Current page: 9 (book has 17 pages total) [available reading passage: 12 pages]

§ 2. Three important steps that allow you to control your emotions

Now, dear readers, when a manipulator or “barbarian” plays these strings, clicks them, clings to them, you will immediately determine that an attack is underway on your inner state. And you will already be armed and ready to take some action. What do we have to do?

First of all, you can't rush. In no case.

However, many methods of working with “barbaric” manipulations say that you need to answer quickly and accurately. But a quick and accurate answer can lead further to this interesting game, which can be called “ping-pong in negotiations.” This means that you will stand and exchange verbal attacks towards each other. And our main task as a negotiator who is determined and focused on results is to transfer negotiations from an emotional mode to a rational one. And to do this, you must first align your emotions, put them in order. And only after that apply any of the techniques that we will discuss.

The first thing to do is to get away from the emotional blow.

Hit. Or – a sharp change in the picture of the world. The term “picture of the world” was described in detail in his books by Vladimir Tarasov. The picture of the world is a diagram of life’s labyrinths. The way we move through life, and the way we see our life: what is bad, what is good, what is ethical, what is unethical, what is expensive, what is cheap, and so on. Everyone sees all this differently and everyone builds their own route through the labyrinth. It has passages and dead ends. This is how we imagine the consequences of our actions, words and decisions.

Our picture of the world often turns out to be inadequate, which means that we drew a movement diagram for ourselves, but everything went wrong, a collision occurred with the unexpected. It is at this moment, at the moment of collision with the unexpected, that we receive blows.

The blows are delivered in the following way: a precise question, a precise statement that was not expected and which dramatically changes our picture of the world, playing and striking the strings of our soul.

The deputy director of a large company once again came to the official’s office with a request to sign a document authorizing the construction of a store. All formalities were observed, there were even signatures from residents of nearby houses, but in response to the request, the top manager received a blow:

“I know you, grabber, signatures must have been forged all night.” Just to line my pockets.

- We didn't fake anything.

– Look, here I have a statement from dissatisfied citizens.

Let's see what the blow was and why the young business representative could not answer anything.

The top manager drew in his head the following scheme for moving through the labyrinth: there are signatures, all approvals, I will come, show the papers, and the official may, of course, grumble, but he will definitely sign, but I have the opinion of the majority. This is his picture of the world.

But the official confronted him with surprise, struck the first blow, playing on the strings of pride and fear. The deputy director was unable to repel the blow and began to make excuses, to which he immediately received a second blow.

The official had a certain information advantage; he sensed the businessman’s emptiness and finished him off. As soon as we miss the first blow, our opponent will immediately deliver a series of precise blows, using Sun Tzu’s rule: “The enemy aims at nothing.”

From the memoirs of A. A. Gromyko

In 1955, a meeting of the heads of government of the USSR, USA, England and France took place in Geneva.

The heads of the delegations of the USA, England and France passionately argued that the NATO military bloc is a factor of peace, especially in Europe. They defended in every possible way their plan, which was actually aimed at absorbing the GDR into West Germany, while whitewashing the remilitarization policy of the FRG, which they supported and passed off as a peace-loving policy. At the same time, many unfounded, false reproaches were expressed against the USSR and the people's democracies, which firmly followed the policy of peace and friendship between peoples, and advocated that relations between the states of the East and West be built on the principles of peaceful coexistence.

In an effort to knock out of the hands of the leaders of these three powers the false thesis about the peacefulness of the West, as well as the fact that politics Soviet Union as if at odds with the tasks of strengthening peace, the Soviet delegation, which included N. S. Khrushchev, N. A. Bulganin, V. M. Molotov, G. K. Zhukov and myself (A. A. Gromyko), announced the USSR's readiness to join the North Atlantic Alliance. In favor of this we have given a “waterproof” argument: if the NATO bloc, as they say, is put in the service of the cause of peace, then it cannot but agree with the inclusion of the Soviet Union in it.

It is difficult to convey in words the impression that the statement on this matter, announced by Bulganin as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, made on the Western participants of the meeting. They were so stunned that, as we joked, the bizarre figures of the wall frescoes in the meeting room danced before their eyes.

For several minutes, none of the Western delegations said a word in response to the question posed. Eisenhower's neck stretched and became even longer. He leaned over to Dulles to discuss what was happening with him privately. The president’s characteristic smile, which always helped him charm voters and win victories in the fight for their votes, disappeared from the president’s face. Be that as it may, neither then nor later did we receive any formal response to our proposal in Geneva. He was simply shelved.

Effective prevention of blows is high-quality preparation for negotiations. Preparation will be discussed in Chapter 7. Now our task is to see how to dodge blows.

There is very effective way- take a break. Do not rush to answer, do not rush headlong towards the next blow, but, taking a pause, calm the rattling of the strings and only then continue negotiations.

