Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Lucio's journal
The "soft negotiation" approach
I've shared this approach before.
It's in start contrast to much of the negotiation literature.
Some teachers of negotiation techniques espouse an approach where the best negotiation equates to getting as much as the shared pie as possible.
I have a different take:
If the service and person are good, I don't want to take "as much as possible".
That's a personal preference.
And from a business POW, wnd we can argue that if it's the beginning of a long project and/or a possible repeat service, then it may even be more effective to share more generously.
An example:
Them: I am leading the entire process, but it's important to note that my team is also highly skilled and professional
Me: yeah, also Arminia sounded smart and knowledgeable.
Look, I really like your approach to this project. Can you take a little bit of a step toward me with the pricing to help me go ahead?
Notice I validate their own stance and confirm as much.
But you still want to avoid a too-passive and submissive stance.
Instead, since I spoke to one of her team member, I confirm my own judgment that it seems indeed that their team may be good.
Also, I do not outright say they're the best of the bunch.
But I'm still pretty straight for a negotiation: I make it clear I like them and want to work with them.
This one:
Them: I am so bad at exaggerating the price. So, the price that I pitched is very accurate.
A more cynical negotiator may call "negotiation gambit" on that.
I don't know if that's the case.
Maybe because I like them I'm too positively inclined.
But... Do I really care?
I'd work with them at the full quoted price because I think they're the best of the bunch and what they showed me checked a lot of my boxes.
From the initial price, everything they're comfortable discounting is all gravy.
Comfortable is the keyword.
So I take a very "soft" approach:
- I want to keep the goodwill
- I want them to have good returns from this project (if it goes as I hope, it will deliver more than the price tag, so why should I hoard?)
- I want them to want to work with me and deliver value (so it's important they like me as well and want the best for me)
This is the long-term win-win.
As opposed to shorter-term more aggressive negotiation that may result in a bigger "win" in the short-term, but potentially cost you in the relationship.
Even if you don't care about the relationship and generally being a more ethical person, that may still hit you in the wallet.
A service provider who doesn't like you may probably deliver lower quality work (even if subconsciously) , and may refuse to work with you in the future.
The mantra of this approach:
Happy provider, happy buyer
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 21, 2023, 7:39 pmA service provider who doesn't like you may probably deliver lower quality work (even if subconsciously) , and may refuse to work with you in the future.
Totally agree.
As you already know, I have deliberately refused to work with some of my former highly manipulative clients.
And contrary to what one may think from the outside, I believe finding a good service provider (good meaning, more than anything, that he or she really cares) in any area is very difficult.
It’s also a matter of “chemistry”. Sometimes the provider and the client just “click”. And some other time, there just is no chemistry there.
Don't accept the first "no"
Simple rule, but with almost infinite applications (and lots of exceptions, too, always remember that the blanket application of any general principle without truly understnading the foudnational dynamics is probably even worse than not having a general principle in the first place).
From a comment on Bel's journal:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 22, 2023, 3:17 pmFor example, I was told at a local gym here that I oculd cancel a membership I had done (I'd have never done a membership without the possibility of canceling because I knew I'd probably would have needed so soon).
When I needed to cancel, they told me to write an email -which I already thought was bad service-.
On email, they said they "don't have to" and won't do it.
So my reply before I'll block the card and leave a public review:
Not saying it's the best way to go.
It's not.
Of course the most effective approach is to ignore and do your thing.
However, if you want to get it out of the system, it may also be an option.
And then today:
Basically, got what I wanted and what I thought was fair: I didn't want immediate cancelation, but cancelation from the next billing period
A common mistake here would be to jump to the conclusion that my approach was "effective".
But I believe the tone wasn't the most effective.
What was effective though was to reject their frame and initial denial and maintain my belief in my own frame of what was right -and to demand for it-.
EDIT:
This is probably obvious to most people in the forum.
Still, worth a reminder because at beginner level, one important issue of too naive and too nice guys is to accept the first "no" or the first "rational-sounding" frame that puts us at a disadvantage.
Also note, the tone here probably didn't matter too much because these are bigger corporations that have systems in place.
The system probably goes:
- If the user accepts, great, we keep getting money
- If he pushes back, accept
From a power dynamics perspective, these systems are designed to milk and take advantage of too naive guys.
Edit:
On the other hand, some systems are designed to give in and let assholes win just to avoid possible troubles and negative reviews. You don't wanna work as a customer rep in those businesses because it basically teaches you to submit all the time and keep smiling.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 27, 2023, 1:05 pmAlso note, the tone here probably didn't matter too much because these are bigger corporations that have systems in place.
