copyright inﬂuence mastery inc. 1...adaptable is necessary but if you don’t follow your plan and...

DISCLAIMER AND TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT

The author and publisher have used their best efforts in preparing this report. The author and publisher make no representation or warranties with respect to the accuracy, applicability, fitness, or completeness of the contents of this report. The information contained in this report is strictly for educational purposes. Therefore, if you wish to apply ideas contained in this report, you are taking full responsibility for your actions.

EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT THIS PRODUCT AND IT'S POTENTIAL. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL IMPROVE IN ANY WAY USING THE TECHNIQUES AND IDEAS IN THESE MATERIALS. EXAMPLES IN THESE MATERIALS ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS A PROMISE OR GUARANTEE OF ANYTHING. SELF-HELP AND IMPROVEMENT POTENTIAL IS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON THE PERSON USING OUR PRODUCT, IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES.

YOUR LEVEL OF IMPROVEMENT IN ATTAINING THE RESULTS CLAIMED IN OUR MATERIALS DEPENDS ON THE TIME YOU DEVOTE TO THE PROGRAM, IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES MENTIONED, KNOWLEDGE AND VARIOUS SKILLS. SINCE THESE FACTORS DIFFER ACCORDING TO INDIVIDUALS, WE CANNOT GUARANTEE YOUR SUCCESS OR IMPROVEMENT LEVEL. NOR ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF YOUR ACTIONS.

MANY FACTORS WILL BE IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING YOUR ACTUAL RESULTS AND NO GUARANTEES ARE MADE THAT YOU WILL ACHIEVE RESULTS SIMILAR TO OURS OR ANYBODY ELSE'S, IN FACT NO GUARANTEES ARE MADE THAT YOU WILL ACHIEVE ANY RESULTS FROM OUR IDEAS AND TECHNIQUES IN OUR MATERIAL.

The author and publisher disclaim any warranties (express or implied), merchantability, or fitness for any particular purpose. The author and publisher shall in no event be held liable to any party for any direct, indirect, punitive, special, incidental or other consequential damages arising directly or indirectly from any use of this material, which is provided “as is”, and without warranties.


................................Part 1: Sharpening the Blades 5..Building the 4 Habits of the Maverick Negotiator 7

..........................................Advanced Goal-Setting 24...............................Part 2: The Gold Rush Begins 36.............................Taking Advantage of Standards 39

.............................................The Intentional Error 51........................................Trapping by Assumption 57

....................................Intensifying the Advantage 61

....................................Part 3: Advanced Gambits 72.....................What to Do with Secret Information 72

...................................The Power of Commitment 78.....................................................Historic Gambit 86

.................................................Don’t Be So Smart 93............................................Control the Contract 104

.............................Avoid Auto-Signing Anything 111.............................................Absurd Money Talk 119

................In the Beginning, There Was the Word 129................................................Aim for the Issues 134

...................................................Historic Gambit 144..........................Lessons on Maverick Mediation 148

...............................Part 4: Complex Maneuvers 191...................................................Historic Gambit 191


..........................................Conflict & Resolution 197...................................................Historic Gambit 216

...........................................Why Pressure Works 225......................................Using the Time Element 227

...................................................Historic Gambit 237...........................................................Conclusion 238


Part 1: Sharpening the Blades

I n Vo l u m e O n e o f M a v e r i c k Negotiation I introduced you to the simple yet effective negotiation techniques that Maverick Negotiators can use any time to improve their position in any social interaction where something is at stake. Now that we are finally in Volume 2, it’s time to roll up your sleeves because we are going deep into more advanced negotiation strategies that will ensure success even in the most difficult of situations.

Again, I make no specific guarantees with these strategies because this is not how negotiation works. Maverick Negotiation is not about assuring


everyone that they would be fine during negotiations.

Maverick Negotiation is about building this completely new “you” that you can continue polishing and improving as you continue chal lenging your boundaries during negotiations. The beautiful thing about negotiations is that you can always change your approach depending on what you know about the other party and what is happening at the present time.

So there can never be a fixed pattern or formula when you are negotiating. Negotiations must always be seen as dynamic interactions that require constant change and adaptation. Human


communication may be studied based on common patterns but as for the outcome of communication, you will have to work for that yourself. The good news is that there are plenty of things you can do to ensure that you will get the best possible results during a negotiation and that is what we are going to explore in the second installation of Maverick Negotiation.

Building the 4 Habits of the Maverick Negotiator

It should come as no surprise that Maverick Negotiators should have four d i s t inc t hab i t s tha t should be progressively built up from the moment


that you decide that negotiation is more than just shooting in the dark, wishing for a good result to manifest.

These four habits are important because they constantly keep the Maverick Negotiator on his toes and prevent him from becoming too comfortable and complacent with what he already knows. Establishing these habits will also help you become a better negotiator because many of the strategies in the first volume and in this volume require these habits.

Let’s get started! The first important habit that I would like you to develop is to be always prepared prior to a negotiation. The reality during


negotiations is that you can never be instantly successful just because you are familiar with negotiation strategies. You need to give yourself time to prepare for the ‘what ifs’ that a negotiation can create.

Countless case studies have shown that people who were given sufficient time to prepare for negotiations produced consistently better results (about 95% of the time) than people who were not given time to prepare or were forced to use a rigid preparation process that was designed by someone else.

This is another caveat that I would like to give you: do not fall into the trap of


using just one or two strategies when preparing for an upcoming negotiation.

Be imaginative and think of how you can maximize your benefit on the negotiation table by using a variety of different strategies. Of course, it would be much better if you actually knew a thing or two about the other party during your preparation.

If you don’t know who you will be negotiating with, it pays to know something about the organization, business or company that will be represented by the other negotiator. Discovering precious nuggets of information about the other party will


give you an edge as you design your offers and counter-offers.

Information that should be able to help you include: corporate culture, pervasive values within the company or organization, recent acquisitions, changes in administration, acquisition techniques, etc. Of course, the type of information that would be helpful to you depends on what the negotiation will be about.

For example, if you are a supplier and you would like to get the highest possible profit in the upcoming contract, you have to know how much the other party is paying for the same


commodities so you can create a good offer.

The next habit that I would like you to develop is creating high expectations. A person’s expectations are a reflection of his own mindset and desires regarding the upcoming negotiation. These are two very important factors because they dictate how you will be handling the negotiation yourself. If your expectations are low then it’s possible that your outcomes will also be poor.

Studies show that people who have a higher expectation often get the best


results in any situation. If you are naturally optimistic and you have no trouble at all having great expectations before and during negotiations, this habit won’t be much of a problem. However, if you are pessimistic and you expect the absolute worst during social interactions then that is probably what you are going to get.

Creating high expectations doesn’t necessarily mean that you will depend on blind optimism. Expectations still have to be situated upon logical premises.

You can establish logical premises for your expectations by creating a logical plan of action and by committing


yourself to this plan of action. Being adaptable is necessary but if you don’t follow your plan and if you ‘wing it’ during the negotiation just because you feel like it, you won’t get the outcomes that you want, period.

The third habit that you should develop as a Maverick Negotiator is active listening. Active listening is defined as be ing comple te ly mindfu l and conscious of what the speaker is trying to say to you as opposed to just hearing the words during a conversation.

Nine times out of ten, people just ‘hear’ what the other person is saying and this can lead to increased communication distortion. When too


much distortion occurs, you can bet your last two cents that the negotiation will become awry.

This is the reason why it is so important for people to practice active listening because when the other party speaks he is not just setting the stage for an ‘attack’ on your camp. Believe it or not, the other party is actually feeding you vital insight about how he thinks and how he operates as a negotiation because you can actually take apart what the other negotiator is saying to determine what technique he is using.

Here are some fast tips to improve your active listening skills:


1. Focus on the speaker and the three channels of communica t ion . Hearing someone say something doesn’t mean you are listening. It just means that your ears are working fine. Active listening r e q u i r e s f o c u s i n g a n d a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e v a r i o u s expressions and signals that are coming from the other person.

You have to pay attention to all three channels of communication – verbal, nonverbal and vocal. When a person speaks to you, he is communicating not only through his words but also through his tone of


voice and his body language or nonverbal expressions.

You must learn how to associate the three channels of human expression to determine what the speaker is really trying to say as opposed to just hearing what he is verbally expressing. There is a big difference between the two!

2. Feedback is extremely important if you want to keep an interaction going smoothly. You can provide adequate feedback without saying anything! Remember – more than 50% of human communication is exp re s sed nonve rba l ly. Use nonverbal signals to strategically


communicate with the other negotiator. Arm gestures, hand gestures, facial expressions and your posture can provide powerful signals at the right times during a negotiation.

3. Learn to agree without really agreeing to anything. Many negotiators feel that agreement is a dangerous thing on the negotiation table because agreeing to something might make it appear that you are the weaker man. Well, let me let you in on a little secret: not agreeing with the other party at all times can also make your life as a negotiator purgatorial.


Why? Humans are hardwired to resist those who openly show hostility or any form of resistance. That is how we evolved and that is our internal design, period.

Unless you try to unlearn this tendency and replace it with something else, it is probably your tendency as well. We can take a page off Chinese negotiators at this point in time – learn to say yes without really agreeing to any specific point or issue. A lot of business people become confused when they meet fellow businessmen in the PRC (People’s Republic of China).


Why? Because the Chinese tend to say “yes” without really agreeing to anything. When the Chinese say “yes”, it might mean “yes, I heard you”, “yes, you said that” or “yes, you are discussing this issue”. Unless a Chinese negotiator says “the company agrees to give you X amount for X services/products”, the negotiator is not really agreeing to any offer…. Yet.

I think this is a brilliant way to handle negotiations. You can easily cut down resistance by saying things like “yes, go ahead I am listening” or “yes, go ahead, you just said that you wanted a bigger fee for this contract”. In the end,


you are just nudging the other party to keep moving forward without openly resisting what he is saying.

4. Express sincerity and genuineness when interacting with the speaker. Humans are governed by the principle of reciprocity. This simply means that we give as much as we receive. We feel compelled to r e c i p r o c a t e k i n d n e s s a n d genuineness the same way that we feel compelled to exact revenge on people who have caused us harm or hurt. This principle of active listening applies even on the negotiation table. Even if you don’t like the other negotiator, defer your personal judgment and be sincere


when listening to what the other person has to say. If the other negotiator feels that you are being ‘real’ as you listen, the chances of getting better concessions improves as time goes by.

5. Respect goes a long way on the negotiation table. This applies even if you have to use really sneaky or almost underhanded strategies to get the other person to agree to what you want. If you cannot respect the other person as a negotiator or equal, at least respect him as a human being. Avoid name-calling or insulting anything that is associated with the person. If you have to, aim your temper at the offer, not the


person. Don’t make the negotiation a personal thing because once your emotions get out of hand, you will lose the negotiation, trust me.

The fourth and final habit that I would like you to develop as a Maverick Negotiator is personal integrity. Integrity is defined as “a firm adherence to a code of values”. I am not in the position to tell you what’s right or wrong but I am pretty sure that you already have a good standard when it comes to that.


I’m just here to remind you that the set of values that you already know should always be at the forefront when you are negotiating with others. Don’t make promises that you can’t keep and as much as possible, make it a win-win situation (even if you do have a slightly better benefit as the other party). Personal integrity builds characters and naturally makes people want to trust you. It’s that simple.

Advanced Goal-Setting

We have briefly touched upon the importance of goals in the previous volume of Maverick Negotiation and I am also certain that many of you are familiar with the rules of setting


reasonable goals for oneself. While it is true that many of you already know how to set goals, it is still essential for us to be able to contextualize goal-setting for negotiations.

There are some new rules that you must learn when setting goals and creating the right expectations. We will be discussing these new rules at length in this section of the book.

Instead of expanding the new rules of goal-setting, I have opted to create a list of guidelines that you can apply immediately if you are in the process of creating negotiation-related goals yourself. Time is of the essence and the


sooner you learn these guidelines, the better.

I. A true Maverick negotiator must have both broad and specific goals. These goals must be centered on reasonable outcomes that are delimited by the actual circumstances surrounding a negotiation. By grounding your goals firmly in what is realistic and justifiable, you are also ensuring your success on the negotiation table because you will be able to easily handle the various gambits that the other party will use on you to gain an advantage.


