Negotiations with suppliers are an integral part of the work of procurement specialists; The success of procurement activities as a whole largely depends on the outcome of negotiations. However, studies aimed at identifying effective negotiation strategies in this area are very few. This article presents the results of a large online survey in which purchasing managers from 69 companies were asked to rate the effectiveness of various negotiation techniques in the context of purchasing activities.
Undoubtedly, the best-known guidelines for negotiation were developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project, the results of which were first described in detail in the book The Path to Agreement, or Negotiating Without Losing, by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. This book, published in 1981, is today considered one of the classic works on negotiation techniques. The Harvard researchers' core message - "be firm on the issue, but gentle with the people" - is reflected in the key recommendations formulated during the project. Researchers from Harvard have conducted research in several fields, including game theory and psychology, and the results of their work formed the basis of our online survey.
Research into negotiation strategy within the framework of game theory is based on the assumption that the behavior of negotiators is strictly rational. Proponents of this theory, guided by the works of Nobel laureates John Nash and Thomas Schelling, have conducted a lot of research in the field of negotiation strategy. Taking into account the fact that with this approach the emphasis is on the problem of rational choice, one of the most important objects of analysis of the negotiation process within the framework of game theory is the exchange of information between negotiators.
Unlike analysts who proceed from the thesis of rational behavior, scientists who consider negotiations from the perspective of social psychology pay primary attention to psychological and behavioral factors.
Researchers belonging to this school study the following aspects: what style of negotiations people with one or another personality type prefer and what are the typical psychological mistakes made by the parties before and during negotiations.
In addition, there is a structural theory of negotiations, as well as a theory that considers negotiations as a process. Within the framework of structural theory, aspects related to the formation and use of a negotiating position are analyzed. Researchers working in this direction pay great attention to issues that relate to the best alternatives to the agreement being discussed, that is, the opportunities that are available to participants in the negotiation process. It is these opportunities that form the decision space and determine the freedom of action of each party. A theory that views negotiation as a process focuses on the role played by each individual stage of negotiation (preparation, initiation, main rounds, conclusion, etc.) and what the critical factors are that determine success or failure at each stage.
In the context of purchasing management, none of these theories can be considered the most or least significant. The outcome of any negotiation depends on the specific situation, so developing an effective negotiation strategy and its successful application requires an integrated approach. In other words, all aspects must be taken into account, since each of these aspects can, to one degree or another, influence the development of events in the negotiation process. One should not rely entirely on any one theoretical model, since each of them has its own value.
In our online survey, we asked respondents, who primarily included purchasing managers, to rate 21 tips for successful negotiations from the perspective of purchasing professionals. The rating was given on a five-point scale, with one point characterizing the recommendation as “extremely important” and five points as “unimportant.” Of the 21 recommendations, none were considered “not important.” At the same time, eight recommendations were rated “very important” or “extremely important” (see the sidebar “Strategy and Tactics for Successful Negotiations,” which lists the eight most significant recommendations, according to respondents, in order of decreasing rating). All other recommendations were considered "important" with the exception of one - to underestimate the value of goods and services that are the subject of negotiations.
Recommendation 1 - do not allow negotiations to result in interpersonal conflict - can be considered the main guideline. According to the survey results, this recommendation, which directly reflects the results of the Harvard Negotiation Project, received the maximum rating. There is no preparatory work required to take advantage of it, while the other seven recommendations, rated “highly important” or “extremely important,” require careful preparation for negotiations.
Thus, preliminary preparation can be identified as a separate factor influencing the outcome of procurement negotiations. Before any serious negotiations begin, procurement managers must ensure that staff have gathered the basic information needed to compile a comprehensive “negotiation dossier” that meets the highest standards. Effective preparation for the negotiation process is the most reliable guarantee that procurement specialists will be able to achieve the highest possible results during negotiations.
Strategy and tactics for successful negotiations
Recommendation 3, which respondents considered “extremely important,” addresses a key aspect of preparation for negotiations: assessing the interests and positions of the parties. When preparing for negotiations, managers and procurement specialists must identify the range of issues that are most significant to each participant. For example, a buyer may be primarily interested in price, quality and reliability of supply, while a seller may be primarily interested in price, delivery time and packaging requirements. It is important to weigh all aspects to determine where compromise is possible and where it is not. Based on the results of the analysis and his assumptions, the buyer can understand which concessions the seller will make easily and which will have to be achieved with great effort.
According to Recommendation 8, it is also useful to find out what options are available to each of the negotiators and which of these options the parties will be willing to use. This can be determined by analyzing the best alternatives to the discussed agreement available to the parties. However, to do this, you must first obtain as much information as possible about the supplier and its current position in the market. Unless the procurement professional has knowledge of the supplier's order backlog, it is nearly impossible to determine the best alternatives available to the supplier for the agreement being negotiated. To strengthen your negotiating position, you need to have many alternatives to the agreement, and really good alternatives.
This is where Recommendation 2 comes into play: only those buyers who pay sufficient attention to searching for alternative suppliers and identifying alternative opportunities can expect to enter into agreements that serve their interests. If the supplier suspects that the buyer has no real alternatives, he will insist until the last minute that all of his requirements are met. As a rule, suppliers strive to maintain close relationships with the buyer's specialists who work in manufacturing and product development departments. Thanks to this, the supplier is usually well aware of whether the buyer has viable alternatives or whether the supplier has a monopoly position.
In addition to organized planning of the content of negotiations, preparation for the negotiation process includes the study of the solution space through analysis and the construction of hypotheses. The key elements in such studies are the criteria for decision making, as well as the scale and boundaries of the decision space. As noted in Recommendation 5, it is necessary to define in advance criteria for success based on measurable indicators, that is, develop criteria for assessing the results that each party plans to achieve during the negotiations. For example, to determine the target price, the buyer can conduct a comparative price analysis and/or a comprehensive cost analysis - this will help to find out what the optimal price should be for a product supplied in certain volumes. Companies that have established effective purchasing practices typically hire cost planners to carefully evaluate supplier costs. These costs include the costs of producing the goods that will be discussed during the negotiations: these are the costs of product development and the acquisition of raw materials, as well as production costs. With knowledge of these costs, the buyer can negotiate a fair price. However, this only becomes possible if each party is willing to openly discuss their costs as part of the negotiation process.
