Negotiating involves the activity of both parties. Passivity usually indicates a poorly worked out position, its weakness or unwillingness to negotiate. But do not go to the other extreme - to force the partner to discuss only his own position, his own ideas. Negotiations are primarily a dialogue of equal participants.
The fuller and deeper the problems are analyzed, the greater the chances of finding a solution to the existing contradictions. Therefore, any actions aimed at studying disagreements play a positive role. In most cases, it is advisable to start with a search for common interests, with the definition of a decision zone acceptable to the parties, and through them go to the concrete. The development and introduction of such proposals, which are obviously acceptable for the partner, both in essence and in terms of wording, deserve approval.
Of course, a joint analysis of differences does not imply the exchange of compliments alone. Possible and necessary suggestions. However, their meaning is fundamentally different from disagreement in terms of bargaining. Objections there are one of the tools for manipulating partners, here is a problem analysis tool.
Even if the parties to the negotiations are in a state of conflict, care must be taken to avoid emphasizing the differences at the initial stage of negotiations. Indication of differences from the first minutes of negotiations can increase disagreements and worsen the general atmosphere. The form of objection is important. They should be well-reasoned and oriented not to defend their own position, but to seek a compromise.
A productive tactic for negotiating can be to gradually increase the complexity of the issues discussed, since resolving even the simplest of them has a positive psychological effect on the participants, demonstrating the possibility of reaching an agreement.
During negotiations, it can be useful to divide the problem into components and not try to solve everything at once: reaching an agreement on individual positions is made easier. It is sometimes useful, for the time being, not to consider some disagreements at all, the presence of a partial agreement is always a significant step forward in comparison with the absence of any kind of agreement.
It is especially worthwhile to dwell on the issue of negotiating with a stronger partner. Often the upcoming meeting is alarming and feeling insecure. Is it worth it to enter into negotiations with him, and if so, what principles and methods can be used here?
Strictly speaking, partners are always equal at the negotiating table, and it would be more accurate to formulate the question as follows: what if the partner demonstrates its strength, thereby trying to bargain for itself as much as possible?
· Possible appeal to the principle. In this case, the principle is understood as the norms of international law, the principle of justice or equality, as well as the precedent in the history of relations between these partners or others. The main problem that arises here: what principle to take as a basis? Usually, partners come from different ones, depending on which one is more beneficial to them. When preparing for negotiations, it is advisable to think in advance what can be put forward as a principle by you and what is your partner. Accordingly, prepare an argument.
· Another method of negotiating with a stronger partner is to appeals to past good relations with him. So, former partners within the USSR in the process of negotiations now often emphasize traditional ties that have been tested for decades (“we didn’t let you down, but when it was difficult for you to help out”).
· You can also contact future mutual benefits.
· The following method is based on linking different issues into one package . Being weaker on one issue, the negotiator may have an advantage in others. Linking these issues allows you to "balance" the strength of the parties.
· To strengthen their positions, weaker negotiators can unite and form coalition . The creation of such or any other forms of joint action as opponents to a stronger partner is possible in the event of multilateral negotiations.
There are many conflicts between the parties, including between former partners. Their cause may be, for example, failure to fulfill obligations previously assumed by one of the partners or delivery of goods of the wrong quality (although this issue was not discussed in advance). Of course, you can go to court or arbitration and try to resolve disputes with their help. And yet, the practice of developed countries shows that often problems are easier and faster to solve not through the courts, but in pre-trial order - through negotiations and mediation. In the United States, 90–95% of all civil claims are regulated in this way. Only when the negotiation possibilities are exhausted, the parties go to court.
Appeal to the court is undesirable for several reasons:
1) it is necessary to pay legal costs,
2) big loss of time,
4) the court decision may not suit the applicants.
Through negotiations, the parties can find a solution that will satisfy each of them to a greater extent than the judicial one. In other words, negotiations and mediation are among the more flexible mechanisms for resolving disputes.
Usually under mediation the participation of a third, neutral party is understood in order to optimize the negotiation process and find a solution that would satisfy both parties. A third party can play the role of a mediator and an observer and in any other way provide assistance in resolving disagreements, for example, participating only in creating prerequisites for negotiations. All these points differ from each other quite conditionally, mainly depending on the degree of involvement in the problem.
The intermediary, as a rule, is involved in the preparation of the agreement. An observer is usually less likely than a mediator to find a solution. Its purpose is the very fact of its presence to deter the parties from violating previously reached agreements or manifesting a hostile attitude towards each other and thereby create more favorable conditions for resolving disputed issues. In general, all three concepts - “intermediary”, “observer”, “third party” - can be used as synonyms.
