of why it was made at the last moment and how its acceptance may affect the previously adopted agreements.

invert enemy pressure on you bend yourself

Reacting to the "toughness" of the opponent's negotiating style with a reciprocal "toughness" is usually not worth it: this most often leads the negotiations to a dead end. It is better to try to direct the energy of his pressure on himself. This can often be done, for example, with "Psychological Aikido". The principle of the eastern martial art of aikido is not to put up a hard defense, but, gently retreating under the pressure of the enemy, absorb this pressure and turn its energy against the attacker himself. For example, when an opponent strikes you with a fist, substitute your palm, and, grabbing your fist, pull it further in the direction of the blow: the more energy the opponent has put into the blow, the more likely it is that he will follow his fist by inertia and stretch on the ground at your legs.

As M. Litvak shows, this principle is also applicable in the field of psychological struggle. "Psychological aikido" turns out to be a very effective means of repelling an enemy attack in a conflict interaction.

The idea of ​​"psychological aikido" was successfully implemented by the good soldier Schweik:

“Schweik, you idiot!

- Yes sir! I dare to report, Mr. Colonel, idiot.

By resorting to a tough style and demonstrating the strength of your position in negotiations, your opponent will, one way or another, open up, show his cards. By putting pressure on you, he inevitably falls under the power of "psychological inertia", which makes his behavior insufficiently flexible, rude, straightforward.

If you do not lose your cool and carefully consider the possible consequences of his proposals and methods of imposing them on you, then sometimes you can find different ways to influence his position in the negotiations through "psychological aikido".

For example , the tenant who rents your apartment enters into an agreement with you to extend his tenure there for some more time. You are not sure that he will move out exactly at the specified time. The tenant is outraged by your distrust: “Isn’t it enough for you that your contract has an expiration date?” Then you can tell him, “It's not about trust or distrust. Since you are so indignant at my doubts, you obviously will not object to the inclusion in the contract of a clause according to which for each day of your delay in my apartment beyond the specified period you will pay me a penalty in the amount of, say, half a month's rent? After all, this does not threaten you with anything if you are really going to honestly fulfill the terms of our agreement.

The more vigorously your opponent insists on something, the more difficult it will be for him to object to sanctions for breaking his promises. .

We have already said more than once that negotiations are an integral part of the life of every person. And, of course, it is very good when a person knows how to negotiate and behave properly in the negotiation process; and it's very good when you manage to agree on something with someone without significant costs - time, emotional, etc. But, unfortunately, this does not always happen, and in many situations, our interlocutors and opponents in negotiations are guided by their principles, motives and beliefs that run counter to ours - these people try with all their might to achieve their goal, stand their ground to the last and do not want to go to concessions. This is commonly referred to as hard bargaining. And if you really want to learn how to negotiate professionally, you will have to master hard negotiation anyway.

We recommend that you gain optimism, because even if you yourself are not a tough person, often find yourself at a loss and are not very good at resisting pressure from the outside, you can still learn how to conduct tough negotiations, and learn better than many, because. you will know your weaknesses and shortcomings. And in this lesson, together with you, we will master the basics of tough negotiations.

Let's start with the necessary minimum of the so-called tools for conducting tough negotiations.

Tools for tough negotiations

First of all, you must know that there is a certain set of tools that you must have at your disposal when you are dealing with tough negotiations, otherwise your chances of winning are significantly reduced or even become zero.

Among these tools are:

• Arguments
• Information about the opponent
• concessions
• Time

Let's say a little more about each of them.

Target

Even if emotions start to boil, passions run high and the confrontation gets tougher, you should always keep in mind the image of what you are negotiating for in the first place. It happens that an inexperienced negotiator comes to negotiations with one task, but a more experienced opponent deftly convinces him and imposes completely different goals. As a result, the first one accepts these conditions, returns home and, only having thought over what happened again, he realizes that he was “divorced”, but the former cannot be returned. For this reason, you must always be clear and adhere only to it.

Arguments

You need arguments to defend your interests and achieve your goal. If you imagine tough negotiations as a battle, then arguments are your defense and weapon, because. only with their help you will be able to repel attacks and attack. The preparation of arguments is, first of all, informational preparation, and it plays the most important role in tough negotiations, especially if your opponent is himself prepared properly.

Information about the opponent

Gathering information about an opponent also refers to information preparation. In preparing for a negotiation, you should make every effort to learn everything you can about your opponent, from his goals and beliefs to his strengths, weaknesses, and negotiating style. Information about the opponent will give you the opportunity to use against him only those methods that allow you to defeat him.

concessions

When it comes to concessions, you must remember that you should always demand more than you really need. The trick is that if your opponent gives up, you will get many times more than you intended, and if he puts pressure, you can always take a few steps back, but still achieve what you need. In addition, if your interlocutor feels superior, it is likely that he will lose his guard a little, which will allow you to take advantage of this.

Time

Keep in mind that the superiority is always on the side of those who have at their disposal, who are not limited by deadlines and who can play for time in the negotiation process. In the case when your opponent has limited time, you can start to drag out the negotiations, which will automatically force him to meet you halfway and agree to your terms without wasting precious minutes. In the same case, if you yourself are limited by the time frame, do not let your opponent take advantage of this.

Only after making sure that you have all these tools at your disposal, you can begin to take more active steps to prepare for tough negotiations. In other words, you can start to choose for yourself the strategy that you will follow in the process. The strategy should be chosen based on your potential position - weak or strong.

