Fasset Negotiating Skills To Reach A Deal 2012 Workbook
Fasset Negotiating Skills To Reach A Deal 2012 Workbook
Fasset Negotiating Skills To Reach A Deal 2012 Workbook
Reach a Deal
April / May 2012
Delegates Workbook
Facilitated by Itukisa (Pty) Ltd.
The views expressed in this workbook are not necessarily reflective of the official views of Fasset.
Influencing Techniques............................................................................................................................... 43
Page 2
Closing Techniques..................................................................................................................................... 66
Annexure 1: Understanding your Negotiation (Communication) Style .................................................. 68
The Four Communication Styles....................................................................................................................... 71
Page 3
It should be efficient.
It should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.
Negotiation is not about confrontation, it is about achieving a shared outcome. In the process both parties give
something in order to receive the best possible outcome. Shared solutions must work in practise. You have to be
open and honest, if not, the relationship might be harmed, and trust is damaged.
Page 4
Negotiation is any activity that influences another person. Here's how a number of leading thinkers define
the topic:
Negotiating is the process of getting the best terms once the other side starts to act on their
interest.
... negotiating is... a means of achieving one's goals in every relationship regardless of the
circumstances.
Negotiation is a field of knowledge and endeavour that focuses on gaining the favour of people
from whom we want things.
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Bottom line real maximum buyer; real-minimum seller i.e. Point beyond which you cannot go
Your reservation price (also referred to as your "walk-away") is the least favourable point at which you would
accept a deal.
This is your Bottom line or Must have. An example is that there is a minimum monetary amount that you would be
willing to do a days work for. A reservation price does not always have a rand value. Perhaps there is a minimum
time frame for completing a project.
Pitch
The initial offer is usually high for the seller and low for the buyer. This is accepted practice and parties negotiate
from there.
Favoured outcomes
The price/ settlement/ terms you hope to get looking realistically at the situation and the market price.
Settlement point
The price or terms finally agreed upon.
Negotiation range
This is the area between your asking price and your real maximum/ minimum. You should decide this in advance or
make sure you have the mandate from your principal to negotiate up to / down to a specific position.
ZOPA
The "Zone of Possible Agreement" is the area in which a deal can take place. Each partys reservation price
determines one end of the ZOPA. The ZOPA itself exists (if at all) in the overlap between these high and low limits.
That is, between the parties real maxima and real minima. (Reservation prices).
For example: You are the seller of a house. Your bottom line (real minimum) is:
R100,000. You will not accept any less.
A potential buyer is willing to pay no more than R110,000. (His/her real maximum).
In this example, the ZOPA is between R100,000 and R110,000. You can see that in this situation an agreement can
be reached, because there is a ZOPA. If, however, the buyer is only willing to go to a maximum of R90,000, there is
no ZOPA. No agreement is possible.
Page 8
Individual Exercise
Negotiating Planning Sheet
What is the scenario you want to focus on?
Who is involved?
Describe the current situation what do you want from this negotiation?
What are you willing to give in order to get what you want?
Page 9
OUTCOMES
Issues
Realistic
Acceptable
Worst possible
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Page 10
Seeking mutually satisfying solutions rather than imposing your own regardless of others;
Style 1
Style 2
WHAT
Results
Objectives
Achieving
Doing
HOW
Strategies
Organisational Facts
Driver
Analytical
(Action)
(Process)
Expressive
Amiable
(Idea)
(People)
WHY
Concepts
Theories
Innovation
WHO
Communications
Relationships
Teamwork
Style 4
Style 3
Page 11
Persons With:
Driver
Style
Analytical
Style
Expressive
Style
Amiable
Style
Needs to learn
Humility
Spontaneity
Patients
Determination
Discipline
Measures
progress by:
Result
Activity
Applause
Attention
Will ask:
What?
How?
Who?
Why?
Time
Face
Effort
Friendship
Takes
endorsements
from:
Getting the
job done well
and on time
Knowledge
Social skillslikes to be
good at
winning people
Friends they
still like me, I
must be doing
it right.
Needs to be
given:
A position that
requires
relying on
cooperation
Some methods
of dealing with
other people
Some
structure within
which to reach
the goal
Structure for
the goal and
methods for the
task
Relies on the
power of:
Personalityhopes to be
strong enough
to wing it
Expertisegathers more
data when in
doubt
Feelingexpects that
winning ways
will carry him
or her through
Acceptanceuses
compliments to
get approval
Motivated by:
Responsibility
Logic
Authority
Routine
Friendly
people
Trust and
security
Achievement
Structure
New
opportunities
Need for
services
Attention
Appeal to
loyalty
Saves:
Most effective
environment
is:
Competitive
Unemotional
Social
Respecting
Open
Factual
Changing
Supporting
Challenging
Scientific
Youthful
Reassuring
Opportunistic
Practical
Optimistic
Idealistic
Page 12
Type
How to approach
I
A
B
L
E
E
X
P
R
E
S
They will only want to see facts & figures related to getting
results, probabilities of success or effectiveness of options
provide choices & alternatives
V
E
D
R
I
V
E
R
Page 13
Type
A
N
A
How to approach
T
I
What is the difference between being assertive as opposed to aggressive (and as opposed to submissive)?
You are aggressive when you pursue your own needs at the expense of other people and you ignore the rights of
others. You are assertive by pursuing your own needs by showing respect for the needs and rights and dignity of
other people. Win-win is an assertive strategy.
If, however, you give up your own needs and goals in order to be liked by your counterpart in negotiation you
demonstrate submissiveness.
Confidence and self-esteem are important when negotiating. If you do not feel sufficient esteem for yourself, you
become vulnerable for intimidation. This can, however, be turned around to your advantage. Suppose you are
dealing with someone who is older or more knowledgeable than you are, you can say to them: I really do not
understand this, can you help me out of this. I really need your help.
At the end of the day, nobody can intimidate you without your participation. So the advice is: dont give away your
power.
Page 14
There are people who really enjoy intimidating their opponents. The way of dealing with this kind of negotiator is
simply to be aware what is going on. Once you realise that they are trying to intimidate you, you can ignore it.
Patience can help a lot. You must be able to take your time and not let them rush you into something, and of
course: always be willing to walk away from a negotiation. Your ultimate power lies in your willingness to walk away!