Along with the formulation of criteria for decision making, an important role in assessing the decision space is played by the definition of its boundaries. Following recommendation 6, it is useful to consider possible alternatives during negotiations. To avoid negotiation pitfalls, procurement professionals must think through and evaluate alternative scenarios in advance. Typically, these scenarios also need to be discussed and agreed upon with other decision makers in the company. Typical alternative scenarios developed within procurement management include prepayment, direct reimbursement of some fixed costs (such as tooling and engineering costs), alternative logistics arrangements, and leasing options. It's always good to have alternatives like this on hand. If there is a danger that negotiations on controversial issues (for example, on price) may reach a dead end, the negotiation process can be resumed by offering alternative scenarios to the partner.
Having clearly defined the content of future negotiations and explored the solution space, procurement professionals can move on to the last critical stage of the preparatory process. At this stage, it is necessary to figure out how and with whom to negotiate. Related research has shown that people with different personality types negotiate differently. In this regard, you should refer to recommendation 7, the essence of which is as follows: it is necessary to analyze in advance the personal characteristics of the negotiating partner and find out what style of negotiations he prefers. Some people can only be persuaded by logical arguments, while others are susceptible to emotional appeals, in particular to arguments such as the duration and efficiency of the business, as well as personal relationships between partners. Some people immediately put on the brakes as soon as they feel pressure from the other negotiator, but it also happens that it is simply impossible to achieve serious concessions without pressure. Therefore, it is important to determine what type your potential supplier is. The more you know about your partner's personality traits, the higher your chances of success.
Recommendation 7, regarding the analysis of personal characteristics, is closely related to recommendation 4, according to which language and communication techniques should be used competently during negotiations. This is especially important when conducting procurement negotiations. Thus, the procurement professional must carefully practice communication techniques such as active listening, questioning techniques, and persuasion techniques. In addition, it is necessary to carefully plan the use of these techniques in the context of specific negotiations. How can I use listening techniques to show my partner that I am ready to listen carefully to his position? What should I ask my partner to find out what his goals are in this negotiation? What arguments will your partner find convincing and which ones will be stronger than his own arguments?
/ Training “Conducting tough negotiations”
The target audience:
Advantage of the training:
Work during the training is carried out with cases and situations of participants, which allows you to prepare for “important” negotiations for the company in ensuring the necessary commercial, managerial and organizational results.
Results:
Main training questions:
Form: 30% theory / 70% practice.
It is with some feeling of internal resistance that I approach this section of the book. Very often, after such information, people’s mood deteriorates, as they begin to understand the real rules of the game, according to which they can play with them as well. And some people recognize situations from their own lives in the technologies described.
Once again, I want to emphasize that the mission of this book is to strengthen your personal security. Understanding the rules of the game makes it easier to work with them. And it doesn’t matter what country you live in. Thank God that we have already gone through the stage of illusions that everything is bad with us, but in the West everything is “in chocolate”.
Study an excerpt from the instructions of an employee of the purchasing department of a store of a fairly well-known global chain (slightly adapted to our mentality):
In the first rounds of negotiations, demand the impossible from your partners;
Never agree to an offer made immediately, even if it is beneficial to us;
Leave the most important questions for your partner until the end of the negotiations, apply a time limit;
Negotiate correctly, but take the opportunity to accuse the other side of incorrectness;
Negotiate primarily on topics that are beneficial to you;
Make your opponents pay with more time for an agreement;
At each stage of your agreement, demand concessions that exceed the standard;
Push the other side in negotiations with the positions of their competitors, provoke them into competition for the right to work with us;
Make them prove the attractiveness of their offer to us...
Life is what it is. Therefore, take the information presented below not as instructions for action. It's just another opportunity to "stay off the path."
Method 1. “Psychological breakdown of resistance”
Tough negotiations don't always look that way. On the contrary, they can be tactically implemented according to the principle of “laying softly and sleeping hard.” It is this principle that is used within the framework of the strategy of the so-called breaking of the opponent’s psychological position. Let's analyze the behavior algorithm of the influencing party step by step. Perhaps, if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can find the best way to avoid breaking your psychological position.
The goal of such techniques is not negotiation, but what? A person is consciously led through a series of stages, each of which affects his psycho-emotional state.
At the same time, there is no need to blame only the power structures. The same thing happens in commercial negotiations. Therefore, I will outline actions at each stage for both power and commercial negotiations
The general goal of the technique is to psychologically break a person, deprive him of rational resistance, pushing him to spontaneous affective decision-making.
Stage 1. “Pseudo-victory”
Actions: a person is involved in a calm dialogue, his sense of comfort and security increases. By describing the situation, there is an increased sense of control of events on his part. “We just invited you, basically to talk. We will really need your help, naturally, as a witness...” At the same stage, intensive work is carried out on a person’s self-esteem: compliments, encouraging communication, etc., etc. But already at this stage a connection will be established between a person and compromising evidence (if this is an example of the activities of law enforcement agencies). What is compromising evidence? When a person is forced in advance to confess to an event that compromises him, but he does not yet know it.
Purpose of the stage. It is quite transparent: to reduce a person’s psychological security, his control over what is happening, but at the same time draw him into the subsequent action.
Stage 2. “Emotional attack”
Actions: what's happening? A sharp change in the style of communication with a person. In commercial negotiations, they just talked to you as a friend (in the previous round of negotiations), comrade and brother, and when you come to the next level of negotiations, they tell you: “Yes, and you set me up!” At this same stage, intrigue management often begins: we are not told a fact, but rather a sense of guilt is promoted. “I treat you like a friend... Do you know how I was at the meeting for you yesterday? Literally torn to pieces! I trusted you, and what did you slip me? I thought you had quality conditions".
If this is a power structure: “Well, you got it! Should I name the article right away or can you guess it yourself? Well done for at least admitting it yourself.” Everything is the same, just with different methods. They try to create anxiety in a person’s mind through a reference to the presence of information that the other party did not know about. That is: “Everything would be fine if NOT...” Work with unclear information (a technique for managing negative intrigue) continues until a person begins, roughly speaking, to “twitch” until his anxiety increases. What is required in this step? If a person has already confessed to something, there is an immediate transition to psychological pressure. But not in relation to a fact that has already been admitted. If attacked here, the person may still remain in a situation of security. The task is to keep a person in this state for a long enough time (they hold it like a racehorse at the start).
Purpose of the stage: to involve a person in defense. Why? Remember from the physics course: the higher the voltage, the greater the potential difference? This effect is used at this stage. The weak will be crushed here. If a person is involved, while still holding the blow, trying to negotiate, the next stage begins.