Determine your strategy and initially negotiate based on it, but keep in mind that, depending on the situation that will develop, you can change the strategy.

Let's look at what the essence of the strategies of strengths and weaknesses is.

Strong side strategy

You can be said to be a strong side if you are sure that your opponent needs your cooperation and you are able to make him accept your terms.

The strong side strategy involves:

• Using the opponent's lack of competence. You can start attacking him with a flurry of terms, concepts, examples, and data that he has no idea about. If you confuse your opponent, he will simply get lost in what you told him. Keep in mind that not everyone is able to openly admit their incompetence
• Pressure on the vanity and greed of the opponent. Two steps should be followed here: the first is to show your opponent your friendly attitude in order to win him over, and the second is to put pressure on his greed and / or vanity. You can voice to the interlocutor what benefits the acceptance of your conditions promises him, draw a picture of the future in which he is rich; you can even be a little cunning, telling your opponent that he is well versed in the topic, etc. Your opponent's sense of self-importance will be hurt in a positive way, and you can easily move on to making the decision you want.
• Transition from hard to soft. The main thing in this technique is the initial adoption of an extremely tough position, serious criticism of the proposals put forward by the opponent, the rejection of all its conditions, pressure at every opportunity and acceptable threats (legitimate, of course). After your opponent has been demoralized by your behavior, you should begin to soften your position little by little. Explain that you understand the obligations of the opponent, enter into his position, etc. You can express understanding and sympathy. Such a turn will make your interlocutor grateful, he will be glad that you nevertheless decided to meet him halfway, and will be ready to accept the conditions that you put forward
• Active pressure. This way of hard negotiating is the most obvious of all. First, you must begin to put moral pressure on your opponent, voice the shortcomings of his proposals, refuse his decisions, say that you are not interested, etc. Try to speak coldly and distantly, in a peremptory tone, look with a hard look. This tactic will not let your interlocutor even realize what is happening, and will disarm him, thereby prompting him to accept your conditions. However, do not forget about the risk - if your opponent is as tough as you, a serious confrontation is inevitable.

Now - in the same vein about the strategy of the weak side.

Weak side strategy

Understanding that you are a weak side can be very simple: you see that your opponent is not particularly interested in you, but you definitely need to resolve the current situation. And here you have to use the trick.

The weak side strategy involves:

• Pretense. You may well pretend to be a sort of sucker, asking a lot of questions, gradually pulling the information you need from your opponent. Naturally, you don’t need to make a fool out of yourself, however, in cases where it was not possible to find out something through the usual methods, this technique helps a lot. As an explanation for your ignorance, you can cite your little experience in this area or some other similar trick. As a result, your opponent can weaken his onslaught and, from the position of a knowledgeable person, begin to explain the essence of the issue. And here it is not far from concessions, because people tend to help those who are weaker than them. It is also interesting that you can use this technique to confuse your opponent, even if you have all the data you need.
• Request for help. The presented technique can be called a slightly different interpretation of the first technique. Your task is to let the interlocutor understand that you urgently need his help as a more knowledgeable person. Tell your opponent that his help will help you achieve unprecedented success, and he will most likely agree to your terms at least partially.
• Direct conversation. If it is not possible to win over your opponent by other means, use your frankness. Dive into the details of your plans, reveal some of your secrets, talk about things, trying to be as sincere as possible. In case you are a little cunning, try to look "transparent", like glass. If your opponent understands that you are honest, his attitude towards you will be positive, which will allow you to play the game according to your own rules too.

More about behavior

It is easy to see that tough negotiations do not only consist of psychological pressure alone, but also include the use of manipulation, subterfuge, subterfuge, and in some cases even outright lies, intimidation and blackmail. In this matter, the decency of a person is of the utmost importance: if he is decent, he will behave correctly even behind your back, but if he does not care about etiquette and moral principles, he can start throwing dirt right in your face - this is what distinguishes tough negotiations from ordinary ones. . In tough negotiations, you can forget about any rules whatsoever, and you should be ready for this.

Always take into account that your opponent in tough negotiations will try to get his way at any cost, and you should only believe what is documented or otherwise, but in such a way that the possibility of a hidden game is completely excluded - this is another feature tough negotiations.

It should also be said that often in the process of tough negotiations, one opponent tries in every possible way to discourage the other, to make him lose his balance, humiliating or using his weak points. You, too, are not immune from the fact that they can say something to you that will plunge you into rage, indignation, fear, or greatly offend. In situations like this, you have every right to tell your opponent that he is "going too far" - this will allow you to return the negotiation process to the right track.

And one more thing: if you have to refuse during a tough negotiation, try to do it with confidence, but avoid rudeness, insults, personal attacks, shouting, etc., no matter how much your feelings are hurt. Your opponent may be trying to unsettle you, but you must be able to . An indicator of professionalism is firmness and politeness at the same time.

If you learn how to negotiate tough, you will never be trapped and become a victim. Choosing how to behave is your own business, but try to keep your cool and sobriety of mind - this is what will allow you to win and be fully armed even in the most unforeseen situation.

But what else can help you be fully equipped is preparation.

How to prepare for tough negotiations?

Of course, you remember how important the preparation for negotiations in general is, because this stage is not the first lesson we have been discussing with you to one degree or another. But even here we cannot avoid this topic, because. Tough negotiations mean tougher preparation. Naturally, we will not repeat everything that has already been said, but nevertheless we will briefly point out some things that should be paid special attention in preparing for tough negotiations.

