Be the One Who Asks the Questions

When there is a lot at stake, it is important not to adopt a passive posture. That is why we all sometimes tend to want to impose our arguments, our logic, and our interests—and to talk a lot. Yet when you watch negotiations closely, you will notice that the person “pulling the strings” is generally not the one with the most to say, but the one who gets the discussions on the right track and steers them in the right direction. In other words, those who make claims expose themselves to objections, while those who ask questions obtain answers.

In negotiations, the key questions can be divided into three types:

1. Those that bring a better understanding
2. Those that are designed to influence others
3. Those that are designed to destabilize others

Comprehension Questions

The primary function of a question is to allow the person asking it to obtain information that he does not yet possess. Thus, in negotiations, the most elementary questions are those that are designed to collect facts and figures: Who? What? When? Where? How much?

At this stage, it is crucially important not to prejudge the answers. For example, as a seller, if you ask, “Are there any new factors in the tendering procedure?” you will probably get a response such as, “Well…No, not particularly,” matching the assumption implicit in the question. If, on the other hand, you ask, “How precisely is this invitation to tender organized?” you will obtain a more factual response and may discover new information that is worthy of interest.

However, in negotiations, what is often even more crucial than facts is the way in which each party understands and interprets those facts: You need to appreciate your counterpart’s opinions, perceptions, and emotions. That is why it is important to ask open questions, as discussed in chapter 7. They constitute one of the tools of comprehension at a business negotiator’s disposal.

By definition, an open question allows the other party to provide an infinite variety of potential responses. It is designed to collect not only facts or the mere validation of your assumptions but also comments and thoughts.

For example, if you are a buyer, instead of asking the seller, “Your main concerns are price indexing, deadlines, and abidance by order volumes, aren’t they?” you will instead opt for a question such as, “Apart from price indexing, what are your main concerns?” Likewise, a good seller will avoid asking the buyer whether he is satisfied with competing proposals, preferring to ask “how he views” those proposals.

A question in return is a particularly beneficial form of comprehension question. This involves answering a question with another question directly connected to the first one.

Through Golden Rule No. 5, we have seen the benefits of preclosure, which is one example of a question in return.

Seller: What room for maneuver do you have with regard to the delivery deadline?

Buyer: Apart from that issue, are we in complete agreement over our general purchasing terms?

Alternatively,

Buyer: Are you prepared to improve your proposal slightly?

Seller: Assuming for the moment that I am, would you be prepared to give me the order right now?

Along similar lines, you find questions in return addressing detailed terms or deadlines:

Buyer: By what date can you send me your final offer?

Seller: When are you thinking of making a decision?

The question in return is also useful when dealing with fundamentals:

Buyer: What justification is there for the price disparity in relation to your competitor?

Seller: Apart from the price, what are your criteria for evaluating proposals these days?

Giving the seller “the last word” can also allow you to put the ball back in your opponent’s court:

Seller: What is your proposal?

Buyer: What would be an acceptable compromise for you?

The king of all questions in return, one that allows you to refine your understanding under all circumstances, is, “Why are you asking me that?”

In particular, this question can allow you to

• achieve a better understanding of your counterpart’s intentions when she makes an unusual request:
  • Buyer: Could you make me two separate proposals, giving me a specific price breakdown for the second batch?
  • Seller: Why are you asking me to do that?
  • Buyer: We are potentially envisaging the deal being divided between two suppliers.
  • Seller: You need to be aware that we wouldn’t be able to offer such large discounts in that case.
• avoid taking a wrong turn when the buyer is merely trying to confirm his own instincts:
  • Buyer: What is your view of “all-in-one” solutions?
  • Seller (who has such a solution in their catalogue): Why are you asking me that?
  • Buyer: Oh, one of your competitors is offering me just such a deal at an unbeatable price, but I’m not sure how credible it is.
  • Seller: Well, it’s clear that it wouldn’t be suitable in your case and there are three reasons for that.

Influence Questions

Questions can be a formidable tool for gaining influence. This is particularly true of alternative questions, which restrict the other party while apparently allowing him a choice.

Never use the restrictive alternatives often employed by police officers or terrorists:

• Police version. “If you give me the name of the individual behind all this, it’ll go down well in court and you’ll be out in 3 months. But if you continue to suffer from selective amnesia, I’ll stick the Queens Road job on you as well and you’ll be looking at a 20-year stretch, at least. It’s entirely up to you. I’m just trying to help you. Cigarette?”
• Terrorist version. “Either you recognize the legal, democratic, and progressive status of our movement or the women and children hostages will be blown to bits. Now do you believe us?”
• Business version. “By contributing to our initiative to cut costs by 15% over 3 years, something we are asking all our suppliers to do, you will be perfectly placed to secure the big upcoming deals. Obviously you’re free to opt out, but then you really will be giving ground to your two main competitors, which is just what they’re waiting for. It’s up to you. Can I get you another coffee?”

