If you consider that to be a truth in all of your communications, you will avoid potential conflict. Many times somebody says something that offends you at some level, and your first reaction is to…well…react. React with anger, confusion, and maybe ridicule.

If you stop to consider, however, that the person may not have intentionally offended you and that it’s human nature to state something without fully considering the implications, you may avoid a confrontation.

I recently shared a suggestion with a group of people by email. One person responded with a number of reasons why my suggestion wouldn’t work. The person even provided some additional problems in the response that loosely applied to the group, but really didn’t have anything to do with the topic.

I don’t know the person very well, and I truly believe they were attempting to provide helpful information. I don’t believe they intended to be insulting, and certainly not confrontational. However, the person probably didn’t spend a second considering how their message could be considered offensive.

After reflecting on the truth that people don’t think before they speak, I decided to respond politely and welcoming. I told the person I valued their information, and I suggested they should continue to communicate with me.

So what was the result? This person and I are still communicating effectively, and after this person shared their “helpful” information with the group, they no longer have a need to be directly engaged on the original topic.

is “The Curse of Knowledge”. The Curse of Knowledge is when the sender of the communication assumes that the receiver understands the message simply because the sender understands it.

The Curse of Knowledge is a barrier to successful negotiations because the sender falsely believes that the sender’s signals are being received correctly by the other party.

When the sender questions whether the receiver will care about the message, the sender will answer “yes” because the sender cares about the message. Made to Stick gives an example of the Murray Dranoff Duo Piano people, who say that they “exist to protect, preserve, and promote the music of the duo piano.” They’re shocked that they’re statement doesn’t arouse the same passion in others.

At some point in a negotiation, you will probably be tempted to send a subtle message. I’ve had clients who want to gain the “upper-hand” by holding the negotiation discussions in my office (“the home field advantage”) or by making the first low-ball offer. It’s an attempt to subtly tell the other side that “we’re in charge”.

Sometimes we adjust our settlement proposal to show that we are willing to “meet them halfway” in the negotiation.

These communications are subtle, however, and Made to Stick shows that more times than not, subtlety is lost in communications. The message is loud and clear in your head, and as a result, you falsely believe that your negotiation partner is hearing the message too.

You get frustrated that your negotiation partner can’t see the obvious. Meanwhile, your message is misunderstood, if it’s even perceived. You now have a breakdown in your communications and potential termination of your negotiations.

To learn more, buy Made to Stick here.

meaning which communications get people to buy products, spend money, and simplify their buying decisions. It explains how to influence people – a core component of negotiation strategy – by showing there is more to persuasion than logic and facts.

Here’s how to create a “sticky” negotiation message using the six principles from Made to Stick - Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotional, and Stories:

1. Write out in detail the goal of the message you wish to convey in the negotiation.
2. Write out what message you believe your negotiation partner currently perceives. 
3. Then create and write out a second negotiation message trying to use the SUCCESs principles from the book.
4. Create a scorecard (see below) to evaluate which negotiation message has more points, based on the SUCCESs principles. Rate the principles in the message on a scale of 1 – 5. The message with more points is more “sticky”.

Checklist                     Old Message                     New Message

Simplicity
Unexpectedness
Concreteness
Credibility
Emotional
Stories

You can buy the book here.

meaning the message is memorable. The book is primarily aimed towards people whose responsibilities include presentations, marketing, and sales; however, it is not limited to those groups of people. Made to Stick also provides valuable insight for those people involved in negotiations. The book can help you understand how to make your negotiations sticky.

Made to Stick is written by two brothers, Chip Heath and Dan Heath, who were working on the same subject from two different perspectives – business and academia. The book provides a simple and practical blueprint for creating effective communications. The principles are backed up with interesting anecdotes and facts.

It looks at business communications from a psychological perspective, meaning which communications get people to buy products, spend money, and simplify their buying decisions. It explains how to influence people – a core component of negotiation strategy – by showing there is more to persuasion than logic and facts.