The main things to focus on when preparing for a tough negotiation are:

• Determine your strengths and weaknesses. You must understand what can be used to influence the opponent, as well as what the opponent can influence you with.
• Goal setting. You must necessarily outline for yourself the most unfavorable and favorable boundaries, beyond which there is no point in negotiating. This will allow you to defend your positions without going beyond the acceptable limits. It is equally important to understand what your opponent expects from the negotiations.
• Setting concessions. You must determine what you are willing to sacrifice in order to achieve the desired result. It is best to establish the “price” that you are willing to pay before starting negotiations in order to be able to change an unfavorable outcome to a favorable one.

Within the framework of this section, it will not be superfluous to return once again to the definition of the negotiation strategy, since this issue is also part of the preparation for tough negotiations.

As noted, a hard negotiating strategy can be either offensive (strong side strategy) or defensive (weak side strategy).

An attacking strategy will be the best option if you have reason to firmly count on winning. But to apply this strategy, you must have the ability to quickly navigate the situation and be able to. Also, this strategy is suitable if you are not afraid to enter into conflict - your opponent may lose control of himself and start making mistakes, but you must be able to see these mistakes and take advantage of them for yourself.

A defensive strategy is best chosen when you know for sure that your opponent is superior to you in any way (mental, emotional, professional, etc.). If this is your case, strictly set the boundaries beyond which you definitely will not go.

Thus, we see that preparing for tough negotiations can give you invaluable advantages over your opponent, and as a result, even a couple of slightest slips on his part can cost him the result of the negotiations.

By the way, two fairly well-known techniques - “Chattering” and “Joining” can serve as a good help for any strategy you choose, as well as in preparing for tough negotiations.

"Chatty" and "Join"

Despite the fact that today these two techniques are known to many, and experienced negotiators can easily recognize them without much difficulty, it is worth knowing about them, especially since they are brought to automatism with repeated use and they can be easily modified and complicated.

Reception "Join"

The meaning of this technique is that you simply “try on” the position of your opponent (), and then look at the situation, problem or question under discussion, as they say, from his “bell tower”. Subsequently, you will be able to give your interlocutor such arguments that will seem quite weighty to him, and he himself will want to change the decision.

Reception "Chalking"

The second technique, although different in form, is not much more complicated than the first. During the negotiation process, you simply repeat to your interlocutor a phrase like: “I sincerely wish you well” or “Of course, we want you to succeed” several times. Well-chosen phrases can hurt your opponent for a living, for example, for his sense of self-importance, vanity or greed. The most important thing is that your "talking" is based on the "pain points" of your counterpart. In addition, this technique also involves the massive presentation of all kinds of drawings, diagrams and graphs, as well as the widespread use of specific terminology that your opponent is not particularly versed in.

Along with these two tactics in tough negotiations, you can use another one - it's called "Become your own."

Reception "Become your own"

The application of this technique is even simpler than the application of the other two. All you have to do is show your negotiating partner that you have something in common: you can both be male, you can both have children or animals, you can own the same brand of car or like to go on vacation in the same the same resort, you may know the same people or go to the same restaurant, etc. etc. Knowing what you and your opponent have in common, you can easily switch negotiations from negative to positive, smooth out the “roughness”, and find common ground on the issues under discussion.

But, again, remember that you are not the only one who learns or knows how to negotiate, which means that your opponent is also quite capable of using similar and other techniques against you. This, by the way, is another reason why you should know about these tricks - if you understand the principle of their action, you can always recognize when some kind of trick is applied to you.

In addition, in the process of tough (and any other) negotiations, you must be able to recognize not only all sorts of techniques and techniques, but also methods of manipulation, which, it is worth noting, is somewhat more difficult. But, as you know, even the most difficult can be learned.

How to counteract manipulation?

What is manipulation? In the field of negotiation, this term refers to the deliberate control of the actions of another person through all sorts of tricks, tricks, hidden moves, etc. And manipulation in tough negotiations is far from uncommon, because people can try to force you to do something that puts you in a bad light, undermines your authority; try to make you feel offended or angry, make you scream or say too much, etc.

If in the course of a verbal battle you feel that you are starting to act contrary to your personal will, desires, goals and beliefs, then you have begun to be manipulated. And the most effective way in such a situation would be to take a break and relax a little, so to speak, “cool down”, understand what is happening. However, it is far from always possible to take a break, and in such cases you should pull yourself together in time and try to turn the situation in your favor.

When they start asking you tricky questions that imply some actions that are unfavorable for you on your part, use a simple trick - answer the question openly, immediately asking a symmetrical question. For example, they ask you: “Do you want to earn money, not for me?”, And you answer: “Of course, we strive to earn money, but don’t you?”.

When you feel that you are being pressured or forced to do something, you can use an unexpected statement - just say: "You are pushing me!". This phrase will instantly stop the opponent’s manipulations, and you will have the opportunity to return the conversation to the right track or even go on the counteroffensive.

The most important thing for countering manipulation in a tough negotiation process is to be able to keep your emotions under control. When conducting tough negotiations, always turn on your inner observer, who will help you assess the situation and your actions, as well as determine the boundary that you will cross when you begin to "dance to someone else's tune."

As the clearest indicators that you have begun to be manipulated, one can single out a change in gestures, performing actions unusual for you, for example, rubbing your hands and feet, stroking your hips with both hands, or stamping your foot (again, we recommend that you pass). As soon as you notice any such gestures behind you, know that you are in a delicate position (this is where you need to take a break in the negotiations).

