The Art of Persuasion: Confidences of a Professional Negotiator

1. What are the key elements of successful negotiation?

They can be summarised in five points. They correspond to the five profiles or «models» of the savvy negotiator that I describe in my book «50 Keys to Successful Negotiation. The quadrant theory at the service of the negotiator« (Ellipses, 2017). A good negotiator is at once a strategist who knows when to cooperate, an economist who knows how to create value in an exchange, a psychologist who spots blind spots in a negotiation, a diplomat who manages disagreement without being unpleasant, and a performer on stage who shines with their presence.

He is a strategist because he must opt for a greater or lesser degree of cooperation, and therefore a greater or lesser degree of risk, with the opposing party. A high degree of cooperation calls for win-win negotiation. A low degree of cooperation calls for win-lose negotiation. Negotiation is a subtle game of coopetition, a mix that combines cooperation and competition in a ratio that is never the same.

He is an economist because he wants to create value in the exchange. Negotiation is like a cake. It is better to share a big cake. Some negotiators create more value than others. But be careful, because after the cake is made, it has to be cut. In negotiation, you have to know how to cooperate to create a big cake, but you also have to know how to be competitive to get a good slice.

He is a psychologist who understands the «blind spots» of negotiation: he knows how to manage emotions, avoid hurting people's feelings, understand the place and role of the ego, protect himself from negotiating with himself, and overcome cognitive biases. These blind spots are all pitfalls in negotiation.

He is a diplomat who deals separately with the relationship and the underlying problem. He is assertive in defending his interests and empathetic in his relationships with others. He knows how to handle disagreement without being unpleasant. He builds trust and communicates calmly with his counterpart despite tensions. He works to de-escalate conflicts when they arise and puts oil in the gears rather than fuel on the fire; he is a firefighter, not an arsonist.

He is a performer who puts on a show on stage, a performance like an actor or an athlete on stage. His audience is the opposing party. Attentive and observant, he touches and moves people, he seeks to captivate and surprise, and in a short time he builds a strong interpersonal bond thanks to his reliability, sincerity and enthusiasm. His presence is as important as his arguments. A presence of mind, but also a physical presence, a stage presence where time and space become one, when the negotiator transforms into a storyteller. Self-assured, he is always ready, even when he is not prepared. Techniques derived from theatrical improvisation exist, accessible to all, to broaden one's comfort zone, gain confidence and strengthen one's presence.

2. How do you prepare for a negotiation session?

I have a checklist of simple questions. It's a kind of mental exercise, and then I write it down on paper so that I don't forget anything and because writing helps me to verbalise my thoughts and clarify things.

– The question of the parties' interests, starting with my own: what am I seeking to achieve in these negotiations and why? What are the issues at stake, the needs, and the sometimes hidden motivations that drive and motivate me?

– Same question for the opposing party or parties: what motivates them? What are their constraints? What drives them? This is exploratory work, driven by curiosity. It involves listing and prioritising interests.

– The question of possible solutions. What solutions are likely to satisfy the interests of the parties? I try to identify as many as possible and broaden the range of possibilities. It is a creative process.

– The question of argumentation, justifications for the theses defended, points of view debated, and solutions recommended. How can I justify my proposals? What are the criteria of legitimacy that underpin the solution I am advocating? Among these, which criteria are both favourable to me and acceptable to The other party? What criteria is the opposing party likely to invoke? Are all these criteria objective, i.e. cannot be manipulated by the party invoking them? This is a matter of legitimacy.

– The question of my power and, incidentally, that of the opposing party's power. In negotiations, I assess my power based on the quality of my alternatives, particularly my best alternative (in the absence of a negotiated agreement). What would I do (to satisfy my interests) if the negotiation fails or simply does not take place? In other words, what is my Plan B? Once I have identified Plan B, I need to evaluate it, i.e. compare it with the likely outcome of my negotiation. The quality of my Plan B tells me about my bargaining power. Similarly, I then try to identify and evaluate the other party's plan B. If I know my power and that of the other party, I also know the balance of power between the parties. Furthermore, my refined knowledge of my plan B allows me to know how far to negotiate and whether it is in my interest to accept an offer. It is a matter of clarity and comparability of solutions.

– The question of future weight. Will I have to meet with the other party again after this negotiation? How likely is that? How often? For how long? What impact will this negotiation have on the relationship? What impact will the relationship have on this negotiation? How important is the relationship in relation to the substantive issues? How can I improve the working relationship without making concessions on the substance (the kind of concessions I may regret later)?

– The question of defining each party's commitments under the terms of
The negotiated agreement: who does what? What is the scope of my mandate? Narrow or broad?
Broad? Vague or precise? Conditional or firm? The scope of my commitments depends on the scope of my mandate. Do I have the option to renegotiate my mandate?

3. What is the impact of non-verbal communication in a negotiation?

It is important. However, you still need to know how to decipher it in your opponent and master it yourself.

Negotiations are not just about numbers, facts and logical arguments. They also involve expressions, unspoken words, looks, attitudes and behaviours that send signals just as reliably as words send messages. When these signals and messages are consistent, we say that there is cognitive consonance, and communication is clear, coherent and effective. Things get complicated when the signals sent contradict the messages. This is called cognitive dissonance. It occurs when emotions are not in sync with words. In this case, we act with the utmost caution because we fear manipulation.

In negotiations, it is therefore better to display emotions that are consistent with what you are saying rather than trying to hide your emotions. This raises the question of the place of emotions in negotiations. Many people do not know how to respond; emotions embarrass them to such an extent that they would like to get rid of them.
get rid of them. Either they overwhelm us or we sweep them under the carpet. In fact, we must recognise that emotions have a rightful place in negotiations. And it is futile to try to remove them from the debate. The reality is that strong emotions haunt the protagonists and pollute their interactions.

