A (0:00)

Today we are covering negotiations. In the past, I've struggled to find relevant negotiation studies to share with you. All too often the experiments are lab based and the findings rarely apply to the real world. However, I've found a real world study that analyzes 102 actual negotiations and it reveals exactly what sets skilled negotiators apart. All of that coming up.

B (0:25)

So you want to be a marketer? It's easy. You just have to score a ton of leads and figure out a way to turn them all into customers. Plus manage a dozen channels, write a million blogs and launch a hundred campaigns all at once. When that's done, simply make your socials go viral and bring in record profits. No sweat. Okay, fine, it's a lot of Sweat. But with HubSpot's AI powered marketing tools, launching benchmark breaking campaigns is easier than ever. Get started@HubSpot.com marketers.

A (0:57)

In the past on the show I've had Chris Voss on and he's shared some fantastic wisdom about negotiation. He cited a few studies, but he was quick to tell me that so many of the studies around negotiations aren't very reliable because they're not real world settings. They're lab based settings and in a lab people act in ways that are different from how they would act in a typical negotiation. For example, lab based settings typically find that anger works really well because it encourages people to end the negotiation quickly and get what they want. In the real world, that's not so good because often you negotiate repeatedly with the same person. So if you use anger or strategic umbrage as Chris calls it, it'll backfire. So these controlled lab based studies, they don't account for things like emotional complexity, external pressures or nuances of ongoing relationships. And success is often defined very narrowly as well. So points in a payoff metric is a good example rather than long term viability or incident implementation. However, there is some study that I think is fantastic. It is Neil Rackman's study on real life negotiations and it involved skilled professionals like union representatives, managers and contract negotiators. And it actually looked at 102 of their actual negotiation sessions. These were in diverse high stakes contexts and they provided real insight into how good negotiators behaved when outcomes genuinely mattered. So, so Rachman attended negotiations where union representatives and managements were discussing wage disputes and workplace safety. There were management negotiations he looked at and these were with mid level and senior management and this was about stuff like resource allocation, internal conflict resolution and performance evaluations. And he looked at contract negotiations as well. With professional negotiators handling formal agreements. This looked at topics such as pricing, delivery schedules, and focused on precise long term agreements with a lot at stake. All in all, he observed 48 skilled negotiators across 102 negotiation settings in really different context. And importantly, he had a control group. So he looked at what he called successful negotiators. So these are people who were rated as being effective by people on both sides of the negotiation. That was one of the factors they had to have. The second was that they had a consistent track record of long term success. And the third was that they had a low incidence of implementation failure, that is agreements that fall apart after they've been made. The negotiators who did not meet all of those three successful benchmarks were classified as average negotiators. And the average negotiators included people who had less consistent success, were not unanimously rated as effective, and basically didn't have all the things that the successful negotiators did. Rachmann compared the style of these two negotiators. He looked at the successful ones and and the average ones and basically saw what the difference was. And there were some major differences. So the first is in the preparation stage. Skilled negotiators invested significantly more time into planning and analyzing the upcoming negotiation compared to the average negotiators. So skilled negotiators, for example, considered twice as many potential outcomes and options before when they were planning. So they were thinking of loads more different outcomes and options. On average, they thought of 5.1 compared to average negotiators who only thought of 2.6. Skilled negotiators spent three times more anticipating areas of agreement, so thinking about where they might agree with their partners. And skilled negotiators also focused far more, twice as often on long term issues. So when they were planning, they were thinking of the long term implications of their negotiation. Rachman states that preparation is the silent groundwork of negotiation success, where foresight and strategy eliminate missteps before they happen. So this increased planning gives these skilled negotiators extra flexibility in negotiation. It allows them more pathways to agreement. By having multiple options available. It allows the negotiator to pivot quickly if some of the initial proposals are rejected. This helps remove deadlocks, which is one of the problems that average negotiators face all the time. It uncovers win win solutions. So areas where the negotiator and the person they're negotiating with can both gain from this negotiation rather than an average negotiator who might only go in with one goal in mind, which isn't a win win solution. It helps adapt to the other party's need, which is something we'll get onto as being really important. It reduces the uncertainty and makes the skilled negotiator feel more confident, and it helps them prioritize too. All of this increases the potential value of the deal. By having multiple different options, you can flexibly find something that works. You can