Stage 3. “Mechanism”
A certain soulless, automatically working process immediately appears. What happens in negotiations at this stage? The representative of the influencing party demonstratively withdraws from the negotiations. They say to the person: “Listen, what are you telling me? The decision has already been made at the top. “Goodbye already!” At the same stage, a detailed story is presented about the consequences of the incriminating evidence for the target.
There is a very fast logical attack through the threat of the future: new information is given, a set of facts is presented that substantiates a negative scenario of consequences for a person. That is, “everything would be fine, but... everything will be bad.” Note that here the attack is already in a specific direction - according to the fact that the opponent admitted. An attack is valuable in itself. Here the reaction of the other side is no longer important, what happens to it is not important.
And at this same stage, pressure may occur with objective criteria that the other negotiator understands better. An example of such a move. The beginning of the 90s, when the importance of obtaining contracts and money for many Russian enterprises became a matter of survival. A representative of a German company comes to a Russian woodworking plant. The topic of the meeting was the plant’s participation in a tender for the production of beer tables for Oktoberfest (beer festival in Germany). In principle, it is a situational product. These tables are still recycled after the event.
Before the arrival of the “distinguished guest,” several cabinetmakers handcraft a sample of such a table. Imagine how much effort was spent! The German is greeted, as is customary in our country, in the hope that a warm welcome will push him to make the “right” decision. After this, they offer to look at the sample. A representative of a German company walks around the table for a long time, saying nothing. Then he takes out three balls, wooden, metal and plastic. He puts them on the table. Measures the distance they have rolled away from each other and marks it in his notebook. Then he puts a glass of water on the table and measures the deviation in its level, also marking it in a notebook. Then he makes several more of the same simple measurements. And then comes his “verdict”: “Gentlemen, your product has not already passed five evaluation parameters according to our quality system for this product category. If I measure further and the results turn out to be just as negative, then not only will you not be able to work with us. In principle, you will have difficulties entering our market. Because we provide information about the quality of the products offered to us for public use.” Based on this conclusion, pressure is later applied on delivery terms. And, naturally, the result is a significant drop in price. Of course, not in favor of the plant.
A similar move – describing the inevitability of consequences – is also used in the communication of representatives of law enforcement agencies: “I think if you’re lucky, about seven years. If you're unlucky, tell your grandchildren to remember you as a good person. You understand, the law is the law. And your deadline is spelled out exactly in it.” In this case, the person who influences psychologically removes himself from the space of negotiations. He seems to exclude the possibility of influence on his position. In this case, for example, he says: “You don’t need to communicate with me, I’m no longer involved here. That's it, why are you convincing me? There are objective criteria..." Even a strong person who was ready to defend himself gives in when he is told : “And you have no one to solve the situation with! There are already objective consequences of your mistake. I'm not here!"
Purpose of the third stage– creating active search behavior in the target, feverishly thinking about how to get out of the situation with less losses. You can see from the eyes that the person is starting to rush around. Very often at this stage they take a break. If we are talking about the power structure, then the phrase sounds: “Sit and think, we have the right to hold you for two weeks or three days.” If these are business negotiations: “Well, listen, think about it, call us sometime, better – next summer. In fact, I wouldn’t call again!”
Understand that in this way the other side is trying to hold a pause! Through this, a person is pulled into the so-called “orientation behavior”: from the person’s emotional state it becomes clear that the “object of pressure” is rushing about and looking for a solution.
Stage 4. “Straw”
The name of the stage speaks for itself. What is offered to a person? An unemotional, without guarantees, and, moreover, a negative offer of help. “Listen, since we have some kind of relationship, I don’t advise you to do this. Anyway, the situation is stalemate, you will do this. If you want. Although all the same, I think it is...” Notice how it sounds, right? It won’t save you anyway, but you never know what happens! It's like they throw this offer of help at you. The task is again clear! “Let’s at least do this! Okay, let’s at least communicate.”
Purpose of the stage: if at the first stage a person is relaxed, at the third he is unexpectedly tense and has not had time to calculate his scenario, then here he is depressed and begins to try to look for an ally. The task is to bring the opponent to the point of readiness to look for exit options - to ask: “What should we do now?”, “Or maybe there are some options there?”, “Maybe we can try something different with you?”, “Why are we talking about this right away?!”
Grabbed a straw - the next stage begins.
Stage 5. “Cap”
What's at this stage? Direct dictate of actions, but always with a shift in responsibility. "Well done! Since you decided so..." So what is next: “Sit down and write!”, “Okay, if you think this is right, then call the boss”. First they will push away responsibility, then direct dictate of actions!
The situation is classic, I see it all the time in life.
It is clear that this is one of many techniques. I do not suggest using this, but forewarned means protected. I simply ask you to evaluate each situation: what are they doing with you - are they negotiating or are they dragging you into scripted communication? If we find ourselves in such a situation, then at what point should we start to tense up?
The script can only be interrupted at the second stage. At the first stage it can still be prevented, at the second stage it can still be interrupted. If you have already begun to tense up, twitch, and react actively, then the promotion of everything else will follow. Be carefull. And careful.
The problem is not to get out from under the sight of a sniper rifle. The problem is not to fall under it.
Method 2. “Creating an agent of influence”
Thoughts at the start...A man walks around the city with a lantern and is asked:
- "What are you looking for? Success?"
- “Riches?”
- “Why is it?!”
- “What about glory?”
- "I do not need her!",
- “So what?”
- “Interlocutor!”
I will be sincerely sorry if among your loved ones you find people who use this technique. I would like to remind you that the assessment of actions should be based on an analysis of a person’s motive. If the motive of a person’s actions is positive, then he is not necessarily “a bear, a bourbon, a monster...” After all, a doctor sometimes hurts too.
Now about the technique itself. Its main goal: creating an emotionally close contact with a person for the subsequent use of this contact in scripted communications.
Stage 1. "Mowgli"
A person is involved in a free dialogue, a feeling of confidential communication is created. In the process of dialogue, emotional support for the interlocutor’s story and work with his self-esteem are necessary. The task already known to you and me is being realized - achieving the effect of psychological relaxation, creating a feeling of comfort in communicating with a given interlocutor.
