Whitepaper

Developing effective
negotiation skills

Huthwaite International
[Link] Change Behaviour. Change Results.™
 Whitepaper

This publication may not be reproduced (whether in whole

or in part) in any form or by any means whatever without the
permission of Huthwaite Research Group Limited.
SPIN, Huthwaite and the Buying Cycle are trademarks of
Huthwaite Research Group Limited and are registered in
many countries throughout the world.
This publication shall not be used in North America, South
America, Australia, New Zealand or Japan without prior
written permission from Huthwaite Research Group Limited.

02 / © Huthwaite International
Huthwaite International | Change Behaviour. Change Results.™

Introduction

Persuading people to do what you want them to do, resolving day-to-day

conflicts, negotiating agreements and influencing senior management
colleagues are all activities which require considerable skill if they are to
be successfully accomplished. How, then, can such skills be developed?

The first step is to recognise that we are talking about skills, This research has produced skill models for a wide range of
not knowledge. Skills are developed through practice, but the activities including selling, negotiating, appraisal skills,
old adage that ‘practice makes perfect’ is only partially true. chairmanship and conducting effective meetings. The same
There are plenty of senior people in organisations who have technique used to conduct the research can also be used to
been using their skills for many years but who are clearly far analyse the performance of people wishing to develop their
from perfect. In order to gain from the practice opportunities skills, so that an objective comparison can be made against
we need to be sure we are developing the ‘right’ skills. We the success model. This form of measurable feedback can
need a clear picture of the skills we should be using to bring produce significant skill improvement.
success, plus some objective feedback about our own
performance and how it compares with this success model. The following account of the research carried out to identify
the behavioural skills of effective negotiators may serve to
Huthwaite International is one of a relatively small number of illustrate the value of this approach.
organisations that have carried out detailed research studies
to investigate the skills used by people who are particularly
effective in these management skills.

© Huthwaite International / 03
 Whitepaper

The successful negotiator

In theory, given a suitable method, the study of negotiating We picked a total of forty-nine negotiators who met all of
behaviour should be a simple matter. Find some successful these three success criteria, and they were then studied over a
negotiators and watch them during actual negotiations to find total of 103 separate negotiating sessions. For the remainder
out how they do it. But, like many apparently simple of this article these people are called the ‘skilled’ group. In
procedures, it is not so easy. comparison, a group of negotiators who either failed to meet
the criteria or about whom no relevant data was available
We had some problems in deciding how to define what were also studied. These were called the ‘average’ group. By
constitutes a skilled negotiator, and we eventually decided on comparing the behaviour of the two groups it was possible to
three success criteria. isolate some of the crucial behaviours that made the skilled
negotiators different. It’s important to point out here that the
■■ They should be rated as effective by both sides
comparisons were of ‘skilled’ versus ‘average’, not ‘skilled’
This criterion enabled us to identify likely candidates for versus ‘poor’.
further study. The condition that both sides should agree a
negotiator’s effectiveness was a precaution to prevent The research method
picking a sample from a single frame-of-reference.
We met the negotiators before the negotiations and
■■ They should have a track record of significant success encouraged them to talk about planning and objectives. We
were then introduced into the actual negotiations where we
The central criterion for choosing effective negotiators was
observed and noted the frequency with which certain key
track record over a time period. In such a complex field we
behaviours were used by the negotiators, using Behaviour
were anxious for evidence of consistency. We also wished to
Analysis methods.
avoid the common trap of laboratory studies – looking only
at the short-term consequences of a negotiator’s behaviour In this article we shall concentrate on the area of face-to-face
and therefore favouring those using tricks or deceptions. behaviours used by skilled negotiators and compare their
frequency with those used by average negotiators.
■■ They should have a low incidence of
implementation failures
Face-to-face behaviour
We judged that the purpose of a negotiation was not just to
reach an agreement but also to reach one that would be Skilled negotiators show significant differences in their
viable. Therefore, in addition to a track record of interactions compared with average negotiators. They
agreements, the record of implementation was also studied use certain types of behaviour more frequently while
to ensure that any agreements reached were successfully avoiding others.
carried out.

04 / © Huthwaite International
Huthwaite International | Change Behaviour. Change Results.™

Behaviours used
Seeking Information

The skilled negotiator seeks significantly more information during negotiation than the average negotiator

Seeking Information as a % of all

negotiator’s behaviours

Skilled negotiators 21.3

Average negotiators 9.6

This is a very significant difference in behaviour, and it is interesting that other researchers and practitioners, such as Chester
Karrass and Gerald Atkinson, recognise the utility of Seeking Information is a useful behaviour at two levels:

■■ Obtaining the necessary information with which to bargain

■■ Using questions as a deliberate strategy, for example:

–– questions give control over the discussion

–– questions can be an acceptable alternative to direct disagreement

–– questions keep the other party active and reduce their thinking time

–– questions can give negotiators a breathing space to allow them to marshall their own thoughts.