cooperate properly with your partner. This will increase trust and perceived goodwill as well. That's one of the first findings. Skilled negotiators spend far more time planning, but that's just the start. What happens in the actual negotiation? Well, we'll cover that after this short break Create like the Greats, hosted by Ross Simmons, is brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the Go to audio destination for business professionals. It's in each episode, Ross dives into the stories behind some of history's greatest creations and creators. He unpacks the strategies, processes, and lessons that shaped them. His episodes are engaging, his insights are practical, and he's been living these principles that he shares for over a decade. If you enjoy exploring creativity, the history of creators, and actionable advice, this podcast is for you. Listen to Create like the Greats wherever you get your podcasts. Hello and welcome back. So Rachman didn't just study the planning stage of the negotiation, he studied the actual negotiation as well. And again, there were some critical differences in how skilled negotiators acted compared to average negotiators. Now, one of the things they did differently, one of the behaviors they avoided, was using irritating language. So Brackmann defines irritators as self referential. Words like fair, reasonable, or generous offer words that are used to describe one's own proposals. So if I'm saying I should have a 10 grand pay rise, saying I think that's really reasonable is a bit of an irritator. It implies that what I'm asking for is not a big deal and that the person I'm negotiating with should just give in. Skilled negotiators recognize that these words often provoke negative reactions as they imply that the counterpart is being unfair or unreasonable. And there's a big difference. Skilled negotiators only use irritators 2.3 times per negotiation on average, while an average negotiator will use five times more 10.8 irritators on average. So a really practical tip here is just focus on neutral, objective language when discussing proposals. Don't add these irritators like oh, this is fair. I think I'M being reasonable. I think this is a really generous offer. Don't say that. The second thing that these skilled negotiators did during the negotiation was they minimized immediate counter proposals. So immediate counter proposals are these direct responses to offers which are done immediately and it feels like they don't really consider or discuss the original proposal. So for example, if someone offers to buy something off you for 10 and you immediately counterpropose and say no, it's £20, or no, it's £15, this can sometimes backfire. It's seen as blocking, it's seen as dismissive, it can alienate the other party as it prevents this open discussion and it makes them feel like they're not being heard. Rachman found that skilled negotiators only made 1.7 immediate counterproposals during their negotiations, on average, compared to 3.1 made by the average negotiator. So they're using nearly half as many immediate counterproposals. The tip here is to really acknowledge the other party's proposal before you immediately present an alternative. That's what skilled negotiators do. The third thing they do is they reduce the amount of verbal attacks they use and the amount of verbal defences they One party escalates states by criticizing or justifying their position aggressively. This often leads to spiralling conflict. One party defends the other party, perceives it as an attack and the escalates tension. Further, skilled negotiators engaged in around 1.9 verbal attacks or defences on average during a negotiation, while average negotiators engaged in 6.3, so nearly three times more. The finding here is it's not a surprise to hear that verbal attacks and defensive don't work. But it is interesting to note that skilled negotiators definitely don't use them. Despite what the movies might tell us, staying calm and focused during a negotiation is far better than attacking or defending. Now the final thing they did differently was limiting behaviour labelling in disagreements. So behaviour labelling involves explicitly calling out a counterpart's actions during areas of disagreement. So saying you're being unreasonable, labelling their behavior as wrong can amplify disagreements and it can put the counterpart on the defensive. Skilled negotiators basically never do this. They barely ever behavior label. In Rachman's study he only noticed it 0.4 times on average per negotiation. Whereas average negotiators are 3 times more likely to do negative behavioral labelling. So avoid labeling your counterparts behaviors as negative. Avoid saying that pay rise you're offering me it's ridiculous or you're being really unreasonable or being really unfair. You haven't really considered me my point of view or that sort of behaviour. Labelling just isn't going to help you in these negotiations. Now there is a flip side to this, and this is something skilled negotiators do, which is to label behaviour outside of agreements that they agree with. That can be a really powerful thing to do during a negotiation. So saying, oh, I think that's a really fair offer, or I think you've really thought about this thoroughly labeling behavior positively, that encourages openness and dialogue and it frames contributions as collaborative rather than confrontational. Skilled negotiators love to do positive behavioral labeling. They do it 6.4 times on average per negotiation, compared to 1.2 times on average for the average negotiator. So skilled negotiators use this five times more. So if there is a positive behavior that your counterpart is showing, label that. Say that they're being really fair, say being really reasonable. Another thing that skilled negotiators do is they share their interstates. They make