All this happens to obtain (read from a person) an indicative need. An indicative need is something that a person really wants (a thing, position, status, sexual partner, recognition of something, some event, etc.), but he cannot afford to have it or even want it. He is not ready to talk about it (he is embarrassed, afraid, does not consider himself entitled), but at the level of subtle, emotionally reinforced signals of behavior it breaks through (he cast an envious glance at someone’s car, said sadly that it is difficult for him to grow rapidly in his company count, spoke irritably to his own management, etc.).
Stage 2. “Consent”
Once this is noted by the recruiter, a careful dialogue around this need begins. This is not specific to a specific person and they are not asked direct questions about this problem or need. The conversation is generally on this topic. At the same time, the idea is reinforced in every possible way that it is right to want this, there is nothing shameful in it. Examples are given from the lives of people who are authoritative for this person. As soon as it becomes clear that a person has begun an internal dialogue, he begins to reflect on the event, and a transition occurs to the next stage. One important point needs to be emphasized here. An obvious desire to convince a person usually only strengthens his resistance. Resistance and criticism are reduced if you manage to start an internal dialogue in the person’s mind. In a situation of internal dialogue, a person begins to consult with himself. All that remains is to provide the correct dosed information so that he moves towards making the right decision.
Stage 3. “Strengthening the “I”
If it is clear that a person himself is moving towards a reassessment of the event, expresses agreement with the opinion of the interlocutor, it means that his readiness to solve the problem (change of job, readiness to commit some action, etc.) increases. The example of his life actions emphasizes the correctness of the possibility of this decision. An experienced recruiter will never actively push the “development target” to take action. This is dangerous because a person can delegate his responsibility for the decision made. And this is fraught with either a loss of autonomy (it will no longer be possible to say: “you decided for yourself”), or an increase in his individual criticism in relation to the decision being made: “Yeah, it seems that a decision is being imposed on me about what needs to be done.”
At the same time, a re-arrangement of values and a change in emphasis in the assessment of events is very clearly carried out: “It's not a bad thing. You're not setting anyone up. You are simply honestly achieving what you have long deserved! Why should you work under this person if you already know more professionally than him? After all, he delegates all the main issues regarding key clients to you! At the same time, it’s worth considering how such overload is taken into account in the salary received.”.
Stage 4. “Help”
If a person agrees with the recruiter’s opinion, then and only then should an expression of readiness to help follow. Moreover, it is emphasized that this help is provided disinterestedly, solely for the sake of the relationship with this person: "We are friends. If you want, I can introduce you to the right people. And then decide for yourself. The main thing is to try to achieve what you have the right to.”
Stage 5. “Addiction”
After a person’s consent to some action, the right of access to his personal space is fixed, creating the effect of an emotional umbilical cord. “Do it tomorrow, and in the evening I’ll call you and discuss your impressions. The main thing is don’t get hung up. If it doesn’t work here, let’s move on. Just don't stop, go forward. Life is not as long as it seems."
What do they do with a recruited agent of influence? A person is emotionally dependent; it seems to him that a number of services have been done for him. And as they say, “over time, the cost of a free service increases sharply.” At the same time, a good personal contact is created with this person. Typically, agents of influence are used “in the dark,” often to obtain or leak information. With their help, they also indirectly influence events in a competitive environment to which there is no direct access.
Once again I ask you to pay attention to the fact that it is important to understand the motives. There are people who are actually ready to help us selflessly. Therefore, it is extremely important to figure out whether a person is doing this for the sake of friendly relations or pursuing his own selfish goals. The same rule from the TV series “Brigada”: “Figure out this life: either you are playing, or you are being played.” The main thing is not to be on an emotional or value “hook”.
Why are we talking about the hook? Because the recruiter will definitely check whether you followed his advice. He was kind to you, so you will not upset him, and will say that the advice was successful. For the recruiter, this is an opportunity in the future to emphasize his importance to you. You are emotionally grateful and are ready to continue sharing your difficulties with a person in the hope of receiving advice. By giving you advice, a person influences you. At a certain moment, you don’t notice how you become a conductor of his ideas. If, for example, your colleague-competitor becomes the same conductor of his other ideas, then... You and this colleague are not immune from the fact that the ideas instilled in you will not contradict each other. The recruiter gets the opportunity to manipulate you, influencing you and your environment.
Understanding what you can expect from another person, let's look at how to get out of the scenario.
Diagnosis of the “recruiter”While specific tactics vary, certain common features are highlighted below. A brochure from the American Family Foundation lists four characteristics of a recruiter.
1. This is the friendliest person you have ever met.
2. This is a person who is TOO interested in what he has found out you like to do.
3. Someone who showers you with compliments and praise and coolly assesses what can be taken from you: enthusiasm, energy, physical or intellectual strength, money, apartment, etc.
4. The one who has all the answers to all the questions.
Once a prospective client appears receptive, the recruiter makes a deliberate, calculated attempt to engage him in conversation, pique his interest, and entice him by the following means:
Showing concern for the prospect's well-being by expressing unusual awareness of the prospect's feelings and emotional state, which leads the prospect to believe that he is truly understood. For example, upon learning about the recruit's travels, the recruiter may say: “So you've been on the road for two months. You must be tired, feeling lonely, without any real roots?”;
Demonstrating a keen, unifying interest in the recruit's ideas, interests, hopes, goals, saying, for example: “Oh, you're a musician. Well, I just happened to live with a group of musicians...";
Maintaining eye contact, maintaining close physical proximity, “attacking” sexually (in the psychological sense);
By extracting personal information about the current situation of the recruit, about his worries, problems, stress. For example, a recruiter might ask: “What do your parents think about you traveling across the country?”, or "Do you have an intimate relationship with anyone?" or “Do you know what you want to do with your life?”
If the recruiter is successful, the recruite will feel an emotional connection with the recruiter and a willingness or desire to maintain contact. When clients being recruited are considered ready, which could be after fifteen minutes of conversation or after a few casual encounters, they may be invited to join or attend an event. Recruiters often tailor their descriptions of the proposed events (meeting the right people, getting the right information, overall usefulness, etc.) so that they correspond to the interests of the recruit. As always, perhaps a tired parting word: be careful...
Method 3. “Counter attack”
This technique is a more detailed and technologically described “strike towards” strategy. It is used at a time when the partner is clearly destructive and there is no reason to continue the dialogue. Such methods work especially well if it is necessary to make a positive impression on the third party watching the fight as a person who can both take a blow and defend his position.
Like the previous ones, this technique consists of a number of stages.