« Pause– an effective tool that helps you gather yourself, put your emotions in order, and seize the initiative. Silence- that element of communication that only a few master, and very rarely does anyone know how to use it purposefully and consciously.” K. Bredemeier.

A boy was born into an English family who did not utter a word until he was fifteen. One day during breakfast he suddenly said:

- And the croutons were burnt.

- Why were you silent before? - The parents were surprised.

“Everything has been going well so far.”

It is much better to take an awkward pause than to give an emotional answer and get drawn into a quarrel, as a result of which you leave with nothing or with huge losses.

How to take a break during negotiations

1. Distraction of attention to everyday details. We are all living people, and we can all get a speck of dust in our eyes and get a sore throat. Phrases with which you can take a break in negotiations are not original, there are a great many of them:

Something got into my eye.

It's time for me to take my medicine.

Sore throat (drink water).

2. Physical output from the space of interaction under a plausible pretext. If the blow is strong enough, then, as a rule, the negotiator freezes in one position like a monument. It is very important to change your position, and radically. Get up, walk around, take the papers in your briefcase. When difficult situation in Murmansk, which I, reader, told you about, what helped me was leaving the room in which the negotiations were taking place: he apologized, referred to the phone call, and he just walked around, cooling down.

Once, during negotiations in one large chain, I observed how a supplier, having received a strong blow from a buyer, knocked over a cup of coffee. The pause he took gave him the opportunity to get out of the current unpleasant situation.

Well, knocking over a cup is, of course, a little excessive; you can get by with something ordinary, like:

Excuse me, I urgently need to get some papers from the office.

Excuse me, I urgently need to answer a call or SMS.(By the way, here, in order not to provoke hostility on the part of the opponent, it is important to respond to an SMS from a person to whom the attacker himself would not refuse an answer. For example, a son, or daughter, or parents. A very plausible excuse.)

Sorry, I have to leave you for a minute.(At school we said: can we go out?)

3. Philosophical way out of the situation - rhetorical question or generalized statement:

What is truth?..

We are all subjective...

There is nothing more permanent than temporary...

Only after we took a break and normalized our emotional condition, we begin to answer.

The next two chapters are entirely devoted to how to respond to attacks. However, none of the techniques will work if you break the sequence of their application:

1. Recognize an attack.

2. Evade the attack.

3. Give an answer.

Three Steps to Repel Manipulative Attacks

Chapter 5
Seven techniques that will allow you to negotiate with a tough opponent

Seven techniques that will allow you to reach an agreement

My friends! Walk with firm steps along the path leading to the temple of harmony, and overcome the obstacles you encounter along the way with the courageous meekness of a lion.

Kozma Prutkov

So, once you have recognized the attack and were able to evade it, taking a break, you need to respond. Let me remind you that negotiations are not a game of ping-pong; the purpose of your answers is to move the negotiations into a rational mode. It is in a rational mode that it is possible to reach an agreement.

In this chapter we will look at and practice 7 techniques.

1. “Reverse” clarification technique.

2. “Partial agreement” fog technique.

3. “Link” technique.

4. Technique “Marcus Aurelius”.

When repelling manipulative or barbaric attacks, the main thing is not to rush to give answers. There are three important steps to take:

1. Recognize an attack.

2. Evade the attack. Take a break.

3. Give an answer that will move the negotiations into a rational direction. If this is not possible, then the answer should allow you to exit the negotiations, leaving the door open.

§ 1. How to repel small thrusts and clarify the opponent’s position

Not all questions asked of you and not all remarks addressed to you need to be answered.

People are structured in such a way that in a conversation they strive to quickly—or even lightningly—answer questions. questions asked. In negotiations, this human characteristic must be forgotten. Another principle must be used: not all questions asked should be answered, especially questions where the meaning of what is behind the question is unclear.

So you are walking down the street, meet a friend, and he says to you: “You always tie your tie crookedly.” What's behind this phrase? Actually you don't know this. The simplest answer: a friend kindly wants to point out to you that the tie is really poorly tied (although the word “forever” confuses you). Or maybe this friend wants to get the role of a person who has the right to evaluate you.

Valuation is a very dangerous thing. When you give another person the right to evaluate you once, know that you are giving him the right to constantly evaluate everything. Today he assessed how you tie a tie, tomorrow - the quality of your work, the day after tomorrow - in general, your professional suitability. Giving such a right to a person is very dangerous.

That's why best technology working in such situations is “ reverse", clarification technique.

The word “reverse”, as is known, has several meanings, each of which, however, is associated with the original meaning of the Latin revertor - I turn back, I return. In technology, reverse is switching the engine to reverse motion, in bill of exchange law it is an obligation to redeem, return a bill before the due date, in numismatics it is the reverse side of a coin. Finally, this word also denotes the reverse side of the medal, which in Russian carries a certain hidden meaning: they say, what is hidden behind the reward?

