Deception in Negotiations
In negotiations, it is paramount to be prepared if one is interested in protecting their reputation and interests, as well as a chance of attaining their objectives. It can be quite challenging in determining if all the facts presented are all inclusive and true. It may also be just as difficult to manage oneself and their negotiating team's frame, disposition and behavior throughout the negotiation process, so as to not tip their hand inadvertently divulging information, or allowing behaviors that may leave the other party suspect of one's intentions.
Throughout the negotiation process, it would be prudent to go into talks with several points prepared in attempt to stay informed while minimizing the potential for deception from the other party. It may be to one's benefit to initiate the direction of the negotiations by providing a shift in frame, presenting an unexpected, non-threatening concern aimed at showing a potential loss, influencing the negotiations to re-framing the other party's initial perception (Hoch, Kunreuther &Gunther, 2001).
Asking direct questions will also aid in limiting the potential for deception from the other party. In this sense, you would be directing the course of negotiations by gathering the required information to help ensure that there is no disinformation, or lacking of necessary information to making a well-informed decision. During this period, time is spent directing the negotiations with a significantly less probability of experiencing a lie (Hoch et al., 2001).
Another, tool to utilize during negotiations is listening carefully. Hoch et al. (2001), states that you should "be sure that the person providing information is in a position to know that information"...as well as "listening to both what is and what is not said" (p. 197). Listening to what is not said may even be more valuable in the course of disclosure than what is said. What the other party may be honestly disclosing may very well be a ploy against what is not being disclosed, giving off the appearance of honest negotiations.
Hoch et al. (2001), states that "non-verbal cues are more revealing than verbal cues" (p. 197). However, it is not as easy to understand non-verbal cues to detect deception, as it would be if one was providing false information. If you know what to look for, the tell-tale signs can provide some insight into the other party's intention. Some indicators would include an increased rate in breathing, sweating, pupil dilation, fidgeting, and blinking a lot (Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. S., SKinner, L. & Frank, M., 2011). On the other hand, some of these indicators may be a norm for some people, so it would be important to assess what their baseline norm would be prior to going into negotiations; perhaps utilizing a third party's experience of them.
One of the most valuable tools to have, I believe, going into negotiations is a recorder; someone that could take quick, legible, detailed notes of claims made for an end-of-meeting review, as well as post-negotiation recap and resource during contract development, or on-going negotiations. Writing down the important claims from the negotiation process, inspecting records, and insisting on guarantees, go a long way in saving valuable time and potentially, a lot of money (Hoch et al., 2001).
Not so long ago, I was in negotiations with a property care business owner. I had invited him over to walk my property with me and discuss my desires and their associated costs. In conjunction, I informed him that agreed work to be done, was to be done well and on-time (except under extenuating circumstances). He informed me he had a robust, experienced work crew that he would convey my wishes to, and he could rely on. However, over the past year, the work completed on my property was either delayed, or not conducted. Needless to say, I was misled to believe his crew's performance would be outstanding. Their performance was far below par.
In the case where I had overstated a claim, a heated discussion during a multi-platform Video Teleconference led me to consider quelling an argument since the argument had become one of circular blame with respect to why something was not done. In turn, I had offered to complete the task immediately. While this claim quelled the discussion so we could move on to a more productive session, I had not, in-fact, done anything immediately.
In my job, I can easily find myself in another country on the African continent where stating the reasons why I am there to Check-Point, Airport, police and country team officials would very likely be much less than the actual truth. In these situations, I would push my stance until forced by U.S. Embassy personnel, if required. However, in strictly negotiating environments, I would hold my ground and leverage my position until either gains were threatened with loss, or a relationship worth keeping was threatened.
Reference:
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C. & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
John, L. K. (2016, August). Negotiations: How to negotiate with a liar. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/07/how-to-negotiate-with-a-liar
Matsumoto, D., Hwang, H. S., SKinner, L. & Frank, M. (2011, June). Evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception. Retrieved from https://leb.fbi.gov/2011/june/evaluating-truthfulness-and-detecting-deception
No comments:
Post a Comment