Such restrictive alternatives, where clearly neither of the two options is acceptable, generally induce a proud riposte or stratagems for resistance.

In contrast, the inviting alternative is much more effective. It offers a choice between two acceptable options. A buyer may ask, “Do you want the benefits of a firm order for phase one under the terms I’ve quoted, or would you prefer to offer us a little bit more with the guarantee that you’ll also be supplying the next two phases?”

Such a question is cunning in three different ways. First, it gives the recipient the feeling that he is free to choose, which is especially useful in avoiding the potential for a defiant, resistant, or hostile response. Second, it allows the person asking the question to select and formulate the wording of her choice. In the previous example, the buyer incidentally indicates that the agreement can only be done on the terms “quoted” and merely mentions the possibility of the supplier winning orders covering phases one to three at most, with nothing else in exchange for the concessions demanded. Lastly, it offers the potential to gently guide the other person in choosing a response. Indeed, where a question offers alternatives but there is nothing much at stake, it has been proven that two-thirds of respondents will choose the second option. This preference for the second option can easily be encouraged by wording the first option in a neutral way while talking up the value of the second option: for example, “Do you have a particular reason for sticking to option A or would you prefer to enjoy the benefits of option B, as most decision makers do these days?” Thus the inviting alternative question is a particularly valuable tool for negotiators.

Without ever giving the other person the impression that you are forcing his hand, it can allow you to do the following:

• Facilitate rapid progress in discussions: “Would you like to start by looking at the contents of the technical quotation or shall we quickly go through the whole document together first?”
• “Push” the agreement forward in a particular area—and treat it as agreed to in advance—while directing the buyer on to issues relating to detailed terms: “When invoicing the costs of preliminary research, shall we draw up a separate invoice or would you prefer us to include it in the main invoice?” “As regards other people to meet, would you advise me to see your purchasing people first or to start with your technical department to sort the specifications out?”
• Gently guide some of your counterpart’s decisions: “Is it absolutely necessary to go for a short agreement or would you prefer a slightly longer one, which would probably be more profitable for you?”
• Compel your counterpart to lay all her cards on the table: “Are there any other items to discuss or other people to consult or can we take the view that if we reach agreement on this final issue, then the agreement will be fixed and definitive?”

In contrast, when faced with an alternative question posed by the other party, you must never use one of the options being offered in your reply. You must answer either with another question or by seeking out the “third response” that your counterpart has omitted to suggest to you.

If you are the seller and the buyer asks you, “Do you want the benefits of a firm order for phase one, under the terms I’ve quoted, or would you prefer to offer us a little bit more with the guarantee that you’ll also be supplying the next two phases?” you could respond, “What I want is an agreement acceptable to both parties. Can we look more specifically at the issue of phases four and five?”

“Provocative” Questions

Warning! These are to be used sparingly!

In certain deadlocked situations, these questions can be used to shake the other party’s convictions or strategy, to put him in a difficult position, or to oblige him to change the way in which he is operating (see also the “destabilization tactics” section in chapter 14).

Provocative questions can take several forms. A seemingly innocent question involves presenting the buyer with an exaggerated rephrasing of his words. For example, to a buyer who says, “Your competitors have a product as good as yours, but they’re more flexible over pricing,” a seller might ask, “There’s no doubt about it then; they’re clearly better than us in every way, wouldn’t you say?”

A trap question leads the other person either to confess her ignorance or to provide an inaccurate response. To a seller who claims that her product “has received most of the international accreditations available and at least as many as competing products,” the provocative buyer might answer, “Is that so? Could you give me the list of approved manufacturers in Germany since the standard changed?” If the seller does not have this information, she is immediately placed in a position of weakness.

A diversionary question generally focuses on a completely unrelated issue. For example, when the buyer says, “Ever since college, I’ve been taught to choose the cheapest supplier where the quality being offered is the same,” the seller might ask with astonishment, “At which college did you learn that?” The question will take the buyer by surprise and he will lose the thread of his argument. If he wants to provoke the buyer even further, the seller can then jokingly add, “The professor of logic was off sick that day, I suppose?” before taking control of the conversation again: “Come on, you know perfectly well that there are plenty of other criteria to be taken into account when selecting a supplier. Let’s get back to the issue of…”

By definition, a provocation is made to cause an immediate reaction, which is often difficult to predict or to manage. Indeed, you need to be able to use the advantage gained by destabilizing your opponent but also to then build or rebuild a constructive atmosphere. That is why such questions are only to be deployed by experienced negotiators in situations where they know that they can exercise control, even if the atmosphere takes a sharp turn for the worse.

Note that you would be well advised to deploy such provocative questions only in one-on-one negotiations, which will not put your counterpart in a difficult position in front of third parties.