How to negotiate effectively. | Hacker News Reader

How to negotiate effectively.

korokithakis.net

54 pointsStavrosK24 comments

I'm pretty sure that these strategies work, but I would just feel "wrong" doing some of them. I can't help thinking of them as trickery and deceit.

Perhaps I'd be a crappy negotiator, but I'd much rather take a more honest approach.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I would argue that two negotiators behaving honestly can come up with a better outcome than two negotiators trying to trick each other. Of course, the world is so full of these deceitful negotiators that any practical advice must emphasize those techniques. I think it sucks though..

I see where you're coming from, but if you take your emotions out of it you won't feel as bad. Think of it as a game, one where both sides are trying to see just how low (or high) the other party will get. Negotiation is a mental game of chicken. You may have to say things like "Sounds like a good price, but I'll have to check with my partner" even if your partner is your loyal German Shepard. But the bottom line is that the final result is open and agreeable.

Also take your morals out? Changing a contract after its been agreed to, and sending the changed contract out with a check, is underhanded.

No, its not just silly emotion that's in the way. Some of the techniques are wrong, and done by people of little or no integrity. You can't trust these people. Don't do business with them.

Changing a contract is unethical, but that's not the technique described here. The strategy is with clarifying the contract. For example, if you agree on a price, that price should be set in stone, but that's only part of the contract. What about payment terms? That's when you write a contract that says payment is due upon receipt, and not net 30 or longer.

"Fait accompli"

I used to be like you. But then I realized that I was getting paid well below market because I was trying to play fair.

In fact, when I took my current job I was unhappy with the money but happy with the job description. So I said, listen I'm taking the job, but I'd like you to increase the offer. They said they can't and give me a bunch of BS reasons why. Then they went ahead and also hired someone else I knew, who had similar (IMHO worse) qualifications than me, for the money I'd asked for but not got.

Funny how the tune changed when I realized what was afoot and hinted at quitting if it weren't fixed soon. I got a 30% raise and a 15% bonus. No questions asked.

You can do it without hardball tactics, though - if you keep your eye out for other opportunities (i.e. have a better BATNA), then you can present it honestly as "the best move for me right now", and if they don't want to give a raise, you can discuss alternative benefits that would satisfy both parties.

On the other hand, if they're trying to screw you, they're trying to screw you.

Is that better for any of the parties involved? It's work for you to find a BATNA, work for the org that offered you your BATNA, and neutral for your employer. Seems more straightforward to just negotiate.

I'd say it's better - it's not more or less straightforward, both distributive and integrative approaches are still negotiations. You need to know your BATNA anyway, whether it's leaving or sucking it up, so doing more research just puts you in a better position, no matter which route you choose. Bluffing might get you lucky, but not likely as lucky as if you can back it up, and if they call your bluff, or it doesn't work out for some other reason, you'll have less bargaining power in the future.

It's also good to keep in mind that the best deal someone else got doesn't necessarily relate to the best deal you can get - just because someone negotiated a higher salary doesn't mean you can; it's not your BATNA unless someone makes you the offer. Also, if nothing else, distributive approaches tend to leave one or both parties feeling like they lost, which will likely sour future negotiations. Taking the integrative route means that the only losers are the companies that don't get you - assuming that's in their best interest (which it might not be, if they have a better BATNA than matching your BATNA).

Also, if the amount of effort and time that the negotiation takes is amongst your interests, then that's really on the negotiation table too (regardless of approach), it just means that you'll be negotiating away other things, like your salary, in order to satisfy that interest.

I agree with all of what you're saying.

I was just trying to point out to the OP that s/he doesn't need to feel dirty doing all this. I also don't think you need to be dishonest about any of this.

In my case, instead of letting the cat out of the bag by telling them I wanted to take the job, I should've said the offer was well below my expectation (true) and said nothing about whether I wanted to take the job (no lying involved).

One advantage of doing what I did (i.e. not bring in another offer) is that I can now get even more when I quit from here. My suggestion is that if you're getting screwed over and the company want to keep you - get the best deal your company can give and then use THIS as a baseline for your next offer.

Go in and ask for what you want. If you don't get what you want, move on and don't accept their crappy excuses. If you do get what you want, take it. Do research first to ensure that "what you want" is in line with "what you deserve".

Negotiation generally boils down to a game of chicken. Are you really going to leave the offer on the table if they don't bump the wage? Are they really going to pass on you and find someone that's cheaper if they've already decided they like you and want to hire you?

Negotiation would be a really straightforward thing if people were willing to be honest about things. For our purposes, "hardball" negotiation is just annoying, and the tactics listed here are dishonest, some blatantly (like pretending you have to get approval from someone when you really don't). It always lessens my opinion of the person when I can tell they're employing "negotiation tactics". The places where you may legitimately need these skills tend to be more on the side of interrogation than establishing compensation.