Once you are able to create broad and specific goals, the next logical s t e p w o u l d b e t o c r e a t e expectations. Your intelligent goal-setting will be the basis of your high expectations. Goals are created using information and strategies. You cannot have a real g o a l i f y o u d o n o t h a v e information and you certainly cannot call something a goal if you do not have a plan of action that is necessarily backed up by a specific strategy. Each layer of goal-setting must be grounded on facts, not fiction. If you start your goa l - se t t ing on unrea l i s t i c premises, everything that follows shall be unrealistic as well. There


is no escaping this unfortunate fact and the earlier you become aware of this tendency for things to spin into the realm of the unjustifiable and unrealistic, the better off you will be on the negotiation table.

What makes an expectation different from a wish or a fantasy? Simple – expectations are actually value-judgments that revolve around what can happen and what should happen given the current circumstances and what you are about to carry out. Expectations can be used a yardstick of the outcomes of a negotiation. If your current outcomes are less than satisfactory, you would have


insight as to how you can improve your outcomes later on.

II. Once you have established your g o a l s a n d c r e a t e d h i g h expectations for the negotiation, use these two as your standards during the actual negotiation. No matter what happens and no matter how hard the actual negotiation is, don’t let go of your goals and expectations. Why? The human brain was designed to manifest your own values, goals and expectations. If you set really poor goals and you have negative expectations that would be your brain’s mission – to ensure that you will get the worst deal on the


negotiation table. But if you choose to have reasonable goals and high expectations your brain will automatically shift into high gear to make these a reality. There is no magic involved when the brain switches to high gear. It is simply how it works. Always make a commitment to stick to your goals expectations. Your goals and expectations act like a compass, guiding you to the right direction, steering you away from potentially harmful situations.

III.Every negotiator is aware that there must be a bottom line to protect one’s interests during an actual negotiation. However, I must warn


everyone that there is a general t e n d e n c y f o r 9 0 % o f a l l negotiators to dwell on this particular point because quite honestly, no one is willing to go below the bottom line.

However, if you want to become a real Maverick Negotiator, your focus should be on the higher limit of what can be achieved on the negotiation table and not on the bottom line. Because if you continue to dwell on the bottom line, you will be setting yourself up to receive only the bare minimum and that is not the point of Maverick Negotiation.


The primary goal of Maverick Negotiation is to get the maximum benefit whenever you set out to talk to someone. The bottom line is necessary but it is not your main goal, remember that. Keep it in mind but at the same time, remind yourself over and over that your goal is not to get the minimum but the maximum!

Being ambitious is one of the key traits of Maverick Negotiators. In fact, no true negotiator will be caught dead on the negotiation table without high hopes that he will be able to produce the highest return for his efforts.


IV.A person’s life can definitely be d r a w n i n b r o a d s t r o k e s … However, the same cannot be said for a Maverick Negotiator’s plan of action. You cannot be fully p r e p a r e d f o r a n y k i n d o f negotiation if you do not have a specific plan of action. Don’t run into a war with only a vague plan like “stay alive”. Be specific with what you actually want to happen during the negotiation. The more specific you are with what you want to happen, the clearer your strategies will be. For example, let us say that you represented a company that imported car parts for local car repair shops. If you don’t have a specific figure or


profit in mind, you will probably end up settling for your bottom line because it suits both parties. But if you have a specific target l ike $150,000 for this one contract, your mind will work hard to make this target a reality.

V. Many negotiators feel that they would be better off alone. And most of the time, the negotiators who think this way are often wrong. Why? Because two heads are always better than one especially if you can talk to someone who has had experience with similar negotiations in the p a s t . A f t e r y o u a r e d o n e identifying your goals and


expectations, do not forget to write them down and do find someone knowledgeable to discuss them with. Unless you are talking to a spy from the other party, it is safe to say that any type of perspective would be useful because you never know what others might be thinking of the strategies that you have cooked up yourself. You don’t have to follow everyone’s advice but it pays to know what others think. If other people think that your strategy might not work, don’t be defensive and don’t get angry with those who disagree with you. Instead, try to identify the parts of your plan that other people think will not work. Who


knows? There might be hidden flaws in your master plan that you haven’t spotted because you were too engrossed in creating them in the first place.

Part 2: The Gold Rush Begins


Whenever I have to participate in a negotiation I always feel like I will be joining a gold rush – because I know that there will be great rewards for me at the end. But make no mistake – there will be no gold for anyone if there is no hard work involved. So if you think that great outcomes emerge just because you want them to emerge, think again.

If negotiations were that easy, there would be no need to write books like Maverick Negotiation. Negotiations are generally difficult because there is always something at stake. When two or more people want more or less the same thing, expect social interaction to become doubly difficult.


But don’t worry – because no matter how tough things get, there will always be a way to lighten the load on your shoulders. That’s why you are training to become a true Maverick Negotiator. We want you to become a part of an elite group of master negotiators who are fully aware of how any negotiation can be won even in the toughest of situations.

This book is all about winning those tough battles. But in order to win these tough battles, you have to be willing to leave your comfort zone or at least, expand it to accommodate the realities of battling it out with other negotiators.


Taking Advantage of Standards

What will you do if you are being opposed by a person or a group of people who have more authority than you? What if you represent a minority within your organization? What can you do to ensure your success?

The most common response I get to these questions is: I wouldn’t want to be that negotiator’s shoes – that’s for sure! This common response shows just how little people know about how a negotiator can take advantage of


standards and ideals within an organization. Standards are established by people in power, by people with authority. When a person or group with authority decides to establish a standard, that person or group is automatically required to be consistent with those standards. The consistency p r i n c i p l e c o m e s i n t o e f f e c t immediately. Any authority figure that is not consistent with his standards is automatically seen as suspicious and the level of trust also slides down immediately.

In order for an authority figure to maintain his image as a reasonable bearer of power, he must stay true to his own standards.


This pressure to be committed to one’s own standards opens a window of opportunity for Maverick Negotiators. Standards set forth by authority should not be seen as problems but instead, a means for a Maverick Negotiator to gain the upper hand.

A majority of negotiators think that standards only benefit those who have a n o b v i o u s a d v a n t a g e i n a n organization (e.g. managers, project leaders, etc.) This is actually not true. Anyone can benefit from using standards as a launch point for


p e r s u a s i v e a r g u m e n t d u r i n g negotiations.

If you are still confused, here’s an example to i l lustrate how any negotiator can make use of standards to improve his chances of gaining leverage on the negotiation table. Let us say that you represented a group of employees in your organization who wanted better wages and better office conditions.

The administration is known for listening more closely to employees with seniority and unfortunately, the group of employees that you represent is composed of mostly newly hired people and juniors in the organization.


It is your word against the demands of employees who have been in the organization for many years. How can you even the playing field?

The fastest way to even out the playing field is by making use of the standards of the management. Let us say that in the previous months, the big bosses have sent out memos regarding productivity and efficient budget management.

Your department is made up really hardworking people who generally do not demand budget increases but are really in need of a budget increase now because things have gotten so bad and people simply won’t be able to function


well in the office anymore because you n e e d m o r e e q u i p m e n t , b e t t e r computers, etc.

You can use the memos or the standards that the administration has circulated to your advantage. You can conduct research as to how your department has held it together for years even with a small budget.

You can correlate your department’s productivity with its allocated budget. You can tell the administration that the better your department’s budget, the more productive the employees will be. You can be as creative as you can with your arguments as long as you are able


to firmly ground your arguments with the standards of the higher authority.

By citing these standards and using them as a basis of your prior research and arguments, you will be to create pressure on the authority figure to see things your way. Once you are able to put pressure on the higher authority everything else will be much easier. There is no guarantee that the authority figure will yield to your demands but at the same time, you will be able to improve your chances of gaining a better position within the negotiation.

Another reason why authority figures tend to feel pressure when their own standards are used as a reference during


a negotiation is that they want to appear reasonable and rational. Nobody wants to appear irrational especially when it comes to personal/organizational standards. In a nutshell, no sane person would want to appear as if he doesn’t live up to his own promises and principles.

Now, while it is important for Maverick Negotiators to use the consistency principle especially when dealing with equally powerful negotiators and authority figures, it is equally important for you to realize that other negotiators may already be aware of this technique as well. If you feel that the negotiator from the other party is using the same technique on you, be careful with what


you agree with because generally speaking, all negotiators say things that will make you say “yes”.

For example, if you were negotiating a good price for your products, the other negotiator might say that it is only reasonable for them to accept a price that is competitive, based on the average price of other providers on the market. If you weren’t aware of the consistency principle, you will easily fall into the trap of agreeing with the other negotiator because the statement sounds reasonable enough.

However, since the other negotiator has been able to get your agreement regarding a baseline on prices, he might


use this later on to his advantage. When you make your very first offer and your offer is at the higher range, the other negotiator will automatically tell you that your offer cannot be accepted because you said yourself that only offers that reflect the average pricing of the competition can be accepted. You can try to counter this but the other negotiator already has the upper hand via the consistency principle. You will have to work double time to create the perfect environment for a more compelling argument for your offer. Otherwise, you will be forced to agree with your fellow negotiator because you did say yes beforehand.


How can you protect yourself from negotiators who frequently use this technique? Here’s what you can do: when you feel that the other negotiator is trying to get you to say yes, pace and lead the other person. Gradually pace the other negotiator and try to get him to agree with you instead.

Once you are able to successfully pace the other negotiator, you can lead him to the direction that you want. It is important that you keep agreeing with the other negotiator even without really agree ing wi th spec i f ic i s sues . Resistance begets resistance the same way that agreement produces more agreement.


You can agree without really agreeing to anything by agreeing to a particular aspect of the interaction. For example, if the other negotiator says “I think you should reduce your price by 50%”, you can reply with “I agree that you said that and may I add that the price I am offering is well within reasonable bounds given the fact that we will be giving you excellent after-sales service”.

You won’t be able to gain compliance from the other negotiator if you resist everything he says. Even if your offer is good, the other negotiator will not feel comfortable agreeing with what you want to say because you have


s h o w n n o t h i n g b u t r e s i s t a n c e throughout the negotiation.

The Intentional Error

The next strategy that I am going to share with you is actually used by unethical negotiators to force people into giving concessions at the very last minute. I don’t want you to try this strategy for the simple reason that it is unethical and is not usually worth the trouble it can bring you down the road. I am going to discuss this strategy with you because other negotiators might try using it on you when you are negotiating.


The Intentional Error is unethical because it requires offering false information to the other party to get them to agree with your offer. In the p rev ious vo lume o f Mave r i ck Negotiation we talked about how you can use different kinds of factual information to your advantage.

This not the same as offering false information, as is the case when you use the Intentional Error. Here’s an example to show you how unethical individuals use the Intentional Error to get what they want. Let’s say that someone on Craigslist was selling his laptop computer. He lists down the specs of the laptop on Craigslist and


offers a really good price for the second-hand laptop.

A guy from across the city becomes interested in the laptop because he really wants a faster computer. The two meet and when the purchase is about to take place, the online seller takes out a piece of paper and informs the buyer that he had forgotten to take into account some recent modifications that he had done on the laptop.

Because of these new modifications (which may involve replacing parts), the price of the laptop computer increases by $300. So if the seller was originally asking for $700 for the used laptop, the price goes up $300 instantly.


The buyer is forced to buy the laptop for $1,000 because it seems unethical not to pay the extra amount given the amount of money that the seller had spent modifying the laptop.

Whether the modification was genuine or not is not really the problem in this situation. The seller had intentionally given false information and he trapped the buyer into giving more money than what was originally agreed upon.

If another negotiator tries to use this technique on you, your best defense would be to ask the other party regarding the false information. For example, if someone was trying to raise the price of something that you were


buying just because a detail was omitted, simply ask “do you expect me to pay for the _________________ too?” By opening the negotiation in this manner, you will be able to show the other party that you are aware of what he is trying to do and you will not fall for it.

Some unethical negotiators also try to trap people into indirectly agreeing with a prior proposition by asking something that necessarily requires a yes. For example, a real estate agent might say “you didn’t think that the owners will also be including the big LED TV in the living room do you?”. Any home buyer will say that they would want the LED TV because that


would be tantamount to getting something for free.

So the home buyer would say “we certainly hope that the home seller would include that nice TV”. At that point in time, the real estate agent’s response would be irrelevant because the home buyer has already agreed with the fact that they are buying that property through the services of the agent. The agent might deepen his hold by saying that he will do his best to get the LED TV as a freebie for buying the property… And the home buyer is left wondering why he didn’t say that he was scheduled to see three other properties that day.