In fact, it is quite easy to resist manipulation if you learn to identify those moments when they begin to try to control you, but at the same time, it is absolutely impossible to counteract manipulation if you do not know how to determine such moments.

Based on this, we can conclude that effective counteraction to manipulation consists in:

• in the process of negotiations
• Constantly involved internal observer
• Systematic monitoring of their internal states
• systematic tracking of their
• The ability to take a break in time to think about the situation and normalize the state
• The ability to abruptly stop manipulations when it is impossible to take a break

Here it only remains for us to say that you must develop the above-mentioned skills and abilities, develop them and make them a permanent part of your behavior. Be prepared for the fact that in order to fully master them, you will have to make mistakes more than once and, quite likely, “fall for the bait” of skilled manipulators. But it will allow you to become a true professional in your field.

Given that we, too, try not to make mistakes, it would be very reckless on our part if we did not pay attention to another scourge of tough negotiations that a huge number of people face. This scourge is familiar to all of us under a short and sonorous word - a lie. And it is imperative for every negotiator to learn to understand when his opponents are telling him the truth and when they are lying.

How to recognize a lie?

We all know perfectly well that in many life situations people say things that are not what they really think. They may deliberately distort information or keep something back, pursuing some of their goals. And if in life such tricks can get away with it, then in tough negotiations it can be very, very dangerous to choose such a “strategy”, because if the opponent finds out that you are “playing around”, at best it will end with the end of the negotiations, and at worst, it can cause serious conflicts.

We, being confident that you are respectable people, will not tell you why it is “ayyyyy” to lie, but we will talk about how to understand that your negotiating partner is lying to you.

In general, lie recognition is a matter, albeit interesting, but time-consuming. In addition, skilled craftsmen say not what is actually, today - more than enough. And, unfortunately, the intuition of most people against whom the lie is directed is not developed so well as to give a signal in time that they are being “led by the nose” (by the way, it is even more difficult to recognize a lie on the phone, because there is no way to “read” non-verbal signals of a liar).

But in the dark realm there is always a ray of light - in the world you can find many specialists whose task is to create new ways to determine lies. Among them there are psychologists, and gamblers, and actors, and politicians, and many others. Of course, we cannot tell you about every method of how you can catch a person in a lie (does not sound very concise, do you agree?), but we can give some very effective recommendations.

• Pay attention to the behavioral characteristics of people: postures, gestures, facial expressions
• Do not believe that a person who does not look you in the eye is necessarily a liar
• Do not believe that a person who looks into your eyes cannot be a liar
• Very opponent
• Watch the sequence of the opponent's behavior (does he usually behave this way?)
• An indicator of a lie can be the use of your own words by an opponent in a conversation.
• An indicator of a lie can be an inexhaustible verbal stream from an opponent
• An indicator of a lie can be the repetition of the same information by the opponent.
• An indicator of a lie can be the opponent's aggression and his desire to join the opposition in order to avoid changes in the course of the conversation.
• An indicator of lies can be evasive answers of the opponent
• An indicator of a lie can be the reactions of the opponent, inadequate to the questions posed.
• An indicator of lies may be the opponent's unwillingness to allow an independent party to negotiate.
• An indicator of a lie can be many answers and not a single question from the opponent.
• An indicator of a lie can be the relaxation of the opponent when changing the topic of the conversation.
• An indicator of a lie may be the absence of indignation of the opponent when accused.
• An indicator of a lie can be the opponent's excessive indignation at the accusation.
• An indicator of a lie can be sarcastic humor on the part of the opponent
• An indicator of a lie can be a question in response to a question
• An indicator of a lie can be stuttering, frequent blinking, twitching
• An indicator of lying can be an expression on the part of dissatisfaction with the situation in which you are, and obsessive proposals for change.
• An indicator of a lie can be a long pause of the opponent before answering the question.

As additional material on lie detection, we advise you to read our materials on this topic (and), as well as Paul Ekman's book "".

And to sum up our lesson, we want to give a few tips on how to smooth out tough negotiations. Let this information become another weapon of yours that you can use by incorporating it into your own tough negotiation strategy.

Smoothing out tough negotiations

It is not just possible to translate hard negotiations into soft ones - it must be done, and most of all it is suitable for situations where relationships with an opponent are important to you and you intend to cooperate with him in the long term.

To smooth a negotiation, you must first of all be open to your opponent, and also be able to be flexible in the process of interaction. In order for the interlocutor to understand your mood, initially indicate your position on the current issue as clearly as possible, try to discuss some neutral topics with him in order to find common ground. In the case when you see an opponent for the first time, it will not be superfluous to briefly tell about yourself, the organization you represent, etc. Do not make an official presentation out of negotiations - keep loose, relaxed, but avoid familiarity.

A good step towards smoothing out tough negotiations is asking for help or a favor, for example. such that those they help are on their so-called "special" list. Even a simple banality may come up here: at the beginning of negotiations, ask your opponent to hand you a piece of paper or a pen from the next table - the conversation will immediately start in a different way.

If at all costs you need to say “ ” to your interlocutor, then here you must be tactful, trying not to hurt the feelings of your counterpart. When refusing, give neutral reasons; it would even be best to say that it is your conditions that do not allow an agreement to be concluded.