If you want something too badly you lose your power, which comes from your ability to say No. Another way of
putting this is: never negotiate without options. (BATNA) When you have alternatives, when you are not desperate,
thats when other people will give you what you want. For instance we have all experienced looking for a job. Its
always easier to interview for a job, if you already have a job. You dont need a new job and they want to hire you
because somebody else hired you.
Even in a win-win negotiation you are in a much stronger position when you are not desperate. Your judgement is
not clouded by fear; you can take your time. You can reassure the other negotiator that you are not here because
you have to be here. You are here because you want to be here.
Although negotiation stances can be classified as competitive or collaborative, in practice there are a range of
styles, based on the degree to which a person thinks about him/herself or thinks about the other person.
A strategy for successful negotiations:
Listen carefully to the arguments of the other party and assess the logic of their reasoning.
Keep calm and use assertive rather than aggressive behaviour. Use tact and diplomacy to diffuse
tensions.
Use both verbal and non-verbal persuasion skills. Use open, encouraging body language such as
mirroring, not defensive or closed.
Know when to compromise. Offer concessions where necessary, but minor ones at first.
Distinguish between needs: important points on which you can't compromise and interests where
you can concede ground. Allow the other party to save face if necessary via small concessions.
Page 15
Remember to focus on the various types of behaviour. Here are a few tips on negotiating with the different
types:
How to negotiate with an Amiable
The more they like and trust you, the more they will
be cooperative.
Page 16
They are usually not out to eat you up, but they are
out to get a good deal.
They will not usually take the first deal offered. If
you offer them your best deal and refuse to budge,
you disappoint them, because you don't give them
an opportunity to use their skill. So offer a good
deal, but be prepared to make small concessions.
Let Drivers talk first. If you feel boxed in, be direct
about it - make them think from your position. E.g.:
"Look we both want what is best for our companies;
that's why we are here. I also realise that neither of
us wants to take advantage of the other person. So
share with me, why if you were me you would take
the deal you just offered." They will often chuckle or
back down when you say something like this.
Drivers are there to make a deal first and a
relationship second. Be open, direct and call
them on their bluff in a friendly way. Don't try to
punch back.
e.g.: "Frankly you have stumped me. I am having a
hard time rationalising how to do this job at the
pricing we are talking about. Can you brainstorm
with me on how we can make this work?"
Page 17
Key Skill
Reason
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
9.
9.
10.
10.
In order to find a relationship between success in negotiation and the skills employed, a survey was made of the
views of over 500 professional negotiators. A list of 45 personal characteristics, skills and traits were considered
relevant, and were ranked according to importance.
There were significant variations in the way that negotiators from different professions assessed the relative
importance of the various characteristics.
Page 18
Negotiator's Ratings
1. Planning skills
2. Personal integrity
3. Verbal and non-verbal clarity
4. Clear thinking under stress
5. General practical intelligence
6. Ability to gain respect
7. Team leadership skills
8. Tact/discretion
9. Ability to exploit power
10. Open mindedness/flexibility
11. Professional standards
12. Persistence
13. Self confidence
14. Product knowledge
15. Insight/discernment
Of the 45 skills under consideration, only the top 15 selected are shown. Of the remaining 30 not listed here, the
bottom rankings were universally given to: education, and job title. All professions rated Planning skills, Flexibility,
Personal Integrity and Verbal/Non-verbal clarity as the most vital attributes.
In negotiations we often have to adjust our approach when entering the negotiations, and there for the following
characteristics need to be developed:
Willing to invest time and trouble in careful research and analysis of the issue;
Page 19
Take it personally;
Need to be liked;
Become aggressive.
Individual Exercise
List all your personal strengths as a negotiator:
List your personal areas for development as a negotiator and your action plan:
Page 20
Key:
1 = Typical of me
1) I enjoy dealing with other people, and I am committed to building relationships and creating win-win outcomes.
1
2) I have good self-esteem and tend to have a high level of aspiration and expectation.
1
6) I am able to clearly identify my bottom line in every negotiation. (If I go below or above a certain point, I will walk out.)
1
7) I am willing to ask as many questions as it takes to get the information needed to make the best decision.
1
Page 21
12) I look for ways to "grow the pie"-rather than simply dividing up the existing pieces-thereby expanding the relationship
with my counterpart.
1
14) I like to uncover the needs, wants and motivations of counterparts so I can help them achieve their goals.
1
15) I recognise the power of strategies and tactics and use them frequently.
1
18) When a counterpart and I come to an agreement on an issue, I ensure that the issue is measurable and time-bound.
1
Key:
20 40
You are not a successful negotiator - you need to build skills and knowledge in this area.
40 60
You have some ability in negotiation but need to learn ways of meeting your own needs while maintaining
relationships.
60 80
You are a good negotiator and have developed skills to help you reach win-win in negotiations.
80 100
Page 22
Mirroring
In any intimate communication there is a natural tendency to mirror the body position of the person you are talking
to, and this behaviour tends to result in a more relaxed and agreeable atmosphere. You can put the other side at
ease by being aware of this and making a positive but subtle effort to mirror their body language when opening
negotiations - but don't overdo it. If you are negotiating as part of a team then it is important to keep everyone on
your side aware of the subtle messages they may be sending out. An individuals facial expression, tone of voice,
body posture and movement often convey a world of detail about what they are thinking, feeling and planning. The
effective use and interpretation of body language communication will help you to identify subtle aspects of the other
sides opening position.
Intelligent listening
Intelligent listening when opening negotiations can be described as getting behind what people say to understand
what they really mean. For example if the other side says: We absolutely cannot move on price it may be that
other aspects of the deal are negotiable.
Similarly, We dont usually give more than 5% discount could mean that they might well give more discounts if you
give them something in return.
Under our standard terms could be taken to mean that other terms are almost certainly negotiable.
That isnt our usual practice could mean that they could be convinced to make an exception.
I cant see how youre going to achieve this invites you to explain in more detail how it could be achieved.
Page 23
Assertive
Posture
Aggressive
Non-Assertive
Upright/straight
Leaning Forward
Shrinking back
Head
Head down
Eyes
Strongly focused
Glancing away
Staring, often
Piercing or glaring
Eye contact
Eye contact
Face
Set/firm
Voice
Loud/emphatic
Relaxed/moving easily
Controlled, sharp
gestures, such as finger
pointing or jabbing
Aimless/still
Arms/Hands
Movement
(Walking)
Hard
Projection
Projection is how well you make your words carry to the place you want them to go.
