1장
The Art of Strategic Negotiation: Mastering the Game of Give and Take
When Warren Buffett wants to acquire a company, he doesn't haggle. Instead, he typically opens with a fair offer within 5-10% of his final price. This approach has helped him build an empire worth over $500 billion. Meanwhile, in Tanzania, tribal elders settle land disputes under shade trees using a process they call "talking to the mountain" - opening with exaggerated demands to establish negotiation boundaries. Despite vast cultural differences, both approaches follow universal patterns of human interaction that can be mastered.
"Bargaining for Advantage" by G. Richard Shell has become required reading at top business schools worldwide, with BusinessWeek naming its author one of America's best business professors. The book has been translated into 18 languages and is used to train FBI hostage negotiators, navy SEALs, and Fortune 500 executives. Even Oprah Winfrey has recommended it as essential reading for anyone wanting to improve their negotiation skills without compromising their values.
2장
Your Bargaining Style: The Foundation of Negotiation Success
Negotiation is a universal human activity that follows a predictable four-step path: preparation, information exchange, explicit bargaining, and commitment. Whether in New York boardrooms or under African shade trees, people follow similar patterns - staking boundaries, watching for signals, making concessions, and establishing commitments.
Your personality forms the baseline for your negotiation behavior. Steve Ross, the competitive founder of Warner Communications, once ordered his pilot to circle an airport until he won a hand of canasta after losing to his wife and friends. Conversely, talk-show host Larry King abandoned his agent's strategy to leverage competing network offers when Ted Turner personally asked him to stay at CNN. The lesson is clear: if you're naturally agreeable, acting competitive will feel inauthentic; if you're competitive, those instincts will shine through despite attempts to suppress them.
Five possible negotiation strategies emerge from our personalities: (1) Avoiding - doing nothing, which works when you're happy with the status quo; (2) Compromise - offering to split differences, which is fair but rarely optimal; (3) Accommodation - giving in to preserve relationships; (4) Competition - trying to secure maximum value through persuasion or deception; and (5) Collaboration - finding creative solutions where both parties win. Your instinctive response reveals your natural bargaining style.
Despite movie stereotypes of aggressive negotiators, research reveals most successful professionals are cooperative. Gerald Williams found 65% of attorneys exhibit cooperative styles while only 24% are competitive, with cooperative negotiators making up 75% of those rated "effective." Similarly, Rackham and Carlisle's nine-year study showed the most skilled negotiators used fewer "irritators" (2.3 vs. 10.8 per hour) and avoided defend/attack spirals.
Bargaining styles derive not only from personality but also from gender and culture. Women may negotiate less frequently on salary issues - one study showed 57% of men but only 7% of women asked for more money after initial offers. The real problem isn't inherent gender differences but anxiety about social "backlash" for women who violate nurturing stereotypes. For cross-cultural negotiations, sensitivity to language, customs and social expectations is crucial, with relationship-building being particularly important in many non-Western cultures.
Regardless of personal style, gender, or culture, the most effective negotiators share four key habits: a willingness to prepare, high expectations, the patience to listen, and a commitment to personal integrity. Research confirms preparation's critical importance - in one study, students who used structured preparation reached better agreements for both sides than those who prepared informally.
3장
Goals and Expectations: The Engine of Negotiation Power
In 1955, Akio Morita's small Japanese company Sony had developed a miniature transistor radio. After bringing it to America, Morita received a massive order from Bulova worth several times Sony's working capital - but with the condition that Bulova would sell the radios under their own brand name. Despite his board's enthusiasm for the deal, Morita rejected it to preserve his long-term goal of establishing Sony as a global brand. He later accepted a smaller order that preserved the Sony name, calling it "the best decision I ever made."
Goals become truly powerful when transformed into expectations - beliefs about what we ought reasonably to accomplish rather than mere targets we strive toward. While we aren't surprised when we fall short of goals, failing to meet expectations causes genuine disappointment. Setting specific goals works because they: set the upper limit of what you'll ask for, trigger powerful psychological "striving" mechanisms that focus attention and energy, and make you more persuasive through authentic conviction.
