Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Frame Control for Negotiation
Hi Lucio,
Chris Voss recently released a masterclass teaching negotiation and the art of persuasion called: Chris Voss Teaches the Art of Negotiation.
In your blog post on frame control techniques, 10 Frame Control Techniques to Out-Frame Anyone, you explained the power of the frame mirror and frame labeling (or reframing). In your post, you describe frame mirrors as a frame control technique used for self-defense against manipulators that accuse you of doing exactly what they are doing.
However, in Chris Voss' masterclass, he describes mirroring as a negotiation technique used to gather vital information in a negotiation and put your counterpart at ease (or build rapport).
"So what I'm going to teach you with mirrors and a section on mirroring is how to use mirrors to get the other side engaged, to get them to feel like they're involved, and also to tease out the information that you might not have had otherwise, pieces of information that are going to make all the difference in the world. And one of the sayings about negotiation is negotiation is the art of letting the other side have your way. So mirroring gets them talking and creates the opportunity for them actually to present you with your deal, only they thought it was their idea. So mirroring is critical in information gathering and in the art of letting the other side have your way." - Chris Voss
"Mirroring...It's just the simple repetition of one to three words, one two three-ish words. Typically it's the last one to three words of what somebody said. But when you get good at mirroring, you could pick one to three words from anywhere in the conversation. The other person feels listened to. It tends to connect their thoughts in their head. Part of the message it sends to the other person is I heard every word you said word for word, and I'm proving it because I just repeated it back to you." - Chris Voss
This seems different from the mirroring you previously described as "gaslighting" or "crazymaking". Does the mirror technique vary based on the context of the situation or am I missing something?
Chris Voss also sees "labeling" as a technique that involves the verbal observations of feelings to neutralize negative emotions in a negotiation or reinforce positive ones to create a better deal, whereas you describe labeling as a technique used to undermine a frame's (moral) authority.
I got into this topic after your last post on collaborative frames and how they can be used to negotiate pay raises (as well as protect/grow your social power).
Best,
Ali
P.S. Here are the links to his short breakdown of what he believes to be mirroring and labeling.
Hey Ali,
I cannot see the examples as you need to enroll in the course first.
But I think I get the issue here (which is a non-issue):
Mirroring
It sounds like Voss is using the word "mirroring" to describe a simple form of "parroting", such repeating what they said to get them talking more.
The name is the same, but the technique is different.
My example of mirroring there was more to defend from people getting under your skin (and get under people's skin, when needed to).
It's especially useful with unfair debaters, people who are trying to frame a certain way even when you're not that way at all. In that case, accusing them right back or stealing their thunder and accusing them first is very effective -exactly what Shapiro did in that example-.
The confusion is in the same name, but the two things are very different.
They're both valid, within the right context.
Labeling
Same here.
Same name for two different techniques.
They're both valid, within the right contexts.
I can understand names can be confusing since different people often use different names.
This is because there is no codified science for these topics, and everyone comes up with different names.
To avoid this issue, try focusing more on the technique and the dynamics behind the technique, than on the actual name.
Hi Lucio,
Thanks for the clarification.
I recently started an LLC using LegalZoom. Unfortunately, LegalZoom made a mistake with my business address which is going to cause me to be a month behind in getting started with my business while they file a business address change.
I am being forced to wait before starting business operations because I could run into issues with not being able to start my business bank account (can't keep personal and business assets separate), using my business name to pitch prospects for an LLC that does not yet exist, etc.
I would like your opinion on how I could negotiate getting money back for the time that is being taken away from me due to problems on their end. The service I paid for had a predicted LLC completion date of late January and their disorganization is now costing me into February.
In this sales negotiation video: "When Client Says 'Your Price Is Too High' - How To Respond Role Play", Chris Do (the salesman) uses the frame "all profit is derived from risk" to frame the interaction going into the negotiation. This way, he can encourage his prospect to take the risk of spending more money on his services than he originally budgeted for in the hopes of his client gaining more profits and better results than he was expecting.
As apart of your response to my question, I would appreciate any frames you think I could use to negotiate receiving money back other than just "time is money".
Thanks,
Ali
Usually in these cases I start by saying that I liked their services so far... If it wasn't for that thing.
By framing the situation as overall positive, you decrease the chances it escalates in a confrontational way and that you got the natural pushback that you get when people feel attacked.
It's also superior than starting with a complaint because people like to keep customers happy. So you give them an incentive to keep you happy.
Instead, if you start angry, they will feel you'll be angry anyway.
So a lot if you don't get your refund or mildly angry if you get it, it doesn't feel that different.
Second, I would frame my request saying "I feel it's fair if... ".
That way you frame it as negotiating from an overall happy customer perspective who is looking for what's fair.
Hi Lucio!
Take for example, a Business situation where I am negotiating prices.
I will say something like this at the start of ther interaction like
" Would you rather reduce the prices after the meeting or before we start a fight?"
Usually works with weaker parties, but with stronger parties, what happens is that the other person
a. Completly ignores it.
b. Says something to break this
What would the ideal response be in either cases. against the stronger parties?