This is different than loudness. To project your voice correctly you must focus on the location to which you want
your words to carry and mentally aim your voice in that direction. Speak with more power. Your voice is your most
effective instrument for expressing your words with power and self-assurance. Peoples first impression of us is
dominated by our voice quality. An assertive script communicates rational meaning.
If you are too loud, you may appear bombastic.
If you are too soft, you may sound timid.
Feelings are also communicated by your rate of speaking: too rapid - impatience or anger, too slow - hesitancy or
fear.
Page 24
Posture;
Facial expressions;
Gestures;
Tone of voice.
Where you are in relation to the person with whom you are speaking;
The body language of a negotiator is all about being relaxed and stable.
Being aware of body language is very important because the other person is constantly evaluating your messages,
by reading your body language as well as listening to your words.
Generally about 10% of your message is received through verbal language, and the rest of the message is received
through body language. With such a high percentage of your message being conveyed through body language, it is
important to be aware of its effects on the communication process.
Body language occurs subconsciously, and therefore has a greater effect on the message because the sender
cannot disguise it. Body language signals must be interpreted in total, as a single body language cue is not enough
for an accurate reading.
One way to become sensitive to body language is to become a people-watcher with a purpose this will help you
develop a better awareness of assertive, aggressive and non-assertive body language.
Assertive body language:
Eye contact:
Blinking rapidly: reduce excessive blinking by closing and relaxing your eyelids.
Staring fixedly: you can replace staring by shifting your gaze about every few seconds.
Not looking: this is looking away from the other persons face.
Squinting your eyes: check for eye strain and whether you need glasses.
Shifting your head and eyes excessively: if necessary, hold your head steady with your hands.
Page 25
Facial Expressions
A pursed, tight-lipped mouth: feel your lip muscles with your fingers as you talk, to correct tight lips, pucker up very
hard, and then let your jaw hang loose, and relax the muscles around your lips.
Tensing and wrinkling your forehead: smooth out your tense forehead by running a hand over worry wrinkles
stroke away those lines.
Swallowing repeatedly: take a sip of water, to stop your swallowing from distracting you as you say your script.
Clearing your throat excessively: clear your throat or take a sip of water before you begin with your script.
Wetting your lips: avoid dry lips as this may be an indication of fear or tension.
Page 26
Positive message
Smile is natural and comfortable. This communicates you are sure of yourself. Like what you are doing, and enjoy
your clients/guests.
Negative message
Smile is forced or phony. This communicates you are unsure of yourself, dont like what you are doing, and/or really
dont enjoy your clients or guests.
Positive message
Eye contact is maintained when talking or listening. This communicates they are important, you are interested in
them, and you feel self-confident.
Negative message
Eye contact is avoided when talking/listening to customers or guests. This communicates a lack of interest, and/or
you lack the self-confidence to do the job.
Positive message
Body language is deliberate and controlled. This communicates you are in control, you are glad to be where you
are, and that although you are busy, this is just part of your job.
Negative message
Body movement is harried and rushed. This communicates that you are not in control of the situation and would like
the client or guest to leave.
Voice
Your attitude is projected through your voice as well as your body language. Make sure your body language is
always Im here to help as best I can.
When your voice is annoyed, impatient, or condescending, the customer may become angered or angrier. Speak
with a calm, firm, caring, soothing tone. Your communications will be more relaxed, more pleasant, and better
understood.
The speed or rhythm of your speech is important as well. Clear communication includes appropriate pauses and
inflections to support the words.
Page 27
Remember:
Negotiators with high aspirations consistently outperform those with low aspirations. They start out
as ambitiously as possible, staying just clear of losing credibility.
By adopting a high aspiration base, negotiators create sufficient room to make and request the
necessary concessions needed to achieve a win more-win more outcome.
High aspirations generate positive psychological energy and prevent a negotiator from being rigid
and defensive.
A high aspiration communicates confidence to the other party and generally prevents irrational
negotiation behaviour.
High aspirations require the other negotiating party to expend more energy in trying to lower these
aspirations, thus not focusing on promoting its own aspiration.
What are the topics to be discussed? Issues involved? (From my perspective and from the
perspective of the opposer.)
What resources can I draw on? E.g.: Individuals, know-how, money, time.
Page 28
What do I know about my opposer? (Name, family, position in organisation, career path, interests
and hobbies etc.)
What are the negotiating style / behavioural style of the other party?
What are my interests (or those of the people I represent)? What are the interests of the other
side?
What are our common interests? What are the opposing interests?
What are commonly held criteria or standards that we could use to resolve conflicting ideas?
(Neutral criteria include: market prices, benchmarks, rules and regulations, laws, court decisions,
precedents, common practice.)
What do I have to trade that is low value to me, but high value to the other side?
Why is the other side talking to me? Why do they need something from me?
What are the main motivating factors behind your counterpartys position in the negotiation? What
common ground, if any, exists between your vision and your counterpartys vision? It is important
to understand the drivers or silent motivations behind the positions of all parties to the negotiation.
It is only by asking questions that we will uncover the real motivations behind these positions
assumed by our counterparties.
Have you spent time thinking about an agenda for your upcoming negotiation? Will you note all the
concessions that you will give & receive?
Do you have tools/templates at your disposal to support the effectiveness and efficiency of the
negotiation cycle in its entirety? It is important to ensure that you are well organised for your
upcoming negotiation. Write down the key questions that you need to ask during the negotiation.
Page 29
M Measurable
This is the most difficult step. Why? Because you need to be able to measure what your objectives
were and if you have achieved them. e.g. increasing client base by 2% per annum.
A Achievable
Is my target realistic?
C- Challenging
Each objective needs to be challenging, avoid objectives like maintain current output.
C Compatible
Each objective needs to be compatible with the other objectives. For example the following
objectives are NOT compatible:
Ensure that this position is realistic in light of the facts available to both sides.
Perception of Power.
Opening negotiations first is generally viewed as a sign of weakness - as you are obliged to show your hand and
reveal your priorities and possibly your strategy.
However, it isn't all negative; there can be some benefits to be gained from opening first: You can alter the other
sides perception of the situation.
A confident opening can demonstrate confidence in your position. It can also imply trust in the other side to which
they may respond favourably.
Remember, if you are opening first, avoid revealing too much and try to disguise the importance that you attach to
different issues. If you are opening first, it is important to allow time for normal introductions, courtesies and small
talk. You should then begin by outlining the scope of the negotiations and ensuring both sides are agreed on the
main objectives.
