maverick negotiation volume one - amazon s3 · the author and publisher have used their best...

DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT

The author and publisher have used their best efforts in preparing this report. The author and publisher make no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy, applicability, fitness, or completeness of the contents of this report. The information contained in this report is strictly for educational purposes. Therefore, if you wish to apply ideas contained in this report, you are taking full responsibility for your actions.

EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT THIS PRODUCT AND IT'S POTENTIAL. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL IMPROVE IN ANY WAY USING THE TECHNIQUES AND IDEAS IN THESE MATERIALS. EXAMPLES IN THESE MATERIALS ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS A PROMISE OR GUARANTEE OF ANYTHING. SELF-HELP AND IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL IS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE PERSON USING OUR PRODUCT, IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES.

YOUR LEVEL OF IMPROVEMENT IN ATTAINING THE RESULTS CLAIMED IN OUR MATERIALS DEPENDS ON THE TIME YOU DEVOTE TO THE PROGRAM, IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES MENTIONED, KNOWLEDGE AND VARIOUS SKILLS. SINCE THESE FACTORS DIFFER ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUALS, WE CANNOT GUARANTEE YOUR SUCCESS OR IMPROVEMENT LEVEL. NOR ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF YOUR ACTIONS.

MANY FACTORS WILL BE IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING YOUR ACTUAL RESULTS AND NO GUARANTEES ARE MADE THAT YOU WILL ACHIEVE RESULTS SIMILAR TO OURS OR ANYBODY ELSE'S, IN FACT NO GUARANTEES ARE MADE THAT YOU WILL ACHIEVE ANY RESULTS FROM OUR IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES IN OUR MATERIAL.

The author and publisher disclaim any warranties (express or implied), merchantability, or fitness for any particular purpose. The author and publisher shall in no event be held liable to any party for any direct, indirect, punitive, special, incidental or other consequential damages arising directly or indirectly from any use of this material, which is provided “as is”, and without warranties

Copyright © Influence Mastery Inc. 2

Table of Contents

...................................................................Foreword 5..........................................Part 1: Getting Started 16

.....................................................Historic Gambit 21...Creating Breathing Room During a Negotiation 22

.................................Part 2: Building Momentum 40.................................................Historic Gambit… 40

..................................The Deal They Can’t Resist 42.....................................................Historic Gambit 48

.............................Aiming for the Middle Ground 52..............................................Sweetening the Deal 55

.................................Don’t Fall for the First Offer 58......................Giving the Right Kind of Feedback 63

........Aim for Genuine Negotiation, Not Fisticuffs 70.........................................Agreeing and Adjusting 75

................................Part 3: Advanced Maneuvers 86.....................................................Historic Gambit 86

...............................Be an Unwilling Buyer/Seller 88...........................The Grip and Release Technique 97

Using (Imaginary) Authority to Your Advantage 108.......................................Service and Reciprocity 137


...The Maverick Way of Splitting the Difference 141.......................................Part 4: Sealing the Deal 150

Turning a Disagreement into a Profitable Exchange............................................................................. 150

.................................Breaking Down Stalemates 155................................................Ending Deadlocks 164

...................................................Historic Gambit 171................................................Heroes & Villains 181

............................Part 5: Tightening Loose Ends 193...............................................Tidbits of Benefits 193

.........................Taming the Concession Monster 202....................................The “No Sale” Technique 211

....Leading the Other Party to a Favorable Close 220.....................................The Distraction Principle 228

..Key Points of Maverick Negotiation Volume 1 238

.........................................................Conclusion 242


Foreword

I will tell you first that the foreword you read in this program will be the same one you see or hear in all of my programs.It’s not because I’m too lazy to create one for every program (well maybe a little).No seriously, the reason you will see this same message (and I encourage you to read it every time you see it) is because it’s the same message I want to relay every single time we connect.While the programs I create may be different from one other, my overall strategic goal will always be the same; to get you to think a little differently about the science, art and dynamic of human communication and how it can change your life when done right.


The “when done right” part has to do with both creating an influential mind set and then actually being able to execute what you learn with confidence and precision.By the way, here’s my email address and cell phone number if you need me:[email protected](646) 306 - 7997So let’s get to it.First and foremost I want to say thank you for investing your time, money and energy in this program.I realize that there are a million other things you could be giving your attention to right now but instead you’re choosing to spend it here with me.Now I made you a few promises when I first introduced this program to you.


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

And I intend to do whatever it takes to keep those promises.How am going to do that?By incorporating the five elements that (in my opinion) are missing from just about every other product or resource on the market related to what I teach.Without a clear understanding of these elements, everything you read, listen to or study is essentially done for entertainment purposes at best. At worst, it’s time wasted never to be regained.With a clear understanding of them and their importance, this information will come alive from the book or the speakers and become a part of your identity equipping you with powers and abilities that will seem almost supernatural in terms of human communication.


You will feel completely relaxed and confident in social situations.You will look forward to meeting new people and figuring out how you can form relationships with them that will serve both of you physically, emotionally, financially, spiritually and mentally.You will begin to see yourself as a powerful figure capable of commanding complete control over any interaction with another human being but consciously knowing how strong your power is, will instill a sense of responsibility in you to use it with good will to help people rather than manipulate them.Truth is, you won’t have to manipulate them. You won’t have to coerce or force them.


They will trust you and listen to you because you are the most credible and influential source of whatever it is that you represent and stand for and because there is an influential, inviting positive energy that surrounds you. They will truly enjoy being in your presence.You will gain a new sense of predictability in your life and start to realize that everything you desire is within your control. It’s not luck, chance or external factors that create your success; it’s you and your ability to effectively connect with others.You will feel a greater sense of pride and self worth knowing that you can not only use your abilities to positively impact your life but you can do the same for others by


helping them see opportunities that are surrounding them more clearly.

You will have a greater understanding of human behavior and what drives it.You will feel at ease with the fact that you will now have a new thought process that opens the doors to many different ways to utilize the power of positioning and repositioning yourself and your products, services and opinions to that you get a “yes” faster, easier and more often.So what are these five elements? They make up what I call the

UARMS model.


They include:

U - Understandability

A - Acceptability

R - Relate-ability

M - Manageability

S - SustainabilityNow realize first that while I am the person creating the awareness of these elements, it’s going to require a joint effort from the both of us to actually make them come alive and positively serve our relationship.In other words, they will require contribution from the both of us with respect to our roles in the relationship.Let me explain.


Understandability - The information that I’m sharing with you has to be delivered in a way that is very easy for you to understand. If I gave you a note with the directions to find a million dollars that was right under your bed that simply said “Hey, take a look under your bed. There’s something waiting for you there” but I wrote it in a language that you couldn’t understand, it wouldn’t serve you. The same applies here and with just about every other piece of information that comes your way.This one is clearly on me and I’m going to use everything I’ve learned about writing and speaking to accomplish this goal.

Acceptability - Ok this one is on you. You have to be willing to accept your role as an influential person. This is true in cases where you already feel you own this role


and in cases where this is all brand new to you. The information that I’m going to share with you is time tested and driven by science. It’s not magic. The key to making it work is your acceptance of it in your life. Accountability also ties into this on both our ends. You have to be accountable for following through with what you agree to do and I have to be accountable in delivering on what I say I will do for you.

Relate-ability - This one requires a little from the both of us. The information has to be relatable to your personal circumstances and life. If it’s not, you will lose interest and move onto something that is more relatable. I will cover this by giving you examples and analogies. You will contribute by always keeping your level of awareness open and using your imagination to think about how you can


apply what I teach you to your particular life.

Manageability - Again, this one will require work from the both of us. The information needs to be managed effectively meaning you have to feel comfortable and trusting in the fact that you can actually perform the techniques that you’re learning. This is a big one because a lot of times, people read this stuff, are amazed by it but then can't actually use it in real life to get results either because they forget it or they’re too scared that they will mess up or get caught. I will solve this problem by giving you step by step action plans to memorize, become comfortable with and execute. You will solve this problem by taking the action that I ask you to take and following the plan exactly as I’ve laid it out.


Sustainability - Again this will be a joint effort. You have to know and feel confident in your ability to sustain your ability to execute what you learn. That happens by circling back to the first four elements. The better you understand, are able to accept, relate and mange the information, the more sustainable it will become.You’ll realize that it’s not going to get old or lose it's potency. You’ll understand that what you learn is something you can use for the rest of your life because it will become a part of your new identity.I look forward to unlocking the potential residing in the both of us so we can in in turn create a long lasting, trusting, equally beneficial relationship.-Paul Mascetta


Part 1: Getting Started

Negotiation is defined as conferring with another party so as to arrive at the settlement of an issue or matter. Negotiating is an essential social skill especially in business and personal relationships. This particular skill allows people to produce favorable results when they interact with others. Every day, millions of people engage in negotiations to get the most benefit from social interactions.

Regular people like you and me and representatives of big businesses all engage in negotiations. Generally speaking, only two things can happen after a negotiation. First, the matter can be settled with one or both parties gaining a benefit or second, a complete stalemate


may arise and both parties ready themselves for another negotiation at another time (with the help of a mediator).

Simply put, negotiating with others is inescapable because it is in our nature to want to get the most out of our social interactions. But the problem is, most people don’t know how to negotiate properly. There is a big difference between being just forceful and being persuasive during a negotiation.

Negotiation can be likened to war for the simple reason that it requires a lot of thinking and strategy. You need a general blueprint if you want to succeed in negotiating better outcomes for yourself during social interactions. If you don’t develop your own negotiation skills, you will have a very difficult time getting


ahead in terms of manifesting what you need when you talk to people.

And this is what Maverick Negotiation is all about. Maverick Negotiation centers on fulfilling the need for more precise negotiation strategies wherever the negotiator may be. The situations and the parties involved in the negotiation may change, but the strategies remain the same. The only thing left to do is to learn the strategies by heart and make them a part of your natural communication repertoire.

There are two things that you should keep in mind before you start using any of the strategies contained in this book. The first thing you have to keep in mind is that it is never too late to improve your personal negotiation skills.


Maverick Negotiation can be learned and mastered by any person regardless of his experience with linguistic strategies. It doesn’t matter if you have never tried being persuasive before.

As long as you are willing to learn and practice, you will be in a prime position to become a Maverick Negotiator in a few weeks’ time. I can’t say ‘days’ because no one becomes a Maverick Negotiator in a matter of days.

If I said that, I would be lying because it takes a lifetime to learn these strategies through trial and error. We are actually speeding up the process by laying down the actual language structures you need to add to your communication repertoire to


ensure that negotiations will end in your favor.

Now, the second thing that you have to remember is that in the game of negotiation there will always be some level of risk. Risk is inherent in human communication. Is negotiation like gambling? Not necessarily – but there is always some risk involved.

There is risk because you want to gain something of genuine value after the negotiation. If there is something valuable to gain during an interaction, the other party would want that benefit or advantage, too. Again, it is only natural for people to want to benefit from social interactions.


Historic Gambit

When the Persian Gulf War was in full swing, the US government was raring to go all out on Saddam Hussein. Then president George Bush in one of his state addresses demanded three things from Mr. Hussein: that he leave Kuwait in peace, that a legitimate government be put in place where he left and that reparations be made for all the war damages incurred.

Of course, if it were this easy, then there would be no need for tanks and artilleries. But that was the point – Bush was playing it smart. He knew that Hussein rarely made concessions especially to foreign powers and most especially not to the United States.


But that was the whole point – President Bush was creating breathing space for the on-going dialogue between the two parties.

If he made only demanded a minimum of requirements from Mr. Hussein, he knew that he would get absolutely nothing. But by demanding more than what he knew he could possibly get, he was setting himself up for a better chance of success.

Creating Breathing Room During a Negotiation

One of the most important rules of Maverick Negotiation is that you should never put yourself in a position where you can’t move anymore. This is a very common error when novice negotiators enter into uncertain interactions with


power negotiators or people who have been negotiating with others their whole life.

Novice negotiators tend to trap themselves by allowing very little breathing room during actual negotiations. Your first protection against this type of situation is by demanding more than what you actually expect to get from a negotiation.

Interestingly enough, this is one of the most effective negotiation strategies that is overlooked almost all the time. The reason why it is overlooked is quite simple – people tend to think that it is only logical to ask what is normally expected in certain situations. For example, if you bought something online and it took 2 weeks longer than usual to get the item from the online store, why would you demand that


online store send a freebie to compensate for the wait?

Well, let me ask you this – why not? There is no written rule that says that you can demand more than what is usually expected. And if you demand more than what is expected, you automatically give yourself breathing room during a negotiation.

Because during negotiations it is common for parties to feel that they can never go up in terms of their demands to the other party. They can only go down. So if you are already down in terms of your demands, you would be coerced to go down even further. And this is no way to protect your position as a Maverick Negotiator.


Increasing your demands in terms of magnitude and quality of the benefit or value involved will also help you determine your maximum acceptable position within the negotiation. The MAP or maximum acceptable position is the limit, so to speak, for both parties.

If you exceed the MAP intentionally or unintentionally, the risk of the other party walking away increases exponentially.

You must always remember that during a negotiation, the other party can always walk away and when you leave the interaction with nothing, you haven’t exactly gained any benefit from all your hard work.

The MAP is always important during a negotiation because interaction like these


is always a hodgepodge of straight, logical thinking and emotional impulses.

It is essential that you latch on to a particular position that would provide the maximum benefit to yourself but still remains acceptable and logical to the other party. Your position within a negotiation has to make sense to the other party – always!

Don’t think for a moment that there is always a way to come out on top even if your negotiation position has far exceeded what people have expected in the first place.

If you are negotiating with someone that you know absolutely nothing about, save for his name and perhaps the nature of his work, your initial negotiating position


should be high enough to allow you to readjust your approach during the actual negotiation.

Why should you aim for the highest possible INP (initial negotiating position) if you have little or no relevant information about the other party? The first reason is that you could always have grossly inaccurate assumptions about the other person.

For example, if you are negotiating for a better price for a used car, you may be thinking that the car salesman is going to bow down to your will because his workplace is far from new and seems to be on the brink of collapse.

But what if the car salesman is actually a thirty year veteran salesman? What


happens to you when he brings out his own negotiation arsenal during the interaction? What if he drives up the price because he generally knows more about car models, mileage and car brands than you? Of course, this is just a ‘worst case scenario’ if you are intending to get a better car deal. But it is always possible and the fact of the matter is that no one can ever fully comprehend what the other person might be thinking. We can only do so much to deduce what type of strategy the other party is using to get into a better bargaining position.