And it is in this sense that the word entered into the technique of negotiations. What lies behind the judgment expressed by the opponent? Needs clarification. Or, ask the person to give you specific advice. In the described situation, you can safely ask his advice: “What would you advise me to change? How would you advise me to tie my tie?”

This is very good way transition from the emotional plane to the rational one. Because, firstly, if a person is constructive, if carrying destructive criticism is not his goal, and he really wants to help with the technique of tying a tie, then in return he will either show you or teach you. And if a person is not in the mood for a constructive conversation, then he will be forced to think about what to do. Any advice? - the answer may sound something like: “Yes-ah, this really is a country of Soviets!” And most likely, he will simply come out of this emotional contact, which in itself is also very good. In any case, you will be in the black. After all, I repeat once again, the task of techniques for working with “barbarism” and manipulation is not to arrange “ping-pong”, but to enter into a rational discussion.

Recently, at a training on this topic, one lady became very emotional: they say, she uses this technique.

I recently got my license. I am, of course, a young, inexperienced driver and I drive with my husband - for safety net. And my husband constantly made caustic remarks: “How you drive, how you brake, how you switch gears!..” I was constantly emotional, nervous, forgot about everything, my hands were shaking, and made even more mistakes. And then one day she stopped, looked at him and said: “Darling, teach me how to brake correctly, show me how to brake correctly...” And then the attacks immediately stopped. Because it’s one thing to attack for some purpose, and another thing to teach. Teaching is always harder. So I realized that my husband was intent on destruction - on causing harm. He wanted to show by his actions that I was a bad driver and I shouldn’t drive a car. But he was in no way ready to teach me.

That is why, by using the “Reverse” technique, you at least make your picture of the world more adequate in relation to what exactly a person really wants to achieve from you: to do you good or harm.

It is always important to evaluate the scope of application of a given technique. When to use it? When you don't understand your opponent's intentions. When statements like the following are heard:

I don't understand what you want.

I don't like what you are suggesting.

Ugly...

Unclear…

Not interested…

You can clarify the attacker's intentions with the following questions:

– What would you recommend to improve?

– What would you recommend to change?

– What to look for Special attention?

– What should I do?

"Reverse" technique

Don’t think that after the first question you ask, your opponent will open up and start talking. As a rule, the question must be repeated in different variations two or three times. And if after this the opponent still does not come to a rational discussion, the conclusion is clear - it is worth interrupting this round of negotiations.

– You always tie your tie crookedly!!! When will you finally learn?

– What would you recommend changing?

- Well, this knot doesn’t suit you.

- Advise me how to tie it.

- I need to advise you!

- In that case, I propose to finish the topic of discussing my tie and talk about what we have gathered for today.

Application of the “Reverse” technique

By the way, dear reader, keep in mind: the “Reverse” technique should not always be used. Do not resort to it when there are attacks on your personality, when personal matters are generally affected (your company, your loved ones). Agree, to the phrase “What kind of nonsense are you talking about” it is inappropriate to answer “Advise me what to do...”. Or, when they tell you: “I heard that your company is ruined...”, asking for advice on what to do in such a situation is illogical. This will just lead to the “ping-pong” already described, and as a result you will hear: “You yourself know, it’s time to run away from this company.”

Another important variation of this technique is the use of appeals instead of questions. An appeal, just like a question, allows you to:

Get an explanation.

Encourage continued dialogue.

Calm your opponent.

Encourages action.

Appeals have one important advantage - they do not invite people to look for solutions, but present them on a silver platter. Instead of a question asking for advice, the statements described above (when the opponent’s intentions are unclear) can be answered with a call:

– Please tell me what to improve!

- Be specific.

– Please express your opinion.

- Please clarify.

– Please comment.

I turned to one fairly famous photographer big company. Her manager ordered him a portfolio for the company's anniversary. The photographer completed the order, but the customer did not like it. He redid it, and - again, bypassed. This happened time after time. His nerves are on edge, he is ready to give up this order, and the customer, apparently, does not really want to continue to cooperate.

Appeals

Ivan, well, we don’t like your pictures.

What should I change?

Ivan, are you a photographer or do you just consider yourself that way?

Show me what to change!

Well...

I'm waiting for your opinion!

Change the background. Our director can't stand the color green.

When using questions and appeals, you should always remember that the same coin has two sides. You should not use appeals alone or questions alone. Appeals stimulate, but questions help to obtain information.

In order not to play “ping-pong”, so as not to turn into a banal exchange of remarks and an emotional plane when working with manipulation or “barbarism,” it is important, after you have answered, to immediately turn your gaze. As a rule, when there are manipulations and attacks, there is a look eye to eye. If after your remark you do not turn your gaze to another object, this will mean the following: “Come on, continue. I challenged you." And the person, even if he was in a constructive mood, will intuitively begin to fight with you further. Therefore, you said and take your eyes a little to the side, look at your papers, but not at your opponent.