Page 30
Perception of Power
If you go into a negotiation convinced that the other party is superior to you, you're likely not only to lose the
negotiation, but to come out of it somewhat singed. The key to survival is in the attitude you adopt even before you
start preparing for the negotiation.
Page 31
Power Factors
Information: the key source of power in negotiation is information. You need information to support your objectives,
and to refute the other party's position. Much of negotiation is simply an exchange of information, and using it to
persuade the other party.
Constituency: the multiple parties, department or group behind you. They help define your objectives and evaluate
your work.
Time: you can use time by rushing the pace or slowing it down to create pressure. You can speed up the other
party's concessions by creating time pressure. Parties stall when they have time, deadlines give parties a reason to
offer concessions; deadlines can serve as an excuse to your constituency (time was running out and we had to
reach an agreement).
Legitimacy: formal rules, laws, policies and regulations that govern you and set certain limits (whether legal,
cultural or societal norms and expectations).
Positional: position in your organisation can provide legitimacy and power for negotiating: projects, job
descriptions, and the authority of positions. It is unclear when power lies in responsibility, authority and position.
Personal: personal qualities such as persuasion, persistence, personal integrity.
Precedent: previous outcomes to previous negotiations.
Record: controlling the written record, document or agreement. Able to put it into your own words.
Location: being the party to configure or choose the site for negotiation.
Agenda: developing the agenda; which can be manipulated, e.g. by procedure.
Page 32
All agendas are negotiable, and may be subject to conditions, which may be specified by either party. ANY
conditions whatever may be included in the drawing up of agendas. These must, however, be agreed with the
opposing negotiators.
Agenda Matrix
Number
Issue
Sequence
Priority
Negotiator
Priority
Opposer
Add any issues, which you think your opposer would like to have included, and which you are prepared to discuss.
There may be issues, which you would not want included. Erase these from your list.
In the last column, (Priority O), against each issue write the letter H, L or M depending upon whether you believe
the issue to be of High, Low or Medium priority to your opposer. The priority is judged by your estimate of whether
your opposer would want to win on that particular issue, or whether he would be willing to allow you to win on it.
In the penultimate column, (Priority N), against each issue write the letter H, L or M depending upon whether you
believe the issue to be of High, Low or Medium priority to you, the negotiator.
Now look for issues, which are L for you and H for your opposer. List them on the vacant spaces between the list of
your H and your opposer's L entries. You now have a list whose priorities look like this
Issue
Negotiator
Opposer
Etc.
Page 33
The above table lists issues, which you can pair off. You could agree to trade issue 1 and 3 for conceding issues 2
and 4 in favour of your opposer. If there are more opposers High priority issues than you have Low priority issues,
consider manufacturing another issue, which is not important to you.
Now consider issues, which are, prioritised H for both you and your opposer. These will be the troublesome items to
negotiate. Plan, perhaps, to negotiate these to a compromise.
If you can find a Low Low priority issue on the list, well and good. You can use it or them to build confidence
between the parties.
The sequence of your agenda will now be the object of your next effort.
Consider listing one or two Low Low issues at the top of the list. These will be easily negotiated, and a trusting
friendly climate will be built. It is always a good idea to negotiate issues on which the parties are in agreement first,
and then to proceed to areas of conflict.
Page 34
Bargaining Range
Define your bargaining range
A bargaining range gives you flexibility. It includes a starting point, a target point and a walk away point. Each of
these may be defined in monetary terms, or in other ways that allow you to define their relative values. Bargaining
range is primarily associated with competitive situations, where each side takes a stance with give and take until a
compromise is reached. Intangible outcomes are harder to define such as esteem or success. They are extremely
important. Tangible outcomes are the substantive, often economic outcomes.
Start
This is your first offer to the other party. Where you set this point depends on market and economic factors, timing
and concessions you may be willing to make, or how negotiations have gone in the past. For example, a house may
cost R175,000; therefore the sellers starting point is R175,000. However, your starting point for an opening offer
may be R140,000.
Target
The target is the point where you want to settle. It is your intended outcome. In the case of the house, your target
may be R150,000, although your start point may be R140,000.
Walk away
This is the figure at which you will break off negotiations. The walk away point is usually beyond your target; it is the
point of no return. In the case of a house offer, it is the highest amount you will pay (or, from the sellers point of
view, the lowest amount the seller will accept).
BATNA: your alternatives
Establish your BATNA, or a best alternative to a negotiated agreement. An alternative is an acceptable alternative
outcome or settlement to the issues under negotiation. Prioritise your alternatives they will provide you with power
during bargaining. If the deal under considerations does not work out, you can switch to your alternative. Your goal,
to buy a house like this one, is more achievable than to buy this house and no other.
Page 35
Questioning Techniques
Questions allow the other party to tell you about their needs and wants for the outcome of the negotiation. You'll be
able to find out in far greater detail what they want to achieve as a result of the negotiation.
Once the other party begins to open up and share their feelings and opinions, they are starting to make an
investment in the outcome. It moves from being a discussion to a way of reaching an agreement.
Open Questions
Are very effective in getting the other side to open up in negotiation. They are useful in seeking clarification and
encouraging a detailed response. They begin with: Who, What, Why, Where, Which and How.
Tactical open questions give you information, strategic open questions tell you how the other person feels, and
what motivates them. As an example when selling a house, you can use the following:
Tactical open questions:
Closed Questions
Closed questions will give you a straightforward yes or no type of response from the other side. These questions
are useful when you are not looking for information, data or a clue about their feelings. They are designed to get a
quick response. They are effective when checking details in the early stages of the negotiation. Here are a few
samples:
Auxiliary Verb
Use the 15 auxiliary verbs to begin a closed question. Use closed type questions when you need only little
information and wish to move the process along. The 15 are: is, are, were, do, does, did, has, had, have, could,
would, should, can, will, may.
Page 36
Reflective Questions
The reflective type of question is essentially like holding up a mirror to the other side. It is designed to allow you to
respond to their answer with another question. It is useful as you repeat their answer in your own words to confirm
or clarify your understanding of their answer.
The possession date is too soon. Is that what you are saying?
So you believe that the offer is still too low, how far apart are we?
Page 37
When negotiators bargain over positions they tend to get stuck in those positions.
The more you defend your position, the more committed you become to it.