The second reason why you should aim for a higher initial negotiating position is that you will be able to better adjust your approach and demands based on what the


other party can agree to. Because as you negotiate with the other party, you will learn more about what he needs and what he can actually provide at the moment.

You can use this vital information to gradually modify your own position to suit the situation. Because let’s face it – it would be utterly pointless to demand something outlandish if the other party cannot even come close to accepting your demand. You might be able to say that the other party will walk away knowing that you are very assertive during a negotiation but at the end of the day, you also walked away with nothing.

And here’s the thing – if the other party knows nothing about you, the other party’s own demands will be high, too. Don’t give in or give up the negotiation if this is the


case. This kind of situation is challenging, but it would be good practice for you as you continue to expand your skills as a Maverick Negotiator.

It would be helpful to view the outlandish demands of the other party as a signal that the other party wants to know more about what you can do for them.

It is a matter of continuously adjusting your position so that you will still be able to walk away with the most benefit.

Trust me – this is the best end-goal for every interaction that involves negotiations because some negotiators end up giving far too many concessions and they end up with a losing proposition. This completely detracts from what one would expect from a skilled negotiator.


Now, it is also vital that you inject sincerity into your words from start to finish. This might sound a little strange since at the outset negotiation seems to be hard science. It’s really not. Negotiation is a subtype of human communication that has its own unwritten rules based on a person’s milieu.

As such, it involves not only conveying information – it also involves influencing people’s emotions and general thought patterns. At the core of negotiation is influence and before you can arrive at influencing another person, you need to utilize a persuasive strategy that will lead the other party to the direction that you want to pursue.


Sincerity is important because it drives down the natural mental defenses that people use during negotiations. A defensive negotiator would be rigid and may even become a little hostile if things don’t go as planned. Sincerity breaks down this risk by hinting that something beneficial or advantageous might come out of the interaction.

The mere hint of hope is usually enough to keep negotiations going. Of course, no negotiator in his right mind would say outright that the other party will get exactly what he wants. But then again, you won’t gain anything at all if the other party ends up leaving the negotiation table.

So the best thing to do is to implant the subconscious message that there is flexibility involved in the negotiation and


you are willing to work with the other party so long as the other party is also willing to make some concessions in your favor.

This works both ways. If you are buying something, sincerity in your words will convince the seller that you really want to give him some business.

If you are the seller, hearing sincerity will help ease the tension involved with a possible stalemate. Sincerity, in a nutshell, is the warm fire that keeps the negotiation machine from freezing over. It is the oil that keeps the cogs and wheels turning until good outcomes are finally produced.

Let’s go back to the concept of developing your MAP and asking for more than what is expected in any given situation. Here are


some more reasons why you should never be wary of implementing this strategy:

1.People have this apprehension to increase their demands because they are afraid of being embarrassed or ridiculed. Granted, some negotiators will make you feel this way. But this doesn’t mean that the approach itself is unsound.

When another negotiator is vigorously reacting to a big demand, that means he is working towards adjusting your demand to what he can actually provide and that is a good thing altogether because he wants the negotiation to actually work. That means there is a possibility of you being able to walk away with what you want after the negotiation.


2.Another good reason for increasing your demand is you want to get the best possible outcome from the interaction. And why shouldn’t you get the best outcome? If you place a high value on yourself and your endeavors, there is no real reason not to desire the higher advantage during a negotiation.

Your self-worth and your values will shine through if you know how to handle negotiations well.

For example, if you were trying to convince a client to shift to your company even if your services are more expensive than the competition, you can lay down a higher demand so you can subconsciously implant the


message that your company can deliver far better results than your competition.

Of course, you would have to prove this later on so as not to appear as a fraud, but that is a completely different aspect of human relations altogether.

3.The third reason why you should always try to exceed your actual needs during a negotiation is to avoid a deadlock.

Often, uncontrolled deadlocks can lead to both parties walking away with nothing. Again, this is the worst thing that could happen to you as a negotiator because we always want you to walk away with something after you have done your job during a negotiation.


Walking away with nothing means you gained nothing of value and you have to exert extra energy on the next dialog to get what you really want. An uncontrolled deadlock may also mean that the other party will proceed with its own plans without considering your input or demands.

4.The fourth reason for creating a peak negotiating position is you want to give the other party the impression that he or she is in control of the situation. How will this work?

Think about it – if you start the negotiation with a huge or even outlandish demand, the other party will attempt to cut your demand down to size…


Until your actual demand (the one you haven’t revealed) manifests. You will attempt to battle it out with the other negotiator until you are cut down once again to your original demand. You walk away with the benefit and the other party feels as if it had won that day!

Negotiation requires a lot of patience, energy and time – this is probably the reason why a lot of people start off a negotiation with their absolute best offer. From the perspective of someone who has never studied the fine arts of negotiation, this might seem like a very good idea. After all, who can refuse a genuine, good offer?


Let me tell you this – anyone (and I do mean anyone) can walk away from any offer, good or bad. It is important for you to remember that in any communication scenario, the center of the interaction should always be the listener, not the speaker (you). If you put yourself at the center, you will not be able to focus on the feedbacks of the other party.

Always remember that you are not the most important person during the negotiation – the other party is. 9 times out of 10, you are going to miss important information if keep you just focus on what you want as opposed to hearing out what the other party is trying to tell you.


Part 2: Building Momentum

Historic Gambit…

The year was 1982 and the United States government was having a conference with members of the Mexican government because they were about to default on a huge debt amounting to more than eighty million dollars.

The Mexican government at that time was unable to satisfy the payment structure agreed upon by the two parties. Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker from the US government decided to offer another solution to the problem. They wanted Mexico to pay using petroleum so that the rese rve in the US wi l l inc rease significantly.


Jesus Herzog, who was negotiating for the Mexican government found no reason to refuse this request. The US government however, also wanted the Mexican government to pay a hundred million dollars in “negotiation fees”.

Naturally, the president of Mexico exploded when he heard about the second requirement. He said that he would never pay the US government any negotiation fees. In the end, the Mexican government agreed to pay half of the original sum – fifty million dollars.

The US government used several techniques to get the Mexican government to hand over fifty million dollars in interest (cleverly disguised as “negotiation fees”). They effectively created a deal that the other party cannot resist!


The Deal They Can’t Resist

If the first step to a good negotiation is overstating your position in terms of what you are demanding from the other party, how can you utilize this approach in such a way that the party will acquiesce to what you want without actually realizing it?

The secret is creating a deal they can’t resist. How is this possible? It all boils down to how you state your demands and how you adjust your position during the negotiation. Your MAP should not be your initial position at all.

For example, if you are trying to license a piece of software to a big company and you want at least $15,000 for it, you must


not start the negotiation by saying “I can license my work to your company for $15,000”. If you do this, you are establishing your MAP at $15,000. You cannot go any higher than this, only lower.

That is the unwritten rule in negotiation. You never go higher, you can only go lower especially when it comes to sales and acquiring monetary compensation for products and services. Your initial position should be much higher than $15,000.

Instead of saying “I want $15,000…” you should say “I need $20,000 before I release my work to your company”. Why? When the company begins negotiating, the price of your work will begin to slide in small increments until it finally reaches the $15,000 mark.


The other party may try to downplay the value of your work and the price might drop to $10,000… This is a common gambit that you should not accept at all. If the original value is $20,000 and the gambit states that only $10,000 should be given, the next logical step would be to split the difference – and that would be $15,000!

In this situation, your MAP or maximum acceptable position would be at the $15,000 mark – not $20,000. You don’t have to let the other party in on your MAP at the beginning of the negotiation. If you do, any breathing space you have will cave in on you and you are left no choice but to acquiesce to the steadily declining offers of the other party. If your initial position was $15,000 and the other party says


$12,000 you can’t say “I changed my mind, I want $20,000 for my work”.

Even Bill Gates (in the early years of his career) will tell you that this doesn’t happen especially when you are dealing with big businesses. The offer doesn’t go up – it can only go down. So before even stepping into the office of a potentially powerful negotiator, determine your MAP (maximum acceptable position) and make an offer at the opposite end and wait for the fine art of negotiation to take effect.

What is truly beautiful about this approach is that you will walk away with what you need and at the same time, the other party will feel as if it has always had control of the situation.


The other party may hallucinate that it has won the round but all you really did was offer an imaginary position to secure your actual MAP (maximum acceptable position). This is an old technique in influence and persuasion that was just redressed to fit the context of negotiation.

It is actually a language strategy – you give the listener something to oppose so that he won’t say no to your offer directly. If it still sounds a little foggy, let me give you another example. Let us say you were trying to sell a car to someone who seems to be on the fence but is eager enough to hear you out for over an hour.

Instead of asking something like “are you going to buy this car?”, you would be better off using statements like these:


“Would you like the blue model or the beige model?”

“Would you like to sign the contract with this pen or should I get a fresh pen from the office?”

Notice that the question “will you buy the car?” is nowhere to be found. We are actually assuming that the buyer already wants to buy the car and he has already agreed to the idea.

We are leading the subject by bypassing the expected question. More often than not, the new options are sufficient to distract the subject. He will furiously enforce his position (“I hate beige, I want the blue one it looks much better!”) but at the same time, he is sealing the fact that he will be buying a car from you.


Historic Gambit

Your number one priority as a Maverick Negotiator is to always be prepared. This might sound corny, but we can take a leaf out of the book of the Boy Scouts.

Boy Scouts are taught to be ready for common emergencies and they are able to respond well because they exerted effort to become prepared by studying what they have to study. Preparedness is your number one defense especially if you are negotiating with a higher authority.

The importance of preparedness can be seen clearly back in 1996 when the Teamster Union of UPS decided to negotiate with the logistics giant to gain better employment opportunities.


Like other giants of the time, UPS was taking advantage of the fact that it could continue hiring part time workers for long periods of time so that it could save on benefits and other perks that came with full time employment. The Teamster Union knew what it was up against so it did several things to prepare:

1. The union performed extensive research as to how the company was hiring for many years. They arrived at exact numbers of part time employees, how many were being given regular employment status, etc.

2. The union distilled the most important insights they gained from research and disseminated this information to union members through meetings and email.


In the end, the union members understood exactly what they were fighting for.

3. The union also brought up their case to the public who became acutely aware of the massive problems brought about by UPS’s establishment employment s t ra tegies . Publ ic support was definitely high prior to the strikes.

When UPS was finally ready to sit down, the Teamster Union was so knowledgeable about the issues that they weren’t afraid at all to deal with the power negotiators brought by UPS. The first big concession that UPS wanted to offer was to sub-contract work in some areas.

Essentially, they were offering bigger wages to the union members. The


Teamster Union refused because they knew that if they accepted, only a few areas of the company would be available for regular employment.

In the end, the following outcomes emerged from the negotiations:

1. 10,000 part time employees became regular employees

2. 10,000 employment opportunities were given to both union and non-union members

3. Union workers were now able to enter jobs that were facilitated by technology

4. Part time employees received a higher hourly wage from $8 to $8.50. If the part time employee stayed for five years with UPS, the total increase in his hourly rate would be $4.10.

5. Old vehicles were upgraded


6. Drivers who needed to work on federal holidays were to be given added remuneration

7. Medical leaves, paternity leaves and maternity leaves were increased.

8. Disciplinary actions were stopped for accidents and injuries that occurred while on the job.

9. Manda tory over t ime was a l so abolished for full time and part time workers.

Aiming for the Middle Ground

Now, I know many of you may already be saying that this technique doesn’t work all the time. Yes, I have to agree that we cannot assume that negotiating techniques will always play out perfectly, 100% of the time. But if you are not aware of what the other party is thinking and you are not


completely sure where you stand in terms of persuading the other party, this is the best initial positioning you can ever attain in a negotiation.

Aiming for a mutually beneficial middle ground is difficult but it is one of the cornerstone strategies in negotiation. If you aim for middle ground, both parties will be happy and you can maneuver so that the other party will feel that it is full control of the situation.

I have to emphasize this again and again because people generally do not like to feel that they are no longer in control of a situation. When a person feels that he is losing control of a dialog or negotiation, he becomes more defens ive and suspicious.


The internal obstacles to agreement and compliance enlarge and multiply in a short period of time. That is how the human mind works. You have to anticipate this if you want to succeed as a Maverick Negot ia tor. You cannot approach negotiation from a purely logical perspective because 90% of the time, many people do not think from a logical perspective.

They base their decisions from emotional impulses. Emotion as you may already know, is far beyond the realm of the rational and logical. In fact, emotion is one of the key traits that separate the subconscious mind and the conscious mind. But believe it or not, when emotion leads the way, the logical, waking mind follows without a hint of resistance.


Sweetening the Deal

Many people imagine negotiation as this monolithic approach that can be used like an architectural blueprint of sorts. This does sound like a good description at the outset because we are dealing with real strategies in Maverick Negotiation.

But I apologize for shattering this ideal image – it is not a monolithic approach at all. Borrowing from one of the more popular metaphors of the philosophers Deleuze & Guattari, negotiation is more of a rhizome than a uniform, monolithic approach.

Rhizomes are dynamic and lack any predictable structures. Therefore, they are the perfect metaphor for negotiation in general. So remember – if a book or a


person tells you that there are ten/one hundred secrets to great negotiation, that book or person is barely scratching the surface.

To illustrate this fact, I’m going to share with you a strategy that is so simple yet so effective that it has actually been used by power negotiators around the world for decades. This strategy is called the reduction principle and it is quite simple. Here is the strategy: a deal often becomes more acceptable after you take away some components.

This strategy is based on the fact that people are generally willing to accept a deal if seemingly unnecessary components or details are removed. This approach to negotiation is also tied integrally with the fact that people are often willing to accept


less if they still end up getting what they really need from a negotiation. So the next time you make an offer during a negotiation, try to add some stuff to the table that originally wasn’t in the ‘package’. After making the table a bit more cluttered with additional offers, gradually remove the clutter and see if the other party becomes more willing to accept the original offer.

You will see just how effective this technique is when the other party expresses its relief that the clutter is gradually being removed from the negotiation table.

What’s interesting is that often, negotiating parties seem to experience amnesia once the clutter is removed. People generally become so preoccupied with feeling


relieved that the additional components have been removed that they forget that they were actually refusing the initial offer before.

Don’t Fall for the First Offer

If you really want to come out on top, you have to remember to never agree to the first offer that the other party throws at the table. This principle applies to every possible scenario and I do have to remind everyone that you have to show at least some level of resistance even if the other party is giving you the sweetest offer you have heard in a while.

Do not agree to the first offer even if you are pressed for time and you really need to acquire the advantage or benefit from the


interaction. Why? Because two things are bound to happen if you do jump at the other party’s first offer.