Stage 1. Taking a punch
In response to obvious provocation of the interlocutor, a demonstration of the degree of personal security is made. It can manifest itself in a demonstrative disregard for an attack or in an aggressive comment at a meeting: “Of course, I was counting on a smart question, but oh well, I’ll answer yours too...”
– Don’t you want, like many others before you, to take money from people and disappear?
“I’ll probably upset you very much with my answer, but I’ll have to do it: no, we don’t want to!”
If it is important for you to demonstrate your constructiveness, you need to identify a positive topic for your counterargument. In this case, it is better to reformulate your opponent’s thought by joining it.
– You are slipping in a low-quality product!
– You know, many doctors also say that eating meat is harmful, and sugar is simply “white death.” However, you and I eat this and live quite well. Moreover, if we ate less of it, we would live much worse.
Stage 2. Attack a weak position
You should never counter-argument all your opponent’s statements. Find the part of him that is rationally or emotionally weaker and attack it. The enemy's resource is fragmented: his enemy's position becomes weaker, yours becomes stronger, since he is forced to go on the defensive. And when a person prepared to attack, his ability to defend decreased.
Stage 3. Surgical strike
A counter attack on the opponent’s position minimizes his claim, and the meaning of his statement may change. You can use the classic “interpretation” pressing technique. It is also possible to pit the opponent’s opinion against the opinion of a significant group of people. In this case, the opponent’s position is opposed to the general interest.
Stage 4. Closing reaction
Strengthens the opponent's desire to defend himself and justify himself in response to your attack. It is important not to let communication with your opponent go into dialogue mode. Close the possibility of further communication on your own, set an emotional point after which returning to this topic will seem like a weak emotional reaction.
“Hard” options for a “counter attack” are given in A. Kochergin’s book “Fireproof Advice”.
Below are examples of the author's discussions and counterattacks against attempts at emotional provocation of the type of martial arts training he proposes.
– Dear Andrey Nikolaevich, I disagree! One might think that only limited people can and should train. But none of those with whom I managed to talk a little give the impression of... Hm... How can I say this?.. Let's say, intellectually limited people.
Counter Attack:
– We are all sick with something – some with obesity, some with a fierce love for their people, some with clap, and some with a passion for koi (combat school of karate). I am sure that the premises of each diagnosis were in our hands, so that “limitedness” should be read as “fierce determination.” I don’t believe otherwise, because since childhood I have been mediocre, but hardworking.
– I am not a Koi representative. They are not allowed to lose.
Counter Attack:
“We are not allowed to give up.” Agree, this is not the same thing.
A more correct option for a “counter attack”, an option for reframing questions at a press conference:
– How do you want to surprise people? Just high prices in a poor area?
Counter Attack:
– You know, we don't want to surprise people at all. I will answer your question about what low-income people, according to your information, living in this area experience when looking at expensive products. We think it is very important that stores like this appear in such areas, because it shows people the modern level to which they can aspire. Indeed, some people experience negative feelings, but this is on the surface. For the majority, this gives additional motivation to work, in order to earn money.
Lord Ramsay returns home from his club in the evening. Suddenly a masked man came out of the darkness of the street, pointed a revolver at the lord and shouted:
“If you move, you’re dead!”
“I don’t understand,” answered the lord. “If I move, it will be proof that I am alive.”
And a bit more…
A merchant came to the shepherd and said:
-Can you choose the kind of sheep I want?
“There is not a sheep in the world that is not in my flock,” answered the shepherd.
“Then find me one that is neither white nor black, neither red nor motley, neither big nor small.”
“Please, just come for her not on Monday, not on Tuesday, not on Wednesday, not on Thursday, not on Friday, not on Saturday, and certainly not on Sunday,” answered the shepherd.
So let's drink so that we always know what we want!
When countering an attack, the following must be taken into account and used:
Focus on your opponent's belief system;
In response to incorrectness, you have the right to also be incorrect, since it was not you who “started the war”;
Speak in the language of your opponent: “The thought expressed must be only a couple of degrees above the level of the crowd, otherwise its brains will boil”;
If a more correct response option is important to you, then join as much as possible to the positive side of the interlocutor’s statement and evoke positive feelings; reduce the negative image and increase the positive one;
It is important for people that we agree with them;
People painfully experience the loss of face in the eyes of other people, this can also be influenced;
Do not start an answer without understanding its content; it is better to take a controlled pause;
Influence values that are difficult to attack in response.
Method 4. “Intimidation”
A very unpleasant topic, but how often does such a situation occur in real life, both explicitly and in a veiled form. The given definition of this type of impact is taken from one reference book for special services.
Intimidation is a dramatized threat of physical or psychological violence against a person and his loved ones with the goal of subordinating the object to the will of another. Unlike refined blackmail, compromising information is not involved. Intimidation is most often used to:
Obtaining information;
Recruiting;
Violent coercion to any action;
Corrections of the “object’s” behavior.
There are several points that we are forced to note in this (I don’t want to use the word!) technique. Intimidation is expressed in overt, hidden or indirect form. What I suggest you remember if, due to the nature of negotiations, you either have to deal with this phenomenon or resort to this technique.
A professional never makes direct threats. Serious people regard this as an inability to take a punch and as what in the criminal world is called “rotten show-off” (sorry for the slang). The purpose of an effective threat is to demonstrate your intention to go to the end. The main effect is to force a person to spend more energy on defense than the attacker does. The real threat should not be demonstrated, but implied (the partner himself can guess about certain resources that will be brought into play, if not...).
When trying to exploit someone else's feelings of fear, it is useful to know that:
Each subject has a limit of mental endurance, beyond which he is not capable of further resistance to the emotion of fear; in this case, there are two types of reactions: a) chaotic behavior or some kind of numbness; b) uncontrolled, often irrational threat attack: “A cat driven into a corner can become a tiger”;
Tactical shock, which occurs from intense fear, usually lasts from 15 to 30 minutes; this time is used to enhance the effectiveness of the impact;
Forceful influence is most effective when it does not follow the principle of flickering “stronger - weaker”, but when its impact increases with each new stage;
By affecting the psyche, fear causes disturbances in perception, upsets memory and thinking, and does not make it possible to concentrate on the professional task being solved, in our case, negotiating; that is why its use in negotiations sometimes becomes effective - it can break the opponent’s prepared script well;
When the subject believes that there is some way out of the current situation, but he cannot use it, then panic arises; fear of the unknown is always more painful than fear of visible and understandable danger;
When people don't know what awaits them, they usually expect the worst;
Fear is fueled by both forced inaction and loss of hope and the unknown;
People who are physically or mentally tired are much more submissive and pliable than those who are rested and self-confident. That is why it is rare to effectively use threats at the beginning of negotiations: first, psychological exhaustion is carried out (physiological, intellectual, energetic) or the removal of a person’s psychological defense (through emotional relaxation);
A sudden shift in established relationships in people with a weak type of nervous system usually causes mental trauma, or, more simply, confusion, fear and despair, which is why negotiation games begin with emotionally weak people, which involve transferring responsibility for the breakdown of relationships;
In people with a strong type of nervous system and adrenaline addiction, a threat can provoke not fear, but, on the contrary, an increase in the energy of resistance, excitement, and an increase in vitality (the Sherlock Holmes effect). This is especially true for bullying when there is a specific target that can be confronted.