The book provides six principles using the acronym SUCCESs – Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotional, and Stories. Here are the principles, and how you can use them in your negotiations:

• Simplicity: Your main idea (argument) must be stripped to its core, and the most important points should be evident. Don’t try every argument, hoping one of them is successful. The Heaths write, “To strip an idea down to its core, we must be masters of exclusion. We must relentlessly prioritize.”
• Unexpectedness: Your negotiation partner has expectations about your motivation, your argument, and how you will present it. You have to put yourself in your partner’s place to understand what it is they expect. Then find a way to break the expectations and destroy their preconceived notions. Make them want to know more about how your solution benefits them.
• Concreteness: Use real-world analogies and explain concrete actions and benefits. They have to understand exactly what you’re proposing, and how it will benefit them. Your concreteness must be focused on what’s in it for them.
• Credibility: In a negotiation, you already start off with the disadvantage of mistrust. You must put your negotiation partner in a position to believe you. If your partner doesn’t trust you, they’ll actively try to dispute your argument.
• Emotional: Information makes people think, but emotion makes them care. Your argument must be meaningful enough to make your negotiation partner act. You have to appeal to their emotional needs by forming an association between what they care about and what you are seeking agreement on.
• Stories: People pay closer attention to stories and feel more connected. In your negotiation, find a way to put your partner in a story that ends with them receiving the benefit they are looking to obtain.

You can buy the book here.

I forgot in kindergarten.

Creativity, however, can be critical to finding solutions in the negotiation process. Successful negotiations typically require us to change our thinking process in order to move us away from positions and towards exploring solutions to resolve concerns.

Fortunately, Roger von Oech has written A Whack on the Side of the Head. Von Oech takes the premise that our educational system and business environment stifle creativity. Through this book, von Oech provides illustrations, puzzles, inspirational quotes, and exercises to help us adults rediscover our creativity.

Von Oech points out that solving a problem in negotiations requires “soft thinking”, which is imagination and creativity, and “hard thinking”, which is the practical phase of decision making. Both “soft thinking” and “hard thinking” have their place. When tackling a negotiation, we should start off like an artist, using “soft thinking” skills to realize there’s more than one idea. We can then convert to being a judge, using “hard thinking” skills” to decide which ideas are acceptable and practical to implement.

A Whack on the Side of the Head provides numerous examples and great lessons to improve negotiations. The book provides great information about where and how to use “soft skills” to look at a negotiation from a different perspective.

This is a must-read book that you can buy right here.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/trainwithshane/2010/03/15/career-transition-and-the-workplace

What can we learn from this article on Israel & Palestine about negotiation strategies? Plenty.

There are three points that the article presents that anyone would find helpful in tough negotiations.

First, the Israelis and Palestinians have decided to move backwards to communicate indirectly through a mediator. It’s a positive negotiation strategy to recognize that what you’ve been doing isn’t working and a change is needed. If in you’re negotiations you get bogged down in positions (instead of interests and concerns), and you allow the personalities to overshadow the problem, you need to explore another method of communication.

Second, both Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu need to save face with their constituencies. In order to keep your negotiation arguments relevant and focused, you must be able to analyze the interests and concerns of the person you are negotiating with. You must know what problem they are relying upon you to fix in a way that makes them popular. If you don’t make your negotiating partner comfortable, you will not be able to move to a discussion on interests and concerns.

Third, the use of a mediator will hopefully move the parties back towards meaningful progress. The book Getting to Yesis primarily devoted to the idea that you should not negotiate over positions; rather, you should focus on interests and concerns. A mediator helps parties develop an acceptable procedure and benchmark for advancement that’s separate from their independent positions. by Roger Fisher and William Ury

There are 5.5 ways to negotiate against yourself, which I detail below.

Before entering a negotiation, you must be prepared to argue both sides. You have to be objective and be able to criticize your own position. Law school Professor James W. McElhaney, writes, “There is a natural burden of proof for virtually every set of circumstances you can imagine. People, hearing the story of any case, automatically test it against their attitudes, their beliefs, their life experiences. And if the facts of a case don’t mesh with people’s “inner scripts,” they either figure there is more to the story, or it didn’t happen the way you say it did. … And once they think they understand what did and didn’t happen, it’s difficult to get them to change their minds.”[1]

When you negotiate against yourself as part of your preparation, you are forced to determine what are your real interests and concerns. Therefore, follow these tips before entering the negotiations:

1. Objectively criticize your own position and analyze the weak points
2. Determine your true interests and concerns
3. Start exploring what position you want to take in the negotiations
4. Determine whether your position truly meets your interests and concerns
5. Prepare your response to any objections

     5.5 Explore other possible positions as options if your primary position isn’t successful in the negotiations.

 http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/24895/herzliya-diary/

In order to keep your negotiation arguments relevant and focused, you must be able to analyze the interests and concerns of the person you are negotiating with and apply your arguments to that person’s interest and concerns. This requires answering four questions: 

1. What are the things the other person wants from you?
2. What problem are they relying upon you to fix?
3. How do they think you can improve their situation?
4. What are the two or three most compelling reasons that your position addresses their interest and concerns?

If you fail to address the other person’s interest and concerns, they shall tune out, and your negotiation will most likely be unsuccessful.