A goal differs fundamentally from a bottom line. While your bottom line represents the minimum acceptable level to say yes, your goal is your highest legitimate expectation. Research shows negotiators with higher aspirations consistently outperform those with modest goals. In Siegel and Fouraker's classic study, negotiators assigned a $6.10 target achieved a mean profit of $6.25, while those with a modest $2.10 goal averaged only $3.35.
Begin by considering your underlying needs and interests. While price is often important because it's quantifiable, remember it's usually a means to an end, not the end itself. CBS founder William Paley revolutionized radio by giving away programming in exchange for advertising rights during prime time - realizing price wasn't his true goal. Similarly, a multibillion-dollar RJR Nabisco bid once collapsed when investment banks couldn't agree whose name would appear first in the announcement ad - ego and reputation mattered more than money.
Why do people set modest goals despite evidence that higher aspirations yield better results? First, to protect self-esteem - lower goals reduce the chance of failure. Second, insufficient information about the negotiation's full potential. Third, lack of desire - if you care less than your counterpart about the outcome, you'll set lower goals. The key is setting ambitious yet justifiable targets, raising your sights incrementally to build confidence through success.
It's easy to get knocked off target during negotiations, so carry your goals with you physically - even as a written summary in your pocket. Barry Diller learned this lesson when he got caught up in bidding for TV rights to "The Poseidon Adventure," ultimately paying $3.3 million and losing money for ABC. He fell victim to what scholars call "escalation of commitment," where negotiators lose sight of their real goals in competitive situations.
4장
Standards and Norms: The Framework for Legitimate Agreements
Negotiations harness our basic psychological drive to maintain consistency between our words and deeds. Authoritative standards and norms serve as powerful tools in virtually all negotiations, providing frameworks that help define what's reasonable and fair.
Anthropologist R.F. Barton's story about Ifugao people in the Philippines demonstrates how deviating from established standards can escalate conflicts. When a farmer borrowed two pigs and was asked to repay them two years later, a dispute arose over the interest rate. The standard called for repayment at the "natural rate of increase" - four pigs total. The greedy lender demanded six, causing the borrower to counter by recalling an old chicken debt. After escalation including theft of a sacred gong, a respected elder mediated a solution where the borrower paid five pigs but the lender received only three, with the elder keeping two as his fee - cleverly satisfying both parties' final positions.
Though few of us borrow pigs today, we still negotiate based on authoritative standards and norms. Financial markets set interest rates, used-car buyers consult price guides, real estate brokers reference "comparable transactions," and investment bankers calculate business values using earnings multiples. These standards bracket the bargaining zone, allowing participants to advocate for their preferred position without appearing unreasonable.
Standards and norms are powerful because people have a deep psychological need to appear consistent and rational - what psychologists call "the consistency principle." When the other party justifies their proposal using standards you've previously committed to, you face a dilemma: either abandon those standards (appearing hypocritical) or debate their application (subtly moving toward their position).
Manipulative negotiators set consistency traps by getting you to agree to innocent-sounding principles, then springing the trap by showing your position violates those principles. For example, they might ask you to agree that "fair price should reflect comparable sales," then reveal your price is 30% above comparables. To defend against these traps: slow down when facing leading questions, ask why they're important, restate principles broadly to allow interpretation, and gather information before committing.
Beyond consistency, some standards gain power through our tendency to defer to authority. Industry practices like real estate agents' 6% commission or literary agents' 15% fee become institutionalized standards that reduce negotiation time. Questioning these standards can seem insulting and threaten one's status in the group.
A positioning theme is a crisp, memorable phrase that defines your negotiation problem in terms the other side understands. The Teamsters Union demonstrated this power when they used "Part-time America won't work" during their strike against UPS. This theme resonated with workers unhappy about part-time jobs, appeared everywhere from placards to news shows, and united 180,000 strikers while appealing to public opinion.