Method 5. “Chatting”
Used in a situation where the partner is more in control of the situation and can go to extreme measures. It is used not only when taking hostages, working with demonstrative blackmailers and suicides. It can also work if your partner is ready to go into an irrational fight against you in both negotiations and business interactions.
There are several rules that are implemented in this technique:
The technique is used in situations where the partner is emotionally wound up and may not be aware of the rationality of actions;
It is necessary to identify events with which the object has positive emotions (life experience, family, significant relationships);
In a communication situation, joining goes precisely to these events, the goal is to pump up the interlocutor for at least a small dialogue;
The most effective move is to talk for two, discussing the situation as if on behalf of the interlocutor;
It is necessary to create identification with the object, the person must feel that he is understood and ready to talk with him, that his interlocutor is also looking for solutions to the situation together with him;
You cannot destroy a person’s feeling that the situation is under his control;
Defiantly make concessions on insignificant things, comply with minor demands;
At the same time, as a gesture of goodwill, insist on counter-concessions, which should demonstrate the seriousness of the intention to reach an agreement; this is necessary so that the negotiator acts as a guarantor of this person to some third party;
Delay the time for making decisions and actions, try to psychologically exhaust a person with uncertainty;
Change the psychological time of the situation, transfer the interlocutor to the mode of thinking about the past and future; try to make a person aware of responsibility for his actions;
At the same time, it is important to justify him psychologically, as it were, through understanding the motives of his behavior;
The tone of communication is in no way commanding or asking;
Negotiations must be conducted by a person who has authority, but does not have the right to make a decision; at the same time, constantly emphasize that everything possible is being done to resolve the situation;
It is necessary to bring a person to a conversation about the motives of his action;
Ideally, the person should be forced to act in a positive manner;
In the worst situation, try to push him to take action to eliminate him as a threat.
Method 6. “Identification of false information”
This technique is based on several sad conclusions from the experience of each of us in conducting or analyzing negotiation situations.
The first and most banal point. The point is that people don't always tell the truth. This also applies to negotiations.
We do not always have the opportunity to double-check the veracity of our interlocutor through additional clarification of the facts.
Often, even when telling the truth, people try to embellish it in order to make a better impression.
Catching your partner misrepresenting facts is a good way to counterattack in negotiations, since he now needs to restore trust in your tactical interactions with him.
Therefore, this technique involves several stages of organizing a conversation with a partner, which allow you to tactically, “by eye,” double-check the truth of the events described, if you did not participate in them and cannot clarify through other channels.
Stage 1. Scouting
Ask your negotiating partner about the events in question. Show genuine interest, pretend that you were “hooked” by something in your interlocutor’s story. It is important not to show that your attention is due to distrust of your partner’s information. During the questioning process, strive to create a comfortable space for communication. Force surrender of information and focus your attention on capturing the details of the story.
At this stage, it is important to cluster the interlocutor’s story: decompose it into a logical sequence of events: “Yeah, so you spent half an hour negotiating and then went to their representative’s office.” In this case, in the mode of clarifying the story, you can ask a leading question. The question may be related to a detail of the story about the event, or even better, to the emotion experienced: “...Wasn’t it disgusting to drink in such company? You won’t relax with them, will you?” Be sure to take note of situations in which the interlocutor, as it seems to you, has floundered. But so far you are not actively doubting their truth.
Often the interlocutor can be caught already at this stage: since many people can immediately see (without any signals from the eye, forgive me NLP apologists), the person begins to remember or quickly come up with ideas.
Stage 2. Change the background
Be the initiator of the transition to a new topic within the general outline of the conversation. It is important to continue communication until the interlocutor is distracted from the main topic of conversation and has removed rational control over it. It is best if he is sure that you have “swallowed” the information. Therefore, reinforce his success with a compliment: “Yes, it looks like you had to endure a difficult situation. Not everyone could.” Sometimes you can see after such a “move” a sharp increase in a person’s psychological relaxation. This may also indicate a distortion of information: he was glad that the misinformation had passed.
Stage 3. Attack
During a relaxed conversation with the interlocutor, in the “by the way, I remembered that I wanted to ask a question...” mode, an additional question is asked - detailing information from the previous stage of the conversation. The question should be tied to the most specific detail that the interlocutor could not miss. It can also be associated with direct provocation, catching a person with contradictions in his story. If it is clearly visible that a person is internally “rushed”, begins to make excuses, and counter-aggresses, then it is possible to use psychological pressure to gain tactical advantages in this round of negotiations.
Stage 4. Assessment and decision making
If distortion of information becomes obvious, increase the pressure. Otherwise, return to stage 3. Even if you failed to catch the person in contradictions, then you demonstrate to him your strict control over the information provided. In most cases, this does not harm the negotiations.
The technique seems to be rather complicated. But in the situation of studying it in trainings, the vast majority of participants easily manage to identify moments in the conversation in which a person is trying to provide distorted information. There are not so many people in life who are truly “trained” in the process of managed communications.
Method 7. “Mental exhaustion”
Here we will describe a non-standard method, often used as a psychological move. A variation of it is proposed, associated with the method of psychological pressure. You may be familiar with the “broken record” technique. His main rule: you do not get involved in an argument with your opponent, you simply insist on your own. In a more rigorous version of using this technique, it is constructed as follows. For example, a person does not want to fulfill his obligations that you agreed on earlier. At the same time, he must be ready to justify them with a host of his own objective reasons. This technique does not work if the partner is simply stubborn. It is effective only if the interlocutor wants to “save face” in contact with you. So, you answer his reasoning for why he won't be able to do what he promised using the following steps.
