Hi All! Please see below my Guide to Assessed Negotiation Exercises at Assessment Centres and during Vacation Schemes. This guide has been built from my own experiences of assessed and real-world negotiations as well as having consulted with Grad Rec specialists.
This is also the first in a series of Monday Articles that I'll be releasing every Monday of January- if you enjoy them, please do tell us! Similarly, if you have any ideas for future articles, don't hesitate to comment on this thread or DM me.
Next week's topic will cover the fundamentals of commercial law and the application process.
I hope you enjoy!
Introduction:
Assessed negotiation tasks can often be the most intimidating part of an Assessment Centre or Vacation Scheme. They’re pretty far out of the norm for what we normally have experience in from education or other work experience and are made even more daunting by the fact that there are many different dimensions to the assessment itself, especially considering you’re plunged into a team with people you don’t know!
This article will cover the assessed negotiation firstly from the perspective of how one’s teamwork skills are assessed, and how one can best showcase teamwork skills in the course of the assessment. Thereafter, we will discuss the different tactics and techniques with which one can approach the negotiation itself alongside teammates to maximise the chances of success during the exercise.
Assessment considerations:
The first thing to consider, and this can absolutely be said for any form of assessment in the journey to a Training Contract (TC), is that the assessed negotiation is assessing a wide variety of specific skills and competencies which are often somewhat ‘hidden’ by the veil of the actual negotiation. To that end, the assessed negotiation is looking for a combination of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ skills.
Key soft skills might include:
The first, and, perhaps, most obvious, point to consider, is one’s place within the team. Remember that, at an Assessment Centre (AC) or Vacation Scheme (VS), the overwhelming probability is that you either don’t know, or know very little, about the personalities of those you’re collaborating with. This can lead to some stress in finding your fit within the team you find yourself placed in. One key consideration is that there is not necessarily a right or a wrong place for you to fit within the team. Every firm will look for individuals who are more naturally leaders (as long as they’re the ‘right type’ of leader) as well as those who prefer to work within a team without necessarily taking on a leadership role (so long, of course, as they are still able to contribute meaningfully to the discussion). To use a sporting analogy, a football team wouldn’t necessarily win every game with just a team of Cristiano Ronaldos - they need others who prefer to work as part of the team without the leadership element. Similarly, though, for a team to be successful, it is important that there are players like Ronaldo who can take on a leadership role to the betterment of the team as a whole.
To that end, it is a deeply personal choice as to whether you choose to assert yourself as a leader or not. Personally, I tended to assume more of a leadership role in assessed negotiations. Is that because I somehow thought I was better than everyone- or, indeed, anyone- else in my team? No, absolutely not; it was down to the fact that it was a more accurate representation of my actual character to do so.
With that said, there are several vitally important items to consider: taking a leadership role can be a phenomenal way of displaying personal strengths, but it can also quickly highlight weaknesses and a lack of EQ if approached in the wrong way. Let’s look at a couple of examples to compare leadership styles (any reference to real people is purely coincidental, of course…):
Example 1: Autocratic or Domineering leadership
Jaysen, Jacob, Dheepa and Alice have been put in a team at an Assessment Centre to complete an assessed negotiation. Everyone has been given the facts of the subject of the negotiation for their side (they’re representing a Private Equity (PE) firm in without prejudice negotiations concerning the purchase of a pharmaceutical start-up, CovidBGone).
It comes time to begin planning their strategy for the discussion, and Jaysen quickly asserts himself as the leader of the group. He interrupts the conversations that the rest of the team are having and begins to assert the points he wants to bring up, doesn’t let anyone else get a word in and doesn’t acknowledge the valuable points that the rest of the team try to make. At the negotiation, he dominates the entire discussion and doesn’t let any of the rest of the team contribute to the discussion.
Because Jaysen has been domineering and has displayed a chronic lack of emotional intelligence, he doesn’t get the VS/ TC offer.
Don’t be like Jaysen.
Example 2: Laissez-faire leadership
Jaysen, Jacob, Dheepa and Alice are in another group together at a different assessment centre for yet another assessed negotiation (what a coincidence!). This time, they’re representing the sellers of a rapidly growing UK and US speciality coffee shop chain to much larger Russian hot drinks chain, Tsarbucks.