Here is an example to illustrate my point. Let us say that you were looking for vintage golden records to decorate your newly renovated entertainment room.

You put a “wanted to buy” ad on some websites and someone rings you up with some mint condition Elvis Presley golden records. The owner of the Elvis Presley golden records drives up to your home carrying the mint condition items.

You are secretly jumping for joy because you know for a fact that it is hard to get the real thing in mint condition. The owner of the records is carrying a total six golden records. They price each at $300. Your


budget was $3,000 and this is a much better deal than you had expected. You say yes and the owner of the golden records drives away $1,800 richer.

Like I said before, two things are bound to cross your mind after you agree to the other party’s first offer. Both of these things are bound to drive you nuts, too.

The first common thought that people think after a seemingly easy negotiation was that they could have gotten a better deal had they stood their ground and asked for a better price, better bargain, etc. The second common thought was that something was wrong with the situation itself and that leaves you with a lot of room for doubt as to why the other party was giving a seemingly unbeatable offer.


Trust me, you do not want these thoughts hanging over you after a negotiation. These thoughts could reduce your confidence as a negotiator because you will always be thinking of the “would haves” and “could haves” of your past negotiation. This particular rule is not complicated at all – just don’t agree with what was offered to you first. Because chances are, you could still get a better deal if you only try. The only situation where you should just say yes is if someone is holding a gun at your face and he is asking for you to hand over the keys to your car.

Better not risk it in that kind of situation! But in all other situations, you must always give yourself the benefit of trying to get a much better deal even if the offer in front of you seems to be completely


reasonable already. I know for a fact that not everyone is keen to do this since there is this fear that the other party might withdraw the sweet, first offer.

This almost never happens. Remember – offers can only go down, not up. So if the other party is offering $1,000, it logically follows that you can only go down and your MAP must be somewhere between the lowest logical offer and your safety zone (your target figure).

If you agree to the first offer, it is also possible that the next time you meet the other negotiator, you will have a tougher time getting a good deal from him because he will think that he could have gotten a better deal, too. This works both ways. If you are capable of feeling that you may have done better as a negotiator, the other


party is capable of feeling the exact same way.

It might appear that immediately accepting an offer is an efficient way of concluding a negotiation on a positive note. A negotiation can end quickly if the other party agrees to the first offer. But this may not benefit you at all in the next round of negotiations. So always remember to be a true Maverick Negotiator… Always resist the first offer!

Giving the Right Kind of Feedback

I have been personally asked this question millions of times before – how should a negotiator react to the first offer? In the previous discussion I emphasized that you should generally resist the first offer. You can easily express your resistance to the


first offer by flinching immediately after the other party’s initial offer has been laid down on the table.

When people read about this reminder for the first time, I often get a lot of responses like “this is a no-brainer”.

And it is a no-brainer – like many of the basic strategies of negotiation. But the problem here is that people often forget these ‘no-brainer’ strategies when they are finally on the negotiating table and they are feeling the heat from a formidable negotiating party.

It is so easy to forget these simple reminders so I made it a point to really drive home the message in the first few sections of this volume. Remembering these strategies will literally spell the


difference between getting a merely acceptable deal and the ultimate deal of a lifetime.

Now, going back to the first idea that I raised in this section, how can you show your resistance to the initial offer? Easy – all you have to do is recoil. Recoiling from an offer can be shown in a variety of subtle (and not so subtle) ways.

But generally speaking, as long as you are recoiling from the first offer, you are in a good position to get what you really want from the negotiation. Why must a person recoil or flinch when an offer (good or otherwise) is given for the first time by the other party?

Simple: when a party gives the first offer, that party is usually interested in only one


thing – your reaction. The first offer is like the spark of electricity that charges the negotiation table. It kick-starts the interaction and your reaction will allow the other party to adjust his offer. Always remember that during a negotiation, both parties are learning from each other continually.

The initial positions are great starting points but in the end, what really determines the conclusion of the negotiation is what both parties learn from each other. At this point in time, I endeavor everyone to simulate a heart attack when a first offer is given.

Of course, this is an exaggeration but you probably get my point. Show no pleasure or happiness at the first offer. If you cannot openly express your displeasure at


the first offer, at least look neutral. Do not show the party that you are literally breaking down your own defenses because he gave such a good offer in the first place.

Recoiling from an initial offer can be expressed either through verbal language or nonverbal language. Verbal language is definitely an important part of negotiation because you can’t express numbers and details by shrugging your shoulders or smiling.

Nonetheless, let us not forget that 50% to 70% of what is actually being said is expressed nonverbally. So let me just clarify what I said earlier – you can’t express details with nonverbal language but you can definitely express a wide spec t rum of emot ions and o ther information using nonverbal language.


Nonverbal language is excellent in the context of negotiations because seventy percent of the time, people are visual thinkers. Western culture is a highly visual culture and the importance of appearance and images is more highly regarded today o w i n g t o t h e c o m p r e s s i o n o f communication via the Internet.

People are more dependent on visual signals because that is how modern communication has evolved thus far. When a person negotiates with another party, he is not paying attention to smell, taste or even his sense of hearing. He is a c u t e l y a w a r e ( c o n s c i o u s l y a n d subconsciously) of the visual signals coming from the other party.


So if you can express your resistance to the initial offer in a way that can be plainly seen by the other party, you can definitely solidify your own initial position during the negotiation.

It is important that you give off precise visual cues. Here are some examples of visual cues that will signal that you are recoiling from the initial offer (remember, you are not resisting the content of the offer you are establishing your position as a Maverick Negotiator):

1.Steeple position (joining the tips of the fingers and placing your elbows on the table so that your joined hands are near your chin or mouth)

2.Looking away from the negotiator momentarily as the offer is laid out


3.Keeping the eyes semi-closed as you listen to the offer (this signals disinterest or even boredom)

4.Shaking your head slightly

These are just a few of the signals that you can use during a negotiation. Use a signal that you are comfortable with and be consistent. Once you have established your position within the negotiation, you can begin considering the actual content of the offer.

Aim for Genuine Negotiation, Not Fisticuffs

Too often, novice negotiators get into a position where they become very hostile and confrontational towards the other party. It is easy to become hostile


especially if the other party has made an outlandish offer.

But since you have been reading Maverick Negotiation, you now know that the initial offer is often only ‘bait’ and is only used to gain access to your mindset.

Your reaction to the first offer is like a chance for the other party to take a peek at your cards. Do you have several aces? A royal flush? The other party would like to know – so they make an initial offer that is often unacceptable or too sweet to see just what you are made of.

More often than not, negotiating parties start off with an offer that is on the extreme opposite of what is usually thought of as acceptable. If this is the case, again, simply recoil from the offer and


work towards adjusting the cards on the table so you will get the most benefit.

Do not make the mistake of creating the impression that you are an unyielding tower of might that is out to squeeze the other party for every penny they have.

If you do this, then that is exactly how you would be viewed – a fiendish ogre not fit for the negotiation table. Such an attitude towards negotiation will encourage fear and loathing because that is how people react to hostility and negativity in general.

You can definitely come across as a powerful and intelligent negotiator without having to express anger, hostility or severe impatience. You can retain your human face despite of the pressure behind any type of negotiation.


And here’s another important reason why you should keep your cool – you will be able to think more clearly if you stay calm throughout the negotiation. One of the things that I have learned from my long experience with negotiations is that the more hostility you express, the harder the negotiation gets.

There is a big difference between being persuasive and being downright nasty. Avoid the latter because you will not get anywhere. The best negotiations end with mutual benefit and least ‘casualties’ from both sides, if you get what I mean.

Another reason why aggressiveness and hostility have no place on the negotiation table is that people tend to feel that they have to prove another person wrong if they


have been completely blocked at the outset. For example, if someone comes to you and says “I want to buy your new luxury car for $3,000”.

You would probably feel the urge to drive away the other person especially if you have stated that your price for the car is $10,000. If you become too aggressive, the other party might walk away or he might reciprocate your aggressive behavior. He will become preoccupied with proving that you are wrong to price your car that way.

So instead of having a good negotiation on your hands, you will have an equally aggressive party that is hell-bent on proving that he was right and you were just plain wrong. This is not the path of a Maverick Negotiator at all. This type of situation is counterproductive and trust


me, you will be drained after such a negotiation because the other party won’t be focused on arriving at a mutually beneficial settlement.

Agreeing and Adjusting

The ‘easy way’ to respond to an outlandish offer is by exploding and raining brimstone on the other party. I sympathize with people who feel this way because that is our nature – we are emotional creatures.

However, I endeavor you to stifle your emotions because you are not in just any ordinary social interaction. There is something valuable or beneficial at stake during a negotiation and it is important that you do not compromise your position within the negotiation by wearing your heart on your sleeve.


What should you do if the other party opens the negotiation with an awful offer? There are two kinds of feedback that you can give that will help preserve a strong position without necessitating the need for hostility or aggression.

The first strategic feedback is simply saying nothing. You can show a little recoil from the offer but if you feel like biting off the other person’s head because of the outrageous offer, don’t say anything until he is done laying down the details of the awful offer. By staying mum about what you are thinking, you are effectively keeping the other party in the dark.

Some of you might be wondering – shouldn’t you be preoccupied with informing the other party of what you are


thinking as well? Not necessarily. You see, it is one thing to relate to the other party what you need.

But as for giving away your position within the negotiation? That is a completely different matter altogether. In terms of your approach to establishing your position within the negotiation, the less the other party knows, the better.

If you want a more active approach to countering a horrible initial offer, there are three steps that you must take in succession to shift the balance during the negotiation. Assuming that the other party has dropped its horrid offer on the table, it is time to move fast to make sure that the other party understands what you think of the offer:


1.The first step is to simply agree with the party. Do not be confused. I am not telling you to drop your guns and just surrender. All I’m saying is that you can feign agreement so as not to kindle any harsh resistance from the other party. Say something non-committal like “yes, I hear you, please continue”. Agree to something to keep the other party talking, that is all you have to do immediately after the offer has been made.

2.The next step is to state that other people have also felt the same way about the issue before. For example, if you represent a software company that specializes in online sales tracking, the other party might be implying that they can only manage 1/3 of your asking


price and any more is highway robbery.

Instead of giving into the urge of snapping at the other party to show that they are dead wrong with their assumptions because your company works double time to produce the best results, here is a better reply:

“Many people have felt the exact same way about this service package. In fact, we have had so many questions before as to why our company seems to be more expensive when it comes to providing this type of service”.

As you can plainly see, you are not trying to fight the other party. Up to this point in time, you are still agreeing with what the other party has said. Are


you yielding? No. Are you giving in to their demands? Not particularly.

So what are you doing if you are not yielding to the demands of the other party?

You are simply showing that you are not openly resisting whatever they said. The other party might understand that you are not accepting the offer but based on your words and body language, you are not resisting either. How’s that for confusion and overload?

3.The third and final step is to shift the balance by upending the logic of the other party’s initial offer. This can be done by providing clear details why


your offer is more sound and logical than the initial offer. The goal of this step is not to embarrass or humiliate the other party for making such a ridiculous offer.

Rather, it is done to convince the other party to ‘defect’ to your side instead of following the old route which is obviously not the best route at all.

How can you accomplish this? Easy. Here’s a template that you can follow: “Despite the fact that many clients are saying that our services are more expensive than our competition, we have found that one hundred percent of our clients big and small become fully satisfied with the kind of service that we give because we not only make sure


that your project requirements are satisfied.

We make sure that whole software system we put in place is as strong and sustainable as can be. We never create software frameworks that will crumble when new technology rolls in.

We always have the future in mind so we make sure that what we build now can easily be expanded and upgraded for many years to come. You can look at the data we have prepared for you to see just how efficient we are in this field…”

The third and final step closes the deal for the initial offer. If you have done your research and you have prepared sufficient data or information for the other party, the


initial offer would now be less relevant and less plausible because of the weight of your own words… Considering you have not formally made your own offer yet!

The key to a successful negotiation is never aggression or force. Force might have worked for dictators because they inspired fear and they used power to physically and mentally harm others. Maverick Negotiation is never about using brute force to get what you want.

Negotiation in the context of what I’m to teach you in Maverick Negotiation is centered on science of persuasion and influence. Force has no place in negotiations at all.

Why? Because humans are hardwired to react with equal force or more when they


feel that force is being used upon them. To illustrate this valuable point, I want you to raise both your hands at chest level.

Are they up? Good. Now I want you to place the tips of your fingers against each other. The tip of the left index finger must connect with the tip of the right index finger and so on until all your fingers are firmly connected with each other.

Now here is really fun part. I want you to outdo yourself by pushing against each of your hands. The goal is to ‘beat’ one of your hands. Push and struggle against yourself! As you may have felt while performing this exercise, it is nearly impossible for one to bend one’s fingers.

Why? Because whenever the left hand feels the force coming from the right hand,


the brain sends out a complex yet precise motor signal that allows the left hand to react with equal force (or more). This happens over and over again and as you struggle more, your brain ensures that equal force is exerted every time one hand experiences a pushing force. You can imagine how a living, breathing person would react if he felt aggression or any form of force. That’s right – whether he likes it or not, he will react by exerting force of his own.

He cannot escape this inevitable fate any more than he can escape breathing. Because this is how we are designed as by nature. This is part of our survival package so it is virtually impossible to stop the impulse to resist any type of force.


Part 3: Advanced Maneuvers

Historic Gambit

During the real estate crunch some years ago, even wealthy moguls like Donald Trump were worried that the crunch was going to affect their businesses and they were going to lose a lot of money if they didn’t have enough real cash to flow recirculate.

Donald Trump at that time was particularly worried about not having enough cash to outlast the crunch. He was looking into liquidating one of his properties (St. Moritz Hotel). He had another hotel not far from the St. Moritz Hotel, the Plaza Hotel, and he had no real use for the St. Moritz anymore.


Another mogul by the name of Alan Bond came along and expressed interested in taking the St. Moritz from Mr. Trump. Even though Donald Trump was relieved that one Alan Bond had come along to buy the St. Moritz, he knew that he could get more if he played the unwilling seller.

So when Mr. Bond came knocking on Donald Trump’s office, asking about the St. Moritz Hotel, Donald Trump promptly refused. He said he wanted the St. Moritz for his grandchildren but to be fair, he was willing to hear out how much Alan Bond was willing to pay for it.

Donald Trump originally spent seventy nine million dollars on the St. Mortiz Hotel on his first acquisition. After the negotiations, he walked away with a total of one hundred sixty million dollars and he


had enough cash to outlast the real estate crunch in New York.

Be an Unwilling Buyer/Seller

In an ideal world, a buyer or seller who shows that he is happy to be doing what he is doing will automatically get the best deal of his life.

