1.   Ask probing questions. Never ask “yes” or “no” questions. By asking probing questions you are attempting to reduce the likelihood of lies of commission.

2.   Test them. Ask questions to which you already know the answer. This is a good way to measure trustworthiness.

3.   Document the answers and make sure they know you are doing it. You can refer to them later and it also preserves acountability.

4.   Force the other party to lie. Since most lies are lies of omission and not commission, if you feel the other side is being deceptive ask them a question that forces them to tell a direct lie or else back-off. Some people are okay with omission but uncomfortable with commission. Of course a pathological liar may well take this as a challenge but most people find it hard to lie to your face.

5.   Call the tactic. Do it tactfully but firmly. Let them know you are on to them. Just make sure you are right before you confront them.

6.   Ignore the tactic. Rather than call them on it, ignore it. Sometimes it is better to let a small lie slide by and let the other side save face. Let it pass and avoid embarrassment.

7.    Respond in kind. They bluff. You bluff. They misrepresent. You misrepresent. I do not recommend this because it can escalate out of control but the theory would be that the other side would see the futility of it all and drop the deception on their part. Then you would drop it as well.

The reality is that lies and deception are very destructive to the relationship

The trick is to make your case with the point of view of the other side in mind. Watch for signs that they are warming up to what you are saying. Look for clues that they are receptive to some of the points that you are making. Then, focus on those points that they seem to be buying in to. Here are some steps you can follow to make your arguments more convincing:

1)   Always support your arguments with facts. Put it in writing. Something on paper tends to have more credibility. Rather than quote what a third party has said, get it in writing and show the other side the paper.

2)   Use experts to support your opinions. When the other side hears it from you, you become the problem. When they hear it from a third party, it is less “personal.”

3)   You can’t win them all. Some of your points will be weaker than others. Rather than ignore your weak points, bring them up yourself and frame them by focusing on the offsetting strengths of those points. If the other side later returns to those weaker points in your arguments you can rebut their attack by saying something like, “I would not have discussed this earlier if I did not feel justified in what I was saying.”

4)   Avoid hyperbole. Don’t make unfounded claims. Stick to the facts. They may not like the facts but they cannot imply you have been deceptive or “over the top.”

5)   Rehearse. Make your presentation smooth and in control. If you find yourself unable to make an effective argument on a specific point, shift to something else. Don’t be afraid to take a break and re-think your argument. In short, don’t run off at the mouth.

6)   Read the lay of the land. The time to propose closing the deal is when things are upbeat, not when things are tense or confrontational. Use timing to your advantage.

First of all, look who they were negotiating with — Larry Ellison. Hello! Can you believe it when one Board member was quoted saying that they thought Ellison had no plan “B”. Are you kidding me? One of the richest men in the world, the founder of Oracle, a world class competitor, would not have a BATNA? Did they seriously think he would come to the negotiation table without an alternative fall back position.

Second, the Supervisors engaged in constant nibbling. Nibbling is a negotiation term for agreeing to something and then coming back for one more small thing. Like Colombo, they would walk out of the room and then turn and ask for another concession. Ellison was right — it would never end. No Supervisor was able to deliver on his/her word.

Third, they backed Ellison up against his deadline assuming that would pressure him to accept their demands on him. After all, what choice did he have? Ha! He had a back-up plan. So, he walked. Any good negotiator knows there is a time to walk. They will believe him next time.

Fourth, the Supervisors made it clear that they thought Ellison was the problem. No. Ellison was not the Supervisors’ problem and the Supervisors were not Ellison’s problem. The problem was developing the waterfront for the America’s Cup races and the fact that the Port of San Franciso has NO MONEY to develop the waterfront. A perfect scenario for a collaborative negotiation was blown.

Now don’t get me wrong, Ellison is not getting his first choice in the America’s Cup false start. But at least he has an acceptable “Plan B” and it will work — not optimal but aceptable. The City of San Francisco, however, has nothing. Oh wait, they do courtesy of the Supervisors’ negotiation. They have decrepit piers, a looming $20,000,000 plus bill to demolish them, and in the meantime continuing eyesores for all to view during the America’s Cup. Nice work Supervisors.

Any one of my students knows how to plan a negotiation:

1) Know what your cards are..Not what you wish the cards are that you are holding but what they really are.

2) Estimate what your opposing player’s cards are.

3) Estimate what your opposing player thinks your cards are.

In short, if you can’t get the Supervisors to go sailing with you why not ask them to play poker with you.

Easy money. They do not have a clue.

So here are some steps you can take to rebuild trust:

1.   Propose a “sit-down”, a personal meeting.

2.   Emphasize the relationship.

3.   Swallow hard and apologize.

4.   Let them blow off steam.

5.   Resist the urge to strike back. Don’t get defensive.

6.   Listen. Ask for clarification. Summarize.

7.   Test to make sure you understand.

8.   Together focus on what you learned and develop a plan so it won’t happen again.

9.   Revisit your relationship. “How are we doing?”

Your reputation is everything. If you cannot be trusted you really have no credibility. The other side can disagree with you, they can argue with you, they can confront you, but they have to be able to trust you.

How do you use this to your advantage? How do you improve the likelihood of getting the other side to comply with your request?