And now - a task for you, dear reader, to use the first technique for negotiating with a tough opponent. Here I will make a reservation that this chapter contains tasks for all seven techniques. You can do them directly on the pages of the book, or you can write them out in a notepad or create a corresponding document on the desktop of your computer. So: in order for this work to be complete, I numbered all the tasks of the chapter through and through, from number 1 to number 37 at the end of the chapter. Accordingly, I offer five tasks for the “Reverse” technique.

How would you answer the following phrases using the Reverse technique:

1. “I don’t like your proposal.”

Question:

Call

2. “Something bothers me about the style of your presentation.”

Question: ___________________________________________________

Call: ___________________________________________________

3. “It seems to me that your proposal is not constructive.”

Question: ___________________________________________________

Call: ___________________________________________________

4. “Somehow you don’t look festive.”

Question: ___________________________________________________

Call: ___________________________________________________

5. “I don’t know if it’s worth acting so rashly?”

Question: ___________________________________________________

Call: ___________________________________________________

The “Reverse” technique is used when the meaning of the attack is unclear, when it is possible to determine the true motives of the attacker: is he being constructive or vice versa? In response questions, you should not repeat the negative images that your opponent used. If we respond to the phrase “It seems to me that your proposal is unconstructive”: “What do you think is unconstructive in my phrase?”, then we will convince the opponent even more deeply of our unconstructive approach. It is much better to use positive images: “What in my proposal should be improved?” If in response to such a phrase a person gives a constructive recommendation, it means that he is committed to constructive negotiations. If the answer sounds like: “Decide for yourself, I don’t know what to add,” then you need to understand that the opponent is not in a constructive mood. In this case, it is better to take a break in order to give him the opportunity to cool down and think. Say something like: “Thank you for your time, then I will try to make changes. But if you can tell me what to emphasize, I will be grateful to you.” There is a possibility that after this phrase the opponent will begin to open up and come out of the state of destructive attack.

1. Say “Stop!”

The most destructive emotion for negotiations is anger. It occurs when your personal psychological space is violated. Imagine: coming straight at you stranger- closer, closer, closer... You tense up, your body seems to scream: “Stop, you can’t get any closer!” Because your personal space is being violated. The same condition occurs when an aggressor or manipulator invades your personal space verbally. The body also screams: “Stop!” But we don't hear him. But in vain. Take a break and try to stop your anger. Many are afraid that a pause will be mistaken for confusion. Nothing like this. A pause just means “I have to think.” Don't be afraid of her.

Most effective method calm down - breathe with your stomach. When we are overcome with anger, the blood rushes to our hands and face. By starting to breathe with your stomach, you will direct the blood flow to it, “taking it” from your arms and head. Remember: after lunch, when your stomach is intensely digesting food, you are not capable of extreme emotions. Therefore, for example, many lawyers try to ensure that trials take place after the judge's lunch.

2. Don't make excuses

During negotiations, the pendulum of emotions should not swing. It is important to learn to manage not only your emotions, but also the emotional state of your interlocutor.

For example, an angry customer comes to you, the seller: “You have delayed deliveries, immediately compensate for the losses!” An inexperienced seller will answer: “Yes, yes, it’s my fault, get a 10% discount.” But in this state, your concessions will most likely not satisfy the client. He will continue to put pressure and say: “No, let’s give 20%!” It is better to let the person speak out and in no case make excuses. Resolve issues after the flame goes out.

You should not make excuses even in those cases when they look down on you, or even mockingly. Suppose you come to an official. “What, did you come to ask for something? Well, come on, show me... What you have there...” And you begin to make excuses - to emotionally prove the importance of “what you have there.” It’s better to take a pause and answer the official: “Do I understand correctly that it is important for you that I accurately and briefly state what I came with?” This is a rational answer. The person at the other end of the table will pay attention to what you say.

3. Set intermediate goals

Having achieved emotional stability in negotiations, begin to defend your goals, but not “head-on”. Let's say you bought equipment that doesn't work. You come to the supplier for negotiations in order to receive compensation. If you announce your goal at the very beginning, you will probably get the answer: no, I won’t. This happens because we begin to fight the opponent from the very beginning. Your goal is to receive compensation, his is not to pay. I found a scythe on a stone. You may end up leaving with nothing.

Set intermediate goals. First, get your partner’s agreement that it is his fault that the failure occurred. When a person admits his guilt, we can begin to discuss compensation options. It is the options - what is important here is dialogue, not imperative. And at the end, record the result - to make sure that both parties understood it equally.

4. Make the other person listen to you

Often, aspiring businessmen are not taken seriously. An influential “monster investor”, in response to a fiery speech, sums it up: “You’re talking nonsense.” You are hesitating, but you need to clearly respond: “What does ‘nonsense’ mean? What exactly do you not like? Please be specific." Direct the conversation in a constructive direction.