These techniques for smoothing out tough negotiations, as you can see, are extremely simple, and this is their “magic”. Remember that you never need to complicate anything, and the simpler and more natural you behave even in the toughest negotiations, the easier it will be for you not only to smooth them out, but to achieve your goal and even enlist a good and reliable partner for many years to come. But you should not lose vigilance either, because not every opponent of yours will be configured in the same way as you. Tough negotiations are called tough because, if you hesitate for a second and lose control, you can immediately get a “click on the nose”. Mistakes in this case are unforgivable.

And, since we are talking about mistakes, we are in a hurry to please you - by studying the next lesson of our course on negotiating, you will significantly replenish your knowledge base in this area, because we will talk about all sorts of mistakes (the most common, rare, specific and others) that people make in the negotiation process.

Test your knowledge

If you want to test your knowledge on the topic of this lesson, you can take a short test consisting of several questions. Only 1 option can be correct for each question. After you select one of the options, the system automatically moves on to the next question. The points you receive are affected by the correctness of your answers and the time spent on passing. Please note that the questions are different each time, and the options are shuffled.

Types of Negotiators - Find Your Beast

Do you really want to ask us like smart people and pay like idiots?

An example of how to handle the "high cost" objection. From real life.

What kind of typologies of the client can not be found in business literature. And in some ways it resembles the shamanism of a primitive warrior - draw your victim on the wall of the cave, hit it with a spear, and then victory is guaranteed to you (that's when the first trainings appeared!). Let's try and draw our probable enemy.

Any typology of people is quite arbitrary, and we often encounter mixed types, moreover, each of the above types lives inside us and is included in certain situations. To understand what is happening to you and why you make this or that decision is the goal of this chapter!

Let's take Jim Kennedy's classification as a basis, in which he associates the behavior of people in negotiations with images of animals - sheep, donkeys, foxes and owls (Kennedy G. You can agree on everything! How to achieve the maximum in any negotiations / Gavin Kennedy: translated from English. – M.: Alpina Business Books, 2007).

But we will improve this classification somewhat. Let's introduce a simple coordinate system, where on the vertical axis we will measure the activity of the negotiator, how much energy he brings to this meeting (provocations, actions, efforts), and on the horizontal axis we will determine what the negotiator relies on when making a particular decision - on logic or emotions. Based on this coordinate system, we distinguish four main types of negotiators.

On the OX axis, the scale - how decisions are made, what a person relies on to make a decision, on logic or emotions, on the OY axis - the degree of involvement in the negotiation process, the level of activity

1. Cowardly negotiator(Sheep) A negotiator of this type is minimally involved in the negotiation process, his level of activity is very low, he rarely prepares for negotiations, rarely carries out any provocations in relation to his opponent, because he is his. Under any pressure, he immediately loses his position. Often the opponent only thought, and the cowardly negotiator is already offering him a discount. Any head of a commercial service is familiar with this situation, when his managers take the side of the client and give or ask the management for insane discounts, motivating this with the words that our prices are high, and if we do not provide a discount, then the client will go to competitors. Managers somehow forget that the meaning of their work is not charity, but making money for their company.

What to do if you come across such a negotiator? Rejoice and gently press, gradually increasing this pressure with each concession from the opponent. It is only important to remember that strong emotions, strong fear can “throw out” a cowardly negotiator from the process. Frightened, he simply refuses to interact, even at the risk of not realizing his interests. Sellers of residential real estate are well aware of this: a little more the agent is active, and that's it ... the client instantly disappears, as he begins to suspect his agent of extreme interest and, accordingly, an attempt to push through a decision based on his interests.

For example, one of my clients, the director construction company, said that with weak negotiators he loves to play for a fall - constantly worsen his offer during negotiations, waiting for the moment when the counterparty asks for mercy. That is how he managed to "knock out" from the contractor responsible for the construction of a large facility, the conditions are more favorable than those expected by the company. At first, the parties outlined their positions and did not agree on a price. The contractor sent a second proposal, slightly moderating their requests. But in response, my client took and lowered the price even lower. “They thought it was a mistake or a hoax,” my client recalled, “but we went short another time.” The contractor realized that with each subsequent round it would be more and more difficult for him to save face, and agreed to an amount that was 10% less than what he did not accept in the first round of negotiations.

What to do if you feel that you are afraid of your opponent or his demeanor? The most important thing is not to allow yourself to immediately make a decision during the negotiations. If you are required to make a decision here and now, it is better to take a time-out for a certain period - from a minute to several days. At a minimum, you show that you are serious about the topic of negotiations and your interlocutor.

2. Aggressive negotiator (donkey, according to G. Kennedy, although Russian negotiators compare this type with another animal similar to a donkey, but with horns)

Oh, there is a lot of this negotiator in any negotiations, his hallmark is any lack of flexibility and magical obsession with principles, patterns, concepts. He is sure that he lives in a dangerous environment, and everyone he meets is trying to deceive him.

The aggressive type easily falls into emotions, forgetting about the purpose for which he came to the negotiations. He believes that aggressiveness is a sign of strength, not weakness, that with its help he will be able to negotiate in 90 seconds with the best result, but often achieves the opposite: “Either you reduce your price by 25%, or we will go to your competitors ", - he categorically declares, thereby independently refusing dozens of options that can be beneficial to both parties. The chance to realize their interests is 50% to 50% - they will either agree or refuse, well, isn't that stupid? He does not hear the interlocutor well, falling into emotions, deaf to logical arguments, it is easy to provoke him to aggression. It is very difficult for a reasonable person to negotiate with him, all arguments break down against a wall of unwillingness to understand and think about the benefits of interaction. An aggressive negotiator perceives pressure, reasonable demands as a personal challenge, disrespect, insult. And off we go...