Jacob, Dheepa and Alice are all dreading having to work with Jaysen again. Little do they know, however, that Jaysen has spent some time since the last assessment centre reading this very guide and is a new man.
This time round, Jaysen more softly assumes his leadership role by waiting for a natural break in conversation to ask “So, what are everyone’s initial thoughts?”. This elicits a proper dialogue, whereby the entire group is able to benefit from the collective power of four intelligent brains each approaching the issue from a slightly different angle. When everyone has shared their initial ideas, Jaysen politely suggests that the team breaks down the actual negotiation into its core components which individuals can then lead discussions on, so everyone gets an equal opportunity to speak. He also asks if anyone has any similar or alternative ideas that might work even better. He notices that Dheepa is a little quieter and encourages her to contribute her thoughts as she feels comfortable doing so.
At the negotiation, Jaysen takes the lead on his key area but, this time, allows the other team members to lead on their key areas too.
Because Jaysen displayed good teamwork skills in listening to and communicating with his team, as well as an inclusive approach to his leadership, Jaysen is made a VS/ TC offer.
Be like Jaysen - in Example 2, that is…
If asserting yourself as a leader just isn’t for you, there’s absolutely no shame in that. Nonetheless, it is extremely important to contribute meaningfully and confidently in the group discussion in order to demonstrate that you can still work well in a team. Failing to contribute runs the risk of either being perceived to be a ‘lone wolf’ who is incapable of working in a collaborative environment, or, on the other side of the spectrum, as ineffectual or even lazy.
Again, let’s consider a couple of examples:
Example 1: Failure to contribute
Our ‘famous four’ are together in yet another assessed negotiation, this time representing a client who is suing the sellers of a company they recently procured- a computer component and potato snack manufacturer called ChipsRUs- for failing to mention important information about its financial affairs at the disclosure period during the transaction.
This time, Jacob is extremely quiet during the team discussion. He doesn’t contribute anything off his own fruition and, when asked his opinion by Jaysen, mumbles out a mere “Oh, just what you guys have said already.”. Jacob is assigned the role of questioning the opposition on a particular key area of the dispute, relating to whether certain information had been uploaded to a virtual ‘data room’, but only asks one very brief question which is of no real substance to the issues at hand.
Because Jacob has failed to contribute, the assessors have nothing to mark him for. They are very concerned about his teamwork skills and can’t work out whether he is very aloof or if he is simply being lazy. They don’t award him a place on the VS/ TC.
Again, we don’t want to be like Jacob.
Example 2: Valuable contributions
At their fourth and final assessment centre of this cycle, our four candidates (who are every bit as astounded as you that they’ve been placed in the same team at four different firms!) are together again, this time negotiating on behalf of a client - an airline called Here Today, Flown Tomorrow - who is being sued by a contractual counterparty who allege that your client have breached their contract by failing to meet payment deadlines on a hire-purchase agreement for aircraft.
After the last assessment centre, Jaysen advised Jacob to check out this guide on the TCLA forum. It changed Jacob’s outlook on assessed negotiations and, while he still doesn’t want to assume a leadership role, he feels much better equipped to contribute properly to the next assessed negotiation.
When the time comes, Jacob is attentive to the discussion and, when it is suitable to do so, suggests a number of considered and nuanced points relating to key areas of the dispute. At the negotiation, Jacob takes his turn to speak and does so diligently, putting those same points to the opposition team and in so securing a better outcome for his client.
As a result of his stellar contributions to the assessed negotiation, Jacob is offered a VS/ TC.
Team players should be like Jacob - on his second attempt.
Although the above examples are, obviously, somewhat flippant, the key concepts - adopting the correct style of leadership and contributing meaningfully and effectively to group discussions - are imperative to show good emotional intelligence and meet the key requirements in this regard.
Tackling the negotiation:
Let us first consider the planning stage, typically you’ll be in a room (or virtual room) with teammates (and often an assessor who will usually stay quiet and just monitor your discussion, give time updates etc). This is the chance to work through key issues and plan tactics, etc, for the negotiation.
When doing these tasks, I would always suggest that one team member read aloud the facts and information we’ve been given, before we discuss key issues. Not only does this give everyone a little more thinking time, but, often, hearing issues out loud makes us think differently about the facts before us.