© Huthwaite International / 05
 Whitepaper

Testing Understanding and Summarising

% of all behaviours by

Testing Understanding Summarising TU + S

Skilled negotiators 9.7 7.5 17.2

Average negotiators 4.1 4.2 8.3

We found that the skilled negotiator used two behaviours with ■■ Implementation concerns
a similar function, Testing Understanding and Summarising,
significantly more. Testing Understanding is a behaviour that Average negotiators, in their anxiety to obtain an
establishes whether or not a previous contribution or agreement, would often quite deliberately fail to test
statement in the negotiation has been understood. understanding or to summarise. They would leave
Summarising is a compact restatement of previous points in ambiguous points to be cleared later, fearing that making
the discussion. Both behaviours clear up misunderstandings things explicit might cause the other party to disagree. In
and reduce misconceptions. The higher level of usage of short, their predominant objective was to obtain an
these behaviours by a skilled negotiator reflects concern with agreement and they would not probe too deeply into any
clarity and the prevention of misunderstanding. It may also area of potential misunderstanding that might prejudice
relate to two less obvious factors: that agreement, even if it was likely to give rise to difficulties
at the implementation stage. The skilled negotiator, on the
■■ Reflecting other hand, tended to have a greater concern with the
successful implementation (as would be predicted from the
Some skilled negotiators tended to use Testing success criteria earlier in the article).
Understanding as a form of reflection behaviour – turning
the other party’s words back in order to obtain further Consequently, they would test and summarise in order to
responses, for example: “So do I understand that you don’t check out any ambiguities at the negotiating stage rather
see any merit in this proposal at all?” than leave them as potential problems for implementation.
While skilled negotiators use Testing Understanding to
bring clarity to the negotiations, there is little doubt that
they also use these behaviours for the same strategic
reasons as Seeking Information.

06 / © Huthwaite International
Huthwaite International | Change Behaviour. Change Results.™

Behaviour Labelling

Skilled negotiators tended to give an advance indication of the class of behaviour they were about to use. So, for example, instead
of just asking “What is the unit cost?” they said “Can I ask you a question – what is the unit cost?”, giving warning that a question was
coming. Instead of just making a proposal they began “If I could make a suggestion...?” and then followed this advance label with
their proposal. Average negotiators were significantly less likely to label their behaviour in this way – with one exception – the
average negotiator was more likely to label Disagreeing.

% of all negotiator’s behaviours immediately

preceded by a behaviour label

Disagreeing All other behaviours

Skilled negotiators 0.4 6.4

Average negotiators 1.5 1.2

Why does the skilled negotiator label behaviours? Our view is that it gives the negotiator a number of advantages:

■■ It draws the attention of the listeners to the behaviour that follows. In this way social pressure can be brought to force a response

■■ It slows the negotiation down, giving time for the negotiators using labelling to gather their thoughts and for the other party to
clear their minds from the previous statements

■■ It introduces a formality which takes away a little of the cut-and-thrust and therefore keeps the negotiation on a rational level

■■ It reduces ambiguity and leads to clearer communication.

The skilled negotiator does, however, avoid labelling Disagreeing. While average negotiators will characteristically say, “I disagree
with that because of...” thus labelling that they are about to disagree, the skilled negotiator is more likely to begin with the reasons
and lead up to the disagreement.

© Huthwaite International / 07
 Whitepaper

Alternative modes of Disagreeing

Reason/explanation Statement of disagreement

Leading to Leading to

Statement of disagreement Reason/explanation

Why don’t skilled people label Disagreeing? If one of the functions of Behaviour Labelling is to make a negotiator’s intentions clear,
then it is hardly surprising that skilled negotiators avoid making it clear that they intend to disagree. They would normally prefer
their reasons to be considered more neutrally so that acceptance involves minimal loss of face for the other party. At the very best,
they want the other party to listen to the reasons – something which doesn’t necessarily happen when Disagreeing is labelled.

Giving Feelings

Giving Feelings as a % of
all negotiators behaviours

Skilled negotiators 12.1

Average negotiators 7.8

Skilled negotiators are often thought of as people who play their cards very close to their chests and who keep feelings to
themselves. The research studies were unable to measure this directly because feelings are unobservable. However, an indirect
measure was possible, counting the number of times that negotiators made statements about what was going on inside their
heads.