Sometimes they don’t listen to you at all, don’t let you say a word, accusing you of one, two, three, or ten. To get out of such a situation, do not try to interrupt or object. Remember the very first (not the most offensive, but the very first) unlawful argument in your direction. After this, you need to stop listening to your interlocutor. Keep only this illegitimate argument in mind. After some time, your “accuser” will become silent, and then you need to defeat his very first unlawful argument. In this case, it’s as if the others didn’t exist, and the opponent’s position weakens. If there is a second “attack”, act in exactly the same way. This technique does not guarantee that your point of view will be accepted. But at least you will be listened to and heard, and this is already a lot.

5. Stand up for your interests, not your ambitions

Remember that the essence of negotiations is to defend the interests of the cause, and not your own ambitions. Solve the problem essentially, translate it into a rational plane.

The most common mistake in “ambition negotiations” is bargaining. One says: “Give me a 10% discount.” Second: “No, I’m only 7% ready.” First: “My position is unchanged - only 10%.” Second: “Mine too: 7%, no more.” Ah well! And the first one leaves, slamming the door. Both satisfied their ambitions, but were not one step closer to a solution, did not see their benefits. We lost the deal and the money because we were negotiating with ambitions, not business.

6. Give the right to refuse

It often happens that the partner (negotiator) refuses to answer the question directly or feeds you with promises. This means that he most likely wants to refuse you, but is afraid to say no. By not refusing directly, the partner thinks that in this way he will prolong the relationship. In fact, the opposite is true: the opposite side has unreasonably high expectations, which can ultimately lead to a complete break in the relationship.

Negotiations mean that each participant can say “no” at any time. Give the person the right to refuse you. The phrase will help: “It is very important for me now to hear the answer: did you accept my offer or reject it. I won’t be offended or upset if I receive a refusal, but it’s very important for me to hear a specific answer.” After this phrase was spoken, you, firstly, equalized your positions at the negotiating table, and secondly, made it clear to the person that he is responsible for his decisions. If your partner hesitates in making a decision, he will definitely accept it (maybe a little later) and will let you know about it. If he intended to refuse, he will refuse. In any case, you will get the result.

False facts

The point: your opponent utters a fact whose truth you doubt. Often, he creates additional pressure with the phrase: “Don’t you trust me?”

Example: “According to the expert assessment of the largest agency, the cost of your apartment should be as follows...”

Counteraction: check the truth of the facts that cause you doubts. If necessary, take a break to check this data. Ask clarifying questions about where the information you have doubts came from.

Important: do not get involved in conversations about “whether you trust or not.” Accusing someone of not being credible can lead to problems. Therefore, keeping a good relationship, insist that you need to check the data that gives you doubts.

Ambiguous powers

The point: your opponent makes you feel like he has full authority to sign the agreement. You make certain concessions. You work out a compromise solution. Your opponent then states that he must get someone else's approval. This move allows opponents to "take a second bite of the apple."

Example: “It’s great that we agreed on these terms in the agreement. But I cannot sign it now. I need to get approval from my management. I propose to meet tomorrow and continue negotiations, taking into account the wishes of my management on the agreement reached.”

Counteraction: ideally, initially clarify whether the opposite party has all the powers. And if it turns out that you do not have the necessary authority, then do not enter into negotiations requiring that you communicate with those who have the authority.

If you nevertheless encounter this technique, then make it clear that the agreement reached can be revised by you: “If you are not ready to sign this agreement and it is possible for you to make changes tomorrow, then we reserve the right to make tomorrow there will be changes to this agreement."

A promise without intention to keep it

The bottom line: the other side promises you to fulfill a number of conditions. But you have doubts that they will actually follow through. There is a strong feeling that they will not fulfill their obligations.

Example: “Okay, okay. Let me come in a week and do what you ask...” - but you have the feeling that it seems that the other side will promise, but will not fulfill.

Counteraction: demand to be included in the agreement additional conditions, describing what will happen if the other party does not fulfill its promises. Or demand any additional guarantees: “If you are so sure that you will do what you promise, let’s you deposit the insurance amount in a deposit box in the bank. If you do, this amount is returned to you. If you do not fulfill, it goes to us at covering additional expenses."

As they say, nothing strengthens a relationship like paying in advance. Therefore, ask for additional guarantees that the other party will keep their promises if you have doubts about this.

Emotional destabilization

The bottom line: one of the manipulations is that they are trying to throw you off balance. You can use many techniques for this, for example:

• Uncomfortable physical environment: you are seated on an uncomfortable chair, with your back to open door, or for some reason the light is shining in your eyes, or the room is too cold, or...
• Personal attacks: Your opponent makes comments about your appearance, clothing, or otherwise shows disrespect.
• The “good-evil policeman” game: at first there is severe pressure, and then they seem to begin to communicate with you softly, kindly, which, in contrast, makes you want to make concessions.

Threats: psychological pressure is exerted by various kinds of threats.