their feelings, their doubts or their motives. They make that visible to the other party. They don't hold their cards close to their chest. This reduces uncertainty about their position and it builds trust. Skilled negotiators share their internal state 12.1 times per negotiations on average, while average negotiators only do this 7.8 times. So skilled negotiators share how they're feeling 50% more. More often they might say something like, I'm unsure about this aspect of the pitch or here's why this point really matters to me. Sharing their internal state really helps increase that transparency and collaboration as well. Another thing skilled negotiators do is they ask a lot of questions. They're constantly probing to gather information about the party's interests, goals and perspectives. On average, skilled negotiators ask 21.3 questions per negotiation compared to just 9.6 by the average negotiators. So they're asking twice as many questions. So, practical tip here is just to start asking open ended questions in your negotiation. Ask what's the most important thing to you in this deal that will help improve the deal because it will reduce the uncertainty and it will also show that you really care about your counterpart's point of view. Another thing skilled negotiators do, and I think this is the last thing on the list, is they test understanding. They verify their own interpretation of the other party's statements by paraphrasing or asking clarifying questions. So they might say, sorry, can I just check? Do I understand you correctly? Is this your point of view? And then actually repeat the point of view. This ensures alignment, it helps avoid misunderstandings, and it signals this attentiveness and respect as well. Skilled negotiators do this. They test their understanding 9.7 times per negotiation, whereas average negotiators only do this 4.1 times. So they're twice as likely to do this regularly checking in with phrases like is this what you're looking for? That helps maintain clarity and it helps improve the deal. So let's sum up. Skilled negotiators consider two times as many outcomes in the planning. They spent 300% more time on agreement areas thinking about agreement areas, and they spent two times as long considering the long term considerations of their proposals. They didn't behavior label negative actions, but they were five times more likely to behave. Your label positive actions like oh, I think you're being really reasonable. They were five times as likely to do that. They shared their internal state 50% more often. They asked twice as many questions and they tested their understanding, which is, can I just check? Did you mean this? They did that twice as often. Neil Rackman's research provides what I think is a roadmap for mastering negotiations in any context, whether we're resolving workplace conflicts, striking business deals, or fostering stronger relationships. The key takeaway is that success isn't about clever tactics at the table. It isn't about strategic umbrage, getting angry, or really rinsing the person to get your deal. It's about deliberate preparation, thoughtful communication, and a focus on trust and long term collaboration. I think the takeaways that I've taken from this fantastic study is to spend more time before a negotiation expanding the amount of options you can bring to the table, thinking long term, anticipating what areas we can agree on with my counterpart. And then during the negotiation, what I'm trying to remember is to make my intentions clear, to label the behavior that I like from my counterpart and not the stuff that I dislike, to share my internal state, to ask more questions and to always double check my understanding. Just verify what I've heard to make sure that I haven't heard anything wrong. It is easy to fall for the simple tricks and hacks that we hear about negotiation. But the evidence suggests from this fantastic study that effective negotiation isn't a simple trick or a hack. It's much harder. You won't win a negotiation simply through a bit of anchoring, just offering a high price and then working down. The genuine evidence suggests that there's much more you need to do. You need to do more planning, you need to show more care during the negotiation, and you need to have more long term thinking and just trust and respect in your counterpart as well. This is genuine evidence that I think is hard to dismiss. Now. This episode was inspired by the wonderful insights from the book Smart why Successful Leaders Must Embrace Simple Strategies in an Increasingly Uncertain and Complex World. This is by Jochen Reb, Shenghua Luan and Gerd Gigerenza. Gerd will actually be coming on Nudge in a few weeks on the main Monday podcast, but his fantastic book with his co authors, it reveals how leaders can make faster, more accurate decisions by actually embracing heuristics and biases rather than rejecting them. I think it's a really interesting take and I can't wait to interview him on the podcast. Well, thank you for listening to this Friday episode. I really hope you enjoyed this study. I found it really fascinating. The sources for the study are in the show notes, so do head there if you want to read more. As always, please do subscribe to the newsletter for more Nudge Every week I send a newsletter covering one of the best bits of behavioral science wisdom I've discovered that week. So just go to nudgepodcast.com and click Newsletter to sign up. If you want to get in touch, you can reach out to me on LinkedIn. I'm Phil Agnew on there. Or you can just reply to the automatic email I send you as soon as you sign up to the newsletter. You can do that too. I really hope you enjoyed today's show and you will hear again from me on Monday when I come back for another episode of Nudge. Okay, thank you so much for listening. I'll see you on Monday. Bye.