Trapping by Assumption

Another unethical technique that some people use is the trap by assumption. How does this unethical strategy work and how can you protect yourself from it?

This strategy is usually used on people who are often too busy to take action themselves. For example, a company


manager who might be too busy to meet with the representative of a supplier company might become a victim of a trap by assumption by ignoring repeated requests for a meeting.

The other party might take advantage of the situation by giving an ultimatum like “If no specific instructions are given in the next three days we will be shipping premium-grade office papers in the effort to introduce our new line of products to the local market”.

Let’s assume for now that all the supplier has to do is to deliver a specific quantity of office paper to the other party and there has been no prior


agreement as to what brand they have to deliver. Unless the manager is able to fight his laziness and finally meet the representative, he just might agree with the premium-grade office papers and the company that he works for will also end up paying more for the acquisition.

The manager defaults because he is given some time to respond and take action. To some of you, this might not sound like a bad technique at all because the other party is given enough time to respond. But in the grand scheme of things, this strategy is considered an unethical move because you will end up doing something without the direct consent or agreement of the other party.


What should you do if someone does this to you? First of all, avoid this trap by responding and taking action promptly – always. If you can’t take action, it would be best to delegate the task to someone who can handle the situation well so you won’t default. In the event that you were not able to take action and the other party gains the upper hand, demand that you be given better treatment next time. For example, if you were levied an extra fee because you were la te in responding, cite your long-standing relationship with the other party and ask that the fee be reversed to preserve the good relationship you have with the other party.


Intensifying the Advantage

Yet another unethical technique that you should be aware of is escalation or intensifying one’s advantage after the other party has become too involved (emotionally or otherwise) with what is at stake.

Take note however, that this technique will only work if the other party has already agreed with what has been offered in the first place. If the other party doesn’t even want to discuss the idea of accepting what the first party is offering, escalation will not work – plain and simple.


I find this technique unethical because it preys upon another person’s emotions and also sets up the other party for s o m e s o r t o f f a i l u r e o r e v e n embarrassment/humiliation if they refuse what you are asking. Here is a good example so you would understand why escalation is one of the ‘beyond the pale’ techniques that I do not formally endorse because they deviate from two of the most essential principles of Maverick Negotiation – pe r sona l in teg r i ty and e th ica l negotiations.

Here’s the example: imagine that a big company was buying a big restaurant chain because this company wanted a foothold in the fast food industry. The


two parties agreed on two million dollars and the date was set for the signing of the acquisition.

A day before the big event, the owner of the restaurant chain decides that he wants another $300,000 before the acquisition takes place. He approaches the other party and tells them that he needs an addition $300,000 and if he doesn’t get his price, he walks away from the signing.

The next day, the owner of the restaurant chain receives a confirmation that his additional $300,000 has been approved. What happened in this situation?


Well, it’s clear that the bigger company had wanted to close the deal so badly that they were willing to pay more just to get the owner to sign. At that point in time, the negotiators for the big company were too emotionally invested in what was happening to let the whole thing crumble to dust. So instead of risking that big a catastrophe, they cave in and give the other party what they want.

While this strategy might seem like a deviously effective idea, let me tell you why you shouldn’t try it:

1. It is unethical because it is based on s o m e l e v e l o f d e c e i t a n d unnecessary duress.


2.Based on the laws of the universe, you will get your comeuppance if you try to pull this one even if the other party has been completely fair with you since the beginning of the negotiation.

3.Your future relationship with the other party will become strained because you used untimely pressure to get what you want.

4.No one likes to be made a fool… And this strategy does exactly that.

In order to protect your position even before the other party uses a technique


like this, you have to establish some boundaries early on.

For example, if you feel like the other party will try to trap you at the very last minute because you really need what is at stake, you can say something like “for the sake of clarity, I would like to reiterate that if something changes after we have agreed upon a final price, the contrac t wi l l be automat ica l ly terminated”.

By sending a direct warning to the other party, you will be able to protect your negotiation position from this kind of unethical gambit. The other party might end up trying even with this warning, so be prepared to terminate


the agreement the moment the other party tries to pull this gambit on you at the last minute. You gain nothing from the transaction but at least you won’t become a victim of unfair escalation.

Pride is often the number one reason why people for this type of unethical move. Let us be realistic – no one wants to swallow their pride. However, swallowing your pride and just letting go of the social transaction is the only way that you will be able to prevent the negotiation from collapsing from under your feet.

If the goal of a negotiation is to get the maximum benefit and a win-win situation for both parties then falling


for this unethical move can be considered a win-lose situation and a complete breakdown of the negotiation process.

Some of you might be wondering: should you always walk away from a deal if the other party is acting like an extortionist? By principle, yes. But there are some exceptions.

Some deals can provide double or triple the benefit and if the added concession has no impact whatsoever on your ability to gain leverage and gain future benefit, then I will cautiously say that you can consider giving in.


However, only 10% of all negotiations can be this advantageous so I invite everyone to be extra careful and analytical. What’s in it for you? Because obviously, the other party will be gaining an instant advantage once you agree with the escalation.

Here are some additional strategies to protect yourself from this type of unethical gambit:

1.Tell the other party that you are not in the position to agree to such terms because of a higher power. Invent some committee that needs to approve it first and then walk away from the negotiation table. If the other party pulls back their


demand, that’s good – the deal will proceed as planned.

If the other party demands to talk to the higher power, tell them that you will drop a good word for them and nothing more. Since the other party is using an unethical move, you can be cold as ice just to protect all the hard work that you have put into the negotiation.

2.Tell the other party that there is a possibility that you will accept the additional demands. However, you will have demands of you own. For example, if you were selling computer parts to a store and at the last minute, the store demanded


10% more parts than usual, you can tell them that the additional 10% volume is fine as long as they sign a five year contract with your distributorship.


Part 3: Advanced Gambits

What to Do with Secret Information

Secret information can either make or break a negotiation. Why? Because people tend to value any kind of information that was passed on to them secretly by others. Information that is given openly has value but if a piece of information was obtained secretly and


appears to have more value than information that is out in the open, a negotiator can become extremely vulnerable to control tactics.

Here’s an example: let us say that you were trying to convince a client of your company that your services are much better because you are the best in the field and you have the best employees that were rigorously selected from hundreds of applicants. In the middle of the meeting, someone calls your client and you are left to review your notes while he talks on his phone.

You can’t help but listen in on what your client is saying. You hear things like “they offered how much?”,


“wow!”, “we will save almost 25% with that kind of offer”. After the call, the client tells you to continue as if nothing happened at all.

Deep down, you are already feeling the pressure. Figures roll in your mind. 25% savings? How much is the compet i t ion offer ing? You are e m o t i o n a l l y a f f e c t e d b y t h e conversation even if you don’t really know what the other person was talking about. Based on the context and the events preceding the call, the brain makes connections and assumptions that a person cannot readily ignore.


At this point in time, any negotiator would feel as if he is already at a disadvantage because someone else is offering a better deal. Whether this information is true or not does not matter at the present time because the negotiation is taking place now and the secret information was also passed along at the exact same time.

My advice when it comes to secret information is very simple: be cautious. Trust secret information only if it was passed on to you by someone from your own camp. If you learn the information from the other camp, there is at least a 50% chance that it was strategically planted there by the other negotiator for you to discover. And you


know what this means – the other party wants to manipulate you to gain the upper hand.

If we think about it logically, why would the other party allow you to even hear or glance at any kind of information that would benefit them? It doesn’t make any sense. Unless you are dealing with a manic negotiator who is known for being unstable when dealing with others, the only logical reason why you learned something from the other camp is because they wanted you to learn it in the first place!

Never trust any kind of information that has not been substantiated. Sure, sometimes people don’t have time to


substantiate real information. But on the negotiation table we would have to assume that the other camp is only watching out for their own and not you. So unless the secret information was passed on to you by a fellow negotiation from your own party or from a higher authority, don’t trust it.

Keep the information in mind but don’t make it a focal point when making an offer or when you are adjusting a prev ious offe r. Use your own information and your own resources when making decisions and making any concessions.


If the other party asks for concessions that seem to be paralleled after the secret information that confirms that the information was merely planted. Whether the information as true or not, again, is irrelevant because it was put there in the first place so that you would discover it.

The Power of Commitment

Committing to something on the negotiation table is probably the last thing on any negotiator ’s mind especially if something really important (or really valuable) is at stake. And that is why you should do everything in your power to get the other side to commit first before you make your first


move. By allowing the other party to commit first, you gain two undeniable benefits. The first benefit is that you might be able to get a really good opening position just by listening to what the other camp has to offer. Who knows?

Some negotiators want to create a good impression so if they make the opening offer, the first offer just might be good enough to accept (though this rarely happens). Another benefit is you would be able to pace the negotiator in terms of what offer is acceptable and what is not based on the opening offer. For example, if you want to buy a grand piano for $800 and the seller is offering $1,000 for it you can adjust your


counter-offer based on the actual offer from the other party. And this is leads us to the third benefit: you gain access to the mind-set of the other party.

Negotiation becomes that much easier when you know exactly what the other p a r t y i s t h i n k i n g . I n s t e a d o f volunteering to show what’s on your mind it would be much better if you found out what the other party thinks is a good deal. Think about it – you can adjust your offers based on the opening offer of the other party.

However, I must warn you also that many negotiators make outrageous opening offers just to get a reaction from the other party. If you think the


first offer is just “reaction bait”, keep your emotions in check and don’t express any kind of emotion. Just keep listening to the other party. That way, you will not be giving anything away and you still gain full leverage even if you did get a really outrageous opening offer.

Many novice negotiators think that allowing the other party to make the first move is negotiation suicide. Why? Because they don’t know how to handle outrageous offers. The biggest fear of any novice negotiator is to get an offer so outrageous that they are unable to comprehend how they are going to get what they want on the negotiation table.


Now, let us say that in one situation, another negotiator becomes greedy and asks for too much money when he formally opens the negotiation. Your budget is $20,000 and he asks for $50,000. What should you do? Here are some quick fixes for this situation:

1.Tell the negotiator that you don’t have that kind of money. It doesn’t make sense to lead the other negotiator into believing that you have that kind of cash to spend.

So if you really can’t afford $50,000 to begin with, it would be best to plainly state that you don’t have that kind of money and ask the


negotiator to be more reasonable with his asking price because of certain circumstances that work against the opening offer.

For example, if you were trying to buy a dozen dirt bikes from the other party, you can state that the dirt bikes have never been looked at by an expert mechanic and who knows what defects they might have – but you are still willing to take them for $15,000 (your target is $20,000, but you never start with your limit or you wouldn’t have breathing room).

2. If the first fix did not work, use the higher authority gambit instead. Tell


the other negotiator that it is not up to you to make a decision but you were given instructions by a higher authority.

Be an agent – not the decision-maker. The pressure to make a decision on the spot will dissipate and the other negotiator will definitely exert more effort to befriend you because you will be the one approaching the higher authority for the other party.

Again, don’t make yourself an easy target. If you say out loud that you are the one responsible for making all the decisions that automatically makes you the higher power. And


you know what negotiators do when faced with higher power/higher authority – they pound away until they get a favorable outcome.

3. If the higher authority gambit still doesn’t work, it’s time to bring out a more aggressive tactic: competition. Whether there is competition or not doesn’t really matter. The important thing here is that you are able to emphasize that you can leave at any time because someone else has o f f e r e d a g o o d p r i c e . C i t e association, familiarity or any other reason to justify why you are still


talking to the other party despite being given a better offer.

Historic Gambit

Not all Historic Gambits are good… In fact, I can probably tell you a few off the bat that were historic for the wrong reasons. One of the most memorable failed Historic Gambits that I know of concerns the Beatles – the legendary band that drove millions of fans crazy across the continents. The Beatles were so popular back in the day that people were paying good money to buy their records and memorabilia.


At one point, United Artists became interested in the idea of producing a movie about the legendary group. However, they had their reservations because during that time, bands rose to fame and abruptly disappeared from circulation.

The market is fickle and there was a lot of money involved so United Artists was not willing to shell out a million dollars for the Beatles. The producer of the upcoming movie was only willing to spend three hundred thousand dollars on the production of the movie and was willing to give the Beatles twenty five percent cut of the total profits for the said film. The manager of the Beatles at


that time, Brian Epstein, was your quintessential Big Man.