Counteraction: one of the best ways returning to a working emotional state means taking a break in the negotiations. So that your answer is conscious, and not words spoken rashly. Therefore, if you feel that emotions are boiling inside you, take a break.

It is also useful to train stress resistance. It’s a little easier for phlegmatic people here; they are naturally calmer. It’s a little more difficult for choleric people, as they are naturally more emotional. But this is a separate topic of working with your emotional state/stress level.

Refusal to negotiate

The bottom line: the opponent puts forward his demands and refuses to negotiate.

Example: “Either you sign these papers, or we’ll meet in court.”

Counteraction: again, pausing may be a good strategy here. You wait for a while. Perhaps your opponent will soon lose his nerve and start communicating with you.

It can also be useful to find out why they don’t want to negotiate with you. Maybe you just have the wrong status, and by sending a person with a higher status in your place, you can start negotiations.

In such a situation, communicating with your opponent through third parties can be effective (directly is still quite conflicting).

Excessive demands

The bottom line: initially, inadequate, excessive demands are put forward.

Example: “I’m ready to buy your car for just $3,000” (with a real cost of 10,000).

Counteraction: alternatively, you can communicate the consequences of such behavior by your opponent: “I hope you realize that by putting forward obviously unrealistic demands, you are depriving negotiations of any meaning and such behavior will most likely lead to the fact that there will be no negotiations between us at all.”

Additional requirements

The bottom line: when it seems that an agreement has already been reached, the opponent begins to put forward additional demands.

Example: “Yes, we agreed, but there is still one small problem left...” - which then results in a decent amount.

Counteraction: draw your opponent's attention to the fact that he is using similar tactics and take a break. During the break, consider how wise it is to continue to concede to your opponent.

Example: “I would be happy to sign this contract, but the director of our purchasing department demanded that the price be reduced by 20%.”

Counteraction: try to get your opponent's agreement with the principle you have come to, and then try to negotiate with someone who can change the established restrictions.

We hope that knowing these manipulative techniques will help you negotiate more consciously.

Leader and Lead Trainer

"University of Rhetoric and Oratory Skill"

Negotiating partners came to one authoritative elderly businessman. They were very tense and the negotiations were difficult. In order to defuse the situation, he drew an analogy between negotiations and a game.

Imagine, he said, a circus and an arena. The juggler comes out. He has blue balls in his hands. He begins to juggle them. Each ball is one argument in favor of his side. The second juggler comes out. There are balls in his hands white. These are already his arguments.

And so they begin to throw them to each other. First, one ball at a time - one argument, then two at a time - the second argument, then one throws two balls, the other catches them, and throws nothing in response. Here it is - Negotiation PAUSE. How does a partner feel whose balls have not been returned? There are many options: alarm - maybe the rules of the game have changed; anger - throws three balls at once; confusion - stands blankly and stares... That is, PAUSE is one of the tools in the suitcase of an experienced negotiator and a way to manipulate the negotiation situation.

So, the speech in today’s block will be devoted to short Negotiation mini-PAUSES (not to be confused with a pause when we leave the negotiation room or when we take a timeout of 2-3 days)

Example. You are in negotiations with a client that is strategically important to you. A one-year contract is at stake. You have already made a presentation of your commercial terms, which are supported by economic calculations with projected profits for the partner.

Economic profitability model in your laptop, which is in front of you on the conference table. It would seem that this is the direct benefit of working with you. And yet the client asks you to move forward on 2-3 points.

You, thoughtfully turning the laptop in your direction so that only you can see the screen, thoughtfully hum something like mmmm, hmm and, staring at the monitor, move the cursor across the screen left and right. There is a PAUSE. After 3-5 seconds our opponent starts to get nervous.

And he says that, of course, I understand everything. Well, at least 1-2 more points. You, turning your concentrated gaze to your interlocutor and again burying your face in the monitor, continue to hold the Pause (in addition, you can frown). The tension at the negotiating table increases, and the interlocutor’s anxiety becomes obvious. "OK. Persuaded. We accept your terms."

I called this technique:“Provocative PAUSE (PP)”.

Instead of a laptop, you can use a diary or a smart background. It is important not to break down ahead of time and pause until the end. Silence can successfully replace the lack of necessary arguments, provoking the interlocutor to break the pause without waiting for an explanation from you.

If this technique was applied to you, then as methods/techniques of counteraction you can:

Silence in response (then hold a pause until your opponent’s first word)

Answer harshly. “You’re wasting my time” “I didn’t come to you to play silent games”

Make a joke about how appropriate the joke would be in this situation: “I’m glad that the birth rate in our country does not stand still” (This is a joke: if there is a pause, a cop was born somewhere)

Neutral. “I see you are considering my proposal. What questions arise?

Positive. " Good offer. You understand"

For example. Manager Vasily came to important negotiations for his company. After presenting his commercial terms, he heard in response: “And... (pause)”, he immediately replied: “Good offer. You understand".