Thereafter, I would typically suggest that group members each share ideas on their points of view, or assessments of, key issues raised by the facts. Often, having a mind map on the table, or notes on screenshare, with one team member updating them as the discussion develops, is a great way of ensuring everyone has access to the notes that have flowed from the discussion.
As well as identifying key issues, it is at this point where the team ought to start considering the relative strengths and weaknesses of their arguments in each area. Remember, a good negotiator should always play up their strongest arguments and play down weaker arguments. Remember too that the opposition team will have certain information that you don’t, and that you’ll be in possession of certain information that they aren’t - with that in mind, it is worth thinking through what sort of counterarguments or rebuttal they are likely to have to your arguments and building a contingency plan for these. Of course, it is highly unlikely that your team will be able to think of every possible counterargument, so you will need to think on your feet at points but recognising and understanding key opposition arguments will help you mitigate the chances of this weakening your negotiating position.
Typically, after identifying key arguments, etc, it will be time for the team to allocate the key issues that each member will focus on during the actual negotiation. Remember that it is imperative for each team member to have the opportunity to contribute to the negotiation as well as the preceding discussion. Sometimes, team members will have obvious strengths or weaknesses (for example, someone with a law background may feel more comfortable leading the discussion on particular contract issues, or someone who is numerically challenged - like myself - may want to avoid areas that rely on arithmetic).
One consideration to make at this point is not only who’ll be leading the discussion but identifying one or two teammates for each key area who will monitor the discussion particularly closely and develop follow-up questions that the lead teammate may not have time to develop if they’re particularly busy fielding the negotiations. This approach ensures that all potential avenues for questions and furthering negotiations are covered, rather than risking certain key areas being overlooked if nobody is monitoring the discussion. Similarly, identifying one or two people to manage this per key area means that the discussion doesn’t become too messy with four or five people each trying to jump into the discussion.
Once key areas, strengths and weaknesses or arguments, and monitoring teammates have all been identified, it is now time to consider your approach to the negotiation itself. One of the more challenging elements of an assessed negotiation, due to the fact that teammates don’t know each other and haven’t experienced negotiating with one another before, is that it can be very challenging to put together an overall ‘team’ approach to negotiations. Where, for example, a ‘real life’ team of professional negotiators would have very definite styles (for example, a ‘good cop, bad cop’ approach with one more collaborative negotiator and another who adopts a competitive approach, so the team can revert between styles as necessary), this is unlikely to be the case at an AC or VS.
To that end, this discussion will primarily focus on identifying and honing your own negotiating style.
There are two general styles of negotiating: collaborative and competitive. Collaborative negotiating might also be called ‘constructive’ or ‘interests-based’ negotiation, while competitive negotiation can be known as ‘positional’, ‘hardball’ or ‘strongarm’ negotiation. Neither are necessarily right or wrong, and there is, arguably, a need to be able to adopt both styles depending on the particular circumstances.
In terms of identifying your own negotiating style, the broad features of collaborative negotiation include:
Another item to consider when heading into the negotiation is creating an agenda for the discussion. This isn’t something which is commonly done at assessed negotiations, but, in my experience, can be used to great effect: in providing an agenda for the discussion and giving this to the opposing side, you’re immediately asserting your team as being ‘in charge’ of the negotiation and setting the tone for your team’s perception of the power dynamic that will be the basis of the discussion. This can also help to keep the discussion on track, where, without an agenda or framework, negotiations can go off the rails very quickly.
Don’t, however, make ‘power plays’ at the expense of common courtesy. It is extremely important, even in a mock negotiation, to conduct the appropriate pleasantries at the beginning of the discussion. I always made an effort to open the discussion with something like:
“Hi, thanks for coming - we really appreciate the chance to sit and talk with you today on behalf of our respective clients, and we’re very excited about the chance to come to a mutually beneficial outcome.”
Even though this is obviously part of the role play element of an assessed discussion, it does help to ease the beginning of the conversation which can otherwise be quite jarring.
Secondly, at the beginning of a negotiation, it can always be extremely tempting to try and play your hand first - before the other team can get a word in. In practice, though, it may be better to offer the opposition the first opportunity to speak: firstly, because they likely won’t expect this to happen, and so it may put them on the back foot, and, secondly (most importantly), whenever the opposition team are speaking, you’ve got the opportunity to gain information. Giving them the chance to speak first increases the likelihood that you will become furnished with more information that you didn’t have prior, potentially information which could strengthen your argument. In any event, it is never bad to have as much information as possible at the beginning of a negotiation; having the opposition team speak first is a great way of ensuring this.
