Cutting a deal: the 'science bit'

Some say life is a series of negotiations. We engage in them constantly; some high-stakes, some less weighty, some quick, some slow. No matter what form they take, negotiations drive decision and action, be they favourable or unfavourable, which evidently holds importance for us in our work and personal lives.

It’s fair to assume that most, if not all of us, would like to be better negotiators as it not only earns a better outcome for ourselves but, in a lot of cases, a more positive outcome for all parties. After years of research into the science of negotiations, key strategies have been identified that underpin a range of successful negotiations, no matter what shape they take. Next time you find yourself at the negotiating table, think about employing these three strategies to garner more favourable outcomes.

Strategy 1: Framing

If we observe a minor traffic collision in the street, we absorb a mostly objective account of what is happening. But if we tell someone else about the event that we witnessed, we select the information that we think is most important, highlighting some aspects and downplaying others. We might even make one of the drivers seem more blameless when in reality they may both have been equally at fault. This is the act of framing; presenting information in a way that influences others.

Framing is a powerful tactic in negotiating. When trying to persuade someone to choose a risky option over a more conservative one, people are more likely to take that risk when a prospect is described as a gain, not a loss. In other words, if we said: “This option entails a 70% chance of survival”, we’d get far more success than if we said: “This option entails a 30% chance of loss”.

Similarly, if we want to get buy-in and support for our new project, framing a problem in such a way that it takes place a few years from now rather than a few weeks is more likely to result in people getting behind us, especially if our endeavour is slightly risky.

Strategy 2: Anchoring:

Let’s use flying as an example. Let’s say we look up flights to Chile one day, and see airline A’s tickets average around a particular price. They remain that price for two consecutive days but on the third day they’re  marked down 20%. That makes them cheap, doesn't it? Well, not necessarily. They might be cheap to the average price for that airline but not to the dozens of other airlines flying to Chile for 40% less than airline A.

This is an illustration of anchoring: a bias and common human tendency to rely too heavily on, or anchor to, one piece of information, especially if it’s the first piece of information we’re exposed to. While the theories behind why this happens are manifold, and consensus hasn’t yet been reached, few phenomena are more easily demonstrated in practice.

If we negotiate with someone and open the bidding first with an option that’s heavily favourable for us, it’s less likely that we’ll end up losing that negotiation than if we opened with a bid that’s equally favourable for both.

Research has found that the ‘first mover advantage’ isn’t always the advantageous position. If the negotiations are opened with an offer of resources e.g “I’ll give you my X for your Y” it functions well, but not when opening with a request e.g “I’m requesting your Y for my X”. If a request is warranted, it’s better placed as the second move in the negotiation.

Strategy 3: Politeness

Unlike framing and anchoring, politeness shouldn’t really need much explanation although we think its function in negotiations deserves one. Recent research linked politeness to retention of control over a discussion. It also indicates sympathy and concern for the other’s point of view, which promotes feelings of recognition for the other party. This not only encourages a fairer outcome but also keeps up a positive relationship with the negotiating party, which can lead to successful negotiations in the future if both parties meet again.