In this situation, when the manager has arrived at the receiving party and the outcome of the negotiations is more important for Vasily, it is permissible to use all techniques except “answer harshly” and “shut up in response.” Since these techniques cause a negative reaction in your partner and are applicable in cases where your position is stronger.

What do you do when you are asked a question?

Most often, you answer correctly. That's how they were brought up - it's customary to answer questions.

One of the ways to protect against the stereotype “questions must be answered” is a pause before answering or a pause in general, i.e. We are not going to answer. The psychological advantage of the questioner is dissolved in it, that is, a pause is, in addition to all of the above, a means of manipulation.

Without receiving an answer, the questioner usually experiences discomfort and is lost. In Somerset Maugham's Theatre, the main character (in the famous television production, her role was brilliantly played by Via Artmane) not only uses delicately measured pauses to achieve her goals, but also gives a speech in praise of this technique.

A skillful pause helps greatly in business communication. Having heard the proposed terms of the transaction, an experienced businessman will not immediately say “yes”, even if they completely suit him. Otherwise, the partner will think that he has “cheaped up” and may change the conditions that reduce the benefit for the person who agreed. On the contrary, a pause, as if indicating doubt, creates the impression that what is proposed is the maximum that a businessman can agree to.

And now, about techniques for using PAUSE that cause positive or negative reactions from the client.

Let's start with the positive. These are the words and phrases after which we pause, and which nevertheless do not irritate the client:

I share your point of view, and... (took a break). I agree with you and... (pause)

After the client’s words, we nod our heads and move our hands in a circular motion. We support the client non-verbally. And we verbally say “And... (pause)”

I really want to understand you. Continue... (pause)

Yes, yes... (pause)

Nod of head...(pause)

For example. Still the same manager Vasily, our friend. All the same negotiations. 15 minutes after the start. The receiving party to Vasily: “We have a queue of clients offering similar working conditions.” Vasily’s answer: “Which conditions are similar?.. Please comment...”

Finishing touch. The reign of Louis XIV - better known as the "Sun King" - was a time of significant strengthening of the unity of France, its military power, political weight, intellectual prestige, cultural flourishing and went down in history as the Great Age. According to the Venetian envoy, “He had the ability, very important for a king, to express himself briefly but clearly, and to say no more and no less than what was necessary. Moreover, Louis XIV was an excellent listener. He listened silently, without interrupting, then took a PAUSE and said: “I’ll think about it.”

Let us also adopt the technique from Louis XIV: take a break and say: “I’ll think about it.”

Good luck and all the best,

It happens that the progress of negotiations simply stops due to the mute resistance of the opponent. Often this behavior is not a negotiating point or a desire to take a break. Often such resistance is a sign of manipulation - the opponent’s desire to achieve more favorable conditions.

So, the following methods are typical for the type of manipulation “Deaf resistance”:
Deliberate deception
Psychological warfare
Positional pressure

More details about each method.

Deliberate deception

This manipulation is conventionally divided into two techniques - a false statement and a dubious intention.

False statement

The essence of the technique is that the manipulator makes a statement that raises doubts in the opponent. The opponent voices his doubts, which causes the manipulator to demonstrate resentment.
The result is awkwardness and fear of non-cooperation. The manipulator puts pressure on the opponent with the need to confirm trust.

Protected against false statements

To protect against such influence, it is necessary to express solidarity with the client:
“I trust you completely and I have no reason to doubt you.”
Next, you can refer to something that does not depend on you, for example, a set of rules:
“Still, there are rules in your company... Alas, nothing can be done about it”
This “Alas” is quite a suitable and appropriate digression.

Questionable Intentions

The essence of the technique is to mask resistance. The opponent agrees with your words and even supplements your proposal with his own conditions. But at the same time, the opponent himself is not able to fulfill his own conditions and is not going to accept your offer.

Protection

First, you should express trust in your opponent. And then raise the question of more specific steps. For example, transfer agreements to paper.

Psychological warfare

The “Psychological Warfare” method consists of two textbook techniques:
Creating uncomfortable conditions
Bad - good
More details about each.

Technique “Creating Uncomfortable Conditions”

The essence of the technique is simple. Before negotiations, they try to create comfortable conditions— optimal temperature and lighting, comfortable chairs and the ability to communicate without haste. There are a lot of such nuances.
This is where the possibility of manipulation arises - the rules for preparing for negotiations are deliberately violated and uncomfortable conditions are created for opponents. As a result, opponents try to complete negotiations as quickly as possible and, accordingly, the desire to argue decreases.

Protection

It’s worth starting to understand what exactly causes discomfort. Then directly indicate the presence of such a source of discomfort.
In other words, if you see that the terms of negotiations are uncomfortable for you, change the terms. If the source of discomfort cannot be eliminated, then it makes sense to postpone the negotiations.