So what should we do? The only real question is not «should we express them?» but rather «how should we express them?» The key is to express them in a way that is audible and acceptable to the other party. The «I» message, which consists of focusing the expression of one's emotions on oneself, «it seems to me that», »I feel that«, »this is how I feel«... is preferable to an accusatory message that targets the other person, generally attributing bad intentions to them through attacks such as »you did it on purpose" or "you tried to hurt me", which are rarely effective and provoke a defensive spiral of attacks and counter-attacks.

4. Can you share an easily applicable strategy for successful negotiation?

A word of advice: negotiate with the other party, do not negotiate with yourself.

When negotiating with the other party, be ambitious, aim high, apply the principle of reciprocity and do not make concessions without getting something in return. Be firm on your objectives but flexible on the means to achieve them.

What is your power in such negotiations? Your power depends heavily on the quality of your alternative solution in the absence of a negotiated agreement (Fisher and Ury's famous BATNA: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). If this alternative solution, or plan B, is attractive, you have power. If it is mediocre, your power is weak. If it is awful, you have no power. It is best to be aware of this and negotiate accordingly. An agreement is neither good nor bad in absolute terms. An agreement is acceptable if your alternative is poor. On the other hand, the agreement may be rejected if your alternative is good.

5. How do you handle situations where the parties seem to have reached an impasse?

It is important to avoid breaking off negotiations, but interrupting or suspending negotiations can be beneficial for two reasons. It allows you to review the scope of both your mandate and your own resources. It also forces the other party to question their responsibility for the failure of the negotiations, which may prompt them to make a new concession that they were not previously prepared to make.

The interruption may encourage the opposing party to negotiate with itself and thus to make new concessions to return to the negotiating table.
Avoid bold and vaguely threatening phrases such as «this is my final offer» or «take it or leave it». These rarely have the desired effect. This is normal, since it is usually just bluffing. And when you bluff, either the other party believes you and withdraws from the game, or they don't believe you and tensions rise, with both sides sticking to their positions.

An ultimatum must be handled with care because if it is not followed through, it will backfire on the person who issued it, seriously damaging their credibility.

6. What role does empathy play in negotiations?

It is enormous. Empathy is a powerful transaction accelerator because it brings the parties closer together, increases listening to the other side and encourages cooperation between the parties. It creates a virtuous circle: empathy on the part of one person leads to empathy on the part of the other in return, which establishes a climate of trust conducive to exchanges.

Can one show too much empathy? The answer is no. Empathy must be distinguished from sympathy. Empathy consists of putting oneself in another's shoes to see and feel things as they see and feel them, then returning to one's own place. Sympathy consists of taking up the cause of the other party. Empathy aims to understand the other person, not to approve of them. The difference is significant. Understanding is not approving. Be careful: empathy is a two-way street.

Do not forget to validate your return ticket and return to your seat.

7. How do you maintain a balance between being firm and showing flexibility?

There is no contradiction between firmness and flexibility, between intransigence and
Accommodation, between assertiveness and empathy. An experienced negotiator reconciles the two. They are both firm in defending their interests and empathetic in managing the relationship. They do not confuse the subject of the negotiation with the person they are negotiating with.

He knows how to handle disagreement without being unpleasant to the other party. In this sense, one must be both firm and flexible in negotiations. Firm on one's interests and objectives, flexible on the means to achieve them.

8. Do you have any advice for novice negotiators?

Here are three tips that are really just one: practise, read and educate yourself, and observe!

Practise, because negotiation is above all a practical experience. It is a good idea to practise as often as possible, particularly by trying out unusual approaches or new tactics in low-stakes situations. The more you practise, the more comfortable you will become. Gradually, negotiation will become a game that you enjoy rather than a confrontation. source of suffering. If negotiation is a game, learn to love it. To do so, you must know the rules. If you don't know them yet, learn them through books and training courses.

Read and educate yourself. Training courses are available, particularly at OSAM, which enable you to learn faster and more effectively than through practice alone. These training courses and the accompanying books teach you how to prepare for and conduct negotiations, but above all, the training provides an invaluable tool: the debriefing phase with individual and collective feedback, which allows you to revisit the simulation and compare the results obtained with all the possible outcomes. This tool simply does not exist in real life, where it is often difficult to learn from our past negotiations.

Observe yourself and get into the habit of watching yourself when you are negotiating. Split yourself in two and become your own coach, commenting on, analysing and evaluating your behaviour when you negotiate. What are you looking for in this negotiation? How do you go about it? What method and tools do you use? What are the results? How effective are you? What alternative behaviours could you adopt?
What are your intuitions about behaviour in negotiations? Which of these intuitions would you like to challenge? Why? How? Take a step back and gain some perspective. Be the mediator in your own negotiations. What would this third party say about your negotiating style?

9. How do you know when it is time to withdraw from a negotiation?

When the positions of the parties appear too far apart and negotiations have not led to any significant rapprochement.

One of two things will happen. Either one of the parties (or even both) is bound by overly restrictive terms of reference, in which case negotiations must be suspended to allow them to renegotiate broader terms of reference internally. The broadening of its mandate will not be done with the opposing party but with its principal. Or one of the parties is subject to unrealistic expectations or trapped by its own bluff and can no longer back down without losing face. If it is bluffing, it usually knows it, but its pride prevents it from admitting it publicly.

Help her save face! Interrupting the negotiation (without breaking it off permanently) encourages her to negotiate with herself. She can return to the negotiation table with a new offer that is the result of internal deliberation: she has not given in to your demands, she has discussed the matter with her manager.
Honour is saved and the agreement can be signed.