The more you try to convince your opposer of the impossibility of changing your opening position
the more difficult it is to change it.
The result is an agreement that is not as satisfactory as it could have been to both sides.
When negotiations are 'winner takes all', the deal is often not the best one that could have been obtained. Also, the
relationship that was supposed to be maintained or established starts off badly or is irreparably damaged. It is
important not to become fixated on your bargaining position. Rather probe for underlying interests - what each side
really cares about. Do not treat potentially more cooperative agreements as mere price deals in which the interests
of the parties are opposed. An interest-based approach is one that respects both parties needs and produces
better long-term results while preserving, or even improving, inter-personal and inter-organisational relationships.
This is the meat and potatoes part of negotiation. Bargaining is where interested parties go over their agreements
and negotiate changes, sometimes one term at a time. There are times when an agreement in principle can lead to
a long and protracted quest for agreement on smaller details. Those smaller details are worked out in bargaining,
the phase where actual sacrifices and concessions are made.
This is the stage where hostility and anger can become evident, as the parties work on the fine details of an
agreement. It is important that negotiators remain calm, professional, and relaxed during this phase. If negotiators
lose their tempers or argue, the negotiations may fall apart; no progress can be made if people are not speaking to
one another.
A common example of bargaining outside of the workplace is in divorce proceedings. The divorcing couple may
agree in principle that they will share custody of their children equally. However, the details of deciding how to share
the children during special occasions like birthdays, school holidays, or Christmas can become extremely difficult to
work out much more so than deciding other details, such as who is responsible for particular amounts of debt, or
who gets the photo albums, CDs, or casserole dish. The detailed tactics are discussed in a later session.
Page 38
Does the agreement further your personal goals? Does the outcome of the negotiation fit into your
initial planning?
Does the agreement fall comfortably within the goals and limits that you set for this particular
negotiation?
Based on all the information, can the other side perform the agreement to your expectations?
Based on what you know, does the other side intend to carry out the terms of the agreement?
In the ideal situation, the answer to all six questions is a resounding yes. If you are unsure about any one of them,
take some extra time. Review the entire situation. Assess how the agreement could be changed in order to create a
yes answer to each question. Try your best to make the change needed to get a firm yes to each question. Then,
close the deal. Don't go for any more changes even if you think that the other person wouldn't mind. You never
know!
When you work in a culture other than your own, being sure that you have a win-win solution takes a little extra
effort. During a cross-cultural negotiation, be thorough in your investigation of what is and isn't acceptable.
Page 39
Play Fair
What do we tell them about our goals and interests? Reciprocation is essential. We have to tell them about our
goals and interests so they may better understand how they might not only meet their needs, but ours as well. Best
we begin at outset with setting the frame of a co-operative mood to increase mutual interaction. Only then should
we progress into fact-finding and option generation. Our counterparts will usually mirror our behaviour, the virtuous
and less than virtuous.
Individual Exercise
What if your counterpart is not interested in a win-win outcome?
First try win-win. If win-win fails you must be ready to use competitive techniques.
People who do not want to use win-win do this because they are afraid that you will take advantage of them. So
demonstrate that care about them. This is of course, most important when a long term relationship is at stake.
This does not mean that you cannot pursue your own interests. There is an important distinction between being
aggressive and being assertive!
Page 40
Ethical Negotiation
Fairness
If you can convince the other side that a certain criteria or formula is fair and reasonable, they will find it harder to
reject a proposal incorporating that standard, and they are more likely to feel satisfied about the deal. The opposer
should feel that you were tough and fought hard but you were fair to him/her.
REMEMBER to make sure:
Page 41
Individual Exercise
How do you do business (your ethics, your credibility and how trustworthy are you)?
How does one build trust?
A question of ETHICS
Decide whether or not the approach would be appropriate - (the deal is important to you)
1
I would not do that
I might do that
5
Yes I would do that
Tactic:
Rating:
1. As a seller, you make an opening bid that is far larger than what you really hope to settle for.
2. You try to strengthen your negotiating arguments by not being fully truthful about certain
information.
3. Pay contacts to get information about the opposing party for you.
4. Try to recruit or hire one of your opponents team (on the condition that he/she brings
confidential information with him/her).
5. Your opponent has true information that weakens your negotiating position. You deny its
validity.
6. You try get your opponent removed from his/her position so that a new person will take
his/her place.
7. Get the opposer on your side by pursuing friendship through expensive gifts, entertaining, or
personal favours.
8. You threaten to make your opponent look stupid in front of his/her higher management; even
if you know that you wont actually carry out the threat.
9. You promise favours or rewards to your opposer if he/she gives you what you want even if
you know that you cant deliver these things.
10. You try to put time pressure on your opposer by pretending that you are in absolutely no
hurry to come to a negotiated agreement.
11. You offer to make future concessions to your opposer in return for an immediate concession
on his/her part but you know you will not follow through on this.
12. Go above the head of your opponent and tell his/her boss/principal things that will undermine
their confidence in your opposers negotiating skills.
Page 42
Influencing Techniques
Negotiation can be considered a tool that assists parties to obtain an agreement based on their interests, but
ultimately, what we do when we negotiate is to attempt to influence others to accept our way.
Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we don't. Negotiation literature is full of tactics and strategies that describe
ways of achieving this goal.
There are two kinds of influences: Positive and Negative.
If we want to change our car we might consider selling the old one. We prospect the market and discover that an
average price for the old one could be R 90,000. If we advertise it at a price of R100,000 this is a positive way of
influencing others. If we decide to advertise at R120,000, this could be considered a negative way of influencing
behaviour.
Negotiation is measured by two criteria: Results and effects on relationships. A successful negotiation happens
when we achieve our objectives in terms of results and keep the relationship, at least, within co-operative limits.
There are long debates about ethics and morals in negotiation. What we should do and what we are not allowed to
do. At the end of the day, the difference between utilising positive or negative influence is the status of the
relationship. Whatever the result (of course at least we must attain our objectives); if we end up with a good
relationship it means that we used positive influence.
When we behave as other people expect us to behave or when they agree to the appropriateness of our actions or
motives, we are employing positive influencing techniques. We know we are using influence in a positive manner
when we prepare well for a negotiation. If we have many offers; if through our actions we garner trust; if we make
the correct alliances; if we create an environment that others enjoy; if we demonstrate competence; if we have
communication skills and through many other methods, we are employing positive influences.
