Jackson: How to Negotiate More Effectively

Negotiating is a complex skill. “The art of the deal” is the domain of only the most experienced and skilled negotiators and diplomats.

There is a counterview, however, and it shows that effective negotiation is much simpler than the so-called master negotiators would have us believe. That viewpoint is this: If you understand 12-year-olds, you understand how to negotiate. In other words, simply deliberate with the inner child of the person sitting across the table from us. 

When 12-year-olds argue, bargain or even fight, they tend to do the same things: 

• Posture, trying to give the impression of being tough, mean or disinterested; 

• Go big with demands, but know they will accept something in the middle; 

• Misrepresent the situation to suit their personal, preferred outcome; 

• Lose their tempers and say things or disclose information they wished they hadn’t; 

• Find they are getting nowhere and either break off the negotiations or realize there is too much to lose, get real and find a compromise solution. 

Does this seem familiar? Whether selling to a customer, buying a customer out, buying a house or being a diplomat for the U.S. government, isn’t this sometimes a template for grown-up negotiations, too? Adults have an inner 12-year-old inside them, giving advice based on their experiences as a kid. When we harness the impact of that internal child, we understand the minds and perceptions of others across the table or counter. 

Think about with whom a kid negotiates: parents and older siblings, where they learn about negotiating from a point of weakness. They negotiate with younger siblings or people younger or weaker and learn to navigate situations from a position of power. They also sometimes deal with peers and others of equal power, status or strength. These also represent the same scenarios in which adults must apply diplomacy. Thus, our kid selves are sitting invisibly beside us, along with our experiences, when we negotiate.

We can read all the books we wish about how to negotiate, but these early lessons seem deeply rooted and books can enhance, but not erase, our memories and experience. I did a good amount of swapping as a kid: toys, baseball cards, sports equipment, bikes, etc. The core takeaway of the article is this: Any negotiation, whether with kids or adults, is about self-interest — “What’s in it for me?” Let’s dissect how a 12-year-old negotiates: 

Posturing. Kids go into negotiations inherently knowing they hold a position of power or powerlessness. It colors how they act and think initially. If negotiating from a position of power, the kid might act aloof, indifferent or dismissive. The kid negotiating from a position of relative powerlessness will try to act like they have more strength or that what they have to offer is much better than it is. In this scenario, the onus is on the kid with less power to convince the other party that they possess something of value that the other wants but does not know it. They may have to sweeten the deal with more benefits before the kid with power will consider the proposal. In this situation, the kid with power sets the tempo of negotiations, making the work fall on the kid with less power. Let us be clear here. When I say power, I do not necessarily mean size, strength or intellect. I mean what they have to offer the other party. It always starts with what is on offer. It can devolve to actual power. At this point, the kid with less power must either walk away or get taken advantage of. 

Demands. Twelve-year-olds always ask for much more than they expect, knowing they will accept less. Kids will say things like, “That piece of junk — who would want that?” A kid may misrepresent what is on offer or their interest in it. This is where we learn to read people. Do their words match their body language? Both parties will then go back and forth, trying to prove their stance, usually moving toward a middle ground. The power resides in the hands of the kid who’s considering what’s being offered and it falls to the kid who offers something to prove the value of their claim of their service or product. The kid who is trying to convince the other to swap will either sweeten their offer or provide conclusive proof of the value of their offering. But credible proof and candor are required to reach a middle ground — a compromise. 

Emotions tip the scale. When kids fail to reach a compromise, one or both parties often become emotional, normally angry. Usually, it is the kid who has something on offer that the other party is not buying. Once emotion hits, the angry or upset party always loses power and the other party gains the upper hand and controls negotiations. Frustration is tolerated, but emotions? No. The advantage goes to the party moderating their emotions. Once emotions hijack negotiations, whether caused by uncontrolled desire or lack of compromise, one party is about to lose and the other is about to win. The skillful kid knows how to suppress emotions and show their poker face. This is tough for a kid because they are balls of energy and emotions. After losing a few negotiations to more skillful operators, they learn how to tamp down their emotions. U.S diplomat George Schultz said it best about this stage when he said, “Diplomacy is thinking twice before saying nothing.” Consider your last car purchase. If you really, really wanted a specific car, your emotions signaled this to the salesperson. You did not have to say a word. Your desire came through your body language. The salesperson did not have to compromise. Your emotions were working for the car dealer and against you. It’s the same for any business negotiation. 

Compromise or break off talks. There are two outcomes from negotiations: We either come to a compromise on the value of the product or service or we don’t and we break off talks. A kid might say, “Well, alright, but if you change your mind, come see me,” or “Fine. No deal, but I’m going to go see (add the name of a kid you knew). I know they’re interested.” Either way keeps the door open for future negotiations. The last example builds urgency for reconsideration, even if it’s just a ploy. Everyone parts ways civil enough to potentially talk in the future. If the negotiations become acrimonious and emotional, like “I wouldn’t ever buy that piece of junk and you’re crazy,” that closes the door. No kid offering something wants this response and tries earnestly to position the talks to continue later, but not much later. In a kid’s world, later is still this week. This is instructive for adult negotiations, because the longer the gap between talks, the colder the topic becomes and one or both parties lose interest. The adage, “Strike while the iron is hot,” applies. Either party might recommence negotiations with a casual, “Hey, do you still want to talk about my/your Nolan Ryan rookie card?” This “trial” tests whether the other kid has softened their position and might be ready to compromise.

Now is where, in adult vernacular, we say, “We have found a win-win solution.” But these words are spoken only when both parties believe that their self-interest has been met. Let’s be honest — no one cares about the other person’s self-interest until their own self-interest is met first. This is the very essence of compromise: Both parties arrive at the feeling they win at the same time. A deal is struck and property is exchanged or an agreement is reached about when/how services will be provided. 

When I was a kid, I had a Whiffle Ball-type bat that was a slayer. If you could hit a ball at all, that bat made sure it was a home run. The neighbor kid coveted this bat and I knew its value. We bargained back and forth for a week. Each time, the kid kept upping the ante on what he would give for the bat. Finally, we reached a point where I got a bunch of merchandise I wanted — much more than the initial bargain — and he got the bat. We reached a win-win and I got to use the bat when we played. He just owned it. The inclination might be, “Well, that was just kids' stuff. It has nothing to do with the rough and tumble of real negotiations.” But if you strip out the meeting rooms and the adult jargon, how different are we from 12-year-olds? Peeling back all the veneer of diplomatic methodology, don’t the core tenets look awfully like us as kids?