Unfortunately, this rarely happens when a person shows that he is excited or enthusiastic about buying or selling something. What usually happens is that when a person shows any level of enthusiasm, the other party lowers the offer to get the most benefit.

So remember – in the world of negotiation, showing that you are happy and positive may not necessarily mean that you will get


a good experience while negotiating with others.

More often than not, enthusiasm is taken as a sign that you are willing to take less than what was estimated and the other party might be keen to stick to a much lower offer precisely because the buyer/seller has already shown interest.

Interest in the context of negotiation is equal to acceptance of an offer. Even if you do not say it out loud, you can accidentally ‘let out the birds’ by not controlling your verbal and nonverbal expressions.

For example, if you were talking to a used car salesman and you keep saying “the price is way too high for this old junker” while beaming and stroking the exterior of


the SUV you have been eyeing for two months, you are definitely not sending the right message to the other party. Your words are saying “no” but your whole body and even your voice are saying “I want this so bad, give it to me!”.

Regardless of what you are feeling about what you are negotiating for, you must always keep your emotions in check when bargaining with another party. Remember, you are primarily watching out for your own interests and that is what the other party is also doing.

So don’t expect the other party to think “I want to give this guy a break so I’m going to give him 25% more than what he is asking”. That is not going to happen any time soon… unless you are five years old and you are asking your doting grandfather


to give you two cookies instead of one for cleaning up your toys in the living room.

In a nutshell, if you want to get the best results, you have to watch out for your own interests from start to finish. Do not think for one second that you can rely on the other negotiating party to see things your way. This applies most especially to business negotiations where parties involved are naturally more inclined to get the best possible position early on in the dialog.

So going back to an early point that I made, you need to remember that in order to become a true Maverick Negotiator, you have to show that you are an unwilling buyer or unwilling seller. Here is a scenario that will clarify this strategy. Let’s say that at one point in your life you


became really engrossed in collecting expensive sports memorabilia.

But things changed and you find yourself constantly worrying about the moths ‘appreciating’ your collection more than you as you become more preoccupied with other things you have to do like work and your new baby, etc. In short, you don’t have the luxury of time and money anymore to maintain your collection.

One day, a neighbor of yours sees you cleaning some of your collections out in the yard. It turns out that this neighbor was mad about the same sports team that drove you nuts back in the day. He says “wow that is an impressive collection you’ve got there! That is probably the biggest stash I have seen in my life. Are you selling


those? ‘Cause I’m pretty sure I will buy them… for the right price that is”.

Given your current situation, you might be tempted to jump at your neighbor and say something like “please take my collection! I need to free up space at home!” But since our focus is to get the best possible position within the new negotiation, it would be best to play the role of the unwilling seller.

How can you be an unwilling seller in this situation? Instead of smiling and showing relief that someone has come along to buy your collection, act in a neutral manner and just acknowledge the other person’s interest. By acknowledging the other person’s interest, you are simply being civil – you are not exactly expressing that


you want to sell your collection in the first place.

The next best step at this point in time would be to show your collection to the other person. Let him drink in the sights and textures of the collection. Immersion in the object of desire builds even more desire and excitement. You would want to build these two components in the other party so that he would be at a disadvantage during the negotiation.

When the other person’s interest is at its peak, you have to establish your first solid position within the negotiation: “I am not sure if I can ever part with this collection. These memorabilia have been with me since I was twenty years old! I can see that you definitely are a power collector yourself and you also look like someone


who knows how to take care of mint condition memorabilia. So to be fair to you, if you do want to buy all or some of my collection, what is your best offer so I can think about it?”

Phrasing your opening offer in this manner actually increases the price range for your collection. The worst thing that could happen is that you accidentally lower the perceived value of your collection by being too eager with the sale in the first place.

This strategy actually solves one of the more challenging puzzles of negotiation, which is “how can a negotiator improve the perceived value of what is at stake?”.

Of course, it is a given already that all the parties involved in a negotiation perceive


the object of the negotiation as valuable. But if you are the one in possession of that object, you must do everything you can to increase its perceived value. If you accomplish this, you will be able to increase your chances of walking away with a much better outcome on your hands.

Playing the role of the Unwilling Seller or Unwilling Buyer not only improves your init ial posit ion during the actual n e g o t i a t i o n . T h i s a p p r o a c h a l s o concretizes your chance of getting a bigger benefit even before the actual dialogue between the parties begins.

Who uses this technique, you might ask? People in business and real estate often use this technique to gain leverage in a field


where money flows freely but the competition can be fierce. Each potential transaction must be dealt with carefully to bring the highest possible benefit.

If you think your time on the negotiation table has a high value, it would be best to guard your initial position before you even start laying down your cards on the table. Always ask the other party about their best possible offer because without it, you won’t be able to agree to their offer at all.

The Grip and Release Technique

Let us say that you are at a disadvantaged position within the negotiation because the other party doesn’t need what you are offering urgently. Would it be possible to still walk away with a good deal even if the other party has already stated that he


doesn’t really need what you are offering? Yes.

The Grip and Release Technique can be used when the other party has stated that he doesn’t need what you are offering but is interested in it nonetheless. There is definitely a moderate level of interest in what you are offering. However, there is a definite lack of excitement and emotional investment in the negotiation.

In a perfect world, people would jump at whatever we can bring to the negotiation table. Unfortunately, in the real world you can easily get thrown out of a dialogue if your offer doesn’t look valuable at all. So the trick here is to make the other person feel that he has to prove himself in order to acquire what you are offering.


It might sound like a strange twist to a negotiation (and it is) but nevertheless, the Grip and Release Technique does work. Before I reveal to you the simple words that you can use to radically change how another party perceives your current offer, let me explain the mechanisms involved.

First of all, a negotiator who has made it clear that he is not completely interested in what is being offered will definitely feel as if he is in charge of the negotiation. And this may not be far from the truth if you allow the other party to take control of the proceedings. But here’s the thing – this particular gambit or position within the negotiation game has a chink on its armor, if you will.

That chink in the armor is the general desire of people to prove themselves in


every situation. Instead of begging the other party to reconsider, we are going to do the exact opposite. We are going to back up and grip the other party by asking him to prove himself worthy of what you are offering.

How can you do this? Here is a scenario to illustrate how this strategy can be used during a negotiation:

Let us say that you started a new flour distribution business and you were trying to get delis and bakeries to order from you. You have already emphasized your commitment to quality and you have definitely done you research in terms of knowing what local businesses in your area need. But the big problem is that most of the local businesses in your city already have flour suppliers.


This fact leaves you in a very tenuous position of being needed by no one. You are at wit’s end and you feel like giving up because this is your third negotiation for the day and so far, you have exactly zero bites yet.

The representative of the third business that you have approached is reading your offer and has slid it back with the words “your offer is plausible but right we already have a flour supplier… However, it may be a good idea to have another supplier so the first one doesn’t control the prices too much. I would be willing to order 300 pounds of flour from you for $1 per pound”.

Deep inside you are just jumping up and down because another business has finally


seen your hard work in preparing a worthy offer. The price isn’t bad at all… But something is stopping you from shaking the other person’s hand. Other businesses are able to sell their flour for $2 or more per pound.

What do you have to say to get a better deal, given the circumstances?

Since the cat is already out of the bag, you have nothing to lose… So here’s the statement that will spell the difference between an acceptable bargain and a really good deal:

“I apologize but you will have to do better than that”

After dropping this statement, all you have to do is stop talking and wait for the other


party’s response. Do not try to justify why you said that and don’t try to be too apologetic. Keep your emotions in check during this crucial phase of the negotiation and most importantly, stand behind what you said!

Before I get any violent reactions, let me reiterate a few points. The first point that I would like to reiterate is that negotiation is rarely without any risk. Remember – negotiations are intrinsically risky because there is always something of value at stake. You won’t be wasting your time at the negotiation table if you weren’t about to gain something from the exchange right?

So if you are thinking: this move is far too risky, the other party might just walk away from that kind of talk, don’t be too anxious


because chances are, the other party will actually try to prove that he is worthy of your offer! It’s strange but more often than not, people sent to negotiations might be good at specifics skills (e.g. accounting, etc.) but that does not mean at all that they are adept in negotiating.

If the main negotiator of the other party is a novice, he will say “well, I can go up to $2 per pound if you put it that way. I don’t represent a small business, we’re pretty big if you look at our annual sales”. Big words from a negotiator, but if you look at the situation closely enough, which party is actually yielding to whom?

Now, there will be times when the other n e g o t i a t o r a p p e a r s t o b e m o r e knowledgeable in the subtle and covert arts of negotiation. There is a possibility


that the other party will respond with something like “how big do I have to go to get the goods?”. If this happens, don’t fall into the trap of responding with a ‘dream figure’ you had in mind. Because it is still possible to get a much higher figure than that. You can get a much higher figure in this situation, if and only if you are able to bounce back your earlier statement to the other party. Essentially, you will have to make a way for the other person to break the ice with regards to how much will be given for what you are offering.

You can remain neutral in terms of your body language and verbal expressions. You can also just smile and say “like I said, you have to go bigger to get it”. Just make sure that you say it in a way that hints that you want the negotiation to end


well. Do not deliberately challenge the other party because that increases the risk of closing the deal on a bad note.

The more quiet you are after you have dropped the bombshell, the better off you will be. Do not be intimidated if the other party clams up immediately after you say “you have to go bigger if you want this offer”. Many novice negotiators commit the mistake of becoming too anxious if the other party becomes too quiet.

This anxiety stems from the fact that when a person is saying nothing, the stream of communication grinds to a halt. You can still get some information by observing the other person’s nonverbal language but of course you still need the concrete message and that can only be formally delivered by verbal language.


Unless the other party grabs you and says “get out of my office”, you are still in a very good position to get what you want… But you have to wait for the other person to respond first. Why? The reason is very simple: when a person breaks the ice, he is rarely able to stop. Talking after a long silence is like shoveling copious amounts of coal into the fuel pit of a train. The train will just keep going and going!

Whenever I share this piece of information with budding Maverick Negotiators, I always get this question: should you strive to get a little more than what you aimed for during a negotiation? My answer is yes, especially if you are negotiation contracts and better pricing for your goods and services.


Small increases in the price of goods and services translates to bigger annual profits, remember that. So whenever you succeed in getting better contracts whenever you negotiate, you are ensuring your business’ success in the long term.

The Grip and Release technique can be used in almost any scenario. You just have to know a little bit more about the other party in order to use this technique well. So do your research and make sure that you read the other party’s feedback well during the negotiation.

Using (Imaginary) Authority to Your Advantage

You have probably encountered this scenario before: you try to make an offer and you are so sure that you are going to


succeed in the negotiation but you end up walking home empty-handed that day because the other party has to show your information to the board of directors.

Using authority as a reason not to make an immediate decision during a negotiation is probably one of the oldest strategies in the book… But this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work. It is a very common tactic and yet it enjoys a special place in the world of negotiation because it just works. Like an old, well-oiled machine, this strategy has continually proven itself worthy of discussion and debate.

A person who has never tried negotiation in a pressurized setting (e.g. a business contract is at stake) will probably think that the ability to make a firm decision during a negotiation is much better than


having to continually defer to a higher authority. And let’s face it – it does sound cool to say “I am a recognized decision-maker in the company… What I say goes”.

Despite the seeming ‘advantage’ of being able to make straight decisions during a negotiation, it is important for you to realize that in this particular context, being the ‘boss’ or the ‘main man’ does not n e c e s s a r i l y m e a n t h a t y o u w i l l automatically have the most advantage during the exchange.

Why? Because if you state that you are the one who makes all the decisions means you are placing yourself in the direct path of the other party’s ammunition. You will become the target and because you are the one making the decisions, the other party


will not rest until they get a definite yes from you.

All this might come as a surprise to you and I don’t blame you for being surprised at all. Modern society places a lot of value on the ability to make decisions.

People who endeavor to climb up the corporate ladder know that as they achieve better positions within companies and o rgan iza t ions , t hey become l e s s accountable to people like department heads and managers. So it is only natural for many people to feel that in order to become a good negotiator, one must have absolute power in terms of making decisions.

But again, I have to remind everyone that if you openly express that you are the one


responsible for making decisions in your company, business or organization, you are actually weakening your position within the negotiation because the other party knows that it can employ a wide array of tactics to gain compliance from you.

So in the end, it is not really in your interest to go about saying that you are the “main man”. Sometimes, playing the underdog greatly strengthens your bargaining position because the other party will then have to guess what the authority is thinking, based on what you are saying. Your b rea th ing room dur ing the negotiation will greatly expand, as well.

Now, I have to be honest – not a lot of people are willing to pretend that they do not have the final word when it comes to making decisions. This applies most


especially to business owners who have worked so hard to make their business flourish. And yet, I have to ask each and every one of you to do exactly this when you are negotiating.

Don’t be the boss. Don’t act like you word is the final word. Because if you do, the other party will know instantly that all that has to be done in order to close the negotiation on their terms is to make you comply, not anybody else. It might be difficult at first but as you get the hang of this strategy, this technique will definitely be a regular tool in your negotiating arsenal.


When you say that you are not the final decision maker, you are also making the other party work harder to convince you that their offer is worth bringing up to the higher authority. Because you are just an envoy or messenger, your responsibility is just to convey what the other party is saying even if there is no real higher authority involved.

Am I asking you to make things up? Yes, if you need to. This minor deception is necessary during negotiations to ensure your position will remain stable during the exchange.

I wouldn’t want you to step into a minefield just because you are really the decision-maker in your company or organization. It doesn’t matter if you don’t really have a boss to contact after the


meeting. What is important is that you emphasize that the final word will not come from you. It will come from someone else.

The playing field changes when the other party learns that a higher authority is quietly listening in on the dialogue. You also become less of a target and more of a possible accomplice because the other party now has a reason to woo you into saying yes to the offer. The other party will also be willing to add a few concessions to the offer so you would drop a good word for them when you talk to the higher authority (again, even if there is really no higher authority to begin with!).

Now, at this point in time, you might feel as if you are ready to use this covert strategy to your advantage. Before you set


out to rule the negotiation table, a word of advice: never and I do mean never mention a specific name or position when referring to higher authority. I cannot emphasize this enough. Never say that you are referring to a manager, president, CEO, etc.

Instead of saying that you have to ask a specific person, use a vaguer term like “board of directors”. As long as the term that you are using is well-known in business culture, you should be fine. Terms like “sales committee” and “head associates” are excellent for this strategy because the other party will not be able to just say “make the call and we will talk to this person”.

If the other party would have to deal with a whole group of people (imaginary or


not), they won’t demand to converse directly with the higher authority. Instead, they would leave that tedious (yet vital) task to you.