1. Repeat the interlocutor’s argument, but at the same time reformulate it in a light unfavorable for the interlocutor: “I understand that you want to renege on your promise, but...” Ideally, it is better to select a reformulation that makes the interlocutor feel uncomfortable.
2. In the second part, you continue to insist on your options for action.
3. If your interlocutor resists, you gradually increase psychological pressure. This can be achieved through a pause, strengthening the negative emotional background of communication, demonstrative indifference to the opponent’s statements, emphasized unemotional communication, the use of “hidden quotation marks”: “... I wouldn’t even talk to someone else, because I would perceive such an act as meanness and therefore immediately would... I understand that you have problems with... but you and I have a normal relationship... and therefore I hope that you will do what you promised.”
4. The blame for the negative development of the situation must be shifted to your opponent: “Our relationship was built normally, but if you see the need to develop it in this direction, then it is your choice, and I will have to take it into account in our future relations.”
Method 8. “Hidden provocation”
Since the previous technique indicated the option of using the “quotation mark” technique in communication, we will dwell on it in a little more detail. This technique is used as a method of hidden aggression and hidden threat. However, the attacker cannot be blamed for this, since the effect of contradictory denial works. Moreover, the person being attacked seems to be assured of his positive attitude. As a small example from life, a phrase from a person to whom you came on a business or personal issue, and he knows it: “It’s great that you came! Otherwise, in the morning there are only idiots walking around with bad requests. What did you come with?” Note that the person seems to be welcome, but precisely “as if.” The phrase of the owner of the office already contains a hidden assessment and the opportunity to inflate a conflict of expectations: “Well, I thought at least you would come with a normal topic.”
Having agreed to sell their house and received an advance for the transaction, the owners packed their things and were ready to move. At this point, the buyer asked for a delay of a couple of months, since he could not sell his own apartment. At the same time, he refused to increase the amount of the advance or, moreover, to pay compensation for the forced delay. The owners reasonably noted that they could not promise anything, since they were forced to look for another buyer and therefore were ready to consider the issue of returning the advance. The buyer's response was as follows:“I always try to be correct and try to negotiate. In such a case, one of my friends would begin to involve various organizations, including judicial ones. The situation, you see, is controversial. Until the court makes a decision, there is no way to sell the property. But you and I are reasonable people, I’m sure that we will avoid all this.” .
Often when using the quote technique, people retreat because there is no possibility of a direct counterattack. And one gets the feeling that the person seemed to remain correct in relation to the current situation.
Method 9. “False freedom”
A person is able to resist more actively when there is someone to do it against. This technique is based on the principle of providing choice without choice. Remember the proverb: “Wherever you throw it, there’s a wedge everywhere.” This is the principle that people who use this technique operate on. There are several rules here too.
1. The situation is prepared in advance to the extent that minimal actions remain to trigger a negative scenario.
2. You must be prepared to demonstrate this convincingly to the target.
3. You must actually be willing to do what you are talking about.
4. Demonstrative indifference works as a communication style in this case.
Moscow representative office of one of the regional factories. The owner of the plant received information that the director of the representative office had “spent a lot of money to the side.” For your personal needs, of course. Without any conflict, the task is given to collect all the necessary evidence and initiate a criminal case. At the same time, communication with a person on a superficial level remains a normal partnership. When everything was ready, the conversation took place:“So it is, dear. Here is the data on how much money you spent on your interests. Here are the materials for initiating a criminal case. Over there in the reception area are representatives of the relevant organizations that will continue to look after you. This is not a threat. For me, as an owner, there are two options. Option one, using your example I show everyone what not to do in a relationship with me. And it doesn’t matter to me how much money I lose. Life doesn't end. Option two, we will now agree on the amount that you must return. Naturally, it will be slightly larger than the one you stole. At the same time, we will indicate deadlines and guarantees that you will do this. Which option do you choose?
Based on the logic of how the situation was organized, it is clear which option was chosen.
Method 10. “Value conflict”
The deepest misconception is that people are most often recruited through pressure on them to make a decision. The most effective recruitment occurs through changing the weight of values in a person’s decision-making structure. Every person has values, and there are many of them. Values constitute the structure of personality, and their destruction leads to the disintegration or change of a person’s personality. A person is least protected in a situation of internal value conflict, when significant values collide in a person’s mind, and he cannot determine which of them is more significant. Remember in childhood the most sadistic question to a child from not very smart parents: “Who do you love more: mom or dad?”
Even an adult in a situation of serious intrapersonal value conflict begins to change the external conditions of his life.
The same negotiation techniques that we outlined in the third section work. But the main task of the negotiation scenario is to provoke a person into an internal conflict and, as a solution to it, propose your own algorithm of actions. There are very successful examples from films. Let me remind you of one of them.
As an example, the film “State Councilor”
The situation of the recruitment of one of the representatives of the fighting group, Akhmet (Seleznev), who fell into the hands of the police.
SELEZNEV: “You wish to intimidate, but I am not one of the timid ones... My comrades know me well, they will believe me.”
INVESTIGATOR: “Yes, how can you not believe the hero of the revolution? Only a hero is a knight, without fear and reproach, but you are a mischief-maker among us!”
(The investigator turns to the guards.)
INVESTIGATOR: “I took some things with me... Admire it, gentlemen! This is Mr. Seleznev in the most disreputable establishment on Ligovka. Here it is, I wanted a thrill... And this is him with a ten-year-old girl..."
SELEZNEV (pre-hysterically): “With what ten-year-old? She is fourteen years old, the whole Ligovka has been visiting her for 3 years!”
INVESTIGATOR: “Oh, well, this changes things, Mr. Revolutionary! This changes things radically; fourteen years is the right time for a revolutionary! Here, gentlemen, look again, this is secret filming, new technology, admire it!”
SECURITY: “What disgusting!..”
INVESTIGATOR: “Yes, you, my soul, Seleznev, would go to the anarchists, you would be more comfortable there, with simpler morals... But your people will not forgive you for this... Such, my friend, feasts for the bright cause of the revolution... After that, they will believe any dirty trick about you , I already know that!”
SELEZNEV: “How do you know?”
INVESTIGATOR: “Listen, to be honest, I just feel sorry for you. It's a shame to see a talented person die. Well, why do you need these mealworms, these sad worms? You are, in essence, a cheerful, gambling, unrestrained person, in this we are similar, I am also a player, also a gambling man. That’s why I suggest you, think, Seleznev! You and I can play such a game, like in British football, with one touch. Spit on all your bombs and daggers... everything will be there, both risk and excitement!