Should distinguish between mediation and arbitration . The first involves only recommendations to the parties to the conflict or negotiations, the second - the conclusion that may not suit anyone, but which both parties have committed to follow. In practice, the sequential application of mediation is possible first, and if they did not lead to success, arbitration procedures.
The mediator must be a competent and neutral person who enjoys the confidence of the conflicting parties. At the same time, competence is understood as knowledge of both the problem underlying the conflict and the procedural aspects of mediation and negotiation. Neutrality implies that the mediator does not support any of the parties to the conflict. The slightest manifestation of bias on his part can significantly complicate the situation.
Conflicting parties may proceed from various criteria neutrality, objectivity and competence of the intermediary . Each specific case presents its requirements, imposes restrictions on the choice of intermediary. The mediation mechanism should be flexible enough, which is achieved due to the diversity of its species, as well as their combinations.
The mediator is only an assistant, and he cannot and should not make decisions for the participants in the conflict. After analyzing the situation, the mediator suggests ways out of the crisis, acting only as an adviser who does not insist on accepting his recommendations. Parties may reject recommendations without explaining the reasons, although it is desirable to give such an explanation, knowing the reasons allows you to make the following proposal, which has a great chance of success. It should not be the task of the mediator to consider who is right or to blame for the conflict. The search for the guilty leads, as a rule, to the strengthening of conflict relations. Therefore, the main attention should be focused on solving the problem with the least losses for both parties.
If there is a deadlock, the following ways to get out of it can be recommended.
· Leave a contentious issue and return to it later.
· Summarize successes, areas of agreement.
· "It will be unprofitable for both of us if ..."
· To pose the question again, to shut up and wait, hoping for a change in the position of the opponent.
· Change the “kit” (characteristic, quantity, etc.).
· Come up with new opportunities for mutual benefits.
· Offer concessions if certain conditions are met.
· Take a break for thought and discussion.
· Move away from the problem, for example, by treating yourself to tea, coffee, lunch, dinner.
- The seller’s work does not start at 9:00 or 12:00. It begins when the customer objects. Get ready for it!
- The client objects to all sellers in the same way (often we think that the objection: “Expensive!” Is addressed to us). Therefore, do not take it to your personal account.
- Objections are not as many as it seems. If there are too many of them, return to the stage of finding out the needs or presentation of the goods. So the omissions were made earlier.
- It is necessary to distinguish between the objections themselves and their causes. To understand the true reasons for objections, you need to know your client well, be able to ask the right questions.
- Listen carefully to the customer’s objection. Don’t trynd, just listen!
- As a sign of understanding, nod your head approvingly while the client speaks. Sincerely accept the client’s position on this objection.
- Proceed to the next objection only after making sure that the previous one has been exhausted.
- Use persuasion and argumentation techniques to work with objections.
Objection - This is a substantial disagreement of the client with the seller.
False objection - the client’s objection, which he uses as a disguise of the true reasons why he does not want to come into contact with the seller.
Key customer objections and responses to them
- Objection “It's expensive”
- Tell me, what are you comparing with? (The following is a story about the benefits and competitive differences of your product or service).
- How much did you expect?
- What indicators, besides price, are important for you?
- Yes, our prices are slightly higher than the average market prices. Therefore, you can take a test batch / several pieces, etc.
- Objection "I'll think about it"
- Let's think together! What exactly bothers you?
- Good. May I clarify what exactly you want to think about?
- Good. Please note that ... (a story about the benefits of the product).
- Good. I just want to remind you ... (the story of the action, limited in time).
- Objection: “The competitor is cheaper!”
Variant of an objection: "I am already working with your competitors."
- Please specify who you are talking about.
- Why did you decide that we offer the same? Let's compare.
- Yes, our prices are higher than ... because ...
- Objection "I do not like it"
- What exactly do you dislike?
- Why do you want this option?
- Which option would suit you?
- Objection “I have no time”
- I will not take you much time, literally one minute.
- What time will it be convenient for you to discuss this?
- Objection “The quality of the product is poor”
- Why do you think so?
- Let's evaluate together (offer a product sample, show a portfolio, etc.).
- Objection “I / we have everything”
Variant of objection: "I / we do not need anything."
- Ok, I understand you. I just want to give you more options to choose from.
- I understand you. Nevertheless, I’m sure that this offer will interest you.
- You may be interested in this in the future. In the meantime, just look ...
Common Objection Mistakes
- Avoid responding to a standard objection, agree with it, perceive it as a refusal.
- Afraid to seem intrusive. To think that the client will begin to get annoyed and leave.
- Talk a lot. Do not let the client speak.
- Respond to an objection without finding out its true cause.
- Argue with a client or impose your opinion.
- Point out to the client his incompetence.
- Demonstrate your incompetence, referring to someone more competent ("I do not know ...", "This is the leaders ordered ...").