On the other hand, if we lie even when other expects us to lie; if we deceive, if we try to dominate; if we do not
listen; if our main pre-occupation is arguing; if we disregard other's party needs, then we get a negative reaction.
Using negative influencing tactics can bring us the desired results, but we have to be cognisant of the
consequences. A bad relationship is certain and our name and reputation goes with it.
One can argue that being a good negotiator and using only positive influencing techniques can still end up in a
negative reaction because of skill differences between the parties. The others may envy the skilful one or assume
that facing such a good negotiator, they will surely lose. Civilised society is premised on equal opportunities, not on
equal possibilities. A very good negotiator can almost always demonstrate to others that they have obtained the
best result for a certain deal.
Often, the difference between the two types of influencing is vague. Different negotiations have different boundaries
between positive and negative influences and it is not simple to detect them. Even when we attempt to keep within
positive influencing techniques, we always have the tendency to push toward the limits, hoping that we will see
signals from the other side of the table that will show us when we had pushed too far.
Page 43
Skilful negotiators have the ability to move the boundary inside what is normally perceived as negative actions and
still keep a good relationship. When we try to evaluate a situation we are employing our own system of values. In a
negotiation, however, we are dealing with people that always have another system of values. So, in their eyes, it is
not important what we consider about fairness, or ethical and moral. It is their judgment that counts. And if we want
to be effective in our influence, we must evaluate our actions as nearly as we can to their views also.
All of us develop a behavioural strategy within our normal environment. By observation and self-training we
recognise the limits between the two types of influences. At the office, inside our market, in our group of friends and
at home, we have the capability, more or less, to know how to manage the situations that we face. Problems occur
with changes.
When we change jobs, when we convene with another culture, when the market is changing, we may lose our
perception about the boundaries between the two types of influences. This is when we have difficulties in
negotiation.
The manner we behave in a negotiation is based on our feelings. Confidence, trust, courage are one category and
on the opposite side, anger, fear, greed, uncertainty are another kind of feelings that reveal to us why we do what
we do. If we are greedy we will attempt to exploit others. If we are afraid, we will try to protect ourselves, if we are
angry we want to attack and if we are uncertain we will avoid. All these lead to negative influence. Our actions are
reflections of our feelings and negative feelings lead to bad relations. The other types of feelings, the positive ones,
are the source of positive influence. When we are confident, when we have courage and when we want to build
trust, we will be able to concentrate on new ways and new opportunities that can create a strong win-win situation
for all parties.
The secret to effective negotiations, therefore, is in understanding others as well as ourselves so that we can
employ positive influences in our negotiations. Positive techniques are vital to achieving winning results and
relationships that make agreements valuable for all the parties in an agreement.
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 47
Page 48
Please do not speak to either Dr. Roland or Dr. Jones until the Course Tutor ends the negotiation and asks you to
give feedback.
Page 49
Cherry Picking
Clients can model their perfect deal by shopping around and securing many bids before coming to you. They may
come to you with fully-formed expectations of price, discount structures, quality, service, time scales, etc. telling you
that this is what the competition is offering us, so youll need to at least match it. In reality they may have cherry
picked the most desirable offerings from each of your competitions proposals.
Dealing with Cherry Picking
By asking which competitors you are being played-off against, you are better able to satisfy your own interests.
Enquire into which company offered them this dream deal. If it seems too good to be true you might be right! Take
time out to do your market research and examine the named competitors standard conditions and current deals.
Draw the other sides attention to the principle of trading and mutual concession making. Explain that in order to
make the deal worthwhile, you will need to gain something in return for adjusting your offer to satisfy their cherry
picked ideal. It will be a challenging task to bring this client's expectations back down to earth, but perhaps you will
win the deal by doing so.
The other party can only negotiate on certain items, whilst other off the table terms are nonnegotiable and fixed by a higher authority.
You will need to probe your counterpart in order to uncover the identity of other decision makers, or that of the
higher line of authority, within the organisation. Failure to enquire fully about the ultimate decision maker at this
stage may lead to a loss of negotiation time and misdirection of negotiation efforts further down the line.
Page 50
Example:
Having a mandated authority who must give final approval can be useful in high-risk scenarios or while dealing in
new and unfamiliar markets. In the example below, the client enquires about who he should speak to in the event of
him not accepting the invoice.
Client: "I'm very dissatisfied with the invoice on the repair for my car. Its ridiculously high for the job you did! I will
not pay this invoice.
Workshop manager: "I only work here my friend. If you do not pay I might not be able to release your car. I do not
have the authority to change the invoice. (A neat deferral).
Client: "Who can?
Workshop manager: "The Service Director in our head office.
Dealing with Deferred Authority
Conduct your research and understand your counterparts decision-making process as early as possible during the
process.
You do not necessarily need to start negotiations with the ultimate decision maker. Sometimes it is more useful to
create a relationship with the lower level authority because he or she may be able to swing a great deal of influence
in your favour. Make it clear that you will need to talk with a higher level authority at some stage of the deal.
When faced with the off-the-table terms mentioned above, do not accept these at their face value. If you do, the list
may grow and you will have gained nothing in exchange for any concessions offered. Enquire about the interests
behind these items and why they are non-negotiable.
Page 51
Limits
Prospects may impose limits at the outset of a negotiation. Limits include money, time, capacity, personnel, etc.
The aspect that is feared most by a sales person is limited money.
Example:
We like what you offer, your product and organisation - we just cant afford to pay more than X.
Dealing with Limits
The best means of dealing with Limits is to attempt to reframe the negotiation. Perhaps you can deliver within their
stated limit but do ensure that you apply the if/then trading principle and get something back for making this
concession. If I sell at X, then you will need to forgo your monthly management reports.
The literature of Cialdini shows that when the risk of losing a valuable product or service is fully understood, then
the limiting restrictions are brought into proper perspective. Yes we do need to work to your budget. Lets also
remember that we are talking about saving your company 2000 hours per year here, which is worth X2 discounted
over 10 years. So the real cost isnt X, its the risk of not saving X2.
Page 52
The Flinch
Physical reactions, such as sudden gasping for air or visible expressions of surprise and shock are common
examples of flinching. Failure to flinch when a low offer is being made leads the party making the offer to conclude
that the counterpart has yet to reach its real base. This could result in further pressure to settle for an even lower
price.
Likewise, simply accepting an offer without flinching could result in missing the opportunity to acquire a better price.