"Bad - Good" technique

This technique is more than cinematic - in negotiations there are two negotiators on the opponent’s side. The first negotiates very toughly. While the second negotiator demonstrates a willingness to compromise.
At the same time, even the slightest concessions of the second negotiator against the background of the first, tough one, look more than beneficial.

Protection

First of all, you need to note the manipulation for yourself. It is necessary to adhere to maximum objectivity - the conditions offered by a “good” negotiator should be clarified. It is necessary to compare the terms of the two negotiators and understand the differences in proposals or lack thereof.
After conducting a cold analysis, you can move on to informed decision making.

Positional pressure

This manipulation is divided into several techniques:
Refusal to negotiate
Burning bridges
Choice without choice
Excessive demands
Deliberately delaying negotiations

So, more details about each.

Refusal to negotiate

The essence of the technique is that the opponent refuses negotiations at the initial stage. The goal is to firmly induce the interlocutor to make concessions.

Protection

The response to such providence by the opponent may be to voice the preliminary conditions of the negotiations - perhaps they will suit the interlocutor.
It is also important to understand the reason for the refusal. Perhaps your opponent does not believe in the negotiations themselves, does not want to emphasize your status through the negotiations themselves, or is afraid of criticism.
Then you can offer an alternative - for example, mediation or the participation of third parties or indirect negotiations through correspondence.

"Burning Bridges"

The essence of the technique is that the manipulator declares a certain line that he cannot cross. That there is no more time for negotiations or delays. Also statements about the impossibility of returning to completed points.
As a consequence of the reception, concessions are impossible, which form the basis of negotiations.

Protection

If all statements are manipulative in nature, then the opponent should be helped to retreat with dignity. It is necessary to move away from the situation where all sorts of statements and ostentatious obligations that are not related to the essence of the issue under discussion played a primary role.
It is necessary to make it clear to the opponent that it is not big words that are important, but facts and cold calculations. As a last resort, you can directly accuse your opponent of attempting to manipulate, thereby forcing him to retreat.

Choice without choice

The essence of the technique is that the manipulator sets a strict condition: “Either yes, or end of negotiations.” Which in its essence negates the main point of negotiations - finding optimal concessions on both sides.
So, when faced with the aggressive manipulation “Choice without choice,” you should do the following:
At first, you can simply ignore the opponent’s statement, even if the opponent repeats himself (within reason, of course).
You can try to change the topic of conversation by offering a different option. You can also directly state that this approach is not accepted in the negotiation process. Point out that your opponent is missing an opportunity or suggest that you have been misunderstood. You may need to help your opponent save face in negotiations—to retreat with dignity.
An important point is that when dealing with an opponent who is characterized by incorrect negotiation methods, there is always the possibility of failure of the negotiations themselves. Accordingly, it would be a good idea to prepare a backup plan:
Determine for yourself the limits of your own capabilities - what concessions you can make, how you can change your conditions. And also the question of curtailing contacts with a problematic partner and moving on to other contacts.

Excessive demands

The essence of the technique is clear from the name - the opponent operates with overly inflated demands. To protect yourself, you can directly point out to your opponent that this approach is incorrect. Raise the question of confirming such inflated demands with specific figures, and if necessary, warn about the termination of negotiations.
It is worth noting the following - the “Increasing demands” technique involves many options. For example, your opponent may increase his demands after each concession you make. In exchange for each step he may demand a revision of the already agreed upon details.
Or make excessive demands right away. Also, an opponent can put forward high demands on secondary issues, reducing demands in exchange for concessions on primary issues.
If you encounter just such an opponent, you should understand that this is a difficult case. For example, an initially profitable deal may change noticeably not in better side. Therefore, you need to think about whether it is worth negotiating further if the opponent refuses to comply with the main points of the negotiations.
It will also be useful to take a time out - directly inform your opponent that you should consider further negotiations in the changed conditions, and think about the general feasibility of such negotiations.

Deliberately delaying negotiations

This manipulation looks like a time out. The time-out itself can be useful, but if such a maneuver is not in your favor, then you should take retaliatory action.
The “Deliberately delaying negotiations” technique itself is used when the manipulator tries to put pressure, make you nervous, show impatience, or simply wants to choose another option.

Such manipulation often manifests itself as a reference to some other party, whose opinion is important to the manipulator - for example, a companion with whom one must definitely consult.

Protection

There are two options here - either there really is a second party with whom the opponent should consult, or this is just a trick. In this case, the opponent can be asked to first fix the agreements that have already been reached. And then offer to negotiate directly with the other side of the opponent.

If there is no other side as such, you need to find objective reasons that would be significant for you and your opponent. Objective reasons that would be a serious incentive to stick to the agreements and that would not depend on both of you.

Share on social networks Manipulations aimed at perception So, let’s continue the topic of manipulation in sales and negotiations, protection from such...

Negotiations are a very interesting process. Negotiations do not only take place in luxurious offices. Necessity...