According to a study by the Moscow School of Negotiations, devoted to the analysis of the behavior of modern Russian leaders in negotiations, an aggressive manner, irritation are included in 46% of negotiators. When it comes to position trading, they suddenly realize that their opponent has a different view of their benefits and the terms of the trade.

Such a reaction shocks Western negotiators, because for them objections and disagreement are a normal process of interaction. One of the basic principles of the Western negotiating model says: “Even if the proposals of the other side suit you 120%, don’t dare to agree immediately, try to bargain, in this case both parties get the feeling that the agreement reached was born as a result of hard work together, and its psychological value becomes much higher.” And this is normal for them - to negotiate, and not to "push through" their decision!

The parties part satisfied with each other, being sure that each was able to defend the best conditions for himself. An attentive reader will joyfully wake up with the question: “What models of negotiation exist in principle?”.

Several models can be distinguished:

- the American model or positional trading, sometimes it is also called Push-strategy (Push) - this is the use of power, dominance. Such a negotiator (called slang pusher, not to be confused with a drug dealer) is active, prefers to speak first, interrupts the interlocutor, uses control strategies. They are undiplomatic, selfish in achieving the goal, they can suppress the opponent. Push is good, for example, in a decision-making situation with a lack of time. In this case, a push from a manager or an expert is useful, and sometimes necessary for the result of the work.

- European model or Pull-strategy (Pool) - partnership strategy. Poolers ask questions, listen carefully, and are willing to compromise. If they do not like the interlocutor, they may not show it outwardly, but after the negotiations they will refuse to meet a second time. Pooler will try to avoid conflict and hope for a win-win. This strategy is good for peers or negotiators who have not met before, when it is not known who is more experienced.

- Russian - it has a lot of the traditions of the Russian merchants and the breadth of the Russian soul. Or “buy your horn” and not agree to any offers just because we didn’t like the way they looked at us, or generously “gift” millions, making obviously unprofitable deals just because, they say, let them know that we we are not petty.

- Eastern, the principles of which, albeit in a camouflaged form, can be found, for example, in Jim Kemp, Roger Fisher. Why in camouflage? Yes, because they are 100% contrary to the basic attitudes of Western man, and if they are postulated openly, the reader will consider that the author has gone crazy and will never buy his book. The Eastern model is the model of a wise negotiator, it is the most environmentally friendly for the body and is based on the philosophy of the ZEN approach, where the main thing is detachment, that is, indifference to the final result of the meeting.

Takeno Shigeyoshi, one of the greatest swordsmen of modern Japan, in his treatise on the "Bamboo Sword" speaks of the psychology of swordsmanship:

“When the bamboo sword I have chosen best suits me in terms of weight, shape, etc., then the unity of the sword and my body is most easily achieved. It goes without saying that cherishing the thought of fighting or winning, or demonstrating one's art, is doom for a swordsman. But when you get rid of these thoughts, as well as the thought of your body, then real unity can be achieved. Then your sword is you and you are your sword and there is no difference between you. This is called the psychology of muga (or no-ego, no-mind). This seems to correspond to what Buddhism calls the state of emptiness.

When we negotiate, our sword is the word. The Eastern model teaches spontaneity as the key to victory.

But back to our classification of negotiators.

One of the signs of an aggressive negotiator is the use of profanity. For example, this factor is clearly monitored in negotiations with criminals. One of the "indicators" that determine the mental state of criminals is the degree of predominance of categorical expressions and words in their speech flow, as well as jargon and obscene words. It is they who constitute the main verbal arsenal of "power" pressure. If more than half of the total number of words are words and expressions expressed in an imperative form, this indicates nervous excitement and aggressiveness. A noticeable increase in slang and obscene expressions, as a rule, also indicates an increase in mental activity, and their decrease indicates the entry into a period of calmer response to events, the inclusion of logical elements in judgments, assessments, and statements. The definition of the mental state according to this indicator is quite simple and is usually easily caught in the case of oral interaction (including by telephone), as well as personal communication.

What if we met with an aggressive type of negotiator? The most important thing is not to be afraid. Fear is felt, it is visible to the naked eye, it emits a subtle smell, it kills the mind. It's just negotiations. Even if they end not in our favor, life will not stop there, business is a game. And you should treat business negotiations like a game. Interesting, exciting, sometimes dangerous, but... it's only a game played by adults. If you keep in mind that everything that happens is “pretend”, then the fear goes away.

There are also various techniques that allow you to convey your position even to an aggressive interlocutor. For example, using comparison. By referring to a story that allegedly once existed and which describes a situation similar to yours, we indirectly convey the necessary idea to our opponent, without giving him the opportunity to perceive our proposal as direct pressure. Again, the aggressively stubborn type follows his principles. But if you understand them in time, then you can “catch” the opposite side by putting your opponent in a situation in which the refusal of your proposal is a violation of the stated principle.

An aggressive negotiator sees no alternatives. Having declared his conditions, he cannot refuse them, even if he sees their disadvantage. In this case, the only way to "help" him is to start all over again, creating the illusion of a new proposal.

Real negotiation situations

A training company was negotiating a series of sales trainings for a large organization. At the beginning of the negotiations, the proposed program arranged commercial director. He appreciated the professionalism of the consultants, but even before the announcement of the price, he categorically stated that no matter how wonderful the training was, he would never pay more than 1000 euros for a training day. In the commercial offer, the price was exactly twice as high. Conducted positional trades did not lead to anything. The commercial director said that he understood everything, but he had already voiced his conditions and could not refuse them. For consultants, the price of 1000 euros was also unacceptable. What to do?