Here are some important reminders when using the higher authority strategy on the negotiation table:

- As I have stated before, it would be best to refer to a vague authority when negotiating. Do not refer to a specific person because that puts you at a tenuous position.

What if the other party starts asking questions like “how do we contact this person? What is his name? What exactly does he do?” Instead of referring to a single person, refer to a group of people with a relevant description.


For example, if the other party is requesting for a loan, say that you have to check with your loan committee. If the other party is trying to sell you something that might cost thousands of dollars, say that an acquisition committee has recently been assembled in your company and they are in charge of making decisions on new acquisitions and company purchases.

It is utterly frustrating for a negotiator to find out that he is not actually speaking to someone who can make a clear-cut decision regarding a matter. In essence, you become a mere messenger to the higher power in the organization… and in some cases, the person in front of you might actually be a messenger, too!


Some of you might be wondering, what should you do if the negotiator knows you are the business owner/manager/project leader? Are you trapped, then? Have you no other resort but to admit that you are the one responsible for making the decisions in the business?

Actually, no. You can still say that you have to check with a specific group within the business because you have relegated decision-making to this committee/person. Owners of big businesses rarely carry the burden of performing all the decision-making duties alone.

So the other party will still understand and more importantly, believe that you still have to give their proposal offer to a higher authority. You don’t even have to elaborate your explanation – just give


them a one-time explanation and leave it at that. The mystery surrounding the higher authority will force the other party to produce a better offer with more concessions to help ‘seal the deal’.

Another reason why I want you to refer a vague group of people like a pricing committee is that we do not want the other party to think that you are worthless on the negotiation table.

Think about it. If you say “it’s actually my manager who makes decisions about things like this”, what would the other party think of you? The knee-jerk response would probably be – why have I been spending the last 2 hours trying to impress this person? He is not even the one making the decisions!


All of this has been a waste of time. That is the most common reaction to a misplaced gambit. If the other party thinks you are a worthless negotiator because a specific person is the real decision-maker, your value in the eyes of the other party will be greatly reduced. From a giant, your size (value-wise) would probably be reduced to a gerbil.

Avoid this mistake at all cost. If you make it appear that you have a direct connection to a group that makes the final decision on the matter, you will be able to increase your valuableness on the negotiation table.

- The second important guideline that I would like to share with you is to never back down from an obvious challenge to your assertion that a higher authority has to be consulted with first before a decision


is made. There will be times when a negotiator will say “when will the pricing committee meet to discuss what we have been discussing? Do they meet twice monthly or monthly? When can I expect a clear answer?”.

Questions like these are a direct challenge to your position as a negotiator. Some negotiators are just genuinely curious as to when a decision will be made. Others want to find out if you are telling the whole truth regarding the matter.

And still others are just trying to pin you down as to when a possible compliance to the offer will be given. Such questions obviously increase the pressure on you.

Don’t buckle just because the other negotiator seems to be cracking your


negotiating armor. Say something non-committal like “the committee meets on a regular basis, but they perform several functions and your offer will be discussed at the soonest possible time”. You don’t have to provide an exact day or time for the decision. If you do that, you would be at a disadvantage because you won’t be able to review the offer well before making a decision.

- What if the other party was using the higher authority tactic on you? You can counter this move by challenging the other party’s worthiness in terms of receiving what you are offering. Say “you will have to improve your offer if you want to acquire this offer”.

This automatically increases the pressure on the other party because they stand to


lose the offer completely. If the other party had been sitting with you for the last three hours, chances are the organization or business being represented by the other negotiator has a real need for what you are offering in the first place.

If you increase the pressure on the other party, the imaginary authority might evaporate completely or the other party might agree to some concessions that were refused earlier.

- You can also use this strategy if you want the other party to give the lowest possible price on a product or service. You can say that your higher authority is already considering good alternatives because the other party was late in moving in with an offer for an identical product or service.


You use hope as a key feature of your negotiation. If you drive down the value of what is being offered but you show them some glimmer of hope if they make a really good offer, there is a chance that the other negotiator will adjust his position immediately.

- Another useful strategy to counter the potent higher authority strategy is by clarifying the details even before the negotiation has begun. Many novice negotiators are more preoccupied with befriending the other party to get into a better bargaining position during a negotiation.

This is a bad move because no one goes to negotiations to make a friend. More than anything, negotiations can be likened to war because both sides are gearing up for


the offensive. A good negotiator knows when to keep quiet but he also knows when to release his array of persuasive tools.

In order to effectively block the higher authority strategy, you need to deal with the possibility of it being used even before formal negotiations begin. This is what you have to say “I would like to clarify something. If our offer satisfies what your business/company/organization needs, there would be no other reason for you not to accept it today, is that correct?”

This is only a template so it would be best to appropriate the message based on the context and what you know so far of the other negotiator. Avoid coming across as intimidating or hostile.


You are just asking a very simple question and all that you require at that point in time is a simple yes or no. If all goes well, the other party will probably respond with an offhand “yes of course” to your question. That offhand response will seal the deal for you and will also protect your position within that negotiation.

By saying “yes of course”, the other party is openly admitting that no other higher authority is involved in the negotiation and that a direct decision can be made on that day.

If the other person suddenly says “wait, I have to talk to my partners about this…” you can counter that easily with “at the beginning of our negotiation you have made it clear that if our offer satisfies your requirements, a swift decision can be made


today”. This will really put a sufficient amount of pressure on the other party.

To avoid the possibility of being completely embarrassed, the other party will most likely choose to examine your offer closely one last time before he accepts. Remember – you weren’t the one who said that a decision will be made that day. You just asked an intelligently crafted question… and the other party was kind enough to give you the answer that you really needed at that point in time.

There is a general tendency for people to fulfill their personal commitments. This is your advantage when you use this counter-strategy on the other negotiation.

Even an offhand answer like “sure we will accept the offer if it fulfills our


requirements” automatically creates a commitment to follow through with what has been said. The other party can’t just say “hey I forgot that there is some committee involved”. The other party will know that such statements will sound like a downright lie and obvious deception is never welcome on the negotiating table.

- What if you are unable to get the other person to commit to a swift decision regarding the issue at hand? What if the other negotiator has anticipated your strategy as well? There are three clear steps that must be taken in order to handle this volatile situation.

Because if you do not disarm the higher authority strategy, you will have to make a lot of concessions because you don’t know if there is a higher authority or not. In the


grand scheme of things, you have to make sure that you will put your best foot forward if there is indeed a committee involved but I don’t want you to experience such a weakened negotiating position at all. Here are the steps.

1.A person’s ego is often his downfall… So we are going to use it to weaken the other negotiator’s ability to hold on to the higher authority strategy. If the negotiator says that some board or committee has to approve your offer first before any acceptance or compliance is given, ask the other pe r son “ s ince you r company /organization has sent you here, they seem to trust you very much, don’t they?”


This will prompt the other negotiator to say yes, because he won’t be willing to say that some other person is more trustworthy than he is when it comes to bringing home good results.

Another approach would be to ask the other negotiator “do you think your boss or manager will have to look at what you are doing here before this deal is approved at all?”. People hate the idea of being under any authority. So whether there is higher authority involved or not, the other negotiator will most likely say “no, they trust me enough for this type of thing”.

2. If you cannot convince the other negotiator to commit to giving you a swift decision on the same day, have him commit that he will support your


offer one hundred percent when he brings it to the higher authority.

This statement should do it quite nicely: you will put in a good word for my offer, wouldn’t you? If your offer is good enough and you have mutual benefits in mind, the other negotiator will see your statement as an act of good faith and he will respond “I will definitely do my best to have this offer approved”.

3.The third and final step in dissolving the higher strategy approach would be to try to nail down the exact person and reason why your offer will not be accepted.

I know this sounds a little zany given the fact that we definitely don’t want


our offers to be rejected. Ask the negotiator that you need to close the negotiation with some paperwork that will be sent directly to the higher authority.

The paperwork will be a “subject to” document that will instruct the higher authority to reject the offer for whatever reason within a 24 hour period. The tricky part here is that they actually have to provide a very specific reason why they will not take up your offer and they have to do it within 24 hours of receipt of the paperwork.

There is no reason why the other party will not be able to pass on paperwork for you. If they refuse, ask for the addresses and names of the committee


members so you can send the paperwork yourself.

Some of you might be wondering at this point in time: what should be done if the other party is showing a lot of resistance and objections? Let me clarify this point a little before I close our discussion of the higher authority strategy.

Objections are generally considered not beneficial to negotiations because they tend to delay the decision-making process. However, I have to emphasize that objections in themselves mean the other party wants what you are offering.

Seasoned salesmen know that when a buyer is just gleaming and beaming all the time, he is just probably window shopping.


But when a customer begins complaining and ‘insulting’ what you are offering, then you have at least 50% assurance that this person is actually going to shell out some dough because deep down, he really wants what you are offering.

So I am not saying that you should welcome objections because these definitely have to be dealt with swiftly when they come but you should also take objections in stride because they signify that the other party is really interested in what you are bringing to the table.

Finally, here are some adjustments that you can make when you come face to face with equally tricky negotiators.


Problem: The other party has made an offer and is asking for an answer on the same day.

Solution: Give him the option of waiting a week or two for the committee to arrive at a decision or he can change his offer so that you can give the go ahead on the same day. Power is split between you and the higher authority.

You can approve really good offers; offers that are ‘out of your league’ are passed on to the higher authority. Since no one likes waiting, the other party will most likely opt for the adjustment of the offer or proposal.

Problem: The other party is forcing you to say yes.


Solution: Tell the other party that if you are going to be pressured to give an answer right then and there, the answer is definitely going to be a no. But if they can wait, there is a possibility of compliance or agreement.

Service and Reciprocity

One of the more unfortunate things in negotiations is that favors or service done in good faith often lose their value very quickly.

So if you made a concession in the form of a service or positional adjustment, the service that you have performed for the other party will most likely lose its value as time goes by. And I’m not talking about weeks or months here… Not even days!


It is estimated that that the perceived value of service begins to slide down really fast after the first two hours after the service has been rendered.

So if you are thinking that your favors will have a bearing a week from now, you are definitely wrong unless the favor that you did has a monetary value or you saved someone from being eaten by a ravenous crocodile in a raging river.

The value of a service is at its peak as it is being performed and as the outcome is emerging. But once the service has been done and the recipient of the action or service is already enjoying the fruits of your labor, the value of what you just did will rapidly decline and trust me, the other party will begin thinking that what you are


asking in return is much more than the actual value of what you did.

Of course, this is not how the other party perceived the service before because he really needed your help. But keep in mind that this has nothing to do with ethics, morality or any of those things. It is actually part of the general human mindset.

Generally speaking, intangible things are less valuable than stuff that can be touched, used or in some cases, spent or saved. You can’t say that the other party should hold on to your paper like a real contract. No one in their right mind will do such a thing for you.


So before rendering any service at all to another person, you have to remember these key pointers:

1.Negotiate the reciprocal favor that the other party will give you in return for your service.

2.Finalize the specifics of what you want in return and hold the other party responsible for pulling through with what he has promised.

3.Be firm with what you want in return and if you do not get a commitment from the other party, don’t do him any favors.

B e c a u s e i f h e c a n ’ t m a k e a commitment before the service is performed, his interest in reciprocating


any favors will evaporate as soon as the service is done.

The Maverick Way of Splitting the Difference

Splitting the difference is definitely one of the more popular concepts in the field of negotiation because it really personifies the idea of fairness between two parties. In America, splitting the difference is synonymous with saying “let’s split this in half and be done with it”.

Well, I would like to let you in a secret – that is not exactly our approach in Maverick Negotiation. We will be using the concept of splitting the difference but we will be doing it so that you will still be able to get the maximum advantage when


a deal is finally struck. Here are the guidelines for using this approach:

1.First of all, splitting the difference doesn’t necessarily mean you have to do 50-50. You could, but only if you would be at an advantage if you do so. Most of the time, a 75-25 split is considered more beneficial than a 50-50 split during a negotiation, where you get 75 and the other party gets 25. Remember – the goal is to get the maximum benefit from the negotiation. If 75-25 isn’t possible, getting 60-40 would get you better leverage than 50-50.

2. It is possible to split the difference and keep splitting as you adjust your position within the negotiation. You


can keep splitting the difference until you have reached your MAP or maximum acceptable position during the exchange. As long as you are using a variety of techniques to boost your position within the negotiation, you shouldn’t have too much trouble asking for concessions.

3.While it might sound like a good idea to become assertive and start splitting the difference yourself during a negotiation, don’t. Let the other party start the splitting of the difference so that the other party will feel in control.

Because the more in control the other party feels, the more in control you will be. Remember, when a person feels that he is losing control of a situation, he becomes more defensive. So just let


the other party lead the way and g r a d u a l l y s h i f t y o u r p o s i t i o n afterwards.

4. Ideally, it should be the other party who should initiate the split of the difference. This doesn’t mean that you have to be completely quiet near the close of the negotiation. Instead of completely clamming up, try to nudge the other party to initiate the split. Here is a scenario to help illustrate this point.

Let us say that you were trying to sell a contract for $25,000. Your boss tells you that you can go down to $20,000 but that would be the absolute limit on the contract. The other party is saying that it can do $20,000.


You are happy that the other party has agreed to the minimum price for the contract, but the original target was $25,000 and you’d like to be the better negotiator and bring back this contract for that amount. How can you make the other party increase the bid for the contract?

You can say “We have already spent so many hours discussing the details of this contract… it is such a shame that we can’t actually close a deal because of a $5,000 difference”. At which point, the other party will most likely say that “I agree, so what do you say to splitting the difference?”.


This is crucial – the other person wants to split the difference (he has initiated it) but you have to take control immediately of the initial split. So if you need want to add $5,000 more to the final price of the contract, you need to split it by at least half at the first opportunity: “Hmmm… I think I kind of get what you are saying. Split the difference – does this mean that we will be going up to $22,500, is this correct?”

When the other party acquiesces to the new figure which is $22,500, you can use the higher authority approach to delay the decision-making for at least a day. During the second round of negotiations, you have a choice – accept the $22,500 and go over the minimum or split the difference again.


How can you split the difference without incurring the ire of the other party?

Use the higher authority technique: “I have worked hard with committee for hours yesterday to get $22,500 approved but unfortunately they told me that they would lose money if we go anywhere below $24,000. It’s is very unfortunate that we have to close this given the $1,500 difference”.

Again, because you have emphasized that only a small price difference is blocking the way of a successful settlement, a split would be in progress once again. Wait for the other party to respond and at the first sign of a split,


clarify the final price of the contract ($24,000) and be ready for the signing of the contract.

