Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuaheard | Hacker News Reader

I wrote an article on negotiation when I was a trial attorney that is applicable to most situations.

"Ten Rules of Negotiation"

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=641BD45A41B1BD6C!645&a...

One issue in negotiating that I never quite know how to resolve is the tension between two somewhat opposing pieces if advice: never be the first to give a number and use anchoring to establish a price.

These are not in conflict -- the anchoring effect (apparently) does not rely on the numbers being relevant to the discussion. So, prior to the salary discussion, begin a brief digression into astronomy. Then, with large numbers firmly lodged in their mind, make them establish the price.

This is excellent. You should put it on a blog.

Yes, this is very very good.

I would enjoy clarification on the difference between ridiculous and comical numbers, as for me these words are largely synonymns. I'm referring to the section that says: "If you are somehow forced to give the first number, make it ridiculous, but not comical. For instance, double your number, but do not ask for a gazillion dollars or some completely off the wall number that will show you are not serious. Welcome an outrageous reaction to your ridiculous number, then smile and shrug. The first offer may be zero, the advertised price, or an “Anchor” number."

If someone makes a starting bid of "zero", for example, that would be both ridiculous/comical. (As why would the 'seller' even show up to hear bids of zero.) So more examples here or another way of putting the same thing would be helpful. (A doubled price doesn't strike me as "ridiculous" so much as uninformed or unreasonable.)

I realize author says that we shouldn't give a number at all.

I would enjoy clarification on the difference between ridiculous and comical numbers

I'd say your chosen quotes do it nicely:

"double your number, but do not ask for a gazillion dollars"

If I want to sell my house for 125k, I'd say 250k, but not a million. With current market, it's ridiculous to think I can sell it for more than 200. Saying 250 can annoy the buyer. But if I say a million the buyer will laugh.

As why would the 'seller' even show up to hear bids of zero

There are circumstances where the price is actually zero, just under other name.

I suspect this is good in a certain cultural environment - say, in US. Otherwise those advices could be interpreted as strange. And when background is taken into account, it becomes more similar to a protocol.

It's always easier to negotiate downward than it is upward. I always throw out ridiculous hourly rates that always get cut in half or more, but it's still more than I would make regularly.

Seconded. I'd love to be able to share this with friends/colleagues.

Easily readable html version here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/156243/negotiation.html

Huge thanks for Joshua for the write up!

I liked the recommendation not to 'split the difference', I hadn't thought about it the way you described. Thanks!

I have a slightly different view of offering to split the difference. If doing so is a number still within my range, then I do as a final offer. But it is final. If they say no, I walk away.

The one snag I see in this is 'Gather your Chips'. In the modern consumer-corporate environment the customer has only one chip: money. The corp holds all the other chips ( quality of service, timely delivery, terms of contract ).

More often than not the customer won't be in any position to negotiate other than declining to take the service. For a big corp that's no real loss.

It is not a snag but a reflection of the balance of power. Think about it from the big corp's perspective; because they have nearly all the bargaining chips, the negotiation is trivially solved by offering Hobson's choice.

In a negotiation those chips can belong to both sides.

A client/customer can outline what they require in terms of service / time / quality and what they can be flexible on. Those are still chips.

Thanks!

Being just a worker bee, I rarely get involved in serious negotiations, but have learned to deal with people for whom everything is a negotiation. The rules of "never make the first offer" and "shut up" have both served me well. Negotiators instinctively exploit the awkwardness of silence.

Joshua, this is extremely good. Thank you for sharing it.

I have not seen such a short and powerful distillation before, though I knew most of the tactics in passing. You give an excellent formula.

I would be interested in your take on other aspects of posture during a negotiation. If you are interested in the subject, perhaps we could email? I didn't find a way to reach you.

Thanks for the positive feedback. My email address is jheard at msn.com

Excellent tips..my only nit pick is with not using ranges..If you are forced to make the first offer, a range can help figure out what the other party is thinking..if I offer $30-$50 for example, and he jumps on the $50, I'll just repeat the offer at something like $35

The problem with this is you have offered $50 and he has accepted. So if you then say $35, you have reversed yourself, which violates the fourth rule (you can never go backwards on your position). This is viewed as bad faith by the other side and can break the negotiation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com