The consultants took a break and entered the next negotiations with a formally new proposal: with a modified program, divided into lectures, training and practical exercises. As a result, the cost of the training session remained the same as indicated by the commercial director, the cost for other types of training was set twice as high (although, from the point of view of the process, the division into types of training was rather conditional). The reputation of the commercial director was preserved, and the consultants got their own. Both sides were satisfied with the results of the negotiations.

3. Sly negotiator or fox

He is also a lot in the negotiation process, he is a real fox, masterfully mastering the techniques of reincarnation. Such a negotiator can be different, he changes masks in the course of negotiations. Either he whimpers plaintively, begging for a discount, or he becomes arrogant and dismissive. Such a negotiator uses the entire arsenal of manipulative techniques invented by mankind. He develops tricky multi-moves and can get away with it in any situation. He clearly knows what he wants, and with the confidence of the T-80 tank moves towards his goal. He will crush a weak negotiator, and deceive an aggressive one.

Negotiation workshop

Episode from "The Good Soldier Schweik"

“They also woke up a Jew in a tavern, who began to tear his side-locks and regret that he could not serve the pans to the soldiers, and in the end he pestered them, asking them to buy from him an old, hundred-year-old cow, skinny dead meat: bones and skin.

He demanded crazy money for her, tore his beard and swore that such a cow could not be found in all of Galicia, in all of Austria and Germany, in all of Europe and all over the world. He howled, wept, and swore that this was the fattest cow that, by the will of Jehovah, had ever been born. He swore by all the forefathers that people come from Volochisk itself to look at this cow, that there is a rumor all over the region that this is not a cow, but a fairy tale, that this is not even a cow, but the fattest buffalo.

In the end, he fell in front of them and, embracing the knees of one or the other, cried out: “Better kill the old unfortunate Jew, but don’t leave without a cow.” His howls threw the clerk and cook into complete confusion, and, in the end, they dragged this dead meat, which any flayer would abhor, to the field kitchen.

Long after that, when the money was already in his pocket, the Jew was crying that he had been finally ruined, destroyed, that he had robbed himself by selling such a magnificent cow cheaply. He begged to be hanged because, in his old age, he had done such a stupid thing, because of which his forefathers would turn over in their graves.

After wallowing a little more in the dust, he suddenly shook off all grief, went home to the closet and said to his wife: “Elsa, my life, the soldiers are stupid, and your Nathan is wise!”

In many people's minds, the cunning negotiator is the ideal negotiator to strive for. People read books, go to trainings to become just like that - cunning, prudent, tough. If necessary, they are knowledgeable and able to use various psychotechnologies to their advantage.

In any case, a cunning negotiator once meets with an even more "pumped" opponent, who is better prepared, has more trump cards in his hands, and is more skillful in manipulative techniques. And that's it, the game is lost.

Outplaying a cunning negotiator is difficult, but possible. If an aggressive negotiator is fixated on his principles, then a cunning negotiator is fixated on his goal, which he strives with all his heart, and he depends on it, because he cannot fail to achieve it. So it seems to him. And if we manage to understand what interests the cunning negotiator in the first place, what are the true interests behind his provocations, then we can quite easily resist his manipulations. Moreover, the very fact of using an excessive amount of psychological tricks speaks of a person's extreme interest in something, and this confirms his vulnerability.

Negotiation workshop

An excerpt from a letter from a participant in the trainings at the School of Negotiators SHIP.

...I was at Dmitry's training "Tough Negotiations", part 1, part 2.

Coincidentally, at that moment I had a difficult situation at work. An acquaintance with whom I cooperate did not fulfill his obligations, and I had oral agreements with him. I did not see a way out, but I was sure that it was, it should be. Therefore, I absorbed the training to the last drop. Plus, I analyzed my situation in detail together with Dmitry. I realized that I did not have a real "lever of power", I thought about it, sat down and prescribed a negotiation strategy!

Exhausted my partners with excessive demands, unreasonable and justified claims! Then he gave in everywhere and completely agreed, with which he initially agreed, but as an “insignificant” additional requirement, he asked me to sign the previously reached verbal obligations, which he received ... A real “lever”! Now I can communicate with a friend from a position of strength. Without the training and the skills acquired on it, I would get confused in conversations, in accusations and insults, maybe I would freak out or get into a fight, and would complicate the situation by 1,200,000 rubles. One million two hundred thousand rubles!

I managed to apply it again when I bought the car! The price was so attractive, I would have bought it for this price. And there were others who wanted to buy a car! Nevertheless, he came up with a script, and another 15,000 rubles. bargained, which was very surprised by a friend, a specialist who examined the car. Dmitry, thanks.

4. A wise negotiator is an owl

He who knows does not prove, he who proves does not know.

(Chinese wisdom)

In the view of the layman, an extra-class negotiator is a kind of idol with a stone expression on his face, from which nothing can be read. And someone tries to imitate such an image, which often looks quite ridiculous. A wise negotiator is as natural as possible. He makes no effort to manage the negotiation process. He does not make decisions under the influence of emotions. He sees no point in yelling at the interlocutor, exerting pressure, or using various manipulations. This type has a good sense of humor, he is elegant in communication and rarely shows aggression, but he feels a steel rod that cannot be broken. Such people are like a tumbler doll, they have no rigidity, but it is impossible to put them on their shoulder blades. And at this level, negotiations are no longer a technology, but a philosophy of life. Zen philosophy is closest to it. It is not the purpose of this book to introduce the reader to this worldview, but many of its ideas are drawn from it.