This may have cause Epstein great joy knowing that he could make decisions for the legendary band all by his lonesome… But his status actually made him a weak negotiator. The producer of the movie had wanted to offer twenty five thousand dollars to the band and the twenty five percent profit cut. Epstein felt so inclined to ‘take control’ of the situation that he demanded only 7.5% of the total profits.

If Epstein had just kept quiet and allowed the movie producer to make the first offer, the Beatles would have


made much more money from this first movie from United Artists. Instead, Epstein had to act like the Big Man – he had to make the first move just to show who is really boss.

He took control alright, but he didn’t necessarily succeed in that negotiation. The Beatles, by contrast to the success of the film, lost a lot of money just because their manager was too caught up with his own ability to make decisions for the band.

The big lesson that you should always remember from this Historic Gambit is to never speak first – unless you want to deal with the consequences later. A big ego is the number one enemy of a


Maverick Negotiator – so leave your ego at the door whenever you have to negotiate with another party.

Here’s another reason why you should keep quiet even after the first offer has been made: the other party will think that their offer is no good and your fellow negotiator will probably be pressured into making a concession just to sweeten the deal.

For example, if you were interested in buying a used truck from a dealer and the dealer gives you a really good price, keeping quiet might force the dealer to make the deal even better. Let’s say your budget for the truck was $5,000 and the dealer was willing to give the


truck for $3,500, he might end up throwing a few snow tires as freebies for the transaction. One never knows what benefits the power of silence can bring to the negotiation table!

Before we end this section, let’s do a quick recap of the things we have discussed so far:

1.Never be the authority figure – be the agent and watch the other party scramble to please you because they are not talking to the decision maker but only his envoy.

2.Let the other party make the first move and just let them make the first offer.


3.Use competition, higher authority and other strategies to counter any absurd offers from the other party. Don’t let your ego or emotions get the best of you!


Don’t Be So Smart

This might come as a surprise to many of you who have been striving to b e c o m e i n t e l l i g e n t M a v e r i c k Negotiators since the beginning. But let me clarify – when I say don’t be so smart, I am actually asking you to be more intelligent than the other negotiator. Let me explain – negotiators who act as if they know everything will invariably commit fatal mistakes that will eventually cost them big time.

So instead of playing the ultra-smart negotiator who knows everything he needs to know to get what he wants, act dumb on the negotiation table. You don’t have to act idiotic to win a


negotiation – you just have to act a little foggy and confused. Here’s why:

1.People have a natural drive to be competitive. A negotiator who feels like he is up for a rough time because the other negotiator is “too smart” will do everything he can to win the negotiation, no matter what happens. Trust me, you don’t want that kind of additional pressure on you when you are on the negotiation table.

2.When a negotiator feels as if he is dealing with a ‘dumb’ or not so bright negotiator, he will actually feel sorry for the other person and


he will try to help the other party instead of being ultra-competitive.

3.Generally speaking, an ethical negotiator will not try to take advantage of someone who appears less mentally able to process the complex details involved in a negotiation. In short – the other negotiator will probably be nicer to you during the actual negotiation and he will not try to take advantage of the fact that you are somewhat dazed and confused.

Acting dumb is not equivalent to being dumb on the negotiation table. You can ‘act dumb’ by keeping quiet most of the time and allowing the other party to


just talk and talk. You can feign ignorance by asking questions and by also allowing the other party to explain away the details of his offer.

Here are some common tendencies of ‘smart’ negotiators that usually produce negative outcomes. Avoid these tendencies at all cost if you want to become a truly effective Maverick Negotiator:

1.A negotiator who knows ‘what he wants’ and therefore ignores the fact that he can easily buy himself some extra time to think. Why must a negotiator rush things if he has the luxury of time? It doesn’t make sense to rush into things because the


more you can delay the conclusion of a negotiation, the better the chances of getting more benefits and concessions from the other party.

2.A negotiator who acts like the Big Man all the way and doesn’t need to talk to anyone before making an important decision. This type of negotiator is also impulsive and listens to his ego, not logic or good strategy.

3.A negotiator who thinks he is the best expert out there and all other experts are subordinate to his experience and knowledge. This negotiator will take one look at an


offer and decide without deferring to others. Though this negotiator will follow orders from a higher authority, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he will defer to anyone before making a decision or before agreeing with the offer another party.

4.A negotiator who is so mired in pride that he doesn’t want to ask for additional benefits or concessions. He views asking for concessions as ‘begging’ and doesn’t realize that concessions are a necessary part of a good negotiation.

5.A negotiator who hates being told what to do. He is his own manager


or leader and would rather take the heat than speaking to a higher authority before making a decision. Managers and supervisors are merely hindrances to a ‘killer decision’.

6.A negotiator who is a born genius and has no use for notes and other references. All he needs is his eyes and ears and nothing else. This negotiator will also take every opportunity to avoid reviewing prior information regarding a deal. To him, information is only useful at the moment of relay. Information loses its value as time passes by.


Now that you are aware of the tendencies of a really bad but “smart” negotiator, it’s time that I shared with you what a true Maverick Negotiator would do:

1.The negotiator will ask the other party some time to think so that he could arrive at a much better decision. He is aware that abruptly a c c e p t i n g a n y t h i n g o n t h e negotiation table is foolhardy and can really endanger one’s position.

Bidding for t ime i s a lways important for the negotiator and he even informs the other party beforehand that he will not be able to give any abrupt decisions on the


same day. He is aware that the other party will try to squeeze him for a yes or no on the same day and he protects his position by using a variety of strategies.

2.The negotiator will use the higher authority gambit to ensure that he does not become a direct target of the other party.

The pressure to make an immediate decision will dissipate immediately when the negotiator informs the other party that he does not have the power to agree or disagree with anything – at least, not until the higher authority has given the go signal.


3.The negotiator does not guess when he sees data and figures. Instead, he asks for an additional day or two so he can talk with people who know more than him. He is not afraid to ask for help and he views experts as worthy allies. His ego is nowhere to be found when he is on the negotiation table.

4.When the situation presents itself, the negotiator also does his best to asks for concessions. It doesn’t matter if it’s just the beginning of the negotiation or near the end. He will ask for reasonable concessions based on his analysis of the situation. If he thinks he can get


away with a concession he asks the other party just to see how they would react. Sometimes he gets the c o n c e s s i o n t h a t h e w a n t s , sometimes he doesn’t. But that’s how negotiation works and he is patient.

5.He strategically places a Bad Guy or villain on his negotiation team whenever possible so that the other party will be distracted. Once the villain is gone, he works fast to gain rapport and he acts as the hero of the negotiation.

6.A true negotiator also takes endless notes and reviews them from time to time to check for inconsistencies.


Control the Contract

Nothing could be worse than having to give the pen and paper to the other party when it’s time to write down the actual contract. Here’s what usually happens during negotiations. Two parties battle it out for many days, mulling over data and scrutinizing the smallest details of every offer.

When both parties finally arrive at a mutually beneficial setup, one of the parties write down the terms of the agreement and both parties review the terms before signing. Now, many negotiators are actually fine with


having the other party write down the terms of the agreement. After all, the terms will be reviewed before any signing is done and either party can walk away, right?

While it is true that both parties can walk away from the contract, why should you expose yourself to such inconveniences when you can just position yourself in such a way that you will be the one writing the details of the agreement?

Here’s a clear fact – any negotiator worth his name will probably think of at least ten things to add or change when he is writing the actual details of an agreement.


While this might sound unethical, it actually isn’t. A lot of stones can be left unturned during the verbal negotiation. These ‘stones’ are turned during the writing of the actual agreement. So the rule of thumb here is to never allow the other party to take control of the actual writing of the details.

If the other party volunteers to do it for you and makes it appear that they are doing it to save you time and energy, just refuse. Tell the other party that a higher authority had instructed you specifically to write the details of the agreement. Be creative – the gambits or moves that I have discussed with you in


the previous volume would be useful at this point in time.

What about counter-offers? Counter-offers are a bit difficult to do away with especially if the other party presents a last minute counter-offer via escalation. This is the reason why I want you to write the terms of the agreement so you would have the opportunity to create vital changes to the terms of the agreement that would maximize your gain.

Here’s an example: let us say that you owned a bakery and you wanted to acquire some industry-grade equipment for your business’ expansion. You were able to find a distributor who agreed to


$20,000 plus your other conditions. Since everything seemed to be fine, you allowed the distributor to write down the terms of the agreement.

When the agreement has been put to paper, you notice minute changes in the details that were not previously d i s c u s s e d d u r i n g t h e v e r b a l negotiations such as “$10,000 will be held in escrow until all of the ordered units have been delivered 30-40 days from receipt of this agreement”.

It is possible that you were able to discuss some of the details but when the other party began to flesh out the details, some changes were made to


benefit the other party and not you. You could counter these minute changes and refuse to sign – but then again, all of this additional work and hassle could have been avoided if you had written down the terms of the agreement and not the other party.

Is it really this bad when the other party writes down the details of a contract or agreement? The answer is: not necessarily. What usually happens is that small details are added to make the agreement more beneficial to one party and one party alone. Think about it – why would the other party add a detail that would give you more advantages. That won’t happen and it never will.


This is also another good reason to make a lot of notes when you are negotiating with anyone. With all of the verbal exchange taking place it is extremely common for people to omit and forget details.

The only way that you would be able to protect your interests is by writing down everything that was discussed during the actual negotiation. If you don’t write it down and you have few or no written records at all then it would be very easy for the other party to assert that you remembered the details incorrectly. Who would be at an obvious disadvantage at that point? Your party, of course.


Another important reminder that I would like to give you is to be very cautious about ambiguities and technical details. In the event that you were unable to write the written agreement, check the clauses and terms written down by the other party. If there i s someth ing tha t you canno t understand immediately after reading, that detail is probably ambiguous on purpose. You need to clarify that detail first before signing anything.

Avoid Auto-Signing Anything

In our day and age where speed and efficiency are celebrated as the key t r a i t s o f p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d professionalism, it is extremely


important for you to remember that you need to really slow down and read through all of the details of an agreement or contract before finally signing it.

A few decades ago, before information was compressed into millions of bits of electronic data, people in negotiations had to go through printed contracts line by line before any signing was done. Why? Both parties have to be satisfied with the details of the agreement or contract.

If something is amiss, one party would recommend a revision and everything would stop unless the revision is performed. If no revision is done, a


new round of negotiations will be underway to discuss the revision that one party wants to include in the final agreement.

Today, still read contracts but only a handful will really slow down to go through everything line by line to ensure that all of the right details are in place. If you are guilty of just skimming through contracts and signing because ‘everything seems alright’, you need to stop this dangerous habit right now.


Some of you might argue: no one has ever tried to pull a fast one on me in all my yea r s o f nego t i a t ing wi th companies/organizations/business. My answer is: there is always a first time for everything.

What if you finally meet that one negotiator who is hell-bent on cheating the negotiation to get what he wants? The only way that you will be able to counter any unethical gambits from this type of negotiator would be to read any written agreements carefully before you put any ink on the paper. Here are some additional guidelines to help you become a better judge of written contracts:


1.When you demand a revision and that revision was accepted by the other party or camp, check if the proper changes have been made. Go back to the paragraph or section where the revision should have been made and scrutinize if the proper modifications are in place.

After confirming that indeed, the other party has made the proper modifications, check the succeeding lines or sections if no other changes were made. In order for this type of checking to work, you will need a copy of the original, unmodified agreement.


If you see any inconsistencies, mark t h o s e a n d s e n d a m e s s a g e immediately to the other party. Nine times out of ten, any secret changes made on an agreement are meant to counterbalance any concessions made for you. As much as possible, limit these changes especially if your camp will experience a gross disadvantage if the agreement is accepted by your side.

2.The fastest way to check if something is amiss with each page of a printed agreement is by holding the original version and the revised version to the light. Changes in the general form or shape of the paragraphs usually mean that


something was either removed or added.

If you detect any minute changes, it would be best to zero in on those problematic areas and go through the lines with a fine toothed comb. This would be one of the fastest ways to double-check if the other party is trying to pull a fast one on you. Unless the font style of font size of the printed agreement was changed, there shouldn’t be any noticeable changes in the general appearance of the text of an agreement… Unless of course they added a few lines here and there.


3. If you have access to reliable OCR software and a scanner, scan the original agreement and the modified one. Save both scans as text files and use your word processor to make comparisons of the two. If this sounds too complicated, simply scan both version of the same contract or agreement and open both files at the same time.