As the negotiation progresses, the time will come for offers to be made back and forth - a process which I affectionately call ‘ping pong’. It is very easy for this part of the discussion to become messy; I tended to try and avoid this by using four main techniques:
Making multiple simultaneous offers is a good way of conveying reasonableness and positivity by giving the opposition team the illusion of choice. Multiple simultaneous offers will often be a series of different combinations of trade-offs: for example, offer A is for a lower purchase price but the existing owners maintain some control over the target company (where the owners of the target really want to retain some involvement), where offer B is a higher purchase price but less control for the existing owners (as long as the offer is still within the overall price range given by your client).
Anchoring bias is a phenomenon identified by researchers which shows that the first offer made often has a strong bearing on the rest of the discussion, irrespective of how arbitrary it may be. Making the first offer, even if it considerably more advantageous than you think it is likely you will walk away with, is often a worthwhile effort.
Finally, offering contingency plans is another method of portraying more value to the opposition team by reassuring them that, even if things do not pan out as planned (for example, the target company fails to meet profit targets etc) that all is not lost and there is still a reasonable, albeit revised, plan in place which remains mutually agreeable.
There are, of course, some unwritten rules of negotiations which it is important to bear in mind throughout the process:
This is also the first in a series of Monday Articles that I'll be releasing every Monday of January- if you enjoy them, please do tell us! Similarly, if you have any ideas for future articles, don't hesitate to comment on this thread or DM me.
Next week's topic will cover the fundamentals of commercial law and the application process.
I hope you enjoy!
Introduction:
Assessed negotiation tasks can often be the most intimidating part of an Assessment Centre or Vacation Scheme. They’re pretty far out of the norm for what we normally have experience in from education or other work experience and are made even more daunting by the fact that there are many different dimensions to the assessment itself, especially considering you’re plunged into a team with people you don’t know!
This article will cover the assessed negotiation firstly from the perspective of how one’s teamwork skills are assessed, and how one can best showcase teamwork skills in the course of the assessment. Thereafter, we will discuss the different tactics and techniques with which one can approach the negotiation itself alongside teammates to maximise the chances of success during the exercise.
Assessment considerations:
The first thing to consider, and this can absolutely be said for any form of assessment in the journey to a Training Contract (TC), is that the assessed negotiation is assessing a wide variety of specific skills and competencies which are often somewhat ‘hidden’ by the veil of the actual negotiation. To that end, the assessed negotiation is looking for a combination of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ skills.
Key soft skills might include:
- a candidate’s ability to work collaboratively in a team (both internally at the planning stage and then in the negotiation)
- a candidate’s ability to think quickly and consider fresh information put to them by the opposition
- a candidate’s ability to be flexible in thought and approach with regard to the particular circumstances
- a candidate’s ability to communicate clearly and effectivelya candidate’s time management skills (though this could be assessed collectively, to a greater or lesser extent)
The first, and, perhaps, most obvious, point to consider, is one’s place within the team. Remember that, at an Assessment Centre (AC) or Vacation Scheme (VS), the overwhelming probability is that you either don’t know, or know very little, about the personalities of those you’re collaborating with. This can lead to some stress in finding your fit within the team you find yourself placed in. One key consideration is that there is not necessarily a right or a wrong place for you to fit within the team. Every firm will look for individuals who are more naturally leaders (as long as they’re the ‘right type’ of leader) as well as those who prefer to work within a team without necessarily taking on a leadership role (so long, of course, as they are still able to contribute meaningfully to the discussion). To use a sporting analogy, a football team wouldn’t necessarily win every game with just a team of Cristiano Ronaldos - they need others who prefer to work as part of the team without the leadership element. Similarly, though, for a team to be successful, it is important that there are players like Ronaldo who can take on a leadership role to the betterment of the team as a whole.
To that end, it is a deeply personal choice as to whether you choose to assert yourself as a leader or not. Personally, I tended to assume more of a leadership role in assessed negotiations. Is that because I somehow thought I was better than everyone- or, indeed, anyone- else in my team? No, absolutely not; it was down to the fact that it was a more accurate representation of my actual character to do so.