This is only a simple scenario so always remember that you can do so much more with this technique when you begin applying it in the real world. This technique almost never causes any headaches because the splitting of the difference will always be initiated by the other party, not you.

In essence, the other party will be the one responsible for creating a better deal, not you. So the other party won’t feel that it is being controlled or forced in any manner. Whatever the other negotiator feels after the exchange is no longer relevant because it would be appear that you have relinquished full


control of the exchange to the other party!

5.Do not try to be too pushy with the splitting of the difference because if you want this technique to really work, the other party should feel that it had actually won the negotiation and not the other way around.

If the other negotiator feels that he is being trapped or manipulated, a split won’t occur, trust me. Even if you resolve to the higher authority technique, the other negotiator will no longer make concessions because he will feel that he is being actively deceived during the negotiation. No one likes to feel that he is being deceived, ever.


Part 4: Sealing the Deal

Turning a Disagreement into a Profitable Exchange

To n o v i c e n e g o t i a t o r s , a s i n g l e disagreement can feel like the end of the negotiation (and in some cases, the end of the world). One of the things that I have learned over the years is that in order to become a true Maverick Negotiator, you need to be able to differentiate between the common stumbling blocks during a negotiation.

Not every disagreement can result in a deadlock. Sometimes, it’s a simple impasse that you are dealing with and the situation must be dealt with correctly if you want to succeed in getting what you need from the negotiation.


Because if you treat an impasse as a deadlock, both parties will walk away with nothing because you will stop working towards a good resolution for whatever it is that you do not agree with.

Remember – an impasse results when the other party gives an offer or detail that you find completely unacceptable. In short, there is simply a problem or a series of problems that have to be fixed before the negotiation can end on a positive note. The existence of problems (big or small) does not necessarily mean that you will lose the negotiation.

On the contrary, if there are objections and problems, that means the other party still wants to interact with you. The other negotiator still hasn’t bid you farewell and


that means there is still hope for the negotiation.

Here are some guidelines for handling impasses during a negotiation:

1.The first thing that you should know about impasses is that essentially, they are just problems of varying degrees. So you approach impasses as you would any problem – with a solution.

It would be fairly easy to become hostile to your fellow negotiator if an impasse is reached and it might even feel as if a deadlock has already occurred. But 9 times out of 10, the so-called deadlock can be solved if you take apart the objections one by one.


2. Instead of becoming hostile to the other negotiator, use the “sweep away” technique to make room for solutions.

Objections and problems in general can make the negotiation table cluttered so you need to ‘sweep away’ the clutter so both negotiators can see things more clearly. Instead of becoming stuck on the major problem, start addressing the smaller problems that both of you have mentioned throughout the negotiation.

Propose solutions for these smaller problems first and build that much needed momentum. When you are able to blow off some steam and the other party is seeing some progress in terms of solving the smaller problems with what you are negotiating, that would


be the time to speak to the negotiator about the main problem which had been responsible for the impasse.

3. It is very important that you craft your “sweep away” statements carefully so you can divert the other negotiator’s attention away from the main problem. A tried and tested formula for this would be: I completely understand what you are feeling right now about ___________ but let us set that aside for just a minute and talk about _____________________, which is also worthy of our attention. This issue is also important for ___________, is this correct?” Once the other negotiator has been distracted, you can begin tackling the smaller problems and you can definitely begin to lay


down some of the best solutions you have for these smaller problems.

Breaking Down Stalemates

Stalemates are another common problem in negotiation because both negotiators will begin to feel that nothing beneficial is coming out of the negotiation itself. A stalemate can occur for a variety of reasons, not just because both parties are not agreeing to the terms of the different offers.

For example, a stalemate can occur if one person is unable to understand the benefits of an offer and the other party is at his wit’s end as to how to explain the specifics of the offer. The two parties can continue talking for hours and the negotiation may even continue to the next day but if


nothing is done to address the stalemate itself, it’s possible that no favorable settlement of the issue will be achieved.

Being in a stalemate also means that one or both parties have lost their momentum within the negotiation. There might be a breakdown of communication within one group of negotiators or the other group just doesn’t understand the approach of the other party. Here are some ways that you can change the direction of a dialogue that seems to have stalemated:

1.The number one cause of a stalemate is the people involved in the negotiation. Obviously, you cannot request people from the other negotiation team to just leave.


So what you can do is to change the people within your own negotiation team. If you go to negotiations alone it might be a good idea to ask someone who is as equal ly ta lented at negotiations to take your place.

A fresh face and a new perspective just might dissolve the stalemate that has frozen both parties in place during the negotiation. Just make sure that you tactfully excuse yourself from the negotiating table.

Avoid dropping statements like “You know what, I’m just tired of this exchange so someone else is taking my place this afternoon. Good luck to that guy, God knows he needs it!”.


Even if you say such things in jest, the fact of the matter is that the other party will take such statements as an insult and you won’t make any progress if the other party has been personally offended by you.

2.The environment also has an effect on people. So if you have been trying to settle the same problem over and over again for the past three days in your office, why not suggest a change of environment? Talking in a great restaurant with good food never hurt anyone.

And frankly speaking, good food always improves a negotiator’s mood. If the other party is from another city or state, show the negotiators some


genuine hospitality and see if that will have an impact on the other party.

3.There are times when a member of your own negotiating party is causing problems. If one member from your team has personally offended anyone from the other party, it might help if you got rid of that team member for the time being. Don’t whack your team member for offending the other team because even annoying negotiators play a crucial role in the context of negotiations.

Think reciprocity and concessions. Once the ‘thorn on the side’ is gone the other party will be more open to discussing the problematic issues that are causing the stalemate. This may not have been possible at all if you allowed


that one team member to stay on the negotiation table.

4.Somet imes , the pressure of a negotiation can really get to a person so much that he has a hard time thinking straight.

If you think the other party has become so saturated and exhausted, it’s time to give the other party a little breathing space. Change the topic and have a few laughs (if at all appropriate or permissible) just to break the monotony of the negotiation.

5. If the negotiation is business-related, it might be helpful if you offered small concessions or some beneficial,


structural modifications to the other party.

For example, if you had been requesting for 50% down payment for the contract, you can reduce the percentage to 40% just to breathe new life into the negotiations once again.

People might generally fear change but in the context of negotiation, positive changes can actually spell the difference between a successful dialogue and a stalemate.

Some negotiators are a little leery about offering payment-related concessions to the other party because it might seem that you are giving the other party a bigger slice of the pie.


But in reality, there are instances when one company/business/organization has financial difficulties and a restructured financial plan just might help that business close a deal with your own company or organization. Viewed from this perspective, you easily see how you can help close a tight negotiation by simply being sensitive to the current status of what the other party is actually representing.

6. If the other party is worried about the perceived risk involved in what is being offered, then it might be a good idea to offer something that will offset the risk. Guarantees are excellent when it comes to this type of problem. For example , i f you rep resen t an electronics distribution company, you


can offer the other party a reduced restocking agreement.

Reduction of risk can end a negotiation on a positive note most of the time. Often, parties are only waiting for certain details to be brought up and resolved.

It can be frustrating that some negotiators seem to be more concerned with hiding the problems than resolving them but that is the nature of negotiations and we can’t really force other people to think like Maverick Negotiators.

7.Analyze how the negotiations have been going so far. It might help if you modified your plan of attack just to change the course of the exchange.


For example, if you have been offering so many concession and the other party is just not responding to your concessions, why not make a few more demands?

If you have been making a lot of demands in the past few hours, it might help if you gave a few concessions to keep the other party interested in what you have to say.

Ending Deadlocks

A deadlock occurs when two or more parties involved in a negotiation have given up all hope of a favorable resolution. When a deadlock occurs, parties involved


are generally ready to call it quits so they can finally leave the negotiation table.

You might be thinking – if a deadlock occurs then there is no hope and it would be futile to continue working with the other party. Well, sometimes this is true especially if the other party seems to be more concerned with your demise rather than on an agreement that is mutually beneficial.

Believe me, you will eventually encounter such negotiators. Not being able to come up with a solution in such situations is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign that the other negotiator is bent on enforcing only his requirements and a one-sided settlement of the matter.


If everything else has failed and you are at a loss as to how to fix the negotiation, your only recourse would be to bring in a mediator.

A mediator is different from an arbiter. An arbiter is someone who creates a solution that both parties must accept regardless of what they may think of the solution. A deadlock ends because a third party is brought into the scene and that third party will have the power to nullify any complaints from either side.

Most of the time, regular negotiators can’t just say that they want to bring in some smart arbiter to finally solve the problem. Unless you are willing to bring in your


legal team to formally request for legal arbitration, chances are you will only be able to bring in a mediator to the negotiation table.

A mediator is a third party that will help settle the issue by working closely with each of parties involved. The mediator will be responsible for gathering any loose ends that may have been missed by both parties during the entire negotiation.

Many negotiators absolutely detest the idea of bringing in arbitration or mediation. Why? Because negotiators have a general conception that the ex is tence of media t ion dur ing a negotiation means that at least one of the negotiating parties are weak in terms of solving problems and creating good solutions.


If this is how you perceive mediation, I endeavor you to simply discard this old perception of third party mediation because if a deadlock occurs and you force the other party to keep talking even if the other group is already visibly hostile, you are going to end up with a very nasty situation on your hands.

Bringing in a third party to mediate the negotiation will ensure fair play and will also ensure that no party will try to give an offer that is not mutually beneficial to both parties.


Here are some reminders when bringing in a mediator to a negotiation:

1.Accept the fact that you need mediation. The mediator is not there to prove that you have poor negotiation skills. He is there to ensure that both parties are able to arrive at a fair settlement of the issue. If you are not concerned with arriving at a fair settlement at the negotiation table, that is a sign that you do not know what you are doing as a negotiator.

One of the most important traits of a Maverick Negotiator is knowing when to call for mediation. A true negotiator knows when a deadlock has occurred and when it does, only a neutral third party will be able to help solve the


problems that have arisen during the negotiation.

2.The mediator should be approved by both parties, not just your negotiating team. Even if you have the “home team” advantage, do not abuse your power to ‘call the shots’ just because the negotiation is taking place in one of your company’s conference rooms.

3.The other party must see that the mediator that has been brought to the negotiation table is neutral. If the other party feels like the mediator has some hidden agenda of some sort, the negotiators on that side of the fence will do everything in their power to oppose any input from the mediator. If neutrality is not established, the other party will most likely view the


mediator as a spy of sorts and that will result in further conflict.

Historic Gambit

There are special times when a deadlock actually forces the other party to make concessions and adjust their own position. One good example of this situation occurred in 1996 when three Red Cross workers were kidnapped and held captive by the rebel group SPLA-Barh al-Ghazal.

The three Red Cross workers were then working at an encampment that took care of wounded soldiers. At first, the SPLA-Bahr al-Ghazal wanted one hundred million dollars in ransom for the three Red Cross workers.


The Kenyan government did not want to make such a concession and the ransom demand dropped to two and a half million dollars. Congressman Bill Richardson from the US stepped in to help.

He travelled to the exact area where the Red Cross workers were being held captive. Naturally, members of the SPLA-Barh al-Ghazal used intimidation tactics to try to get the two and a half million dollars ransom that their leader Kerbino Kwayn Bol wanted.

Congressman Bill Richardson knew that even if it was possible to acquire such an amount just to free the Red Cross workers, he would be setting a bad example for the world.


Making large concessions to people who regularly terrorized villages was never a good thing. So instead of trying to negotiate directly with the SPLA-Barh al-Ghazal, Congressman Richardson simply kept quiet and just sat under a tree.

Eventually, the kidnappers relented and they released the Red Cross workers in exchange for the following items:

- 5 tons of rice - Four used jeeps (rugged utility vehicles

with diesel engines)- Nine radios from the Red Cross camp - Health survey of the people in the rebel

camp

The hostages were freed and no cash was g iven on tha t day. Congressman Richardson may have created a deadlock


on purposed, but he walked home a winning negotiator that day.

And the whole world now knows how even a deadlock can be used a Maverick Negotiator to gain the upper hand even under the most pressurized situations.

Enforce Reciprocal Action

Giving concessions is a fact of life when it comes to the negotiation table. No matter how hard we try to stick to our original offers, people will continue to demand some concessions during a dialogue. It’s natural for negotiators to want a better deal… And most of the time, fellow negotiators are open to giving concessions.

There is nothing wrong with adjusting your position strategically, if it won’t harm


your goal. But I have to remind all Maverick Negotiators that you must enforce reciprocal action whenever you give concessions. Remember our rule regarding actions?

The value of an action decreases rapidly after the benefit has been received. So even before that happens, you have to enforce reciprocal action by demanding trade-offs.

Some people might view this particular guideline as a bit draconian but I assure you, if the other party has the right to demand for concessions you definitely have the right to demand for trade-offs immediately.

You can even state the trade-off before you agree to any concessions. That is how


negotiations work and if you want to come out on top, you have to remember this rule by heart.

Asking for a trade-off is easy. Here is the formula:

“That sounds fine, but I have to consult first with ______________, so let me get back to you on that. If _____________ does agree with what you propose, what will do for us in return?”

As you can plainly see, asking for a trade-off requires four techniques combined. Let us analyze the formula so you can see how our past discussions will help you craft the best negotiation statements of your life.

The first part of the formula is centered on expressing agreement. As we have already


discussed before, it would be best if you always agreed to something to reduce the conflict during any interaction.

A non-committal agreement will work in most cases but you have to make sure that you do not fall into the trap of agreeing that you will not be referring to the decision of a higher authority. And that brings us to the second part of the formula.

When someone asks you for a special benefit or concession or even a tiny adjustment on your current offer, you need to remind the other party that you are not the direct decision maker – some higher authority is actually listening in on the negotiation.


This will help expand your breathing space during the negotiation and the pressure on you to make an immediate decision will also rapidly dissipate because you are not responsible for making any instant decisions during the actual negotiation. The next component in the formula is the “unwilling seller/unwilling buyer” gambit. You have already expressed agreement and you have stated that the decision of a higher authority must be given before you can make the concession. Now would be a great time to give the other party a glimmer of hope… So we give the other party hope. We say that if your side agrees to the concession, what will they give back?

This question is extremely important because you are establishing a formal


agreement between the two parties. If you can get this inked down on paper, that’s fine but if you are dealing with individuals from other cultures that prefer handshakes over signed contracts, adjust your approach accordingly.

The more important thing here is that you get the other party to seal the deal in terms of reciprocal action. You will be closing off any chances of the other party not offering any reciprocal benefit after you have done your part in sweetening the deal. Remember – you must always get something in return if you adjust your position for the other party.