You will be able to compare the sections and paragraphs more easily on your computer because you will be able to scroll and zoom in/out at will. Just remember to go over each page and not just the pages where your revisions are supposed to be located.


M a n y n e g o t i a t o r s b e c o m e complacent once they see their revisions in place. One never knows so to be on the safe side, always check the other pages no matter how much mutual trust there seems to be between the parties involved. You are not being distrustful by doing this – you are simply practicing intelligent negotiation.

Absurd Money Talk

Have you ever heard of a TV or radio ad where the announcer or narrator was talking along the lines of “by spending a few cents a day you can have the best


benefits that will last for years!”. It might sound a little suspicious now that I have brought the concept out in the open but believe it or not, this strategy works each and every time.

It has been used to death for decades and it is still being used nonstop today especially if large sums of money are involved. This technique can be seen clearly in state fairs or similar places where “balloon pop” stalls are set up. The owners of these stalls entice people to line up and have a go because it will only cost you a few cents or dollars.

People line up and they try to get the prizes and most of them walk away empty handed. If you think about it,


spending a few cents for a few minutes of enjoyment might seem reasonable.

But if you combine the total amount of money that you have spent after attempting to hit the targets, you will see how these stalls are making money. They have actually used one of the oldest strategies in the book – absurd money talk.

This technique is actually one of the ‘oldies but goodies’ because it can readily disarm the mental defenses that people have when it comes to money. Using this technique is quite easy, too. All you have to do is to take the actual


amount of money and break it down into really small portions to make the sum total disappear from view.

For example, if you were trying to sell an expensive piece of software to a client and the software alone costs $500 to install and authenticate, you can say that for less than $2 a day, the client can have access to one of the world’s most advanced programs developed for that particular industry. By breaking down the main figure to small portions, you will be able to counter any internal resistance that may have built up because of the sum of money involved.

Of course, other negotiators will try to use this technique on you too and some


negotiators are so good in using this technique that you might actually think that you are being given a really good offer. Before you agree with anything, it would be best to just ignore the absurd money talk so you can see the actual cost or sum of money involved. The two are usually arbitrary; what really matters at the end of the negotiation is how much the investment is going to cost you at the present time.

For example, if a slick-talking travel agent was offering you a ‘dream vacation’ package, he might say things like “luxury accommodations regularly


priced at $2,000 per night are now available for a fraction of the price”. Instead of getting excited and tied up with the sales talk, it would be best to get the actual figures.

This will really extinguish the salesman’s strategy and it might sound a little cruel to be so straightforward with someone you know is just trying to sell something; however, it has to be done in order to maximize your advantage. Once you get real figures and actual amounts, you will definitely be able to make a sound decision based on real information, not absurd money talk.


Still a bit confused about how people use absurd money talk to gain leverage during negotiations and other social interactions? Here are some more examples to acquaint you with the fine art of absurd money talk:

1.Credit card companies and private loaning agencies usually express their monthly interest rates in percentages. People generally jump at the idea of being able to borrow money for just 3% interest per month.

But in reality, 3% interest can become a headache if you miss payments and if you borrow more than what you can pay off fast. This


ruse has been going on for quite some time now and people still fall for it each and every time. The companies and brands might vary from year to year, but the basic strategy remains unchanged to this day.

2.Another clear example of absurd money talk is when a company over-emphasizes how much you will be paying monthly as opposed to just saying outright the total cost of a service or product. This can be seen quite clearly on the Internet where there is no shortage of commercial platforms.


A product that costs $400 off the bat would be advertised as “12 easy payments of $33.33”. Twelve easy payments are much easier to accept than $400 but strictly speaking you will still be paying a total of $400 for just one product or service. So before you buy something, think hard – is there a good correlation between the price and the value of the product or service? Because monthly payments are irrelevant when it comes to computing the actual cost of what you are purchasing in the first place. Monthly payments do not reflect the total amount that you will be spending to acquire the product or service.


Absurd money talk just makes things easier to swallow and Maverick Negotiators should always be careful when the negotiator from the opposite camp starts breaking down costs and prices into tiny portions.

Companies and organizations are generally aware of the fact that when a large cost is broken down to smaller increments or portions, people are more likely to spend money. The total cost becomes irrelevant because they can enjoy the product, service or benefit without having to spend a lot of money upfront.


In the Beginning, There Was the Word

Next to a well-prepared Maverick Negotiator, nothing could be more persuasive and powerful than the written word. This has been proven repeatedly by countless studies through the decades.

People are generally more responsive and compl i an t when they see something in writing. When something is in writing and a person reads and accepts what has been printed or


written down, the reader commits to the information and complies with what is asked.

This is the main reason why businesses invest heavily in advertising that involves printed words. Images are important but when you combine images with the printed word, you create a much more lasting impact on your audience.

As a Maverick Negotiator you can also make use of this strategy – all you have to do is to write down vital details that emerge during a negotiation. This has a twofold effect on the other party. The first effect is that you will exert pressure on the other party so that they


would be consistent with what they are saying during the negotiation.

If you hear something that will really benefit your camp, do not hesitate to write it down. Nothing could be more counterproductive than just committing important details to memory. You cannot say “I distinctly remember you saying that we were getting 5% discount, not 2%”. But if you write it down and have the other party sign it during the negotiation, that particular detail will last until the final drafting of the contract or agreement.

If you don’t want to write things down, have the other party commit to the idea of writing down important details for


you. Vital details need to be signed by the appropriate parties.

It’s alright if you end up getting multiple sheets discussing various details of just one agreement. It would be easy to combine all these details later on when you volunteer to write down the agreement for both parties.

Another thing that you should remember is that a comprehensive, professional-looking proposal will have a much higher chance of being accepted than a proposal that doesn’t look professional.

This applies to every field and industry. So if you want a big client to accept a


high opening bid, support your high opening bid with a formal, printed proposal that enumerates everything that the proposal covers.

Believe it or not, many clients will accept a high bid if they are able to see why an offer turned out that way. Inversely, a proposal that seems to be haphazardly created will lack the premium credibility that a well-typed proposal possesses.

A well-designed printed proposal will also reduce resistance in many situations. If you don’t want the other party to ask questions or if you want to keep the questions down to a minimum, invest in professional software that


creates business proposals, specifically. That way, you will never encounter any difficulties when you need to put proposal details to paper.

Aim for the Issues

One of the biggest mistakes that a Maverick Negotiator can commit is to become distracted by what the other negotiator is doing. When you are on the negotiation table, it is important for you to remember that the only thing that really matters to you is what you will be getting from the interaction on that day.


You have set your goals and you have already created a high expectation for the negotiation. All your efforts will be wasted if you let your emotions and other distractions get the best of you. Interestingly enough, a negotiator who pays too much attention to the various dramas and emotional hooks that other negotiators use is most likely to miss out on many opportunities to request for the right concessions during a negotiation. You must develop a form of hyper-focus when you are battling with another negotiator, whether that negotiator is an expert or a novice.

Why? Because i f you become distracted, your resolve will weaken and your mind will focus on something


else. Think of a negotiation as a professional dart game. You are holding three darts and there is a tiny red dot in the distance that you want to hit. All around you, people are cheering and jeering. Other players are also staring at what you are doing and they’re thinking “this guy is going to miss big time!”.

If you pay attention to each and every one of these extraneous factors, you are never going to hit your target. Your chances of success will be near zero because the game of darts (like n e g o t i a t i o n ) r e q u i r e s u t m o s t concentration and mental prowess.


If you play the game right and you focus on what you really have to do when you step up in front of the dart board, your chance of success is reasonably high. But if you begin dwelling on stuff that you hear and see, the main goal which is to hit the red dot will begin to dissipate until you completely lose track of your primary goals.

You need to be aware of the fact that many negotiators will try to pressure you into doing something that you don’t normally do on the negotiation table. For example, a bunch of negotiators may just walk out on you because you presented a bid that seemed outrageous.


You may feel horrible that they walked out and you might even start thinking that you are a horrible negotiator as well because the other party physically left the conversation. But if you look at such gestures you will see that behind the emotions and the gestures is the fact that the other party is simply refusing to give in. So what do you do? You try to come up with a strategy to make them agree with you.

Remember our lesson on opening offers? You always start a negotiation with an outrageous offer for two reasons. The first reason is that you never know if the other party would actually agree with what you want.


What if the other party agrees with the concessions that you are demanding? You would be home free by then. If they refuse then you would have a lot of breathing space for adjustments and concessions, too.

In addition to gaining breathing space you would have also accessed the present mind set of the other party. What would they think if your price was in the mid-range? What would they do if you wanted a higher discount than usual? By just reading the reactions of the other party, you will be able to determine if you are heading down the right path or not.


My main message in this section is to always keep your emotions in check and do not be too emotionally involved in what is happening. If you feel like screaming and wringing the other negotiator’s neck, that is not a good sign at all.

When you are that emotionally invested, you become vulnerable and the other party will definitely feel that you are no longer at your best shape. The other party might continue taunting you with different tactics until you finally give up on the negotiation and give in to the demands of the other camp.


Now, let us say that you actually won a negotiation because you were able to get the concessions that you want and you were also able to write down the details of the agreement. What should be your next step?

If you’re thinking along the lines of slapping the table and laughing like a maniac at the other camp, think again: you need to send a clear and sincere congratulatory message to the other party. Why?

Because you are a Maverick Negotiator and you also want the other party to feel that they have gained something from the interaction. Trust me, you don’t need other negotiators hating you


after you’ve won. You have to make the other side feel that the terms of the new agreement is mutually beneficial.

You don’t have to be fancy when congratulating the other camp. A simple “congratula t ions!” and a f i rm, equalizing handshake would be fine. If you want to make the gesture more formal, you can send a well-written note to the other negotiator, thanking him for his time, effort and patience with the negotiation.

It would also be excellent if you can emphasize that the agreement that both


parties have accepted would produce the best advantages for both camps. Reiterate as well that you are looking for quality, long-term relationships especially if the negotiation was about money and business.

Under no circumstances will you act as if you had pulled a fast one on the other party. If the other party feels that you had tricked them even if you didn’t, they are not going to trust you next time.

If you are overjoyed at the prospect of getting a good price after a successful negotiation, keep it in. You don’t have to show the other party that you are happy or satisfied. Keep quiet – and


maybe, just maybe, you might get one final concession.

Historic Gambit

A historic gambit occurred back in the seventies when President Jimmy Carter of the US was able to position his country as an unaligned or neutral


agent that could act as a mediator of two beleaguered camps – Egypt and Israel. The two warring camps were always going at each other and the United States wanted to mediate between the two to potentially mitigate the damage caused by the continued conflicts. At that time, Israel had little trouble trusting the United States as a neutral agent.

The same cannot be said for Egypt. The Egyptian bureaucracy wanted nothing more but to ignore the United States in favor of other powers such as the Soviet Union. There was one event that finally evened the situation. You see, after the war, the Suez Canal became unusable because of the myriad of


sunken vessels that literally made the Suez Canal useless economically.

Egypt had been benefitting from collecting the equivalent of toll fees from water vessels that passed the canal. Henry Kissinger, a well-known US diplomat finally found a way to make Egypt trust the United States. Kissinger approached the Egyptian administration and told them that the United States can step in and help with the restoration of the Suez Canal so that it would be economically useful once again.

The Soviet Union at that time was also available to help but because of internal conflicts and bureaucratic slowness


they were unable to lend a hand quickly enough. True enough, the Egyptian administration was amazed that the United States, a perceived non-neutral superpower, wanted to help restore an economically important waterway. When the Egyptians finally agreed, US diplomat Henry Kissinger made a direct call to President Jimmy Carter.

With President Jimmy Carter ’s approval, the sixth fleet of the United States navy was on its way after that call to help restore the troubled waterway. After this grand gesture, the Egyptians viewed the USA as a neutral agent because it went out on a limb for them.


President Carter was able successfully mediate between the two parties at Camp David after this event. Today, the Palestinian-Israel conflicts continue and President Carter’s administration has long been replaced. But what this gambit shows is that if you are willing to become a neutral agent, you can accomplish many great things as a negotiator.

Lessons on Maverick Mediation

As we have discussed in the first volume of Maverick Negotiation, the only clear-cut way to help two parties resolve a deadlock is by introducing a neutral agent called a mediator. A mediator is different from an arbiter


because he has not been designated as both judge and jury by both parties.