With that said, there are several vitally important items to consider: taking a leadership role can be a phenomenal way of displaying personal strengths, but it can also quickly highlight weaknesses and a lack of EQ if approached in the wrong way. Let’s look at a couple of examples to compare leadership styles (any reference to real people is purely coincidental, of course…):
Example 1: Autocratic or Domineering leadership
Jaysen, Jacob, Dheepa and Alice have been put in a team at an Assessment Centre to complete an assessed negotiation. Everyone has been given the facts of the subject of the negotiation for their side (they’re representing a Private Equity (PE) firm in without prejudice negotiations concerning the purchase of a pharmaceutical start-up, CovidBGone).
It comes time to begin planning their strategy for the discussion, and Jaysen quickly asserts himself as the leader of the group. He interrupts the conversations that the rest of the team are having and begins to assert the points he wants to bring up, doesn’t let anyone else get a word in and doesn’t acknowledge the valuable points that the rest of the team try to make. At the negotiation, he dominates the entire discussion and doesn’t let any of the rest of the team contribute to the discussion.
Because Jaysen has been domineering and has displayed a chronic lack of emotional intelligence, he doesn’t get the VS/ TC offer.
Don’t be like Jaysen.
Example 2: Laissez-faire leadership
Jaysen, Jacob, Dheepa and Alice are in another group together at a different assessment centre for yet another assessed negotiation (what a coincidence!). This time, they’re representing the sellers of a rapidly growing UK and US speciality coffee shop chain to much larger Russian hot drinks chain, Tsarbucks.
Jacob, Dheepa and Alice are all dreading having to work with Jaysen again. Little do they know, however, that Jaysen has spent some time since the last assessment centre reading this very guide and is a new man.
This time round, Jaysen more softly assumes his leadership role by waiting for a natural break in conversation to ask “So, what are everyone’s initial thoughts?”. This elicits a proper dialogue, whereby the entire group is able to benefit from the collective power of four intelligent brains each approaching the issue from a slightly different angle. When everyone has shared their initial ideas, Jaysen politely suggests that the team breaks down the actual negotiation into its core components which individuals can then lead discussions on, so everyone gets an equal opportunity to speak. He also asks if anyone has any similar or alternative ideas that might work even better. He notices that Dheepa is a little quieter and encourages her to contribute her thoughts as she feels comfortable doing so.
At the negotiation, Jaysen takes the lead on his key area but, this time, allows the other team members to lead on their key areas too.
Because Jaysen displayed good teamwork skills in listening to and communicating with his team, as well as an inclusive approach to his leadership, Jaysen is made a VS/ TC offer.
Be like Jaysen - in Example 2, that is…
If asserting yourself as a leader just isn’t for you, there’s absolutely no shame in that. Nonetheless, it is extremely important to contribute meaningfully and confidently in the group discussion in order to demonstrate that you can still work well in a team. Failing to contribute runs the risk of either being perceived to be a ‘lone wolf’ who is incapable of working in a collaborative environment, or, on the other side of the spectrum, as ineffectual or even lazy.
Again, let’s consider a couple of examples:
Example 1: Failure to contribute
Our ‘famous four’ are together in yet another assessed negotiation, this time representing a client who is suing the sellers of a company they recently procured- a computer component and potato snack manufacturer called ChipsRUs- for failing to mention important information about its financial affairs at the disclosure period during the transaction.
This time, Jacob is extremely quiet during the team discussion. He doesn’t contribute anything off his own fruition and, when asked his opinion by Jaysen, mumbles out a mere “Oh, just what you guys have said already.”. Jacob is assigned the role of questioning the opposition on a particular key area of the dispute, relating to whether certain information had been uploaded to a virtual ‘data room’, but only asks one very brief question which is of no real substance to the issues at hand.
Because Jacob has failed to contribute, the assessors have nothing to mark him for. They are very concerned about his teamwork skills and can’t work out whether he is very aloof or if he is simply being lazy. They don’t award him a place on the VS/ TC.
Again, we don’t want to be like Jacob.
Example 2: Valuable contributions
At their fourth and final assessment centre of this cycle, our four candidates (who are every bit as astounded as you that they’ve been placed in the same team at four different firms!) are together again, this time negotiating on behalf of a client - an airline called Here Today, Flown Tomorrow - who is being sued by a contractual counterparty who allege that your client have breached their contract by failing to meet payment deadlines on a hire-purchase agreement for aircraft.