What if the other party is too smug because you are the one who approached them in the first place? Do not back down so easily – if you cannot get the other party to offer anything concrete, emphasize that the concession may not be carried out if no clear benefit is promised in the first place.

This is not hubris at all – it is simply stating fact. You represent a business or organization who has agreed to provide something under certain conditions. If any of these conditions are modified because of a concession then it logically follows that something concrete has to be offered to ensure that the interests of the organization or business are also protected.


Heroes & Villains

Nothing could be more annoying than having to deal with a nemesis on the negotiation table. A ‘villain’ is a character from the other party that is hell-bent on twisting your words so that you will end up giving more than what you are prepared to give during the negotiation.

A villain can also be someone who is so unpleasant that his mere presence is a burden on the negotiation because he keeps saying the wrong things at the most inopportune moments.

A villain can definitely offend the other party so much that the other negotiators can be prepared to walk if you let the


nemesis stay for a long period of time on the negotiation table.

Many negotiators are prepared to lash out at a fellow negotiator who seems to be giving the other negotiating team a hard time.

But did you know that having a villain on your team can actually be quiet handy? Before I get any violent reactions from any of the budding Mavericks in my team, let me just clarify: a villain is handy because he will help set the stage for the arrival of a positive agent – the hero.

Without a villain, the arrival of a hero character on the negotiation table will not create a huge impact on the other party.


On the flip-side, if you bring in a fellow that will cause some problems for the other party and you get rid of this character somewhere down the line, you will be able to set the stage for a great dialogue after the villain has left the negotiation table. This technique can be seen easily in Hollywood movies where tough mugs are involved.

Picture this – a random thug (obviously not too bright or literate) is brought into a police station for questioning. The police knows that a much bigger criminal is pulling the strings and the thug in front of them is just a pawn. So they begin questioning the thug but he just won’t budge because he knows that he might end up in the slammer with little or no hope of getting out.


The first interrogator is violent – he screams a lot and he even threatens to hit the thug with his pistol. He ends up with nothing but the thug is visibly shaken. He’s the villain in the thug’s story. The first police interrogator is the guy that the thug would rather not see again.

When the first police interrogator leaves, a second interrogator enters the scene. This time, the interrogator seems kind and easy-going. He speaks in a low voice and he seems to be genuinely interested in helping the thug.

He says “you know what, there is a big chance that you can get out of here without black eyes… When the big guy comes back you just have to tell him who ordered the hit and you will be home free. Trust


me.” The thug believes him and the rest, is history. Of course, the second interrogator is simply playing the role of the hero because he wants to help out his colleague. In reality, he is aligned with the objectives of his own team. He just made it appear that he was ‘secretly’ helping out the other camp.

This illustrates perfectly what the hero character is all about in the context of negotiation. As a Maverick Negotiator you have to learn how to maximize the potential impact of all the negotiators in your team.

Of course, you can’t play both villain and hero in the story. There has to be another person that the other party will dread. The villain creates the undesirable atmosphere


and the hero will provide the relief from the villain once he leaves the negotiation table.

Now, if you can’t pull in someone to play the role of the villain during the negotiation, you can still use this technique by creating the villain in the other negotiator’s mind.

You can play the part of the hero immediately and say that you will be the bridge between the stricter higher authority and the other party. By playing the role of the good guy, even if the other negotiator will not completely believe that you are a neutral individual, you will be able to facilitate the settlement of the issue at hand much more quickly.


What can you do if someone else is using the hero/villain technique on you? Should you allow yourself to be pulled into the ruse? Should you adjust your position to accommodate what the other party is doing?

Here are some guidelines to help you handle someone who is using this technique during a negotiation to gain the upper hand:

1. If you catch the other person, expose his ruse by saying “please don’t use the hero/villain tactic on me, let’s us just sit here and talk about the main problem and let’s see if we will be able to come up with a good solution for it”.


Usually this is enough to prevent the other person from using this technique.

Embarrassment is a very powerful tool on the negotiation table. I don’t e n c o u r a g e e v e r y o n e t o u s e embarrassment on a regular basis but if someone is trying to use this technique on you, then you have to protect your interests. Better not risk it because eventually, this technique will force you into making some concessions that will benefit the other party.

2.You can definitely counter the hero/villain technique with the same technique. If the other negotiator is saying that a higher authority is causing problems or someone in his negotiating team is making things hard, you can do the same.


You can say that a committee is breathing down your neck and the only w a y t h a t y o u c a n m a k e a n y concessions is if they make specific concessions. That way, if they are going to ask for any favors there will automatically be a trade-off that will benefit you.

3. If you think you can pull it off, go past the negotiator and contact the higher authority. It doesn’t matter if you can’t get ahold of the actual “acquisition committee”.

Contact the supervisor or manager that you know and tell him that the


negotiators are playing hero/villain with you.

I have to tell you though – this particular step can cause problems so do it only if nothing else is working. If you don’t have any choice and you have to negotiate with just one person, you have to end his ruse by asking his superior directly.

4. If you are dealing with two or more people and one of the negotiators is doing the villain’s routine, you can easily dissolve the technique by saying “I am getting a lot of confusing signals from your group and I won’t allow you to continue giving me mixed signals.

From now on, whatever that guy says will also be attributed to you and you. I


am going to treat all your feedback as one”. If they are using the villain/hero technique, I am sure that the ‘villain’ will become much nicer and more accommodating after you have given them your final word regarding their approach to the negotiation.

5. If you don’t want to embarrass the other party by revealing that you know what they are doing in the first place, it might be helpful if you just let the villain finish his ‘piece’.

Eventually, your non-responsiveness to the approach of the villain will exhaust the villain’s own team members and he will be sent away or silenced. The other party gains nothing from using the technique and you are free to


continue enforcing the most favorable position in the negotiation.


Part 5: Tightening Loose Ends

Tidbits of Benefits

The best time to ask a little more from the other party is after you have successfully gotten a deal in the first place. So if you want to get more benefits from one particular exchange, you have to make sure that you ask at the right time – otherwise, you won’t be able to get the maximum benefit from the dialogue.

Imagine the negotiation as a treasure hunt of sorts. You don’t ask the other guy for a better share of gold and jewels before you


even find the actual treasure. You ask when the other guy’s jumping up and down out of relief that there was a treasure in the first place and it has finally been located.

That is the psychology behind tidbits of benefits or what is known in the world of negotiation as nibbling. As the name implies, tidbits of benefits is a strategy that allows a negotiator to get a few more concessions just before he says goodbye to the other party.

What is interesting about the concept of nibbling is that generally speaking, people find it easier to give more concessions after they have agreed to do something for the other party.


Studies have shown that people are more likely to agree to more demands after all the pressure of arriving at a major decision has finally dissipated. People are more likely to agree with what you want because they don’t want to restart the whole negotiation process. In short, people generally want to get it over with and agreeing to some concession is much easier than having to negotiate all over again.

As a Maverick Negotiator you must also remember that the more effort you put into a negotiation after a decision has finally been made, the better the results.

The extra effort that you give after a deal has been struck will definitely improve the outcomes of all your other deals and will ensure that you will get the maximum


benefit out of every negotiation that you handle.

Nibbling for tidbits of benefits can also be done before you end the negotiation for that day. Let us say that you are really close to arriving at a favorable settlement.

Just before you say goodbye to the other party, you can pull out a document to discuss the details of a smaller deal that they might be interested in. Nibbling is a great way to get the approval of the other party right before the big deal is struck. It prepares the other party mentally for the big decision.

Just make sure that whatever you are offering during the nibbling phase has low risk and maximum benefits. Otherwise, the other party might feel that you are just


increasing the risk associated with their transaction with you. But if you focus on giving the other party a small, win-win solution to one of their problems, you are definitely on the right track.

The big question now is: is it possible for other people to be using the same technique during negotiations? Yes. Because despite the potency of this technique it is actually one of the most common negotiation tactics in existence.

It is common because we first learn about it when as children. Children are great negotiators because they have fertile imaginations and they have a natural talent for ‘wheeling and dealing’.


Once a child understands the concept of giving something in return for something else, the wheeling and dealing begins. Children are also sensitive to the feedback of adults so they learn very quickly which negotiation strategies work and which do not.

Unfortunately, we lose our natural knack for negotiating with others as we age because adults typically discard wholesale anything that is related to childhood. Watch how children ‘wheel and deal’ and you will definitely learn a thing or two about negotiating.

Here are some guidelines to help protect your side from any nibbling behavior from the other party:


1.Do not put yourself up as the main decision maker. Even if you are the big boss of your business, emphasize that a committee is in charge of studying and approving new deals and acquisitions and you are just an agent (for all intents and purposes) during the negotiation.

2.Be f i rm in laying down your requirements and what you are willing to give. Do not give in when you sense nibbling behavior after a deal has been struck. Chances are, the other party won’t reverse the deal just because you refused especially if the concessions that are being requested are not really connected to the main issue that has been tackled in the negotiation.


3.Never rely on handshakes and nods during a negotiation especially if you are discussing important details. All details should be approved and signed by both parties so the other party won’t nibble on you after the deal has been struck.

4.Give the other party a deal they can’t refuse – so they would find no reason to start nibbling on you. People generally feel that they need to nibble because they think the deal is a little one-sided. If you are getting all of the main benefits and the other party only has a cupful of advantages after the deal, you need to change a few things yourself.

Giving concessions in this scenario is much better than have to deal with


random nibbling’s that can cause a lot of inconveniences and inconsistencies down the line.

For example, a client might decide to request for additional payment paperwork just so he won’t have to pay immediately. That is one form of indirect nibbling and the other party feels entitled to it because deep down, the negotiators don’t feel satisfied at all with the deal that they have been given.


Taming the Concession Monster

Concess ions a re impor tan t when negotiating but it is also a well-known fact that too many concessions can ruin your position and your negotiation goals.

Here are some guidelines that you should remember to avoid destroying your own position when you negotiate with others:

1.Don’t be a predictable negotiator. Avoid giving concessions that follow a particular pattern. For example, if you want to give the other party a discount, don’t do it regular increments.

Here’s a scenario that will help draw out this point. Let us say that you were trying to sell your collection of rare golden watches. Initially, you had


priced your collection at $20,000 but you are fine with $15,000.

One buyer was really interested in buying your collection and was willing to pay in cash. This got you really exc i ted and you open up the negotiating table for this new buyer. Of course, the buyer is interested in get t ing a discount . You are a reasonable guy so you give him a $1,000 discount if he pays in cash.

He asks you for a day or two to decide and you let him walk away so he can make a decision in peace. Some hours later the same buyer calls you up and asks if you cut down the price again for some reason or another.


He seems eager to buy the whole collection so you cut down the price again by $1,000 with the condition that he buys the whole collection as soon as possible.

The buyer then approaches you and tells you that his wife is blocking the purchase if he needs to pay $18,000 for the whole collection. He says that his wife will only agree if you give him another discount.

And you do – the price goes down by a total of $3,000 before the sale is made. To some, that amount of money might seem insignificant compared to the amount of money that was gained.

But did you get the maximum advantage during the negotiation? No.


Unfortunately, this type of scenario is far too common in the world of negotiation because people tend to act based on pre-determined patterns. Patterns make people feel secure and in control.

You might be in control in terms of what type of concession you are giving the other party but because your concessions follow a regular pattern, the other party will attempt to take advantage of that.

Like a boulder rolling down a hill, it may be difficult to stop it once you start giving into too many requests for concessions.


2.Concessions that are far too large can cause problems for you as well during negotiations. Let’s say you were trying to sell your laptop computer for $2,000.

Your friend wants to buy it but not before you have given a substantial discount. You slash $500 off the price and you are fine with $1,500 but he asks for another discount.

You say “okay, I’m going to ask for just $1,100 for my laptop and that is it. That is my rock bottom price.” Your friend is probably thinking that if you could slash $900 off the price like it was nothing then you could probably give some more discounts.


Whether you can or cannot give any more discounts doesn’t matter to the other negotiator. The way you have given concessions communicates that you have a t reasure t rove of concessions to give away.

If the other party starts thinking this way, your position will be weakened and the other party will start playing hard to get because he will think that you still have more concessions to give him and you are just holding out on him.

3.Some negotiators feel that they can make one huge concession and that would be the end of it. No one really benefits from giving away huge concessions.


The best deals are struck if a position is adjusted bit by bit until an agreement is reached by both parties. So if you are thinking that you can make your job easier by just giving your absolute best offer, the other party will not see it that way at all. So if you are willing to give a $2,000 discount, make the concessions few and far in between. Make one big concession followed by a several small ones.

That way, you can taper the flow of concessions and make sure that whenever you make a concession, the other party will reciprocate with an equally beneficial action on your behalf.


4.Some veteran negotiators say that they hate negotiating. Don’t believe this for one brief moment.

If a fellow negotiator says that all he needs from you is your best possible offer because his company does not negotiate with suppliers and other companies, start with your initial offer and let him ask for concessions.

Once he starts asking for concessions, the other party would have already obliterated his own statement that he does not negotiate. Check mate.

5.Before making any concessions, make the other party work for it. Don’t let smiles and requests get the better of you.


By making the other party really work for your concessions, you are communicating that you have a limit and once they hit that limit they are no longer going to get any more concessions from you.

They can continue trying but they know that as they receive smaller and smaller concessions they are going to eventually hit bedrock and that would be the time that they have to accept your offer or walk away.

Being firm in your position is important because if you keep adjusting your position just because the other party wants you to, you are going to lose your potency as a Maverick Negotiator.


6.Plan your negotiations carefully even before the meeting. Know what your goals and limits are so you will have a clear idea as to how to handle the other party.

If you do not know your goals and if you cannot tie up these goals with your limits, you might end up with a lose-win situation where only the other party walks away happy with the deal that has been struck.

The “No Sale” Technique

There will be times in your life when you feel the pressure to close a deal and because of this pressure, you will be willing to pay for things at full price.


If you are going to pay for stuff at full price on the negotiation table, what is the point of negotiating at all? The fact of the matter is that people convene on the negotiating table for one reason alone – to get the better advantage.

One of the sneakiest techniques in the book that almost always brings home the bacon is the “no sale” technique or the “withdrawal” close. The “no sale” technique is a devious tactic used to put the pressure directly on the other negotiator so that he would readily accept the other party’s offer. Here is a scenario to show you how this technique works.

Let us say that you were trying to buy a used car for your daughter or wife. You have a really good car model in mind and


you have actually found a seller who was offering the car for $7,000.

You were prepared to pay $10,000 for it but when you hear that the owner was willing to sell it for $7,000 you immediately tell him that you can’t possibly buy an old car for $7,000.