A mediator is not put in place to make a decision that is fair to both parties. Instead, a mediator is put in place because the two parties are unable to c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h e a c h o t h e r effectively and any unmediated interactions after the deadlock will result in an even deeper deadlock that will cause even more problems.

Here are some additional guidelines regarding the process of mediation:


1.A mediator may not suggest a particular ruling or judgment on an issue being negotiated by both parties. He must not create a solution but he must be willing to work hard to arrive at a sound agreement that will satisfy the needs or requirements of both parties.

2.A mediator must never say things like “I think this party is a bunch of lying cheats and the other party has no business being in this negotiation because if they were balloons, they would be floating out of this building in their confusion”.

A mediator must never express his p e r s o n a l v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e


negotiators or the situation. He is not in a position to evaluate the soundness o f the preced ing negotiations as well. He can’t say “I think this camp wants to get more money from you guys!” If you were assigned a mediator that says these things, you are definitely digging an early grave for the negotiation.

3.A mediator must never side with any party. He is a neutral agent and therefore, his personal views on who is right or wrong must be t e m p o r a r i l y s u s p e n d e d t o accommodate his function as a mediator. This principle is tied integrally with the guideline that requires suspension of one’s


p e r s o n a l v a l u a t i o n s d u r i n g mediation. If you were assigned as a mediator, you wouldn’t want to say stuff like “You are definitely trying to gain leverage here so I won’t even try to help you guys anymore”.

4.A mediator is not a judge of things and therefore, he must not be affected if one party was trying to play the role of the victim. If one party says that they have been continually losing money because of the corrupt business practices of the other party, the mediator must simply listen and note the input. If he begins to invest emotions into the interaction, he will not be able to create a mutually beneficial solution


because he will become more aligned with one party.

In the United States, the process of legal mediation has become a staple because it helps reduce the strain on the already-overburdened US legal system. Believe it or not, the US legal system is overburdened by work backlog, much like other legal systems across the world.

Why has mediation caught on even in the most advanced nations of the world? The answer is simple – it works. Even the most belligerent parties can reach a good agreement with the help of a wise mediator for the simple reason that the mediator’s sole function


is to help both parties devices a mutually acceptable resolution to the existing issues.

Another reason why mediation is popular is because you won’t have to spend a ton of money paying legal teams to battle it out for you. A penny saved is a penny earned and the thousands of dollars that a business can save by opting for mediation is definitely something to think about.

There are other reasons why mediation is preferred by many individuals and institutions. A judge will often recommend mediation if he thinks that it is possible to settle the issues of both parties without legal intervention.


Legal intervention is time consuming and expensive at the very least.

It is also possible for a civil suit to produce even more headaches down the line. For example, if a court rules that one party must pay the other party damages, the other party can easily file for an appeal to counter the ruling or at least delay the inevitable.

When two contending parties agree to mediation, both parties are more likely to agree with any solution that is arrived upon with the help of the neutral agent or mediator.

Compare this situation with the reality of civil lawsuits. Delays in payoffs are


very common and legalities can make a simple civil lawsuit a much more difficult thing to handle. With mediation, both parties are present and talking to each other directly and the deadlock is slowly chipped at by the mediator.

Why are seasoned mediators so good at what they do? Well, think about it – mediators are exposed daily to disputes, nothing less. Disputes come in all shapes and sizes and many things can vary in between. But there is one clear commonality between all disputes – that there are issues preventing two or more parties from cooperating.


A mediator, unlike a regular negotiator, can help examine the details of the issues without any vested interest. There are specialist mediators in very industry and field of endeavor.

For example, if the employees of a large company went on strike because management did not give in to their demands, a mediator may be asked to step in during talks between the administration and the labor union to help solve the issues.

Again, the great thing about mediation is that a solution or set of solutions can only be accepted if both parties want to. A mediator cannot say that a particular solution or avenue would be a good


idea because he thinks it is a good idea or just because he fancies the values or approach of one party. So what’s the difference between a mediator and judge?

A judge’s function is to determine justice and fairness during hearings. A judge is also expected to utilize his knowledge of the legal system in pursuit of justice.

A mediator on the other hand, is concerned only with the settlement of present issues. If a mediator is a judge or attorney, he will suspend the value systems attached to any of these professions to better the serve the parties involved in the mediation.


In the event that someone asks you to become a mediator, don’t back down from the challenge. You won’t be negotiating directly but you would still be able to use your specialized knowledge to help two or more parties reach a good settlement. Here are some vital guidelines to help you get started on your journey to becoming an expert mediator:

1.As I have stated in an earlier section, a mediator must always strive to be the most neutral agent during the mediation.

If you have a strong affinity for one of the parties, the ethical thing to do


would be to leave the mediation and give the task to someone else. A person who has a hidden or open affinity to one of the parties involved in a mediation will not be a good mediator, period.

It doesn’t matter if you promise that you will be neutral. By default you will be inclined to favor one party over another. If this happens, there is no mediation – instead, there is a faux mediation where one party is battling both mediator and opposing negotiating individual or group.

2.A mediator must be adept in making people see reason. He doesn’t force other people to see things his way.


For example, if you were asked to mediate a labor-related dispute, you can’t tell the company or business involved that in our time and age, wage increases are considered the hallmark of good management and fair employment.

While such words are probably true and may have even been backed up by research, it still remains that the mediator is openly supporting the cause of one party only. Are you expressing neutrality when you say things of this nature? No. Are you being a good mediator if you share your personal opinions to any of the parties? Again, the answer is no.


Instead of sharing your own opinions on the current issues, you must show both parties that you are there to help them create fair resolutions on their own. You must approach each of the parties involved and explain to them how important it is for each party to come up with a good resolution. Will the mediator pick a specific resolution from either of the parties so he can say “this resolution looks really good, let’s go with it”? No. A mediator can only say “this resolution was created by this party and it states ________________”

Why does a mediator have to go through all the trouble of presenting


even the smallest hints of a resolution? Because both parties have to agree first before anything can be accomplished and concluded in the mediation.

3.A good mediator is also capable of bringing goodwill and trust back to the negotiation table. How can this be accomplished? For example, if one party was willing to work out a new agreement with the other party, the mediator will say “the other party wishes to express their agreement that a good solution must be created to solve these issues. Are you also willing to create a good solution that will benefit your group and the other group?”. If the 2nd


group answers yes, the mediator will tell the first group that a viable solution is on its way because the 2nd group is willing to work with the 1st group.

4.A mediator is not only an active listener – he must also be an excellent bearer of information.

One of the main traits that separate a mediator from any negotiator is that he is not bogged down by “rose-colored lenses”. “Rose-colored lenses” refers to the natural bias of a person. Does this mean that a mediator is one hundred percent unbiased? Of course not.


Every person has his bias. A mediator of labor-related cases may either have a bias that supports b u s i n e s s o r a b i a s t h a t i s sympathetic to labor unions.

However, in the interest of a speedy settlement that is agreed upon and is acceptable to both parties, the mediator cannot let these prejudices get in the way. He will do his best to ensure that his values and beliefs do not impede the creation of a sound and fair settlement of the issues on the negotiation table.

5.An expert mediator can get two stone cold negotiating parties talking again. This is the hallmark


of a true mediator. If he can get the negotiators to begin talking once again, the whole negotiation is renewed and hope is rekindled in both parties. Does this mean that negotiators have to tell lies to get two parties talking to each other again? Not necessarily. But a mediator can give the impression that one party is now being more communicative and open to ideas than before. This alone can help improve the potential outcomes of mediation.

6.Can a non-neutral agent be helpful during mediation? Believe it or not, the answer is a conditional yes.


A non-neutral agent can only be p e r c e i v e d a s u s e f u l d u r i n g mediation if he is willing to position himself a neutral agent. If either of the parties perceive the mediator as even partially biased toward one group, the mediation will fail. How do people generally react to the presence of a non-neutral or biased mediator?

Most of the time, both parties agree to have the mediator replaced. If the mediator was thought to be neutral but had some ties to one of the parties it is possible that he will be retained but only if he pushes for concessions to be made if he was


biased at one point during the mediation.

7. If you want to become a truly effective mediator, always prepare to become the ultimate outsider. As a mediator, you should be a breath of fresh air – not the air that propels the wings of one of the contending parties.

8.You don’t have to be the most intelligent human being on the planet in order to become a good mediator. You just have to be well-versed in the actual issues of the contending parties and in their general area or field.


If you know absolutely nothing about the field of interest that necessarily encompasses the two parties involved, you won’t be able to mediate properly because you wouldn’t know how to process and combine the information that you are getting from both parties.

Having no prior knowledge of the field or industry that the negotiating parties belong to will also pose problems when you need to offer concessions. If the mediator doesn’t understand why a concession was being made, he would have a tough time determining if the concession or demand was fair or not.


To a certain extent, it is the mediator who is responsible for making sure that the two parties involved will not try to do or say anything that will demolish the mediation.

For example, if one negotiator said “you tell that thug that he can drop dead if he thinks we are going to give them any more concessions!” the mediator will have to convey the core of that statement in a way that will not make the other party storm out of the mediation area.

9.A mediator must also have a specific strategy that will help both parties arrive at a fair settlement of the current issues. If you will be


mediating for the first time and you don’t have a particular strategy in mind yet, it would be best to do your research first before formally stepping in as a mediator.

Don’t go into the mediation without having read the details of what had taken place in the previous negotiations because trust me, you will feel lost if you do. Another important thing to remember is to make sure that you completely understand the actual issues of the parties.

For example, if you were invited as a mediator of a dispute between two


groups of employees in the same organization and you only have a general idea of the problem, you have to ask both groups to provide written information or data that you can review. After looking over the information, you would be the best judge as to whether you should accept the role of mediator or not.

If the information doesn’t make sense to you and you are unable to process the details of the issues adequately, you won’t be a good mediator at all.

Sure, negotiators from both parties would probably be more than willing to explain the details to you


but it is your personal level of confidence that really matters here. If you don’t feel confident about an upcoming mediation, it would be best to just refuse the offer.

10.Once you have accepted the role of a mediator, don’t fall into the trap of making personal calls to any of the negotiators involved. I know that this might sound tempting since secret information can really drive negotiators nuts.

However, it is possible that initial contact will sabotage your chances of successfully mediating the two parties. Why? If one party finds out that there was prior contact with the


other party, you will de facto become a suspicious individual.

Why again? Because you are showing behavior that seems to be biased or angled towards the other camp. So as much as possible, speak to the parties involved at the same time. Don’t make random calls to any of the parties and make sure that you focus on neutrality at all cost.

Now that you are more aware of the habits, values and tendencies of effective mediators, it’s time that I shared with you the basic steps needed in mediation. The process that I am


going to share with you is by no means universal.

There will be variations from time to time but this is the general format and flow that is used in many situations. So read through the outline and keep the steps in mind before entering any mediation. There has to be a discernible process involved if you want to be successful in mediation because otherwise, the two parties will try to wrench the role of mediator from you.

T h e m e d i a t o r m u s t n e v e r b e overpowered by any of the parties involved. If a party was trying to influence you in any way, never give in. If you give in, you must do the right


thing and step down as mediator because once you start asking for concessions just because you were influenced by another party, a fair resolution of the issues will no longer be possible unless you exert extreme effort to reposition yourself once again as a neutral agent.

And as we have already discussed before, this can be an extremely difficult task not only because it is personally difficult to just shift one’s belief or perspective but also because the other party involved in the mediation will find it hard to trust you.

Are you ready to learn about the basic mediation process? Here it is:


1.The first step in any mediation is to speak to both parties regarding the basic flow of the actual mediation. After reading and digesting this part of the book, you can easily carry out this first step. Continue reading, please.

2.The second step is to assure both parties that mediation is one of the best ways to solve the issues because it has been used for a very long time and is even recommended by the legal system. If a problem between two parties might result in a civil lawsuit, mediation can be used to avert this disaster. Mediation is also effective regardless of the


field or industry involved. So whether you are in electronic distributorship or the mining of precious metals, mediator will have a very high chance of successfully ending a deadlock. Additionally, the presence of a neutral third party also improves the compliance rate if any concessions or demands are agreed upon by both parties.

3.The third step is to ask the members of the parties involved if they are capable of making direct decisions. If one negotiator is coy and tries to say that there is some committee that needs to approve any details, the mediator must insist that only individuals who can make direct


decisions without a supervisor or manager stay in the mediation.

