Skip to main content

What Type of Negotiator Are You?

 
Now think of your most formidable negotiation partner.

What type are they? 
 
In his excellent book Never Split the Difference, former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss explains there are three basic types of negotiators: Assertive, Analyst and Accommodator. Each has different needs, interpretation of time and silence, strengths and weaknesses.

Here's a quick summary: 

Assertive

  • Needs to be heard. They're the types to dominate a conversation at every opportunity. If you don't listen to them, they get upset. They can't hear you until they've been heard. 
  • Time is money. So they get to the point and want things done fast. They're least likely to engage in small talk, because they find it frivolous. They're busy and they're proud of it.
  • Silence is a chance to talk some more. They don't think twice about filling the gap in conversation with more of what they think, what they want, and how they want it done. 
  • Their strength is that they are decisive, candid and straightforward. They're in it to win it. You don't have to question what they're thinking, because they're probably telling you in no uncertain terms.
  • Their weakness is that they're focused on their own goals, not people. They often tell rather than ask. Sometimes they come across as harsh. 
  • To deal with this type, first engage in reflective listening so that you can be heard. Be firm and respectful, but not defensive. This type has "give an inch, take a mile" mentality, so if you give a strategic concession, articulate your expectation for reciprocity. Otherwise, they'll just take more and not give back. 

 

Analyst

  • Needs to avoid mistakes. They're the types to spend hours preparing for a fifteen minute conversation, because they hate mistakes and surprises.  
  • Time is chance to prepare. They want to take as long as it takes to be fully prepared so they can get it done right. 
  • Silence is a chance to think. Every time there's a gap in conversation, their wheels are turning, their minds probing and digging deeper. They like to think before they speak. 
  • Their strength is that they are thorough, methodical and knowledgeable. They come to the negotiating table equipped with data, facts and information. They listen attentively for new information, because to them knowledge is power. 
  • Their weakness is that they're so focused on analysis, they don't show emotion. They can come across as cold or uncaring if they don't smile. They're also skeptical by nature. 
  • To deal with this type, come prepared with data, facts and information. Be willing to share knowledge and have a data-driven conversation. Avoid surprises by warning them early of issues. This type is hypersensitive to reciprocity, so if you give a concession, they'll likely return the favor in equal measure...or take their time to study the implications of your concession.  

 

Accommodator

  • Needs to be liked. They're the types to focus on power with, or creating harmony and goodwill above making decisions and getting things done.  
  • Time is chance to bond. As long as they are bonding and building a relationship with you, time is well spent.  
  • Silence is a sign someone is angry. When there is a gap in conversation, they're the first ones to ask, "What's wrong? Did I upset you? Sorry if I did." 
  • Their strength is that they are likable and charming. They're friendly and easy to talk to. They're experts at getting you to relax, laugh and bond, which can get you on their side. 
  • Their weakness is that they don't always voice their objections. They may overpromise on things they can't deliver. Sometimes they say yes to make you happy, but later you find out they really meant no. 
  • To deal with this type, be friendly but beware of getting stuck in small talk. This type is likely to initiate a concession with the unspoken hope that you will reciprocate. Gently nudge them with open-ended questions and get them to articulate what they want, what they don't want and how you may work together to reach and implement an agreement.  


So...are you an archetype or a complex human being? 

I think Voss' 3 archetypes are fun (probably because I tend to be analytical) and useful for understanding conflict between types. For example, an assertive's compulsive need to fill every silence with talk might grate on the nerves of an analyst, who just wants a moment of peace to think through the deal points. An analyst's tendencies to quietly mull on information may have the accommodator feeling anxious, the assertive feeling impatient. 

But wait a minute. We're not archetypes. We are complex human beings, whose tendencies fluctuate depending on the situation and context. And I think that's a good thing.

Be fully human.

I think the real secret sauce is in becoming type-flexible.

Think of an assertive type who knows how to ask smart questions, to listen deeply and to lead with generosity. It's the leader we want to follow, the wise parent we love and respect. Their negotiation game is strong.

The analyst who knows when to be decisive, how to be vulnerable and to bond with people are the people we want to learn from. They tend to be exceptionally great at consultative sales and negotiation. Their game is also strong. 

