The Kremlin School of Negotiation. Igor Ryzov
of this is a state of over-motivation. When a person can’t take a step back and soberly evaluate the current situation, their brain starts to see all manner of negative consequences. As a result, they latch onto any bones they are thrown. And who’s throwing these bones? The tough negotiator. You can find any number of examples of this in films depicting the events of the ‘hard nineties’ in Russia and other former Soviet states.
The nineties saw many groups of racketeers approach local businesses to suggest the use of their ‘services’. The majority of businesses would agree on the spot, fearing possible reprisals if they refused. But some strong-willed individuals refused to do business with such groups. That’s where things get interesting for us.
At this point, let’s say one of the gang members says to one such businessman: ‘No problem. You don’t want our help, that’s your business. Just tell us straight: if it’s a no, then it’s a no. Just say the word.’ And then they walk away.
Now, at this point all the businessman can think about are the grimmest possible consequences of his refusal. He’s in a state of fear, of over-motivation. Before long, the businessman comes crawling back to the criminals, the roles now firmly reversed: he is the one persuading them to let him take advantage of their valuable offer. He automatically falls into a dependent role.
This tactic has a 98 per cent success rate. But there are situations in which even this tactic won’t work – namely if the person feels no such sense of fear or ‘need’.
The zone of uncertainty is, nevertheless, a very powerful play, and using it can easily secure some movement in your direction from your opponent.
Let’s imagine a manager is yet again asking his subordinate to stay late after work to finish a project. The subordinate is neither prepared nor willing to work in his free time. Now, at this point many managers would start to threaten the subordinate, barking out a list of orders and acting in a way they consider to be ‘tough’. In fact, this is exactly the sort of behaviour that will provoke further resistance and disloyalty in their colleague.
This is when it’s time to remember the ‘zone of uncertainty’ play. All you need are a couple of phrases: ‘Fine, Ivan, if you don’t want to stay, don’t. I’m sure we’ll manage without you.’ With this, the manager puts those toughest of negotiators – fear and uncertainty – to work in their subordinate’s mind. And believe you me, those two certainly are persuasive.
So now we have seen all five postulates of the Kremlin method. But this method also makes use of what is known as the ‘pendulum of emotions’.
No living person’s emotions can be completely neutral. Our pendulum of emotions is always in a state of flux: even when we are calm, our pendulum will oscillate slightly. And the task of the negotiator using the Kremlin method is to swing the pendulum to its maximum amplitude, so as to more effectively influence our actions and dealings.
Let’s see what happens to our pendulum of emotions during each of these five postulates.
Postulates 1 and 2: the negotiator listens to us and asks us questions. This puts us in a pleasant, even happy frame of mind. The pendulum swings out towards the positive edge of its range.
Postulate 3: we are ‘depreciated’. The pendulum swings in the opposite direction.
After the fourth postulate, once the ‘red carpet’ has been rolled out, our pendulum moves back into the positive. That is where we want it to stay.
If this isn’t enough to seal the deal, then one more step is added – postulate 5.
Under what circumstances is it ethical to use such negotiation methods?
Before we answer this question, let’s evaluate the effectiveness of this method.
How to measure the effectiveness of any negotiating system
A system is evaluated on three points:
1. The negotiation system should, where possible, lead to a reasonable agreement.
2. It should get results effectively.
3. It should improve (or at the very least not worsen) relations between the parties.
On the first and second points there is no doubt that this school of negotiation gets results, and it clearly leads to an agreement.
Which begs the question:
to what extent does the Kremlin method improve relationships?
The answer to this question will also answer our question of ethics. Let’s take a look.
Every coin has its flip side, and I have to examine both.
In theory, the answer should be a resounding no: it worsens them.
The opponent leaves the negotiations feeling happy with the outcome. At that point in time, they genuinely believe that they have found a win–win scenario: both sides have won and they have also met the goals they set out for themselves. After all, they got the contract (letter, sponsorship, etc.). Gains have been made. At some point, however, this person will start to get a feeling I liken to a hangover – when your head starts to clear after a big night, and you realise that something isn’t right, that you’ve done something wrong. Only in this case it’s that something isn’t right, but that someone else has done something wrong to you. This ‘hangover’ feeling can soon begin to grate.
This is one reason why the Kremlin method isn’t always conducive to long-term relationships, which is a major factor to consider in our modern world. Now, if you don’t need long-term relationships – if this is just a one-time negotiation that you want settled here and now – then this method is undoubtedly very effective. But if you have your sights set on long-term communications – even just one more exchange with this party – or if their recommendation is important to you, then this negotiation method is not for you.
That being said, in practice things aren’t always so black and white.
In 2006, when Russia introduced an import ban on Moldovan wines, our company experienced some difficulties. This ban meant that all of the wines in our warehouse would have to be destroyed. And that our regional partners owed us a lot of money for these very wines.
Of course, many of our partners started to speculate on the situation, trying to shift as much of the risk and loss onto us as possible.
Initially we made the decision to write off these debts, in the hope of preserving these relationships and encouraging future business. But then a combination of circumstances made us change tack and toughen our policy. We insisted that our partners accept their share of the risk, and pay what they owed us for the wine that we had had to destroy. With some companies, the matter even went to court.
It is worth noting that, despite us having handled everything in a ‘civilised’ manner, some of the companies from the first list turned their backs on us and stopped working with us. But the very companies that ended up ‘taking a hit’ continued doing business with us, some even more so than before.
Businesses prefer to work with strong, reliable opponents who stand up for themselves. In practice, people respect strong, decisive opponents.
Never sacrifice your own interests to maintain a relationship. That is no marriage of equals. Strategically, you stand to