5장
Relationships: The Human Connection in Negotiation
Negotiation fundamentally involves people and their goals, needs, and interests. Your ability to form and manage personal associations creates trust that eases anxiety and facilitates communication. The foundation of negotiation relationships is trust-the sense that we can rely on others who care at least somewhat about our interests. The secret to creating and sustaining this trust lies in the norm of reciprocity.
Since humans cannot directly know others' thoughts or feelings (empathetic accuracy between strangers is only 20-25%, and even married couples achieve only 50-60% accuracy), trust in negotiations comes from observing and interpreting behavior. The norm of reciprocity creates obligations based on prior actions-we owe others because of what they've previously done for us.
During the financial panic of 1873, Andrew Carnegie desperately needed cash and agreed to sell his partnership share to J.P. Morgan. Carnegie quoted fifty to sixty thousand dollars plus ten thousand in profit. When Carnegie arrived to collect, Morgan handed him two checks-sixty thousand dollars plus ten thousand-explaining that Carnegie had undervalued his credit. Though Carnegie tried to return the extra ten thousand, Morgan refused. This gesture deeply impressed Carnegie, who vowed that "neither Morgan, father or son, nor their house, should ever suffer through me." Morgan's decision established a foundation of trust that benefited both men for years afterward.
The norm of reciprocity in negotiation follows a simple three-step code: be trustworthy yourself, be fair to those who are fair to you, and let others know when they've treated you unfairly. The "ultimatum game" experiment demonstrates this powerfully - when strangers must divide $100 with a single take-it-or-leave-it offer, most people reject unfair offers (like $2 for themselves) even though they lose money by doing so. This establishes fairness norms for future interactions.
Reviewing the relationship factor should be a routine part of negotiation planning. The case of Barry, a competitive businessman seeking a joint venture with a Swiss company, illustrates this perfectly. Barry initially focused solely on tactics, worrying about hidden agendas, while his correspondence revealed a defensive, competitive tone. Only after addressing relationship issues - both with Karl and with his own father who retained control of the family business - did Barry make progress.
Negotiating with friends creates unique challenges. Research confirms this - dating couples negotiate "softer" than strangers, making bigger concessions, arguing less, and being more truthful. However, this approach often prevents them from discovering mutually beneficial trade-offs because they avoid conflict. Working relationships occupy the middle ground between friendships and stranger interactions - they're based on trust and reciprocity but maintain enough formality to withstand conflict over higher stakes.
Building working relationships starts with rapport, using several established methods. The similarity principle shows we naturally warm to people like ourselves. Gifts and favors serve as symbols of good faith, though they must be appropriately calibrated to avoid appearing manipulative. Finally, relationship networks help establish credibility and trust - simply sharing a mutual acquaintance creates familiarity.
6장
Understanding the Other Party's Interests: The Key to Value Creation
Understanding the other party's true interests is fundamental to effective negotiation. As demonstrated by Kelly Sarber, who won a premium-priced waste management contract by promising to return with sand for eroding beaches, skilled negotiators invest substantial time investigating counterparts' needs. Finding these interests isn't always straightforward - even experienced negotiators fail to identify shared goals about 50% of the time due to confirmation bias, fixed-pie thinking, and overaccommodation.
Effective negotiation requires looking beyond obvious monetary motivations. LeBron James demonstrated this by accepting less money to join teams that could win championships. Research shows negotiators often miss shared interests due to three barriers: confirmation bias (seeing what you expect to see), fixed-pie bias (assuming negotiations must be competitive), and overaccommodation (not asking probing questions when trying to please others).
Research by Rackham and Carlisle reveals that skilled negotiators spend 40% of planning time exploring possible shared interests, while average negotiators spend only 10%. This focus on common ground allows skilled negotiators to develop twice as many settlement options.