The inner belief that only you make decisions, and not a single person has any right to force you to do what you don’t want, don’t like, is the main resource of a negotiator.

And this is definitely not the knowledge of tricky techniques, techniques and the content of many books, although no one has canceled the importance of such knowledge, and without them it is almost impossible to become a professional negotiator. But that's not what matters in the end.

The main thing is to be able to see the process of negotiations from the outside, to observe yourself as if from above. It's like you're a spectator watching a stage production where the actors can yell at each other, cry, beg, roll their eyes ferociously. You can sympathize with the actors on stage, empathize, or just have fun with them. Only this approach provides 100% peace and strength.

“Know how to adapt to the client - through breathing, posture, gestures, only in this case you will be able to establish rapport and thereby begin to control the interlocutor,” NLP gurus broadcast. And people who have completed their courses stupidly yawn after the person sitting opposite, scratch their nose and move in a mirror image in space. Sometimes, in relation to the cowardly type of negotiator, it works, but with the cowardly negotiator, any technique, any activity will work.

“Don’t go into someone else’s monastery with your charter,” other business gurus broadcast, “you must be able to speak the same language with the client, behave exactly like him, and then he will accept you as his own and, seized with trust, will agree to all your terms. If you negotiate with Arabs, become an Arab; with a Jew, become a Jew.” And so on.

But wait, I want to scream back, if we adapt to another, try to become the same as him, we will never be able to do it 100%. Just because an Arab or a Jew knows the rules of "their" game better, they are real Arabs or Jews 100%. And that means we are already losing at the start. A fake in a relationship is immediately visible, and it definitely does not contribute to the creation of agreements!

I saw how a young Russian entrepreneur tried to negotiate with an ordinary Russian oligarch, trying with all his might to show himself as a big businessman, throwing himself obscure terms and flashing a gold Rolex bought through an online store for $ 200. Instead of clearly formulating the essence of the proposal, its specifics, he spent time creating his image, while his interlocutor openly made fun of his interlocutor, as if by chance asking tricky questions about the slopes of Courchevel and stock quotes of non-existent companies. A wise negotiator stays true to himself. He knows how to play games, but he does not want to pretend and be not who and what he is, because in the context of negotiations this will inevitably come out. He is patient with the interlocutor and does not rush him anywhere, because everything that happens in negotiations happens naturally. Any tension, an attempt to achieve everything and everything and immediately lead to a violation of the natural process. Well, and most importantly, this is an internal attitude towards the other - “I'm only here to help you make the right decision. I don’t care what it will be, because it is your choice and your responsibility, but while I am here, I will do my best to be of service to you!”

Negotiation workshop

Answer a few questions:

1. In negotiations, what provocations of your opponent do your “sheep”, “donkey” turn on?

2 During the next negotiations, try to train your "owl", answer all the opponent's questions with a five-, seven-, ten-second delay, watch the opponent's reaction. Do not be afraid to seem "inhibited", treat this task as a psychological experiment.

Expert opinion

There are no perfect negotiators. A manager who had just negotiated billion-dollar deliveries on a business trip couldn't get a window seat at check-in at the airport. An experienced specialist in the procurement department did not get a discount from a plumber from the Housing Office. The driver was able to convince the policeman not to revoke his license for the violation, but does not know how to get the child to do homework.

Many people try to find the secret of those very " magic words that will ensure victory in any conversation. And for them, the fact may come as an unpleasant surprise - such secret knowledge does not exist.

There is general rules which almost any specialist recognizes. It is necessary to carry out preliminary preparation, to find out the necessary details not only on the situation, but also on the personality of the opponent, to plan possible options for the course of the conversation. After each - successful and unsuccessful - meeting, conduct a brief express analysis. It's like brushing your teeth twice a day and doing gymnastics. But dentists have a lot to do, and billions of diet pills are sold worldwide every year. And a lot of employees whose bosses cannot understand why this good guy has such a bad result.

The difference between successful negotiators is not only in the preparation and post-analysis of the meeting. The more you communicate with specialists from various fields, the more you understand that even the most important decisions are most often made under the influence of the emotional state of the participants. You can think of a variety of business situations. Including the ruin of enterprises only due to the fact that two fellow co-owners could not decide which of them was “cooler”.

But the most striking example for me was the holding of negotiation fights for the professional community of technical specialists. Then I took cases that were repeatedly played with a variety of managers. It was already known for certain whose position is better, which role wins. Without changing the input, I only corrected the titles of the positions. All the strong roles, the winning roles, got engineering positions. And somewhere the negotiating position was even additionally strengthened. That is, all the roles of "techies" in cases have become obviously stronger. But in every round, the people playing the role of technician lost. Not because of a bad negotiating position or lack of arguments in their defense. They lost first emotionally, and then actually, giving all the advantage. After the end of the game, the participants justified themselves: “You just gave cases where the positions of us, techies, were, as usual, the weakest.”

An experienced negotiator feels free, not interfering with his fear or greed to prevent an agreement. I believe in only one way to achieve such "negotiation enlightenment". To paraphrase the words of the classic: practice, practice, practice.

Marat Kozlov

consultant of the St. Petersburg school of negotiators "SHIP", deputy of the "Powder" Defense Ministry, chairman of the information commission