You give something first before asking for a favor in return. On face this seems straight forward but you can use this to your advantage because of the power of the perceived fairness of reciprocity. Often to rid ones self of indebtedness, a party will concede more than is necessary to unburden themselves. While you do not want to get trapped in a series of unilateral concessions, an uninvited favor can often result in an unequal concession from the other side.

You can also enhance your success by using a negotiation tactic I call “the kick-in-the-mouth.” Here you tart with an extreme request that you are sure will be rejected. Then, you retreat to a lesser request (the one you wanted all along) in the hope that the other side will see it as less extreme and thus easier to “yes” to. This rejection-then-retreat technique has the added benefit of often increasing the likelihood that the other side will agree to similar requests in the future.

To protect yourself against this tactic be ready to accept concessions in good faith but be ready to redefine them as deceptions should they be proven to be such in the future. Call them out, calmly and fairly if they use this tactic against you.

It would be great of all negotiators shared common interests, but the reality is that in most bargaining situations negotiators interests are in conflict. So you have to bargain. And power at the bargaining table is too often misunderstood.

Bargaining power originates from the your ability to make a single credible threat. That threat is to walk away from the table if they do not give you what you demand. The source of the power to make that threat is your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA).

Since perception is reality, it is not so much the actual quality of your BATNA, but your counterpart’s belief in the power of your BATNA that matters. Where power is concerned, the beauty of a BATNA is in the eye of the beholder.

In most bargaining situations, at least in the short term, the BATNA is to keep bargaining. If you and your counterpart reach an impasse, the negotiator to whom the impasse is least costly has the strongest BATNA.  Thus, patience translates into bargaining power.

It is not a perfect world and misinformation about the other side’s power and BATNA are frequent. Before employing an impasse in a bargaining situation, weigh the costs of angering the other side, reducing future trust, and the true costs of the conflict against the gains you seek

A negotiator with good judgment knows not only how to identify and exploit sources of power but also when not to do so.

1)  You should try to create as much value as possible. Your goal should be mutual gain. You should focus on the interests that can help you and the parties with whom you are collaborating in the negotiation.

2)  Once value has been created, your goal should be to capture as large a share as possible of the created value. Your goal is to advance your agenda. While you want to help others, you should not be too altruistic. Helping others achieve their goal should not be at the expense of your own goals.

3)  You want to build and nourish important relationships. Pareto Optimization is a negotiation terms that means making yourself better off up to the point that you hurt the other party.  Remember that relationships are very hard to build and very easy to destroy. Once a relationship is lost, it is hard to regain.

4)  You want to always enhance your reputation and your credibility. Your goal should not be to be “nice.’ It should be to be creative, tough, and above all, trustworthy. you should view every negotiation into which you enter as an opportunity to reinforce your reputation. Your reputation is a priceless asset. Like relationships, your reputation to also hard to build and easy to destroy.

1)   Contingent contracts allow negotiators to build on their differences. Don’t argue over the future. Bet on it!;

2)   Contingent contracts let negotiators diagnose the honesty of the other side;

3)   Contingent contracts let negotiators reduce their risk through risk sharing;

4)   Contingent contracts create an incentive for the parties to the agreement to perform at or even above the contractually specified levels;

5)   Contingent contracts allow negotiators to manage decision-making biases; and

6)   Contingent contracts solve the problem of trust, especially when one side has information that the other side may lack.

Use contingent contracts to protect yourself. You are not as clairvoyant as you might believe. Leave infallibility to your lawyers (who believe they can protect you from every possible hazard). And while you are at it, negotiate your contract with your lawyers with a contingency to protect you if and when they are wrong.

It seems that there is a positive payoff to angrily responding to someone’s low offer, whether your anger is real or feigned.

Negotiators tend to perceive angry negotiators as tough bargainers. Being perceived as angry sometimes improves your negotiation outcomes. There are, however, situations where anger can actually work against you. If you are perceived as an “angry negotiator” you run the risk of people feeling more comfortable taking advantage of you through deceptive tactics. It is harder to take advantage of a “nice guy.” In addition, people seem to fear angry negotiators less—and consequently give them worse offers—because a rejection of their offer would not appear to damage an already poor relationship.

Anger signals that you are tough and that can help you get what you want. However, when your negotiation counterpart feels that your rejection of their offer will not hurt them all that much, your perceived anger may actually work against you.

The fact is that many people anticipate important negotiations with the same sense of foreboding that they reserve for root canals.

But be aware that stressed-out negotiators tend to be less effective than their calmer counterparts. The more stress you feel before negotiating, the less value you will claim in the task.

The key to success may be to treat a negotiation more like a challenge and less like a threat.

Easier said than done?

When negotiators lack the skills and resources needed to excel, they tend to view a negotiation as a threat, exacerbating their stress. Negotiators who are confident they are up to the challenge of the task see it as a challenge and are less prone to stressing out. They are less fearful, more optimistic, and more confident.

People who view a negotiation as a threat tend to be passive. That passivity leads them to engage in compromise — dividing up the pie rather than seeking tradeoffs that create value and expand the pie. In other words, the threatened negotiator tends to chose exactly the wrong tactic—making requests and demands when problem solving is really the tactic in which they should engage.

So, if you are intimidated by an upcoming negotiation you can improve your pre-negotiation confidence by: 1) preparing thoroughly; 2)making sure you know your BATNA; and 3) remembering that if you are stressed the odds are that the other side might be also.

Whenever possible when you feel your stress level rising focus on staying actively engaged in the process and collaborate with your counterpart.