Golden Rule No. 5: Ensure You Lead the Negotiation Toward Its Conclusion

When concluding negotiations, you must ask yourself two key questions.

When Is It in My Interest to Agree to a Deal?

It is not necessarily desirable to conclude negotiations quickly. For example, if you believe that the other party really does need to close a deal within strict time limits, and if you are their best option, it is in your interest to play for time.

In practice, the more urgent the situation becomes for the other party, the more he will be obliged to reduce his demands in order to reach an agreement. Using “delayed response” is therefore a good way of using up time. You can find others: ordering trials, setting up committees, inviting the other party to visit your premises before concluding negotiations, and so on.

In contrast, if you are under an absolute obligation to do a deal within a short period of time, and if you are in a weak position, then clearly you need to conclude quickly, but check the following points first:

• Is your “deadline” negotiable in-house?
• What is the objective risk if you defer the deal by 2 days, 2 weeks, or 2 months?

In short, while the desire to conclude is understandable, patience is also essential. In any case, you must have a clear idea of the date by which it is in your interest to conclude.

Should I Negotiate “En Bloc” or “Item by Item”?

Item-by-item negotiating, also known as the “salami slicing” method, can bring many benefits:

• It gives both negotiators the feeling that they are making “progress” whenever a partial agreement is reached on an issue.
• When the opposing party is in a weak position, it can allow you to erode his position little by little, without the negotiations breaking down.
• It gains you time vis-à-vis a negotiator who is in a very dominant position. “Throwing him crumbs” throughout the negotiations can help you to hang on to the essentials.

However, this salami slicing method has two disadvantages compared with negotiating “en bloc.” It sometimes impedes any innovative, wide-ranging solution. Furthermore, it can carry the constant risk of a stalemate caused by the other party’s additional demands (such as those made by Carl Ritchie’s counterpart).

In practice, it is often in the buyer’s interest to deploy the salami slicing technique and in the seller’s interest to negotiate “en bloc,” at least in order to reach an agreement in principle on the key issues.