To understand the other party's needs, first identify who has decision-making authority. Companies have policies and goals, but only people negotiate. Decision makers' needs, including status, self-esteem, and incentives, drive negotiations. MBA students seeking jobs often fail to identify who truly has hiring authority. One student negotiated with the entrepreneur who owned a South American firm to pay off his entire business school tuition debt by appealing to the entrepreneur's own experience as a debt-burdened student.
After identifying who's on the other side, explore their needs through techniques like role reversal-pretending you're the other party while a friend plays you. Most situations harbor shared interests. Even in contentious negotiations, like a hospital merger where one side dramatically placed an ax on the table as a symbol of their shared interest in beating competition.
While investigating shared interests, consider possible objections to your proposals. In a dispute between a US hospital and foreign pharmaceutical firm over patient consent forms, identifying the decision maker (a foreign physician unfamiliar with FDA requirements) revealed the true obstacles. Similarly, in First Union's $16 billion acquisition of CoreStates, the deal stalled not over price but because CoreStates' CEO feared abandoning local charitable commitments. First Union resolved this by creating a $100 million community foundation-just 0.5% of the purchase price-that unlocked the deal.
Once you've identified why the other side might object, find low-cost options that add value for them. Financial advisers serving demanding high-net-worth clients offer extra services beyond investment advice-from fixing computers to providing college counseling-based on clients' unique needs. As one adviser noted, "The fee is only an issue when our clients lose sight of the extra value we deliver."
7장
Leverage: The Balance of Power in Negotiation
Leverage is your power not just to reach agreement but to obtain an agreement on your own terms. With leverage, even average negotiators do well, while without it only highly skilled bargainers succeed. The party with leverage feels confident; the party without it feels nervous and uncertain. Leverage derives from the balance of needs and fears at the bargaining table. Simply put: the party that thinks they have the most to lose from a "no deal" outcome has the least leverage; the party that thinks they have the least to lose has the most leverage.
When Eastern Airlines needed new jumbo jets but lacked funds, CEO Frank Borman improved his leverage by approaching Airbus instead of American manufacturers. Airbus desperately needed an American customer after a year without sales, so they arranged an innovative leasing deal with financing from banks, General Electric, and the French government. Borman got his planes by finding a seller who needed him more than he needed them, shifting the balance of needs in his favor.
Producer Peter Guber leveraged Neil Bogart's desperate desire to be a "movie mogul" by trading a modest 5 percent interest in his next film for 20 percent of Bogart's thriving Casablanca Records. Bogart's ego need to enter the film business provided Guber with tremendous leverage, and the deal proved doubly beneficial when Casablanca artist Donna Summer sang the title track for the film, selling two million copies.
When Houston Power & Lighting's Janie Mitcham faced Burlington Northern's monopolistic rail rates, she created leverage by building her own ten-mile railroad connecting to rival Union Pacific. Despite skepticism, lawsuits, and logistical challenges, "Janie Rail" became reality. Union Pacific bid for her business at a 25% discount, saving over $10 million yearly and giving her leverage over both providers.
In March 1977, Hanafi Muslims seized three Washington, DC buildings, taking 134 hostages. Their leader, Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, whose children had been murdered by Nation of Islam members, demanded the removal of a film about Mohammed, return of a $750 fine, and surrender of his children's killers. This case illustrates key leverage principles: the Hanafis controlled the status quo, made credible threats (having already killed one person), and were willing to die (neutralizing police threat leverage).
Leverage combines insights into others' needs, standards they believe in, threats you control, and their fear of loss. This creates three distinct forms of leverage: positive, negative, and normative. Positive leverage builds on the other party's needs and wants. Every time they say "I want," it strengthens your position. Negative leverage is threat-based, demonstrating your power to make opponents worse off. Normative leverage derives from consistency and authority principles.
Creating effective coalitions provides three key advantages: First, group dynamics favor those who achieve a dominant position in numbers early. Second, coalitions gain power through "social proof," where people take cues from others in ambiguous situations. Third, coalitions improve your alternatives or worsen the other party's.