You say that your absolute limit for the car is $5,000. The owner of the car says that he has to consult with his wife and kids (in this case, they are the higher authority).

So you meet again with the car owner the next day and he says “my wife has done some research and it turns out that the market value of our car is actually quite high. We have estimated it to be around $12,000. That is our new price for the car. Take it or leave it.”


The new price causes a shudder in your spine. You are shocked that the car owner had withdrawn his original offer and had actually gone up to $12,000. You have already told your family that you have found the perfect little car and they are all waiting for you to drive it home. Now you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

You can’t go home and tell them that you lost the car because you wanted $5,000 for it. The wife will be really angry with you and she will probably not understand what you were trying to do as a Maverick Negotiator.

Instead of imagining what would happen if you didn’t bring home the car, you ask the


owner if he can give you a concession because $12,000 is just too much. He plays the hero character in your exchange and says “if you buy this car today for $7,000 I’m going to take one for the team and give it to you, friend”.

You jump at the opportunity and you are just happy that you were able to drive home the car for less than $10,000. But wait – you didn’t get any real concessions from the exchange.

In fact, the owner of the car was able to get his original price for the car. By hiking up the price of the car to $12,000 he was able to sell it to you at full price – effortlessly.

Your own internal turmoil was his capital and he took advantage of the fact that


people were expecting you to bring home the car that day.

You didn’t lose a lot of money the day you bought the car since your budget was more than $7,000. But on the negotiating table, you had definitely lost to the withdrawal close.

This is how powerful this technique can be. I’m sure you are ready to utilize it for yourself so here are some reminders when you do so:

1.The wi thdrawal c lose doesn’t necessarily mean that you are going to literally walk away from the meeting. No, it simply means that you will be withdrawing an offer that you had made earlier.


This offer can be a concession, a price, etc. In short, you are going to withdraw your offer because you can’t agree with what the other person wants.

The withdrawal close is most effective when use the higher authority move as well. It is hard to explain why you changed your mind – but it is easy to justify why a committee changed its mind.

The higher authority is always viewed as inscrutable and powerful – and all the other party can do is work with what the higher authori ty has approved.

2. If you want to get the most out of this technique, your first position or offer


should be your MAP or maximum acceptable position.

For example, if the lowest figure you can accept is $5,000, you must not use this as your initial offer because the other party will definitely try to drive the figure down to below $5,000.

If you think that $10,000 is the most that you can get for what you are offering, use $10,000 as your initial position and use it as your lowest offer.

3.Make your initial offer and wait for the other party to ask for a concession. If your initial offer was $10,000 and the concession is for $7,000, tell the other party that you cannot make a decision on the same day but you will definitely bring the issue up to the higher


authority. On your next meeting, increase the figure a little just to jumpstart the negotiation. From $10,000 make it $13,000.

Just make sure that you have a good reason why the fee was increased in the first place. At this point in time you can cite human error as the reason why the price became $13,000. Wait for the other party to react to the increase in the figure. When he asks for a concession, slowly adjust your position so that it becomes $10,000 again.

Ask the other party if they would like to take advantage of the $10,000 mark. There is a very high probability that your fellow negotiator will opt for $10,000 instead of $13,000. It’s only logical and at that point in time he


would have forgotten all about the $7,000 he had wanted on the first meeting!

Leading the Other Party to a Favorable Close

Maver i ck Nego t i a to r s shou ld be knowledgeable not only in the various strategies needed to acquire the best possible advantage during a dialogue – a truly powerful negotiator must also know how to create the perfect environment for a favorable close.

One of the things that many people don’t know is that often, negotiators are driven by irrational drives (and their ego, too).

So if you have done everything you can to make the deal more appealing and


acceptable to the other party and you still can’t get the other negotiator to say yes, then it’s time to actively lead him so that he will finally accept your offer. Here is a situational example that will help explain this common conundrum.

Let us say that you represent a factory and you were trying to sell to a business that needed a large quantity of your products.

You were invited to the owner’s office and he had told his staff that he was going to use all his willpower to negotiate a really good deal for the business. Everyone was expecting a spectacle and the owner really felt good that he could finally put all his years of experience with the business to good use.


Unfortunately for him, you are a Maverick Negotiator and soon enough, he is unsure if he is really getting a good deal or not – so he just says no to everything you say. He becomes inconsistent and you can see in his body language that he is refusing because he feels that he doesn’t completely understand why your offer sounds so good.

His ego is in the way of closing the deal and you are aware that the clock is ticking – hours are rolling by and the business owner is just holding on to that last strand of resistance because he doesn’t want to look like he doesn’t know what he is doing.

He plays a few tactics on you but none of them work. He doesn’t want to admit defeat so he makes one last effort to save


face as a negotiator. He asks for a big concession that was nowhere near your best offer.

In situations like this, what must you do as a Maverick Negotiator? Should you go ahead and make that last concession and give in to the pressure? Or should you handle the problem differently?

The answer to this problem is actually quite simple: offer a tiny concession and nothing more. Ignore any random requests just before the close and just offer one final concession right after you ask the other party to sign the deal.

So if you are from the factory, you can tell the other party that you can expedite the delivery of the goods within the week if


they decide to go along with your best offer.

You must emphasize that the tradeoff for you would be to deliver the goods earlier even if you had already planned to deliver it that week. But this particular fact doesn’t matter at all because your goal is to simply lead the other negotiator so that he feels that he is control and that he is the winner of that particular negotiation.

In order to take full control of the situation it is important that you stick to small concession only. Don’t fall into the trap of offering big ones just because you want the negotiation to finish already. If you have spent the last three days talking to the same person about a single contract, you might as well spend another hour ironing out the last few wrinkles that are


preventing the other party from closing the deal in your favor.

When a negotiator feels lost, he refuses – that is the primal instinct in negotiation. By saying no, a negotiator is trying to re-establish some degree of control over the situation. It doesn’t matter if you have been talking for hours for the last three days. What matters is that he feels that he is in control.

A small concession right after the deal is struck is also effective in lessening buyer remorse. Buyer remorse hits us all and sometimes, that feeling that you are going to regret buying something creeps up on people just before the deal is made. Concessions nullify buyer remorse because the mind will process the


concession as something of additional value and that makes everything seem better than before.

Once you have made the small concession and the other party has finally agreed to sign the contract, you must remember to congratulate the other party for a job well done. Do this sincerely and ignore the fact that you gained the most benefit from the exchange. Remember – the other party has to feel good that he went ahead and accepted your offer despite some apprehension.

Use simple words that will describe how well the other party was able to handle the negotiation. Don’t overdo it though – be sincere but make sure that you don’t come across as patronizing or anything like that. Help the other negotiator convince himself


that he has done a good job and he has gotten the best possible deal at that place and time.

Being kind and sincere after a negotiation will also ensure that if ever you do encounter the same negotiator in the future again, he won’t be out to win against you, specifically. Negotiation might feel like a contest of sorts but it shouldn’t be treated in this manner at all.

Why? Imagine yourself leaving a trail of defeated negotiators – those people are going to make sure that they will get the upper hand the next time you negotiate again.

This will happen if they feel that they have been ground to fine dust during the


negotiations. So it would be best to keep t h e o t h e r p a r t y h a p p y a n d j u s t acknowledge that they have also done a good job. If you had to use several techniques to get the best deal, then it’s like that you were dealing with a powerful negotiator too.

The Distraction Principle

Tight focus is one of the most important traits of any negotiator – and that is the reason why we will be discussing the distraction principle in this section.

The distraction principle is used to gain extra benefits during a dialogue that would have otherwise been impossible because the other party would have rejected the concessions outright. Think of the distraction principle as a perfect way to


carry out your secret agenda during a negotiation. How does this technique work?

Easy – you use a decoy to distract the other party so that they would struggle against the decoy. The decoy can be funds availability, time constraint or some other detail that would make the deal virtually impossible or extremely difficult to carry out. Here’s a scenario to help you visualize how the distraction principle is carried out.

Let’s say you were trying to buy new machinery from a new supplier. The negotiator from new supplier is kind enough to extend a $5,000 discount outright because you were a new customer and you were requesting for more than a dozen large machines. However, you still


wanted to save a few thousand dollars more.

What do you do? You distract the other party by mentioning a specific detail that will take their focus away from their initial position. Let’s say you complain about the delivery time of the equipment. The normal delivery time is one month because all of the equipment are imported from Europe.

You say that you are going to lose money if you wait that long and you need e v e r y t h i n g i n t w o w e e k s . T h e representative from the supplier says that it is impossible. You agree that it is impossible and that is why you see no reason to shift to another supplier because your committee already has a supplier in


mind and that supplier can deliver in a shorter period of time.

Do you see how the distraction principle works? You have created the perfect type of conundrum that would render the entire negotiation useless unless a concession is made. The real issue (for you, at least) is that you want to save more money with the deal.

The representative of the new supplier is becoming more anxious by the minute and you excuse yourself from the negotiating table to speak with some committee. You come back to the negotiating table some minutes later with some ‘good news’.

Your committee (the higher authority) has agreed to the price and the delivery date of one month, provided that the supplier


wave any shipping fees and customs charges that may be incurred by your shipment.

The negotiator from the other side is just ecstatic that a solution was found. Shipment fees are definitely not something to stop a big sale! The negotiator gladly shakes your hand a n d a g r e e s t o y o u r l a s t - m i n u t e modification of the deal. You save thousands of dollars in shipping fees because you played your cards right and you acted like a true Maverick Negotiator.

As you can plainly see from our current scenario, you were able to use the distraction principle because you created a seemingly impossible problem that would immediately end the negotiation. The other party can’t risk walking away with


nothing, so a last minute concession was made just to save all the hard work that had already been invested in the exchange.

In the process, you saved a lot of money and the other party got what they wanted. Some of you might be thinking along the lines of ‘deception’ but let me clarify first: the negotiator on the other side of the fence had every opportunity to say no. The other negotiator could have just said that if they can’t bring good business here, they would just leave and no hard feelings.

So even if we are using Maverick strategies in combination, we are not forcing anyone to do or say anything at all. We are just leading other negotiators to specific directions. The decision to make the jump is entirely up to the other negotiators, not us.


You can use this technique in a variety of situations, not just in selling or business in general. Just make sure that you have a goal in mind and you weave this goal into the situation that you will create during the negotiation.

Your true goal should be hidden from plain sight – always focus on the distraction and make it as believable as possible so that the other negotiator will pay close attention to it. The moment the other negotiator loses focus on his offer or position that would be the time to present the solution to the problem.

How does one create the perfect distraction? Your general knowledge as a negotiator is definitely useful but don’t


forget to do some digging, too. Your knowledge of the other negotiator’s needs and values is also important in creating a good distraction.

For example, if you are speaking to a business owner, then this person is probably more concerned with quality more than anything else. Money is secondary – so you can create a distraction that is based on the quality of service or goods that he will be receiving from your company or organization.

Another important reminder that I would like to bring up here is to never feel as if you have to make a big concession just because the other negotiator showed some signs of flinching.


Remember – flinching is a common tactic in negotiations. You flinch at the first offer - that is the unwritten rule. The first offer often represents the MAP or the maximum acceptable position, so you should feel free to flinch as well when the other party presents its first offer of the day.

Also, don’t fall for this technique yourself. If a power negotiator is trying to distract you from the main issue, just set aside what he is saying so you can focus on the real issue. If you continually fall for decoys, trust me – you will end up making unnecessary concessions.

Some negotiators will try to use a red herring on you as well. A red herring is a decoy that is much worse than a mere distraction.


This type of decoy was meant to confuse and deceive the other negotiator so that a big concession will be made before the deal is struck. If you think another negotiator is using a red herring on you, ask the negotiator for specific details to see if the problem is real or not.

If it is a fake problem, the other negotiator will not be able to provide specific details or even names of the people involved. If this is the case, you can confidently sweep away the red herring so you can again focus on the main issue at hand.

The other party may try to bring up the issue again but you can always say that you are more interested in solving the main issue and the other issue they are raising can be discussed at a later time.


So you are not telling the other party that you are not willing to discuss the problem at all. You are simply telling the other party that you are willing to discuss that other issue at a later time.

Key Points of Maverick Negotiation Volume 1

1.Your initial offer should never be your lowest offer, price-wise. Always identify your MAP or maximum acceptable position before making your first offer. If you are selling something, your initial offer can only go down – unless you use a specialized technique involving other strategies to bring it up for a potential double profit.


2.Agreement is a powerful tool on the negotiation table. By agreeing to something you are setting the stage for an easier negotiation because the other negotiator will feel that you are there to support their cause.

3.A vague higher authority is always better than a specific one involving a name and telephone number. Avoid giving any specific details when citing a higher authority because the other party might go over your head and speak to this higher authority.

4.T h e m o r e y o u w o r k o n y o u r negotiation skills, the better you get – so read and apply as often as you can to make these strategies feel natural. No one else can help you become a


better Maverick Negotiator but you (and experience on the negotiation table of course).

5.Always be sincere when negotiating with others. Don’t gloat when you gain an obvious advantage over the other person.

6.Heroes and villains are key characters in the game of negotiation. In the event that you cannot bring in another person to the negotiation table to play the role of the villain, you can play the hero and you can assign the role of villain to a fictitious higher authority. What is really important is that you will be able


to emphasize the need for concessions in order for the deal to push through.

7.Never make huge concessions up front because this will definitely weaken your position. Concessions are best provided in small servings and should be few and far in between.

The value of your concessions is evaluated based on the quality of the concession and how easily you were able to give it. If you don’t know how to control concessions, people are going to attempt to get too many concessions from you and that is never a good thing.


Conclusion

This brings us to the end of our time together.My hope is that I have delivered the same negotiation strategies that I have used throughout my entire life to never be outtalked or outmaneuvered in a way that is easy to understand and apply.My other hope is that you make good use of these strategies because they do work and they will arm you with the power that you need to get ahead in life.

Now to be completely honest, there are countless other strategies that could be added to this list but since my goal is to keep it easy and simple, I chose only the


most effective pieces of information as I did not want to overwhelm you.I did however include an arsenal of additional (and slightly more advanced) strategies in the second Volume of Maverick Negotiation.If you’d like to know more about how you can access that volume, use the special link below:

VIP Access Link

Until next time, I wish you the very best in all you do.

Paul Mascetta

“Convert Human Communication Into Power.”


http://maverickinfluencegroup.com/maverick-negotiation-volume-two-secret-offer/

http://maverickinfluencegroup.com/maverick-negotiation-volume-two-secret-offer/

maverick negotiation volume one - amazon s3 · the author and publisher have used their best...

Documents