As you can plainly see, the higher authority technique must never be used in mediation by anyone because it will result in an even deeper deadlock. If a party insists t ha t t hey canno t make any decisions, the mediation must be called off until that party is able to reconf igure i t se l f wi th new m e m b e r s w h o c a n m a k e concessions and decisions directly.

This is an ironclad rule that must never be broken by any mediator. If by chance you have agreed to handle any kind of mediation even


if both parties are saying the same thing (that they cannot make decisions), explain the problem and suspend the mediation until the proper adjustments are made to the negotiating teams. If no adjustments are made, convey an ultimatum – change the negotiating teams or no mediation will take place.

If they parties involved still do not budge and still insist that they have to refer to a higher authority before making any decisions, stop the mediation and step down as a mediator. It is their loss, not yours, and you will definitely not take part in a sham mediation where the parties involved blatantly disregard


the requirements of the mediation process.

4.The fourth step is to ask each of the parties involved to provide written documentation of the negotiations so far. The documentation should include the following information:

a.The primary cause of the deadlock and the dispute between the parties.

b.The specific issues that need to be addressed by the mediation.

c. The problems that have arisen because of the dispute.

d.The kind of settlement of resolutions that are needed by each of the contending parties.


It is very important that you emphasize that the documentation be limited to no more than five to six pages.

There is no need for overkill at this point and I am sure that some negotiating parties will try to in f luence you by prov id ing substantial proof of the rightness of their demands or the wrongness of the claims/demands of the other party.

5.The fifth step is to request for a joint meeting. During the joint meeting each of the parties involved must make a formal opening statement.


The parties involved must be given adequate time to prepare for the joint meeting and there must be mutual agreement between all parties as to where and when the joint meeting should take place.

At the very least, the parties involved must be civil to each other during the joint meeting. Remember that the parties involved have probably not communicated to each other for a long and that the risk of outbursts can be quite high in some cases. You must emphasize to both parties that this is the best time for each of the parties to put their best foot forward.


Once the parties involved have made their opening statements, the mediator (that’s you) should also make an opening statement. Your opening statement will mark the beginning of your role as a mediator. Your opening statement should contain the following:

- Your experience in the area or industry

- Your experience in handling disputes

- Yo u r e x a c t r o l e i n t h e mediation (describe what you are and what you are not)

- That you are there not to tell the parties who is right or wrong but rather, you are there


so that both parties would be able to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement of the dispute

- That you are there so that true compromise becomes possible

6.The sixth step involves the actual exchange of positions. Each of the parties must make their statements and these statements must be addressed not to the mediator but to the opposing party.

The parties are given adequate time to express their positions and the mediator is there to make sure that no party is overstepping the other party’s boundaries.


The mediator will not allow any party to say that they are not in the liberty to make any substantial comments because a h igher committee is telling them not to do it. If this is the case, do refer to step three so you will know how to deal with this type of problem.

7.After the first joint meeting, it is time to set the first private meeting with the parties involved. At this point in time, the mediator will really begin his work of vastly improving the chances of a successful compromise. If you thought your role as a mediator was


only to listen, think again: you have a much deeper function than that.

Once you are able to get the parties to start talking to each other again, you must use your best judgment to seek a middle ground for the two parties. In mediation, this is called the “moderate position” and it is probably the hardest position to take for many negotiating parties because adopting such a position usually means that a party would have to make some automatic concessions.

For example, if the mediation was about unpaid wages of a group of personnel, the company may have to


adopt a moderate position that grants full back wages plus bonuses as demanded by the other party.

The other party on the other hand may have to accept the fact that the additional compensation would be reflected as an hourly increase in their wages for a specified period of time until the full amount has been given.

8.The eighth step is the second private meeting. In the second private meeting, the mediator will begin conditioning each of the parties to arrive at a compromise. The mediator asks for a specific kind of settlement from each of the parties


but says that he will not reveal the details himself. The mediator will then recommend that each of the parties suggest the settlement to the opposing party themselves.

This way, the negotiation table is opened once again and active discussion can finally take place. Many negotiation techniques can be used at this point in time except for specific gambits such as the higher authority move. Again, I must remind everyone who wishes to mediate that the higher authority strategy is not allowed during mediations.


9.The ninth and final step in mediation is the resolution of the dispute. This step will be the peak of the mediation as both parties beg in to a r r ive a t concre te compromises.


Part 4: Complex Maneuvers

Historic Gambit

In our day and age where diplomacy seems to be the sole order of the day, people often forget just how vital negotiation can be in the worst of situations. The year was 1972 and the whole world watched as the Olympic Games were held in Munich, Germany. Like other Olympic games, whole countries were at edge as to which contingent would bring home the bacon for that year.


The German police wanted the whole world to be focused on the games alone and not the fact that the games were being held in Germany where the concept of xenophobia (“fear of the other/fear of strangers”) was not an unusual concept after Hitler’s thirty-year reign. The German police wanted nothing more but to safeguard the people but at the same time reduce overall police visibility to a minimum.

This turned out to be a horrible mistake altogether. Palestinian hostage takers were able to enter a training compound in Munich on the year of the Olympic Games. A total of eleven Olympic athletes from Israel were captured by the Palestinian sympathizers.


The German government listened closely as the Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir, stated their only thought on the matter – don’t do any favors for the Palestinian hostage takers. The German police and administration listened to this advice and they did not attempt to really negotiate with the terrorists.

The general plan was to lure out the hostage takers so that German police could use their training to capture and r e s c u e t h e I s r a e l i h o s t a g e s . Unfortunately, the scenario did not play out exactly as they had hoped.


Since there was absolutely no communicate between the two camps, save perhaps for garbled, random m e s s a g e s t h a t w e r e n o t e v e n substantiated by the German police, the hostage takers became bold and tried to leave the country by plane. The German police had actually allowed the hostage takers to leave the compound so that they could travel to the airport.

At the airport , everything just imploded. The German police finally revealed what they wanted to do and the hostage takers were of course enraged that they had been lulled into thinking that they were all home free. Even then, the German police were not able to bring in their best shooters to


the scene. The five snipers that they had brought in did not have adequate equipment and were far from the best in their ranks. In short – the police takeover failed and so many people died on that day.

The German police did not want to publicly admit what had happened. They denied that any records of the airport shooting existed anywhere in the country.

Two decades after the incident, a family member of one of the slain Israeli athletes appeared on national television to divulge secret files that were passed on to them by a sympathizer from Germany who


wanted the world to know what had happened.

Because of this event, the German police was finally forced to own up to what happened. What the German police revealed shocked the whole world. They had hidden over three thousand files related to that fateful day and there were almost a thousand photographic files reflecting what had happened at the airport.

What can we learn from stories like the hostage taking during the 1972 Olympics? The lesson is simple, really – negotiation matters, all the time. It is a requirement in situations where human communication tends to break


down and it is as vital as oxygen in scenarios where something valuable is at stake and two or more contending parties are after what is at stake. To avoid negotiation and to avoid communication altogether often results in tragedies as is clearly illustrated by the botched rescue that took place on that fateful day in Munich, Germany.

Conflict & Resolution

Let’s talk about police negotiations a bit more because we can all learn valuable insights when we explore how police in general handle terrorists and other criminals. In one study that focused on the negotiation strategies used by the police during hostage-


taking situations, researchers were able to come up to five major arcs or strategies:

1.The first strategy was to use maximum police force. We are talking about a full display of guns, bul le ts and somet imes even grenades.

Negotiation is nowhere to be found; only the smoking nozzles of guns are used to ‘talk’ to the hostage taker. Note that this first strategy can be used either as a first strategy or as a last resort when all communication breaks down.


2.The second strategy is to do nothing for the meantime and just observe what the hostage-taker would do. This is often done to test the mind-set of the hostage taker.

If the police have no idea as to what the hostage taker is capable of doing, he is allowed some time to air his grievances and ‘do his thing’. All the while negotiators are studying his tendencies and his activity pattern so that they can de termine the bes t poss ib le approach.

3.The third strategy was to keep the hostage taker talking but make no m a j o r c o n c e s s i o n s . M a j o r


concessions are usually getaway vehicles, large sums of money, etc.

The police would never hand over a million dollars to someone who was holding thirty people at gunpoint. It was during Ronald Reagan’s time that this technique became really popular with the police force.

To a certain extent it made sense especially to the masses who wanted nothing more but to exterminate criminals and terrorists. However, it should be noted that while this strategy seems sound enough, it is a very rigid approach to dealing with someone who is


unstable enough to hold people hostage.

We should always remember that the concept of asking/giving concessions has always been part of negotiation for the simple reason that there wouldn’t be a genuine negotiation in the first place if nothing will be given to either of the parties involved.

I’m not saying that we should start rewarding terrorists and hostage takers for doing what they do but as a Maverick Negotiator I firmly believe that a balance should always be struck in sensitive situations where a person or a group of people


might be willing to harm others just to get what they want.

4.The fourth strategy is to work with the hostage taker until he is lulled into a false sense of security. When the hostage taker begins to trust the police, a big lie is told regarding concessions.

For example, if the hostage taker was asking for half a million dollars in cash, a member of the police force might hand over a briefcase of bills to show that more are coming and that he would be completely safe.


Once the hostage taker is disarmed he will be arrested and he would probably have a very hard time in prison after that.

Again, this is another strategy that is wildly popular with the public who never misses an opportunity to say “that person got exactly what he deserved!”. From the point of view of a Maverick Negotiator however, you will see the flaws of this technique.

Sure, it might work most of the time. In fact, I have seen many incidents where the police gave so many small concessions and promised so many things that the


suspects actually believed that they were going home scot-free.

But if we look at the long term implications of this technique, you will see that it will not work all the time and other criminals in the future might not be so cooperative given the track record of the police. Instead of cultivating a sense of trust and integrity that even criminals can hold on to, the police will be seen as ‘equals’ if you get what I mean.

5.The fifth and final strategy was to negotiate closely with the hostage taker or suspect and make the proper concessions based on the


needs of the time and the general behavior of the person involved.

It is obvious that the most reasonable and effective strategy of all would be fifth strategy.

Why? Because it involves a real n e g o t i a t i o n a n d m o s t o f a l l , concessions. Let us take a look at the g e n e r a l g u i d e l i n e s f o r p o l i c e negotiations that were developed using the fifth technique and see if you too can handle hostile and problematic situations more efficiently should they manifest:

1.Before making any moves, fully assess the situation first. What kind


of situation do you really have on your hands? Who is the main t r o u b l e m a k e r ? W h o e l s e i s involved? What is the current state of the people involved?

Once a full assessment has been performed, call for reinforcements because most of the time, a negotiation would be more effective if there were others present who can really handle the facets of the situation that you are not very familiar with. Experts are allies in every negotiation and they should be referred to when you honestly don’t know exactly what to do.


2.Be the one who initiates the interaction or communication. You do not have to offer anything at this point; all you have to do is to communicate with the other person so that you will be able to determine what he wants and why he is behaving in a particular manner. Make the other party need you because you are such a good communicator.

Position yourself as the sole provider in that situation so that without you, the other party will feel insecure and unsafe. When the other party starts thinking that you are absolutely essential if he wants to get anything from the interaction,


you would be in a great position to begin asking for concessions.

Of ten , i t would be bes t to communicate from a distance (e.g. through a phone call) to control any hostile venting. A person can become hostile through phone but since he can’t see or touch the person on the other end, chances of really lashing out is reduced greatly.

3. In the event that the primary negotiator is unable to make any headway in the situation, he is asked to step down at least for the time being so that a new face can be introduced into the negotiation.


As we have discussed as far back as the first volume of Maverick Negotiation, a fresh perspective can often save a negotiation from a stalemate or deadlock. Why? Because we are humans – we get tired, weary and frustrated.

And eventually, we feel like giving up if we keep hitting a brick wall talking to the same person over and over again. In addition to being able to see and talk to another person, introducing someone who has some degree of similarity may also help establish balance in the negotiation. A neutral agent in a negotiation that is near deadlock can be quite


valuable even if that agent is not well-versed in negotiation himself.

4.Learn to read the hidden signs that open up windows of opportunity for better negotiation. A classic example of this would be the hostage taker who threatens to harm his hostages if certain concessions are not made by a specific time.

If you were a novice police negotiator and you heard ‘crazy talk’ like this from a seemingly deranged hostage taker who is armed with more bullets than your regular policeman, you would probably just panic because you feel


that you are about to fail in negotiating with the perpetrator.