We often misunderstand leverage by assuming power relationships are fixed, that conventional power always determines advantage, and that our bargaining position depends solely on objective facts. These assumptions lead to self-defeating strategies. Leverage is about situational advantage, not objective power. A small business facing bankruptcy gains leverage with its bank because the bank has more to lose from bankruptcy than from renegotiating terms.
8장
Mastering the Four-Step Negotiation Process
Preparation is the first step in the four-stage negotiation process. Drawing on the Six Foundations of Effective Negotiation, good preparation constructs a specific action plan for the situation you face. Negotiation follows a reliable four-step pattern: preparation (like slowing down at an intersection), information exchange (making eye contact), proposing and concession making (waving the other driver through), and commitment (driving through).
Preparation begins by analyzing which of four strategic situation types you face, determined by two factors: (1) the perceived importance of the ongoing relationship and (2) whether the outcome stakes are high or low. The Situational Matrix identifies four types: Tacit Coordination (low stakes, limited relationship), Competitive Transactions (high stakes, limited relationship), Cooperative Relationships (low stakes, important relationship), and Balanced Concerns (high stakes, important relationship).
Different situations reward different negotiation styles. Accommodating people excel in Cooperative Relationships, avoidant types navigate Tacit Coordination well, and competitive people thrive in Competitive Transactions. Balanced Concerns require collaboration-blending cooperative and competitive skills with imagination. Notably, compromise works everywhere but is rarely the optimal strategy.
Information exchange serves three crucial functions: establishing rapport, exploring interests and perceptions, and signaling expectations and leverage. Cultural awareness is particularly important at this stage, as task-oriented negotiators from places like New York move quickly while relationship-oriented negotiators from places like Riyadh treat this phase as a qualifying round.
Professional negotiators approach rapport-building with the same attention a theater director gives to opening scenes. Armand Hammer won a Libyan oil concession partly by presenting his bid on sheepskin parchment with ribbons in Libyan national colors, showing cultural respect. Steve Ross established connection with parking lot owner Caesar Kimmel by noting a shared interest in horse racing.
The core purpose of information exchange is investigating what brings the other party to the table, what matters to them, what they're prepared to negotiate, their view of the situation, and their authority to close. Research shows skilled negotiators focus more on receiving than delivering information. They ask twice as many questions as average negotiators, test their understanding by rephrasing, periodically summarize progress, and listen carefully.
The bargaining stage is where proposals are exchanged after rapport has been established and information shared. While conventional wisdom suggests never opening first, research on the "anchor effect" shows that naming the first price can strategically "fix the range" of negotiations. Opening numbers create powerful psychological anchors that opponents unconsciously adjust toward, even when arbitrary.
Research across thirty-four bargaining experiments suggests opening aggressively (high demands with slow concessions) is most effective in transactional negotiations, especially with limited direct communication. An aggressive opening should be the highest (or lowest) number with some supporting standard or argument-not outrageous, but a highly favorable interpretation of a reference point that can be made "with a straight face."
After your first concession, gradually reduce their size as you approach your bottom line, then hold firm. Though cooperative negotiators often view haggling as pointless, research shows most people prefer negotiation over fixed pricing-as evidenced by the failure of "no haggle" car dealerships. Studies confirm that starting high and conceding slowly in decreasing increments earns more than a one-fair-offer approach.
The negotiation process concludes with an endgame: closing and gaining commitment. Two key psychological factors drive the closing stage: the scarcity effect and overcommitment. The scarcity effect-our tendency to want things more urgently when supply seems limited-is a powerful psychological lever in negotiations. When we believe something desirable is becoming scarce, we instinctively push an "Act Now" panic button to avoid missing opportunities.
The golden rule of negotiation is to secure a commitment, not merely an agreement. A true commitment exists when the other side has something to lose if they renege. Commitment devices range from simple promises to elaborate contracts with penalties. Commitments escalate through four levels of increasing strength: 1) Social rituals like handshakes that engage self-esteem and group membership; 2) Public announcements that create social accountability; 3) Written agreements that enhance psychological consistency and may be legally enforceable; and 4) Simultaneous exchanges where both parties perform at once.