That's the difference between distributive and integrative negotiations. The tactics listed in this post are mostly for distributive bargaining, which works more when you have some set pie that you're dividing up (it's a zero-sum game), as opposed to coming up with out-of-the-box solutions, and particularly if you don't expect to have to deal with the other person again. Part of the beginning of a negotiation is figuring out which path the negotiation is going to go down. Textbooks on negotiation cover both - distributive approaches just make for better "quick advice" and "self help" content, particularly since advice on integrative approaches is a bit less actionable.

This is one of my all time favorite business books. Great summary.

"Be the one who writes the contract." and the Higher Authority gambit are a favorite among VC's.

Also, suggesting something is standard is very popular among VC's and isn't in this book. It works in many spheres. A friend leases parking from the city outside her building. She clamps wheels if you park in a bay without permission and charges $400 for release. She was getting a lot of people complaining about the price. So I told her to say "It's standard", and it worked like a charm. Many more clampees paid up without complaint.

Learning particular techniques is a fun part of negotiating, but it's actually not a particularly important part of it. In the long run you'll be better off if you use these a little bit (any more and your start pissing people off), but the focus needs to still be on simple things like leverage, BATNA etc.

A lot of these ploys are becoming far too well known as well. For instance, nibbling seems to be in every negotiation book ever and it's really obvious when someone pulls it.

As a side note I continue to not understand people who don't like making the first offer, the evidence against it is very flimsy and it lets you frame the conversation. It only fails miserably if you accidentally come in under what the other party was expecting. Research should allow you to avoid that and in all other cases you'll get a slightly better deal.

Possibly the most important part of looking at lists like this is working out how to counter them rather than how to utilize them yourself.

I agree, you have to distinguish between situations where the negotiation is a prelude to a longer term relationship (e.g. selling someone a SaaS subscription) and where it's more likely a one time transaction (e.g. selling a used car). If you are negotiating with another experienced party then Nibbling, Higher authority, Flinch, Play dumb, adding details not agreed to, Red herring, Reluctant buyer, and Want it all are likely to slow things down or convince them that they don't want a long term business relationship with you.

I strongly disagree with the first offer remark. Generally most negotiations start with some sort of frame, but it can be vague. Consider a salary negotiation for a entry-level software engineering position. Both parties know generally what the range could be. In Arizona, it is roughly $40k to $100k. That's a fairly big range. The first offer always narrows this range. If the applicant said he was looking for at least $50k, then the employer would magically be right inline with that (assuming their willingness was at least that) when they may have well had an expected range of up to $80k.

If the first offer is wildly favorable for the receiving party, you generally hear "that's about what I was thinking too." I've used that phrase plenty of times when in reality I was thinking a fraction of what they said.

If you do your research you should know that range already. In which case open with 80-100 or more depending on the company and the arguments you can make to back up your value. If you do this then you've fixed the entire discussion at the high end. If the other party opens with say 50k then it's going to be very hard to argue it up to 80k.

As I said, you do have to research things first and if you really don't know then you just have to wait for the other guy to name something first. Since you don't know they can name whatever they like.

Pretty sad that you would screw your employees like that.

Also, if you have two people who both know this rule to never make the first offer, you aren't going to get anywhere. Someone has to man up and produce a number that's at least vaguely realistic.

I'm not sure why you think I'm screwing over employees; I don't have any, I am one. This is true that someone has to make the first offer, but I stand by my argument that it's always to your advantage to nudge the other party to go first. If they ask what you need or are expecting, just say "above market rate."

You're exploiting the naivety of your candidates by pretending that their initial offer is "about what you were thinking", even though it was really much lower. You should pay a fair salary even if your candidates are naive about what actually constitutes a fair salary. You're screwing over the people whose salaries you control by encouraging/allowing them to take a much worse offer just because they didn't know any better. Why is this good?

I see what you're saying, but let me reiterate, I've only done this on the receiving end as an applicant, candidate, potential employee. Saying "about what I was thinking" is something I say when I would take a job for $500, but they offer $2,000. Am I screwing over an employer by encouraging and allowing them to pay me that much?

I too would have done that a few months ago but after that article on HN about how it hurts developers to not talk about their salary I would have found the range and demanded 130k, then accepted 110k which would have been better than the offer I would have gotten under if I had them saying 80k.

Do these tricks actually work? Every time I’ve run into these, I’ve felt like I’m negotiating with a used car salesman. Most of the time, that’s actually been the case. But, a few times, I actually ran into this nonsense after getting a job offer. Each time, after a few rounds of “higher authority” and “good guy, bad guy” I got tired of the games and turned down the offer, in favor of a company that gave me a reasonable offer in the first place, and actually let me talk to someone who had the power to make a decision (or at least didn’t pretend that they didn’t have the power to make a decision). I imagine hitting these techniques is equally obnoxious from the other side.

Great book and it's the only one I've bothered to read about negotiating. However, the blog post didn't mention succinctly that a power negotiator makes the other side feel like they have 'won': that's what 'power negotiating' is. Keep that in perspective while studying and practicing the gambits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com