The system probably goes:
- If the user accepts, great, we keep getting money
- If he pushes back, accept
From a power dynamics perspective, these systems are designed to milk and take advantage of too naive guys.
Edit:
On the other hand, some systems are designed to give in and let assholes win just to avoid possible troubles and negative reviews. You don't wanna work as a customer rep in those businesses because it basically teaches you to submit all the time and keep smiling.
Hello Lucio
I find your addendum very interesting. What are sectors or systems that are designed to yield particularly quickly? and why?
What comes to my mind is especially the catering industry and the hotel industry since they depend very much on online ratings and word-of-mouth recommendations.
One example:
I have been told by a waiter that some guests, when tasting wine, complain that they can taste the cork in the wine, although this is often not even the case. Most waiters do not discuss but bring a new bottle. Most of them are aware that a discussion would only make things worse (since you don't disagree on such an issue with a customer infront of his companions). The person who criticizes it tries to raise his status in my opinion by "profiling" himself as a wine connoisseur.
Have a nice day
Hello Roberto,
I haven't deeply thought or analyze where those systems are more likely to take place to give a proper answer, but you certainly mentioned a good one.
Luxury establishments also sometimes let various assholes slip -especially on the small stuff, if they're paying for other stuff-.
I remember a good movie scene from a gold digger in a high-class restaurant.
She gives a piece of aluminum foil to his date and tells him to chew it and spit it out.
Then she calls the waiter and says:
There is garbage in our food, we don't wanna cause a scene. We're leaving
And they leave without paying.
In a lower class place where the owner is struggling to stay afloat, he wouldn't let it slip that easily and may even chase them down the road.
When You OVER-Internalize The Game :)
No major lesson learned here, but I thought this was funny.
Some days ago I was walking down an escalator
Towards the 2/3 of it a guy was standing in the middle.
I was a bit annoyed he was blocking the way but I thought that since I was carrying a luggage, we were close the end and I was very early anyway, it was just easier to stop instead of ask him to move and move through with a luggage.
Then he started walking.
And I walked too.
BUT... I waited a few seconds while looking around before moving.
It came so naturally that only a few moments later I realized why I did it:
It was because of power, signaling, and self-signaling.
I didn't want to signal that I had stopped because of him and that my decisions depended on any external factor.
Instead, I wanted to frame the interaction like I'd have stopped anyway and that I restarted walking when I decided so.
Such as, that my decisions depended on me only, not on the constraints of an asshole who stood in the middle of the escalator.
I had to laugh at that point.
When the power strategies become so embedded that you use them for nonsense, even when there is no real gain (albeit one may make a case it may still be good for self-signaling) :).
Don't remember if I shared this, but it has such a long-term effect, it may be worth sharing again:
"I tell you one time"...
I spend little time at home.
When I do, I appreciate good quality time.
But my mother used to often take calls, get up, and leave during lunch.
Both me and my father we annoyed by that behavior.
but my father used to:
- Complain, but in a negging way
- Complain to me, after my mother had already left, which only thread-expand on the negativity
That's both low power, and even self-harming since it just ruins everyone's mood.
It was also super ineffective at changing behavior.
My mom would counter saying that "it's the daughter-in-law" (frame "it's family and it's important") and taking the call anyway.
Instead, I ignored the complaints and spoke about other topics.
When my mother came back, I said something like:
Hey, listen, I tell you one time and one time only.
I spend very little time at home, and the only time we all truly sit together is at lunch.
And I'd want that time to be quality time with my family, so I'd appreciate if you can stop taking calls during lunchtime and instead sit here with us.
(pause)
Makes sense?
No more lunch calls after that.
Hi Lucio,
it’s extremely helpful.
My father used to also take calls in the exacts same manner.
Had I known your solution it would have made a big difference.
In my personal story, I find that the dynamics were motivated by:
- the caller deriving pleasure from disrupting our family dinners
- the answerer deriving power from leaving people hanging during dinner, and being able to complain later to us about the caller.
Yeah, thank you for the note and for sharing, Bel.
even if it doesn't help in changing behavior, it still:
- Displays leadership qualities
- Makes a firm precedent-setting request, and when you make a firm request, there is value in it even when it gets broken (similar to the advice we gave Mats on installing camera. Even if the private area is then trespassed, there is still value for you in it since it surfaces who cares and is there to add value, and who's not)
- Tells you a lot more about who you're dealing with: will they push back right away? Will they pretend to agree and then take the calls anyway? Will they change behavior... ?