9장
Ethical Negotiation: Bargaining with Integrity
Ethical questions permeate every aspect of negotiation as we balance self-interest against various duties-legal, moral, and personal. Our negotiation behavior reveals our values and character, often requiring split-second decisions. The chapter opens by posing challenging ethical scenarios: Is lying acceptable in negotiations? Should you inform someone selling an item below its true value? Is bid-rigging ever justified?
Philadelphia newspaper columnist Darrell Sifford discovered an elegant illuminated world globe priced at $495-far more than he wanted to pay. Despite typically advocating for honesty, he decided to haggle. When told the price could drop to $450, Sifford lied about seeing the same globe in a catalog for $325. After some back-and-forth, including Sifford pointing out a barely noticeable nick on the globe, the salesman eventually sold it to him for $325. Sifford proudly carried his bargaining trophy home, seemingly unconcerned about his deception.
While many people worldwide wouldn't find Sifford's lie troubling, it raises important ethical questions. Harvard Business School research shows MBA students generally approve of "traditional" competitive bargaining tactics like bluffing, exaggerating demands, lying about time constraints, and inventing fictitious offers. Yet these deceptions gain personal advantage at others' expense.
The author identifies three distinct ethical approaches to negotiation: the Poker School, the Idealist School, and the Pragmatist School. The Poker School treats negotiation as a game with rules set by law. Conduct within these rules is ethical; anything outside them is unethical. The Idealist School views negotiation as a normal part of social life governed by the same ethical standards as everyday interactions. The Pragmatist School blends elements from both approaches. Like Poker players, Pragmatists view some deception as necessary, but prefer alternatives to outright lies.
To illustrate how each school handles ethical dilemmas, consider selling a commercial building when asked if you have another offer (when you don't). A Poker School adherent might lie if it's undetectable and effective: "Yes. A Saudi Arabian firm presented us with an offer this morning, and we have forty-eight hours to respond." An Idealist might refuse to answer directly: "I treat all offers with confidence. I won't discuss others' offers with you or yours with them." Alternatively, they might answer honestly but optimistically: "Not at this time. However, we're hopeful we'll receive other offers soon."
Regardless of your ethical stance, you'll occasionally face unscrupulous tactics. To protect yourself, be especially vigilant in competitive transactions with unbalanced leverage-research shows both stronger and weaker parties have incentives to behave unethically in these situations. Whenever possible, rely on relationships, which generally raise ethical standards. When dealing with strangers, reference mutual acquaintances to activate reputation concerns. If suspicious, probe persistently-most people give others the benefit of the doubt, which can be costly in high-stakes negotiations.
Most people associate negotiations with formal, high-profile events involving professionals like diplomats or CEOs. However, the real negotiating work happens in everyday situations. Bill Siegel's story demonstrates this perfectly-as a consultant, he used negotiation skills to save a historic building by securing $450,000 from the city, finding $270,000 in state grants, arranging tax abatements, securing tenants, and negotiating a 99-year lease for $1 before selling the package to a developer. His success made everyone better off: the city, state, tenants, the developer, and himself. This illustrates how negotiation skills can transform obstacles into opportunities that benefit all parties involved.
To improve your negotiation skills, first commit to thinking of yourself as a "negotiator" rather than someone who occasionally negotiates. Focus on the four effectiveness factors: willingness to prepare, high expectations, patience to listen, and commitment to personal integrity. Use the Six Foundations as touchstones: know your personality, focus on expectations, look for applicable standards, use relationships, probe the other side's interests, and work on leverage. Chart your course through information exchange, concession-making, and commitment stages, choosing the right strategy for each situation.
Effective negotiation is 10 percent technique and 90 percent attitude. The right attitude requires realism, intelligence, and self-respect. With these tools, anyone can become a truly skilled negotiator-now it's your move to practice using them.