After the last assessment centre, Jaysen advised Jacob to check out this guide on the TCLA forum. It changed Jacob’s outlook on assessed negotiations and, while he still doesn’t want to assume a leadership role, he feels much better equipped to contribute properly to the next assessed negotiation.
When the time comes, Jacob is attentive to the discussion and, when it is suitable to do so, suggests a number of considered and nuanced points relating to key areas of the dispute. At the negotiation, Jacob takes his turn to speak and does so diligently, putting those same points to the opposition team and in so securing a better outcome for his client.
As a result of his stellar contributions to the assessed negotiation, Jacob is offered a VS/ TC.
Team players should be like Jacob - on his second attempt.
Although the above examples are, obviously, somewhat flippant, the key concepts - adopting the correct style of leadership and contributing meaningfully and effectively to group discussions - are imperative to show good emotional intelligence and meet the key requirements in this regard.
Tackling the negotiation:
Let us first consider the planning stage, typically you’ll be in a room (or virtual room) with teammates (and often an assessor who will usually stay quiet and just monitor your discussion, give time updates etc). This is the chance to work through key issues and plan tactics, etc, for the negotiation.
When doing these tasks, I would always suggest that one team member read aloud the facts and information we’ve been given, before we discuss key issues. Not only does this give everyone a little more thinking time, but, often, hearing issues out loud makes us think differently about the facts before us.
Thereafter, I would typically suggest that group members each share ideas on their points of view, or assessments of, key issues raised by the facts. Often, having a mind map on the table, or notes on screenshare, with one team member updating them as the discussion develops, is a great way of ensuring everyone has access to the notes that have flowed from the discussion.
As well as identifying key issues, it is at this point where the team ought to start considering the relative strengths and weaknesses of their arguments in each area. Remember, a good negotiator should always play up their strongest arguments and play down weaker arguments. Remember too that the opposition team will have certain information that you don’t, and that you’ll be in possession of certain information that they aren’t - with that in mind, it is worth thinking through what sort of counterarguments or rebuttal they are likely to have to your arguments and building a contingency plan for these. Of course, it is highly unlikely that your team will be able to think of every possible counterargument, so you will need to think on your feet at points but recognising and understanding key opposition arguments will help you mitigate the chances of this weakening your negotiating position.
Typically, after identifying key arguments, etc, it will be time for the team to allocate the key issues that each member will focus on during the actual negotiation. Remember that it is imperative for each team member to have the opportunity to contribute to the negotiation as well as the preceding discussion. Sometimes, team members will have obvious strengths or weaknesses (for example, someone with a law background may feel more comfortable leading the discussion on particular contract issues, or someone who is numerically challenged - like myself - may want to avoid areas that rely on arithmetic).
One consideration to make at this point is not only who’ll be leading the discussion but identifying one or two teammates for each key area who will monitor the discussion particularly closely and develop follow-up questions that the lead teammate may not have time to develop if they’re particularly busy fielding the negotiations. This approach ensures that all potential avenues for questions and furthering negotiations are covered, rather than risking certain key areas being overlooked if nobody is monitoring the discussion. Similarly, identifying one or two people to manage this per key area means that the discussion doesn’t become too messy with four or five people each trying to jump into the discussion.
Once key areas, strengths and weaknesses or arguments, and monitoring teammates have all been identified, it is now time to consider your approach to the negotiation itself. One of the more challenging elements of an assessed negotiation, due to the fact that teammates don’t know each other and haven’t experienced negotiating with one another before, is that it can be very challenging to put together an overall ‘team’ approach to negotiations. Where, for example, a ‘real life’ team of professional negotiators would have very definite styles (for example, a ‘good cop, bad cop’ approach with one more collaborative negotiator and another who adopts a competitive approach, so the team can revert between styles as necessary), this is unlikely to be the case at an AC or VS.
To that end, this discussion will primarily focus on identifying and honing your own negotiating style.
There are two general styles of negotiating: collaborative and competitive. Collaborative negotiating might also be called ‘constructive’ or ‘interests-based’ negotiation, while competitive negotiation can be known as ‘positional’, ‘hardball’ or ‘strongarm’ negotiation. Neither are necessarily right or wrong, and there is, arguably, a need to be able to adopt both styles depending on the particular circumstances.