What many people don’t know is that when a hostage taker (or any hostile negotiator) threatens to do something really bad, that is actually a sign that he is now willing to negotiate (now, more than ever).

That is why it is so important for negotiators to control their emotions and to focus solely on the issues involved. Because if you allow yourself to be carried away by your emotions, you would have an extremely tough time overcoming


the other party especially in a high pressure situation.

5.Be more aware of the changes in the other party’s state of mind. Now, I know that some of you might be confused at this reminder. I know that I have warned you before about being too emotionally involved with things that do not directly concern the issues on the negotiation table.

However, there is a big difference between not focusing on the issues and paying attention to nonverbal cues. In the field, police negotiators know how to deal with a hostage taker who has become too quiet ( t h i s i s u s u a l l y a s i g n o f


hopelessness which may push a hostage taker to take the life of his hostage/s and then his own life) or too animated (hostage taker may become unpredictable and may begin randomly harming hostages).

6.Negotiate with the other party so that he modifies his initial position so tha t mutua l ly benef i c i a l outcomes become possible. If the hostage taker was asking for half a million dollars, the police might say “okay we were thinking that food would be more important right now, so what do you say that we bring in food and water and you release a few hostages when we show you that we are true to our word?”.


Eventually, the hostage taker would see that smaller concessions are also beneficial and would serve him, not just the police.

It is very possible for a hostage taker to change his mind even after hours of stalemate if he sees a clear benefit in what is being offered. If a concession was offered and the other party changed his mind, the other negotiator must honor the concession. If trickery is used, that will backfire horribly one hundred percent.

7. Instead of trying to make endless demands on the other person, try to discover why he is resisting in the


first place. Hostage taking situations are essentially highly dramatized expressions of resistance. The hostage taking is a grand gesture and the hostage taker immediately gets an audience.

In many cases, the hostage taker has one (or many) grievances that he wants to air. He may also be hostile and he wants to vent his anger or frustrations at the world. An extremely agitated hostage taker who doesn’t have access to a reasonable negotiator who is flexible enough to make some concessions may begin harming those around him just to get the


attention of someone who might be willing to really negotiate with him.

Historic Gambit

The year was 2010 in the Republic of the Philippines and a police officer by the name of Rolando Mendoza had decided to take a tourist bus full of Hong Kong tourists hostage. Mendoza was removed from his duties as a police officer and he wanted the city’s police department to reinstate him and that he be given a better chance of legally defending himself against all current charges.

Rolando Mendoza was a trained police officer and he was well aware of the


common strategies used by the police to handle hostage takers.

He was, so to speak, a badger surrounded by spitting snakes. He used g r a n d g e s t u r e s a n d h e e v e n commandeered the tourist bus before the driver was able to find an opportunity to escape through the window.

Rolando Mendoza had severa l demands. He wanted to be put back into active duty and he wanted a trial that would ensure that he would be able to adequately protect his legal interests.

According to sources, Manila mayor Alfredo Lim was already willing to


make major concessions (at least that is what Mayor Lim was saying after the incident). Even the Ombudsman had contacted Rolando Mendoza through a text message.

All these efforts were did not produce the target outcomes probably due to the fact that police officer Rolando Mendoza did not see any substantiation to these claims. The claims, so to speak, were all ‘lip service’ and Mendoza’s frustration increased as the hours went by.

In the beginning it appeared that the po l ice negot ia to rs were do ing something right. Old and frail hostages were released and some people were


even kind enough to step in as volunteer hostages just so the foreign nationals could be released.

However, not everything is as ideal as everyone had hoped. Because of the nature of the so-called concessions and the seeming insincerity of the police department when it had guaranteed Mendoza’s safety, the hostage taker’s behavior became more and more erratic and desperate as the hours went by.

His brother, Gregorio Mendoza was even able to penetrate the police barricade to speak directly to the Rolando Mendoza. At that time, Gregorio Mendoza was also carrying a firearm even if he was not on active


duty and he was not asked by the police department to participate in the negotiations.

Rolando Mendoza had full access to national television and he was able to monitor the activities of the police, too. His anger reached boiling point when his brother, Gregorio Mendoza, was arrested after approaching the tourist bus.

Rolando Mendoza had made an immediate demand after his brother’s arrest. He wanted his brother to be freed or he would start killing off hostages. At this point in time it is


difficult to determine what exactly happened inside the tourist bus.

According to a popular account, Mendoza fired first at two Hong Kong nationals inside the tourist bus and this pre-empted the armed assault by the Manila PNP.

Others say that Mendoza had only fired warning shots to warn the police to release his brother after he was arrested. And still other accounts say that Mendoza had not fired at all and it was the Manila PNP who were the ones who first broke the veil of negotiation.

Lacking any clear strategy and also woefully unprepared for an actual


hostage situation, the world watched as the Manila PNP tried to get into the tourist bus for a total of sixty minutes.

Within this time, a total of four hostages had been shot and killed and several others were also harmed by stray bullets. Eventually, the Manila PNP decided to throw tear gas at Mendoza and he was finally shot and killed by snipers who were positioned not too far from the tourist bus.

Diplomatic relations between Hong Kong and the Philippines were strained


for a short period of time after this event.

There was some anti-Philippine sentiment in Hong Kong and even in the People’s Republic of China because of the death of Hong Kong nationals who only came to the Philippines to enjoy the culture and the hospitality that the country and its citizens could offer.

From a facile analysis, we could already identify why the negotiations failed during the Manila hostage crisis. First, the negotiators had failed to control Mendoza’s access to television and radio. The police should have done


something to scramble the TV and radio signals in the tourist bus.

The second obvious mistake was that the negotiators never substantiated any of the demands of the hostage taker. This was equivalent to “lying about concessions” and those lies cost lives that day.

When all else failed, the Manila PNP decided to use force – crude force, I might add, that was actually painful to watch given the fact that there were so many police officers surrounding the target tourist bus.


Why Pressure Works

What is the easiest way to get someone to agree with what you want to say? Pull out a loaded gun and point it at his chest. Of course, if we all did this, we would be probably be all in prison right now and that wouldn’t do our negotiation skills any good, because prisons were meant to reform criminals,


not refine the skills of a Maverick Negotiator.

In the previous section we saw how crude force can cause so many problems and in really serious situations, crude force can still fail – because crude force begets crude force. Instead of using crude force during negotiations, you would be better off using strategic pressure on the other party.

Pressure, I might add, need not involve physical force or crude displays of violence. As a Maverick Negotiator, you have the capacity to use much more subtle means of exerting pressure on the other party. Believe me, pressure


can be exerted on the negotiation table in the most creative of ways.

Using the Time Element

I’m sure you have heard of universal ratios – those ratios that seem to be so universal that they appear crafted by evolution itself.

One of those ratios was noticed by academicians since the early years of modern economy. This particular ratio was termed the 80/20 rule. The 80/20 rule applies to almost any situation.

For example, in a large company 80% of the most critical work is being done


only by 20% of the total number of employees.

It is easy to think that there is an immediate way around this problem if you were the business owner – remove the eighty percent and just leave the twenty percent to do all the important work.

The problem is that when you remove the eighty percent, the remaining twenty percent would a lso be influenced by the 80/20 rule.

Only twenty percent of the remaining twenty percent would be doing the most vital work. You would be dealing with essentially the same problem only


this time, the problem would be limited to a smaller crop of people.

The same principle holds true when you are negotiating with people. Usually, eighty percent of the problems or eighty percent of the concessions are presented at the last twenty percent of the available time for the negotiation. Can you see it? I’m sure you have – the 80/20 principle actually creates a time pressure on at least one party involved in a negotiation.

If 80% of the concessions have to be made at the last 20% of the available time, the party who needs the agreement most will have to give in to the demands of the other party in order


to finally close the agreement. Otherwise, the negotiation would stretch for a longer period of time and the 80/20 principle will reapply itself once again. Who in their right mind would want to repeat this process?

No one – and 99% of the time, the negotiator who needs to give in will give in for the simple reason that he will find it impractical to roll back all of the progress he has made during the previous days or weeks of negotiation. Controlling the concessions is one thing but rolling back progress? That is a completely different proposition altogether.


You can use the 80/20 principle during negotiations but you must also remember to protect yourself against this common gambit. Many negotiators use time pressure as well. How can you protect your posi t ion within a negotiation if there is a risk of being sideswiped by a sudden need for concessions? Here are the guidelines:

1.The first thing you should do is to make a complete list of all the details that need to be discussed on the negotiation table. That is why it is so important to be organized when negotiating with other parties. Make notes – lots of them and make sure that you raise all your concerns


upfront when the negotiation begins.

Don’t be a lazy negotiator. Instead, make an extra effort to discuss all of the things that you need to explore including total costs, service fees, etc. Many negotiators feel that some details can be discussed at a later time and that the first goal is to create a long lasting rapport with the other negotiator.

While it is true that rapport is ex t remely impor tan t in any situation, you must remember that negotiators are given the task to obtain the best possible result for their own party.


So no matter how much rapport you establish with the other negotiator, you will not be able to influence him by being warm and nice.

You will only be able to succeed in the negotiation if you use the right gambits at the most opportune of times. And one of the most important gambits of all is to be prepared for all possible scenarios during the actual negotiation.

Time pressure works extremely well because people are generally more willing to act upon a request or demand if something has to be


accomplished within a limited timeframe.

The motivation for quick action is probably fear of failure. We have an irrational fear of any kind of failure even if the failure itself is only tangentially associated.

For example, your next-door neighbor may suddenly knock on your door one night and ask for gas money because he needs to drive a friend to the hospital and he’s got zero cash on him.

Whether this weird story is true or not won’t matter because at the spur of moment, you will most likely


comply because it seems like a real emergency and action has to be done now, not later or tomorrow. Time pressure rea l ly ads a dimension to a situation that you cannot easily see when you use other strategies.

2. When you are negotiating, always give the impression that you have all the time in the world to negotiate with the other party. If you open a negotiation with a statement like “gentlemen, the company head honchos will have my head on a plate if I don’t produce a good result in two weeks”. Instead of gaining sympathy, you will become an easy target because you have a limited


deadline. The other party will most likely squeeze you for every concession you can give for the simple reason that you don’t have sufficient time to bargain with them.

The other party may even threaten to walk out on you because they have ‘nothing substantial to gain’ from negotiating with you. As you can plainly see, a lot of bad things can happen to a negotiator if he reveals his deadline to the enemy camp.

Be wary of negotiators who casually ask things like “how long have you got for the mediation?”. These negotiators are gauging how long


they can hold out so they can get the most concessions. Of course now, they can’t do that to you anymore can they?

Historic Gambit

Back in 1994, President Bill Clinton was just about ready to send armed troops into Haiti to take out General Raoul Cedras. President Jimmy Carter and a few other negotiators were in Haiti when they received word that General Cedras only had half an hour before a full scale military invasion was instigated by the US.

The problem with this scenario was that President Bill Clinton was pressuring


the wrong person! He was pressuring President Jimmy Carter into creating a favorable result – as if he was the one who should step down from power. At that time, President Bill Clinton should have been focused on General Cedras, not his own negotiating party. Conclusion

In the world of Maverick Negotiation, the strength and skill of a negotiator is measured not by his ability to use deceit and unethical strategies but by his ability to become flexible in the most difficult of times.

A negotiator cannot honestly say that he knows what he’s doing unless he is able to create the best outcomes even if


he doesn’t have access to all the resources that he needs.

In this volume of Maverick Negotiation we were able to discuss the vital connections that a negotiator needs to create to produce ideal results. These vital connections include:

- How one party can exert pressure on the other party through the 80/20 principle

- How to develop the effective habits of a true Maverick Negotiator

- How to set goals and create the expectations that will motivate you


to pursue goals to their logical conclusion on the negotiation table

- Strategies that make use of normative standards

This is the tip of the iceberg of course, but one thing is clear – a Maverick Negotiator’s need for constant learning never ceases. The second volume marks the beginning of your journey into ever-deeper insights on how the complexities of negotiation work in different situations.

I have exposed you to a variety of contexts and stories to show you that there are always general principles involved in negotiation and you must


remember to make full use of these principles at all times. It is my singular hope that these lessons were able to expand your mindset regarding what is poss ib le and p laus ib le on the negotiation table.


copyright inﬂuence mastery inc. 1...adaptable is necessary but if you don’t follow your plan and...

Documents