Quote from Astronomically Low Status on June 10, 2020, 1:41 pmHi Lucio!
" Would you rather reduce the prices after the meeting or before we start a fight?"
OK, I'm very curious about this.
How does it work with weaker parties?
Do they often immediately make some concessions?
Do they laugh nervously and are more pliant to your requests?
And with the more powerful ones, do you have some examples of how more powerful negotiators react, and whether it ends up well or not for you?
" Would you rather reduce the prices after the meeting or before we start a fight?"
This looks to be a very overt and aggressive Early Frame Announcement, especially if said in a serious manner. The weaker ones submit probably because they haven't seen it before or they don't know how to deal with it. The stronger ones knew that if you needed to make an aggressive EFA, you're all bark and no bite. Unfortunately, for the stronger parties, you're advertising yourself as someone with low-power.
Think of this, if you accidentally bumped into someone at a nightclub or bar, and the guy made a deal out of it and says "Hey fucker, what are you doing? Do you want to fight?!" Weaker people (the majority of people) would be scared and the natural reaction would be to apologize and do whatever it took to get this guy off his back.
Now, let's say the guy you bumped into, instead says "Hey man, do you mind watching where you're going?" and you reply "Why?! You're the one who bumped into me!" and he walks up to you and puts his arm around you with his hand on your shoulder and says, "Look man, my friends over there don't see it that way, and I don't know if I'll be able to stop them from doing anything if they're upset. I don't want you getting hurt, so it's probably best if you apologize"
It's obvious which person is more powerful. A pattern I've noticed is that powerful people will rarely explicitly make threats, most things with them is implied. It's usually the low-level foot soldiers that need to be so explicit.
IMO, I think it's just best to not be so adversarial unless there was no other option.
The meetings are always set in a fun tone. There is always the vibe of two friends chatting.
When I say this or something in a similar line, I obviously say it in a playful manner and it is always delivered in a not so serious tone, and it doesn't out by it self at the beginning. it would be in the middle of a conversation where we just connect (only with the stronger party) about random and i will bring it out.
Weaker- They include suppliers of less important things like cleaning, carton box etc.
when i deliver this, They don't immediately confirm, but they have a shift in their tone of voice while responding. But they respond with guilt tome. Even though we do almost always engage in the negotiation war any way, I almost always bring up " but you said you would'nt fight" (even if they haven't directly agreed),
. if i give you a rough self assessed stat, i have successfully used it in my last 3 negotiations with such parties.
Stronger- Suppliers of important raw materials and machinery
I had one sxperience recently When i delivered this, they just ignored me. and the second time i brought it up again they just changed frame to "why are you talking about fighting"....One hit KO
Quote from Astronomically Low Status on June 12, 2020, 12:48 pmThe meetings are always set in a fun tone. There is always the vibe of two friends chatting.
When I say this or something in a similar line, I obviously say it in a playful manner and it is always delivered in a not so serious tone, and it doesn't out by it self at the beginning. it would be in the middle of a conversation where we just connect (only with the stronger party) about random and i will bring it out.
Weaker- They include suppliers of less important things like cleaning, carton box etc.
when i deliver this, They don't immediately confirm, but they have a shift in their tone of voice while responding. But they respond with guilt tome. Even though we do almost always engage in the negotiation war any way, I almost always bring up " but you said you would'nt fight" (even if they haven't directly agreed),
. if i give you a rough self assessed stat, i have successfully used it in my last 3 negotiations with such parties.Stronger- Suppliers of important raw materials and machinery
I had one sxperience recently When i delivered this, they just ignored me. and the second time i brought it up again they just changed frame to "why are you talking about fighting"....One hit KO
I knew if i responded to this, it would be giving into his frame, so i ignored it as well... but I couldn't use a move i previously used successfully with weaker parties...
I was so proud that i discovered a fullproof negotiation frame control technique
Yeah, that's a crucial detail how you deliver that line.
And I had the exact same impression as JPÂ (great analysis, BTW).
And yes, it does set a frame of adversarial negotiations.
That line delivered to weaker negotiating parties, it makes you somewhat of a bully throwing his weight around.
The way Trump might negotiate, or the old school 80's negotiators in the days when negotiation was all about showing power and using power.
"Fight" is a very loaded question, and with weaker negotiators it implies "I'm gonna beat you in that fight, so drop your demands right now".
A bit less so if delivered as a joke and a smile, in which case is more on the cheeky side, but still a huge power move.
This is not to say it cannot work.
I wouldn't personally go for, but yes, it can be effective (at the price of losing goodwill in the relationship though).
That negotiator who said "why are you talking about a fight" answered exactly like I would have answered as well.
He used shame against you, to shame you into more collaborative frames.
With more powerful and experienced negotiators as JP says, that line can indeed advertise your lack of power.
It says "I tried to one-up you, and failed".
Which can easily push them to think: "alright, you wanted to fuck with me? Then now I'm gonna fuck with you". And if they had more leverage, you might end up worse off just because out of spite they wanted to "show" you.