It might also make the other party feel that they have not done as well as they could have.
Example:
Sales person: "So with all the features I showed you the price is R218,000.
Client: "What! How much? R218,000? That's big money my friend.'"
Sales person: "That naturally includes an on-site warranty and installation.
Client: "R218,000 is still big money.
Sales person now makes a concession: "Naturally we will throw in some software for your new computer as well.
Dealing with the Flinch
What makes the flinch so dangerous is that it happens in an instant and at a conscious level most people are
unaware of it. Seeing a shocked expression is far more believable than hearing someone say Im shocked. To
deal with a flinch effectively, you first need to consciously take note of exactly what is happening. After that, think
about whether the other party genuinely expected something else, or if he or she is merely playing a part to lower
your expectations.
Since a flinch is essentially a display of disappointment, take the time to ask: I noticed your surprise, what were
you expecting? This puts you in a position to talk about your counterparts unrealistic expectation, rather than
your "unrealistic terms.
Page 53
Take it or Leave it
The take it or leave it approach is confrontational and can sometimes even be hostile.
Example:
The staff wont accept less than a 9% increase in salary, take it or leave it!
This can be met with I understand the staff need 9% more in salary, so please help me to understand what they
will be doing with 9% more?
It may be that this money would go towards their retirement plans. If so, the company could offer to increase
pension contributions to meet the desired security levels. Until you know why they want a 9% rise, you are not in a
position to create alternatives.
Dealing with Take it or Leave it
Focus on the interest behind the demand, and then work together with the other party to create options that allow
the interest to be met in another way.
If you suspect a bluff, one good way to expose the bluff is to ask If we were to agree to your demand, then would
you be prepared to sign the contract here and now?. You may flush out concealed interests by asking this
question. If you dont ask this question, you run the risk of making a concession only to be faced later with another
demand.
Similarly, if your opponent claims You will have to do much better than that! ask How much better, and if we do,
will you sign here and now? You are not committing yourself by asking these questions, merely exposing the other
partys intentions. Another response is to use the if/then trading principle: If we reduce your price, then we need
you to increase your order.
Page 54
Personal Attacks
Personal attacks are often deliberate attempts to throw a party off balance and incite an emotional response.
Stonewalling is evasive, obstructive behaviour; a refusal to budge. It is usually characterised by the inability to
behave flexibly.
Attacks are pressure tactics designed to intimidate and discomfort the other party. Attacks may take the form of
threats, undermining of credibility or questioning of authority.
Tricks usually take the form of misrepresentation by negligence, omission or invention. Tricks include the use of
false or confusing information in the form of figures; reference to another authority; and the use of what is known as
add-ons or last minute demands (items that appear after an agreement has already been reached).
Dealing with personal attacks
Smiling at the offender is the best way to disarm him or her and interrupt any personal attacks. Reminding the other
party that this is contrary to the initial agreement can also be a strong counteraction to tricks and attacks. People
and issues must be kept apart in all negotiation processes. An emotional reaction will only show that personal
attacks have had the desired effect and thrown you off balance.
The Decoy
Decoys are highly contentious and pose the question: How can you know whether the other party is being totally
honest while disclosing their interests? They might be loading the dice in their favour by adding false surplus
interests into their agenda. For example, they tell you about 13 interests, when in reality they only have 10.
There are two examples of how this can create a win-lose situation in the other partys favour:
1. There is a risk of you making an exchange on an invalid interest of your opponent, only later for him or her
to drop this exchange from the deal. This would leave you with an unmet interest, and them with a deal that
satisfies all their interests.
2. There is also the danger that the other party agrees to forget about their fictitious interests if you will forget
about your real ones.
Example:
The example below shows a manager asking for something he does not really want when he knows very well the
other party is unable to meet the requirement.
Manager: "I need these files printed within 30 days. (Knows that 90 days is the minimum time needed to fulfil this
order).
Sales person: "90 days is the minimum time we need."
Manager: "What! You are leaving me with a very costly problem. What must I do in the meantime? I cannot live with
90 days!"
Page 55
Sales person: "I'll tell you what we can do. I'm willing to give you a discount of R10.00 per file. What do you say?"
(The sales person does not want to lose the deal.)
The 30 days request is a mere decoy, but it has secured a concession and delivered a successful trade-off in the
managers favour.
Dealing with the Decoy
There are various methods for handling this dishonest tactic. Being thorough at the outset may be sufficient.
Remember to enquire into the motivation for each interest by asking how each one helps your opponent, then work
together in ranking their interests. If you feel suspicious, trust your hunches and probe further, research more widely
and withdraw to regroup.
Your best method for safeguarding yourself stems from a combination of preparing thoroughly to predict and then
understand what they should and will be asking for. Check your opponents expressed interests against your
expectations. Then develop your interpersonal perceptions to notice when the other party is being economical with
the truth.
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Questioning to determine interests rather than reacting to the declared positions of the parties
involved in the negotiation.
Framing negotiations in the context of joint gains and common ground rather than a focus on the
elements that set parties apart.
In addition, one can make use of selected tactics listed under the competitive & compromising
tactics section only as much as they will not endanger the relationship goals of the negotiation.
Page 59
A feelings commentary can be a good idea to use when dealing with dirty tactics - it brings the
tactic out into the open. E.g.: You know, Im feeling really uncomfortable right now. It feels like
you are trying to bully me into accepting an agreement that Im going to regret.
Identify the tactic, and then expose it, by making it an issue. E.g.: I get the feeling that you guys
are playing the good guy/bad guy routine to try and force me into making a deal. Lets not play
games, but rather thrash out a deal thats good for both of us.
Family Discounts: Look how much Ive done for you? (presenting concessions as a personal
favour).
Its none of my business but (complaints about your agencys service or attitude).
Page 60
Group Activity
Choose a partner. Sketch a negotiation scenario in your organisation and discuss where and how and why you will
apply these tactics and if the approach is used against you, how will you retaliate? If you choose not to apply the
tactics in your organisation justify why you would not use it as a tactic in negotiations.
Negotiation Gambit:
Description:
Cherry Picking
Walking Away
Flinch
Page 61
Never give a concession without getting a concession. This is the secret to keeping a negotiation
balanced. It keeps the other side from nibbling you to death. They know they'll have to give up
something for everything they get.
A concession must have value for the receiver but not the giver!