SELEZNEV: “Give me a drink.”
INVESTIGATOR: “Would you like some tea?”
INVESTIGATOR: “Agree, today you are a puppet in the hands of your party leaders, and I suggest you become a puppeteer yourself. Well, isn’t it tempting?”
SELEZNEV: “I will pull their strings, and you will pull me?”
INVESTIGATOR: “Listen, I trust you with my life, I will pray for you. If you fall apart, I'm finished. What is your nickname among revolutionaries?”
SELEZNEV: “Akhmet.”
INVESTIGATOR: “Akhmet, that’s funny. And I propose to you... Let’s be Guidon?
SELEZNEV: “Why Guidon?”
INVESTIGATOR: “Well, why... You will fly from this island of Buyan to the kingdom of the glorious Saltan, either like a mosquito, or a fly, or a bumblebee, how many people are there in the BG?”
SELEZNEV: “Not counting me, three. The eldest is Green, Grinulya, no one knows his real name. Also Emelya, such a smart guy, loves risks and is still quite a kid. Bullfinch, Green is training him.
INVESTIGATOR: “Do you have emergency contact with them?”
SELEZNEV: “That’s all!”
INVESTIGATOR: “Calm down, calm down, Guidon. I'm not going to keep you on a short leash at all. I’m not going to, and there won’t be any surveillance of you. You are alone, you choose, all decisions are yours alone. You are the player, the fisherman and the hunter.”
If there is an opportunity, reconsider this scene from the film precisely as a technology of value conflict. Values make up the structure of a person’s personality. Their collision sharply reduces resistance to external influences. In this method, they obtain information about the basic values that are important to a person, establish control over them, and then begin to manage the person’s choice. A conflict of values always causes internal tension. Looking for a way out, a person often acts in accordance with a scenario defined by someone.
Let me remind you once again of the basic rule: “Forewarned is forearmed.” When we encounter any type of impact on our own consciousness, we first turn on mental defense. Understand where the “path” they are trying to push you onto is. And then who will outplay whom. Let's summarize this section.
We have looked at just a few of the techniques used in tough negotiations. Like any tools, they are beyond values. I don't recommend them and I don't ask you to use them. These are regular pictures from life, demonstrating what life is like sometimes (when fortune shows us different parts of its body). Once again I would like to remind you of the motto of the survival school: “Foresee, if possible, warn, if necessary, act,” because “Nothing prevents you from enjoying life as much as life itself.”
Try to remember simple rules that can help you avoid more situations when using harsh communication technologies:
In each situation, determine the degree of your guilt and have the courage to admit it;
Do not stoop to revenge and slander, rather learn to manage the dosage of the truth;
Have patience to improve yourself;
Don’t become dependent on other people’s opinions, just take them into account;
Avoid value conflicts and be able to negotiate with yourself;
Enjoy quality, not just standard of living.
“Joy gives birth to a smile. Smiling brings pleasure. Pleasure is a source of satisfaction. Satisfaction is the mother of victory."
Confucius
Perhaps these words of Confucius will prompt you to think about your own path to happiness.
Instructions
In business negotiations, participants can act in an equal position, and more often - in a weak or strong position. It is clear that the one who communicates from a position of strength is unlikely to make concessions, he simply does not need it, he already benefits. But if your own position is weak or if the relationship is of equal importance, it is important to determine in advance the desired result, the outcome of the negotiations, the goal that is planned to be achieved. This preparation for negotiations allows you to cover many aspects - from the priorities that need to be solved, and the strengths and weaknesses of your position, to comfortable clothes and shoes to maintain self-confidence.
Another step in preparing for a tough confrontation in the negotiation process should be what can be sacrificed to achieve a result. Simply put, you need to decide what in the company's original proposal can be changed and what is not subject to the slightest discussion. For this tactic to be successful, you need to set yourself the clearest possible boundaries of what is paramount and what is not so important.
During tough negotiations, you need to choose one of the strategies: defensive or attacking. This largely depends on the strength of the position of a particular negotiator. If the position is weak, a defensive strategy is often chosen, which implies the absence of the person making the final decision in the negotiation process. This allows you to postpone resolving the issue and possible signing of documents and gain time. With an attacking strategy, on the contrary, the company should be represented by a person who makes instantaneous and, if possible, correct decisions. In such a strategy, the conflict situation plays a huge role. If your opponent begins to lose his temper, he is likely to make a mistake that can then be used to his advantage.
Some negotiators are of the opinion that first we need to try to move the negotiations into a peaceful direction - to make them softer. One of the surest options for this is to be open to your opponent. You can talk about neutral topics, find points of intersection, ask for help in some small things, and then clearly define your position. If you show flexibility on some issues, it is possible that your opponent will show flexibility on others, thanks to which it will be possible to reach a compromise solution, and negotiations will no longer be tough. Even if the decision in the negotiations is negative, you should not touch upon the opponent’s personality; it is better to refer to some abstract circumstances that do not allow reaching an agreement.
In certain situations, one of the parties to the negotiations may feel that they are trying to put pressure on her, manipulate her, or catch her in something. Of course, the best solution in this situation would be to end the negotiations, but this is not always realistic. It is important to learn to recognize such moments and resist them. In many negotiation trainings, participants are taught both these tactics and skills.
One of the first conditions that you should not agree to is a meeting on foreign territory. In this case, the “stranger” often feels uncomfortable, even if his position is stronger. It is believed that the one who goes to negotiate with someone else is in greater need of a positive outcome. If you cannot negotiate in your office, it is better to choose a neutral territory.
It is important to take pauses in negotiations. If the interlocutor suddenly becomes silent, you should not fill the silence, so as not to find yourself in a position where all the arguments have already been given, and the opponent has not even begun to speak. In such a situation, you can ask a question, albeit neutral, but provoking a response from the other negotiator. But in a situation where the opponent begins to divert the conversation through such an answer, it is better to firmly stop these attempts.
Also, during negotiations, some managers use tricks in the form of shifting responsibility, asking leading questions and questions without choice, or referring to phrases like “everyone has been doing this for a long time,” “everyone knows,” etc. It is important to differentiate positions here: each of you has your own problems and the problems of the opposite side, for the most part, do not concern anyone. In general, when a participant begins to feel as if under threat, when even the body sends signals that it wants to leave the negotiating table (for example, a leg itches or twitches), it is better to say out loud that no adequate cooperation will be established with such dishonest measures.
