The Kremlin School of Negotiation. Igor Ryzov
from an opponent? It’s common sense that they would do such-and-such instead!’ Well, yes, logically speaking. But then emotions come into play. This is why specialists highlight three vectors as being particularly important to the negotiation process. It is these three vectors in particular that we will study over the course of this book. These are:
• the ability to defend one’s interests;
• the ability to manage one’s emotions; and
• the ability to manage the emotions of others.
Negotiations are, above all, a process. With this process in mind, we must identify both the type of negotiations we are taking part in and our opponent’s motives.
Many sales specialists believe that if a buyer invites them to negotiations it means the buyer is automatically interested in doing business with them, and that this will therefore be the purpose of the negotiations. This is a rookie mistake.
For several months, Andrei, the manager of a company selling construction materials, has been negotiating with the procurement manager of a construction company. Andrei knows for a fact (nor is the buyer hiding this) that the construction company is currently buying in its materials from a competitor. During these negotiations, the procurement manager has repeatedly stressed that they enjoy working with this competitor. They are happy with the quality and price that the competitor offers, as well as their fast service. The buyer isn’t refusing to negotiate with Andrei, but they never manage to get down to the nitty-gritty. Andrei keeps on offering them discounts, shares and better terms, all in the hope of poaching their business. After four months of futile efforts, Andrei learns by chance that the buyer has been using his quotes to get better terms from the competitor.
In this example, it is clear that the buyer’s motives have nothing to do with a future partnership, but Andrei doesn’t see what is really driving the discussions and so falls straight into the trap.
This happens quite a lot. A man decides he wants the best possible deal on a car, and so conducts his own pseudo request for tenders. He goes to every car dealership in town, using one single phrase to get the best possible price: ‘Your rival offered me a better deal.’ He is, in effect, putting his competitors head to head. The dealership managers, believing he’s negotiating because he intends to buy from them, get caught in his net.
Fred Charles Iklé, an American sociologist, political scientist and author of books including Every War Must End and How Nations Negotiate, outlines the following types of and motives for negotiations:
• Negotiations with a view to extending existing agreements. Such negotiations are often held in the trade sphere to extend the validity of a contract, or to add certain clarifications or changes to a new contract to reflect the current state of affairs. Such negotiations are also not uncommon when extending labour contracts.
• Negotiations with a view to normalising relations. These presume a transition from a conflict situation to a different relationship between the parties (neutrality or co-operation).
• Negotiations with a view to finalising redistribution agreements. These negotiations are when one party takes an aggressive position and demands changes to agreements that are to their advantage, at a cost to other parties. Such negotiations take place when haggling over a price or other material resources – an increase or decrease in rent, for example.
• Negotiations with a view to reaching a new agreement. These are intended to establish a new relationship and new obligations between parties. Negotiations with a new partner, for example.
• Negotiations with a view to gathering information. Indirect results may not be reflected in agreements, and in some cases the negotiations may not even lead to an agreement at all. Examples of this type of negotiation include talks to establish contact, identify partners’ points of view or influence public opinion.
Iklé wrote his books in the twentieth century. In light of present-day practice, we can extend this list to include:
• Negotiations with a view to misleading an opponent. These are, quite simply, an imitation of the negotiation process. Opponents often enter the negotiation process and deliberately draw it out, safe in the knowledge that time is on their side. In this type of negotiation, every one of your proposals will be met with a ‘maybe’, a ‘we’ll need to consult on this’ or similar.
• Provocation. Negotiations with a view to showing the other party’s inability to negotiate.
It is very important to identify your opponent’s primary motive in the early stages of the negotiation process, and to use this knowledge when deciding on your next steps.
I once acted as a mediator in negotiations to settle a dispute between two companies and a bank. The dispute concerned a joint debt repayment for an enterprise that had gone bankrupt.
Every meeting came to nothing, but our opponent kept on initiating negotiations, declaring their willingness to settle the matter in a ‘constructive’ manner. Yet when it came to the negotiating table, the same party kept putting forward absurd demands. Whenever the talks broke down, we couldn’t understand what was preventing us from reaching an agreement. Then it dawned on us: our opponent simply didn’t want to share their part of the debt. Their goal was to avoid it. Meaning their main task was to prove our inability to negotiate. Once we’d figured out their real motive, we were able to fundamentally change the course of the negotiation process.
The negotiator’s primary task is to identify what type of negotiations their opponent is leading and, with a better understanding of the process at hand, to select an appropriate negotiation strategy.
WHO IS STRONGER IN NEGOTIATIONS – THE LION OR THE FOX?
Some five hundred years ago, Niccolò Machiavelli – that great bard of public administration – wrote:
Since a ruler has to be able to act the beast, he should take on the traits of the fox and the lion; the lion can’t defend itself against snares and the fox can’t defend itself from wolves. So you have to play the fox to see the snares and the lion to scare off the wolves. A ruler who just plays the lion and forgets the fox doesn’t know what he’s doing.1
Now, I realise that the negotiator is no ruler, but negotiation carries with it the same requirement to get smart, shall we say.
I have already mentioned how, in negotiation, two points are particularly important. One is the ability to defend one’s interests. As far as Machiavelli goes, this is pretty much comparable to the ability to be a lion. But the ability to be a lion is not enough on its own, as you might not notice the snare.
The thing is, when we defend our own interests, we can inadvertently lay down our own snares – the very ones Machiavelli warns against. What snares are these, you ask? Emotions. Emotions that prevent us from defending our interests, progressing and realising our goals. To use our emotions the right way, we need to play the fox. Together, these abilities are key to negotiation. Like a ruler, a negotiator should take on the traits of the lion as well as the fox.
In other words, the ability to play the fox as well as the lion lies at the heart of effective negotiation.
Before exploring the methods and tactics for defending one’s interests (à la the lion) and managing one’s emotions (à la the fox), I would first like to look at one of the toughest and most brutal schools of negotiation. Yes, you read that right. Brutal.
Legend has it that this school was born in Russia in the 1920s, and it still has its followers and advocates to this day. It is known by many as the Kremlin school of negotiation.
So