If you picture folks in suits with arms crossed engaged in a staredown when you picture negotiation, you’re not alone. Many people are used to the idea of negotiation being a battle of wills to see who wins in the end.
In fact, negotiation has much, much more to do with finely tuned communication than strong-arming someone to bend to your will.
This article will walk you through the basics of strategic negotiation, particularly in the context of a multiparty negotiation involving three or more parties.
Before we get to that, note that strategic communication is one piece of a comprehensive negotiation strategy. Additional complimentary resources are available through the blog and The Persuasion Lab Podcast. Meanwhile, Premium subscribers have access to pre-deal checklists to ensure no aspect of strategic planning is neglected.
Generally speaking, when we’re talking communication strategy, there are two aspects to keep in mind:
- HOW will you communicate
- WHAT will influence communication.
The how is fairly self explanatory, though we’ll walk through some nuance to keep in mind as the negotiation plays out. The influences on communication are more complex, and include relationships (between and within parties – more on that here), whether or not an audience is present, and disclosure of privileged information.
How Will You Communicate?
If you’re undertaking a complex, multiparty negotiation where parties consist of more than one person, you need to know at least how the parties will communicate with each other AND how you will communicate within your party.
Most commonly, interparty communication comes down to
- Phone
- Text communication (WhatsApp, Messaging, etc)
- In person
It’s a good idea to be explicit at the outset regarding communication protocols and preferences, so that these operational considerations can be standardized for the duration of the negotiation.
If it’s not feasible to do so, pay attention to how responsive parties are for various forms of communication. Does Party A respond to an email within minutes, whereas you can only ever get Party B on the phone?
As the negotiation progresses, this is important information to have, as you can dial the speed of the negotiation up or down based on how you’re communicating with other parties. If you need to speed things up with Party B, call them! Need to slow it down? Use email instead.
The same principles apply to intraparty communication. How does your team communicate? What are expectations of turnaround or acknowledgement of receipt? Does this change based on how quickly negotiations are progressing? Map these issues out with members of your team before you enter into the negotiation. Certainly things will change as the situation evolves, but having an explicit plan before you start helps to keep things running smoothly.
What Influences Do You Need to Account For?
Relationships.
Both within and between parties. We’ve covered a great deal of this issue here, so suffice it to say that having a clear understanding of the dynamics of a multiparty negotiation is important. Relationships will more than likely shift over the course of the deal, so its equally important to stay nimble in your communication with involved parties.
Audience, Onlookers and Interested Parties
The presence (or absence) of an audience absolutely changes the communication game. Particularly if that audience consists of interested parties. Especially if the audience consists of interested parties who hold sway over a negotiator.
A politician negotiating for a constituency is one such example. Or a union rep negotiating for union members. A multi-department negotiation is another example, or a public consortium working towards a common goal.
Onlookers matter because they change the way negotiators perceive themselves and how they ‘ought’ to be. When a negotiation is observed, negotiators at the table adjust their tactics so that they are perceived as being strong, often taking a hard line. This is true whether or not the observers have a stake in the outcome of the negotiation.
It’s crucial that you’re aware of this effect so that you can file it under ‘intangibles’ of a given negotiation. You and/or the other parties are going to want to come out looking good to the audience, whether you and/or they admit it or not.
In terms of communication, it behooves you to have a few ways of communicating that are ‘off the books’ so to speak. If things stall or start to go sideways, it’s worth being able to pull another party aside on a bathroom break, or over dinner to engage in ‘unofficial’ talks.
Another type of audience member is an expert. These are folks who have valuable information to contribute, but who don’t have a direct say in the negotiation. Consider learning a new skill while being watched by a master – it can be stressful to say the least. Same goes in a negotiation. The presence of an expert can throw off the dynamics of the interaction. Be prepped for this if the other side is bringing in an expert – perhaps have someone of your own who you trust to bring the playing field level again. Or, if you could use a little destabilization, bring in someone of your own.
As ever, keep professional ethics and legality in mind as you weigh your communication options, and remember that your reputation will precede you to your next dealings.
Privileged Information
How you communicate is one piece of the puzzle. WHAT is communicated is something else altogether.
As a part of your pre-negotiation planning, make absolutely sure everyone on your team knows what is privileged, need to know information.
If there’s someone on your team who’s known to spill the beans, keep them out of the room.
A crucial piece of information can change the negotiation game in an instant – to be an expert negotiator you need to know how to elicit this information while keeping your own cards close to the vest.
When you’re engaged in a multiparty negotiation, it’s worth considering – who ‘needs to know?’ Perhaps your party and Party A have a vested interest in achieving outcome X. Can they be trusted with privileged information that will support outcome X? Or is it worth waiting a little bit longer to see how the situation plays out?