Page 62
Page 63
Circumstances can alter rapidly. Unexpected changes can be anything from new information on the table; a sudden
rise in costs due to political upheaval; new legislation: or, even a climatic intervention such as an unexpected and
untimely frost. A sudden shift in conditions can immediately affect the strength of either party BATNA during the
negotiation process.
What's in your BATNA?
How do you determine your best alternatives to a negotiated agreement? First, you have to dissect both your
position and your interests. Then, look at the sum of these parts relative to all the alternative options available. Pick
the best option. Finally, do the reverse from your counterparts perspective. A well prepared negotiator looks at the
whole picture.
Some of the most crucial factors which should be considered include:
The cost - Ask yourself how much it will cost to make the deal relative to the cost of your best
alternative. Cost estimation may entail both the short term and the long term. It boils down to
figuring out which of your options is the most affordable.
Feasibility - Which option is the most feasible? Which one can you realistically apply over all the
rest of your available options?
Impact - Which of your options will have the most immediate positive influence on your current
state of affairs?
Consequences - What do you think or estimate will happen as you consider each option as a
possible solution?
Page 64
Be Creative - Simply ask yourself what other options you might employ that could increase your
bargaining position. Brainstorm the situation with all the key players in your organization. Your
planning must also factor in your counterpart's interests and options.
Improve Your BATNA - Endeavour to expand your options. One possibility is to consider bringing
into the mix, other interested third party partners. A third party's interests may coincide with key
components of your interests, or of your counterpart's. For example, this might entail creative
financing which presents a more attractive option to your counterpart. If you weaken the other
sides best alternative by injecting another element into the mix, the game takes on a whole new
slant.
Use Experts - Neutral parties with their own relevant expertise might be able to unravel your
problem into a newly designed, but more attractive perspective. If your side lacks some area of
expertise, get the experts to lend a hand.
Page 65
Closing Techniques
Closing Techniques
Being a closer is being a negotiator who can actually bring discussions to a head and walk away with a signed
agreement. Mediators are expert at closing. That is what they do. They manage the process in a fashion that the
parties ultimately come to an accord. Anything short of this is typically viewed as a failure. Their sole goal is to have
the parties reach agreement.
The best negotiating that does not result in an agreement is less than satisfying. Corporate managers are not likely
to appreciate all your hard work if you don't win more often than not. No matter the fact that accepting a bad
proposal would be bad for the company, most companies openly recognize and reward completion of negotiations
more than the actual details of the transaction itself.
Closing a negotiation requires getting the other person to actually sign or agree. People naturally resist making final
decisions. This is especially true when they feel they are being pressured. The climate of the discussions leading to
this moment play a significant role in everyone being comfortable with signing the document or shaking hands to
seal a deal. People need to feel in control to commit willingly.
Preparing for the signing moment:
If tempers have flared during the discourse, seek ways to mend the personal fences before
pressing for decisions. People need to feel in control to commit willingly.
As you approach the time to sign it is helpful if you have laid the groundwork previously by sharing
the document and making sure the other person is comfortable with the language and structure of
the agreement. This gets everyone used to committing and following through on their word. More
important, it saves you the loss of time when a redraft is suddenly required late on a Friday
afternoon. Such a delay can also place the agreement in jeopardy.
Watch how others react to reading the document. If you see a cloud of doubt on someone's face,
stop them and ask what is bothering them. This is your chance to clear up any concerns and
reinforce the decisions have been good ones for everyone. You want everyone as comfortable as
possible before placing pens in their hands.
Review the reasons the others are agreeing to the terms and reinforce why their decision is a good
one.
The timing of asking for a signature or commitment is also important. If you sense the other
person's unease, take a break and suggest a beverage or something to interject a chance to relax
before actually sitting down to sign documents. Well timed breathers are a great way to diffuse
mounting tension.
Concession Close It terminates the bargaining step by offering a concession to secure the agreement. Offer a
concession of something they want in return for them buying the product. You can be explicit about wanting an
order in return for the concession or you can give the concession without asking - the other person will very likely
still feel they owe you something for it. E.g. If I reduce the price by 10%, will you take the product today? or Well, I
think you deserve a free case with this.
Page 66
Summary Close It terminates the bargaining step by summarising everything, highlighting the concessions, and
emphasising the benefits of agreeing. The Summary Close works by repeating what has already been agreed.
Putting it all together makes it seem like an even bigger package. E.g. So as well as the basic product, you are
getting free delivery, a five-day exchange assurance plus our comprehensive guarantee.
Adjournment Close E.g. We have summarised the benefits of what is on offer. This is our final offer and we
suggest that you take an adjournment for you to consider it. Give them time to think.
Or Else Close this is a type of ultimatum - Take it or leave it! - accept what is on offer or else. Show that if
they do not agree to the deal now, then there will be significant negative consequences. You may be the person
who implements those consequences. You may also be the friend who warns them of the consequences that they
may not have realized. E.g. If you don't sign now, I'll have to talk to your manager.
Either/Or Close This terminates the bargaining by offering two packages to be considered. Each of these
packages falls between your most favoured position and your aspiration. This is also known as the Alternative
Close E.g. Would you like the red one or the blue one?, Shall we meet next week or the week after?
Page 67
Page 68
64. I am impulsive.
Page 69
Style
Style 1
1 - 8 - 9 - 13 - 17 - 24 - 26 - 31 - 33 - 40 - 41 -
48 - 50 - 53 - 57 - 63 - 65 - 70 - 74 - 79
Style 2
2 - 7 - 10 - 14 - 18 - 23 - 25 - 30 - 34 - 37 - 42 47 - 51 - 55 - 58 - 62 - 66 - 69 - 75 - 78
Style 3
3 - 6 - 11 - 15 - 19 - 22 - 27 - 29 - 35 - 38 - 43 46 - 49 - 56 - 59 - 64 - 67 - 71 - 76 - 80
Style 4
4 - 5 - 12 - 16 - 20 - 21 - 28 - 32 - 36 - 39 - 44 45 - 52 - 54 - 60 - 61 - 68 - 72 - 73 77
Page 70
Style 2
WHAT
Results
Objectives
Achieving
Doing
HOW
Strategies
Organisational Facts
Driver
Analytical
(Action)
(Process)
Expressive
Amiable
(Idea)
(People)
WHY
Concepts
Theories
Innovation
WHO
Communications
Relationships
Teamwork
Style 4
Style 3
Page 71
Other thoughts
Page 72