The accommodating type who knows how to assert their no, to prepare for a data-driven conversation and to manage their time effectively are the people we want to work with. They are both charming and successful at getting what they want. They are the generous leaders in the making. 

So the point being, there is no wrong or right type.

The key is in stretching yourself. Tapping into your strengths and turning your weaknesses around.

Be fully human. Give it a try. I bet in no time, you'll be a formidable negotiator.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

OWASP Top 10 Threats and Mitigations Exam - Single Select

Last updated 4 Aug 11 Course Title: OWASP Top 10 Threats and Mitigation Exam Questions - Single Select 1) Which of the following consequences is most likely to occur due to an injection attack? Spoofing Cross-site request forgery Denial of service   Correct Insecure direct object references 2) Your application is created using a language that does not support a clear distinction between code and data. Which vulnerability is most likely to occur in your application? Injection   Correct Insecure direct object references Failure to restrict URL access Insufficient transport layer protection 3) Which of the following scenarios is most likely to cause an injection attack? Unvalidated input is embedded in an instruction stream.   Correct Unvalidated input can be distinguished from valid instructions. A Web application does not validate a client’s access to a resource. A Web action performs an operation on behalf of the user without checking a shared sec

CKA Simulator Kubernetes 1.22

  https://killer.sh Pre Setup Once you've gained access to your terminal it might be wise to spend ~1 minute to setup your environment. You could set these: alias k = kubectl                         # will already be pre-configured export do = "--dry-run=client -o yaml"     # k get pod x $do export now = "--force --grace-period 0"   # k delete pod x $now Vim To make vim use 2 spaces for a tab edit ~/.vimrc to contain: set tabstop=2 set expandtab set shiftwidth=2 More setup suggestions are in the tips section .     Question 1 | Contexts Task weight: 1%   You have access to multiple clusters from your main terminal through kubectl contexts. Write all those context names into /opt/course/1/contexts . Next write a command to display the current context into /opt/course/1/context_default_kubectl.sh , the command should use kubectl . Finally write a second command doing the same thing into /opt/course/1/context_default_no_kubectl.sh , but without the use of k

标 题: 关于Daniel Guo 律师

发信人: q123452017 (水天一色), 信区: I140 标  题: 关于Daniel Guo 律师 关键字: Daniel Guo 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Apr 26 02:11:35 2018, 美东) 这些是lz根据亲身经历在 Immigration版上发的帖以及一些关于Daniel Guo 律师的回 帖,希望大家不要被一些马甲帖广告帖所骗,慎重考虑选择律师。 WG 和Guo两家律师对比 1. fully refund的合约上的区别 wegreened家是case不过只要第二次没有file就可以fully refund。郭家是要两次case 没过才给refund,而且只要第二次pl draft好律师就可以不退任何律师费。 2. 回信速度 wegreened家一般24小时内回信。郭律师是在可以快速回复的时候才回复很快,对于需 要时间回复或者是不愿意给出确切答复的时候就回复的比较慢。 比如:lz问过郭律师他们律所在nsc区域最近eb1a的通过率,大家也知道nsc现在杀手如 云,但是郭律师过了两天只回复说让秘书update最近的case然后去网页上查,但是上面 并没有写明tsc还是nsc。 lz还问过郭律师关于准备ps (他要求的文件)的一些问题,模版上有的东西不是很清 楚,但是他一般就是把模版上的东西再copy一遍发过来。 3. 材料区别 (推荐信) 因为我只收到郭律师写的推荐信,所以可以比下两家推荐信 wegreened家推荐信写的比较长,而且每封推荐信会用不同的语气和风格,会包含lz写 的research summary里面的某个方面 郭家四封推荐信都是一个格式,一种语气,连地址,信的称呼都是一样的,怎么看四封 推荐信都是同一个人写出来的。套路基本都是第一段目的,第二段介绍推荐人,第三段 某篇或几篇文章的abstract,最后结论 4. 前期材料准备 wegreened家要按照他们的模版准备一个十几页的research summary。 郭律师在签约之前说的是只需要准备五页左右的summary,但是在lz签完约收到推荐信 ,郭律师又发来一个很长的ps要lz自己填,而且和pl的格式基本差不多。 总结下来,申请自己上心最重要。但是如果选律师,lz更倾向于wegreened,