In terms of identifying your own negotiating style, the broad features of collaborative negotiation include:
- the use of neutral or positive language
- a constructive approach, encouraging two sides to work together
- reinforcement of common interests (e.g., “we both want to get this deal through” or “we both want to resolve this dispute without litigation”)
- apparent willingness to make concessions (these may, however, be ‘fake’ as we will cover later on)
- asking open questions
- shorter answers to questions- not communicating any more information than necessary to answer a question
- more abrupt tone- focussed around what your client wants and holding more strongly to this than in a collaborative style where the emphasis is on mutual benefit
- often exaggerated offers or answers
- rhetorical questions
- “why” questions, forcing justification of a point
- answering questions with other questions
Another item to consider when heading into the negotiation is creating an agenda for the discussion. This isn’t something which is commonly done at assessed negotiations, but, in my experience, can be used to great effect: in providing an agenda for the discussion and giving this to the opposing side, you’re immediately asserting your team as being ‘in charge’ of the negotiation and setting the tone for your team’s perception of the power dynamic that will be the basis of the discussion. This can also help to keep the discussion on track, where, without an agenda or framework, negotiations can go off the rails very quickly.
Don’t, however, make ‘power plays’ at the expense of common courtesy. It is extremely important, even in a mock negotiation, to conduct the appropriate pleasantries at the beginning of the discussion. I always made an effort to open the discussion with something like:
“Hi, thanks for coming - we really appreciate the chance to sit and talk with you today on behalf of our respective clients, and we’re very excited about the chance to come to a mutually beneficial outcome.”
Even though this is obviously part of the role play element of an assessed discussion, it does help to ease the beginning of the conversation which can otherwise be quite jarring.
Secondly, at the beginning of a negotiation, it can always be extremely tempting to try and play your hand first - before the other team can get a word in. In practice, though, it may be better to offer the opposition the first opportunity to speak: firstly, because they likely won’t expect this to happen, and so it may put them on the back foot, and, secondly (most importantly), whenever the opposition team are speaking, you’ve got the opportunity to gain information. Giving them the chance to speak first increases the likelihood that you will become furnished with more information that you didn’t have prior, potentially information which could strengthen your argument. In any event, it is never bad to have as much information as possible at the beginning of a negotiation; having the opposition team speak first is a great way of ensuring this.
As the negotiation progresses, the time will come for offers to be made back and forth - a process which I affectionately call ‘ping pong’. It is very easy for this part of the discussion to become messy; I tended to try and avoid this by using four main techniques:
- using smart trade-offs to my advantage
- making multiple simultaneous offers
- leveraging so-called ‘anchoring bias’
- offering contingency plans as part of my offers
Making multiple simultaneous offers is a good way of conveying reasonableness and positivity by giving the opposition team the illusion of choice. Multiple simultaneous offers will often be a series of different combinations of trade-offs: for example, offer A is for a lower purchase price but the existing owners maintain some control over the target company (where the owners of the target really want to retain some involvement), where offer B is a higher purchase price but less control for the existing owners (as long as the offer is still within the overall price range given by your client).
Anchoring bias is a phenomenon identified by researchers which shows that the first offer made often has a strong bearing on the rest of the discussion, irrespective of how arbitrary it may be. Making the first offer, even if it considerably more advantageous than you think it is likely you will walk away with, is often a worthwhile effort.
Finally, offering contingency plans is another method of portraying more value to the opposition team by reassuring them that, even if things do not pan out as planned (for example, the target company fails to meet profit targets etc) that all is not lost and there is still a reasonable, albeit revised, plan in place which remains mutually agreeable.
There are, of course, some unwritten rules of negotiations which it is important to bear in mind throughout the process:
- never let the opposition know your maximum (or minimum) constraints for any given metric of the negotiation
- never voluntarily bring up your weakest arguments: always make the opposition team draw these out
- always maintain good (and covert) lines of communication with your teammates during the negotiation. For virtual negotiations, keeping a chat bar open with your teammates is a great way of doing this. In person, it is a little harder - generally the discreet passing of short notes or quietly whispering into a teammate’s ear will usually have to suffice