The behaviour category ‘Giving Feelings’ was used to record any reference by negotiators to their internal considerations such as
feelings and motives.

08 / © Huthwaite International
Huthwaite International | Change Behaviour. Change Results.™

The skilled negotiator is more likely to give information about The skilled negotiators are more likely to comment on their
internal events than the average negotiator. This contrasts own feelings, saying something like, “I’m not sure how to react
sharply with the amount of information given about external to the information you’ve just given; I would like to accept it,
events, such as facts and general expressions of opinion. Here but I am a little concerned about its accuracy. Can we just
the average negotiator gives almost twice as much. check it?”

The effect of Giving Feelings is that negotiators appear to It was also used instead of Disagreeing behaviour. For
reveal what is going on in their minds. This revelation may or example, if a price quoted seemed too high, the skilled
may not be genuine, but it gives the other party a feeling of negotiator would say, “I’m very worried that we seem to be so
security, because such things as motives appear to be explicit far apart on this particular point...” instead of disagreeing flatly
and above board. with it.

The most characteristic and noticeable form of giving internal The work of a number of psychologists has shown that the
information is Giving Feelings, where skilled negotiators talk expression of feelings is directly linked to establishing trust in
about their own feelings and the impression the other party counselling situations. It is probable that the same is true for
has on them. For example, average negotiators, hearing a negotiating.
point from the other party that they would like to accept but
doubting its veracity, are likely to receive the point in These, then, are some of the behaviours which skilled
uncomfortable silence. negotiators use significantly more than average negotiators.
Let’s turn our attention now to the behaviours they avoid.

© Huthwaite International / 09
 Whitepaper

Behaviours avoided
Irritators

Certain words and phrases that are commonly used during unreasonable and so on. Most negotiators avoid use of direct
negotiations have negligible value in persuading the other insults or unfavourable value judgements. They know that
party, but do cause irritation. Probably the most frequent there is little to gain from saying unfavourable things about
example of these is the term ‘generous offer’ used by a the other party during face-to-face exchanges. However, the
negotiator to describe the proposal. other side of the coin – saying gratuitously favourable things
about themselves – seems harder for them to avoid.
Similarly, words such as ‘fair’, ‘reasonable’ and other terms
with a positive value loading, have no persuasive power when We all use such words, ‘Irritators’, and find that, although the
used as self-praise, whilst serving to irritate the other party average negotiator uses them fairly regularly, the skilled
because of the implications that they are being unfair, negotiator tends to avoid them.

Use of Irritators per hour of face-to-face

speaking time

Skilled negotiators 2.3

Average negotiators 10.8

It is hardly surprising that skilled negotiators use fewer counterproductive effect of using positive value judgements
Irritators. Any type of verbal behaviour that antagonises about themselves and, in doing so, implying negative
without a persuasive effect is unlikely to be productive. More judgements of the other party. Anyone watching the TV news
surprising is the heavy use of Irritators by average negotiators. coverage of an industrial dispute is likely to hear
The conclusion must be that most people fail to recognise the representatives from both sides using Irritators.

10 / © Huthwaite International
Huthwaite International | Change Behaviour. Change Results.™

Defend/Attack spirals

Negotiation frequently involves conflict. Negotiators may often difficult to distinguish from each other. What one
become heated and use emotional or value-loaded negotiator perceives as a legitimate defence, the other party
behaviours. When such behaviours are used to attack the might see as an unwarranted attack. This is the root cause of
other party, or to make an emotional defence, we call it most Defend/Attack spirals observed during the studies.
Defend/Attack.
Average negotiators in particular are likely to react defensively,
Once initiated, this behaviour tends to form a spiral of using comments such as “You can’t blame us for that”, or “It’s
increasing intensity: one negotiator will attack, the other will not our fault that the present difficulty has arisen.” Such
defend, usually in a manner that the first negotiator perceives comments risk provoking a sharp defensive reaction from the
as an attack. Consequently, the first negotiator attacks more other side of the table.
vigorously and the spiral commences. Defend and attack are

% of negotiator’s comments
classified as Defend/Attack

Skilled negotiators 1.9

Average negotiators 6.3

Average negotiators use more than three times as much Average negotiators, in contrast, usually begin their attacking
Defend/Attack behaviour as skilled negotiators. Note, though, gently, sometimes using Irritators, working their way up to
that skilled negotiators do not totally eliminate Defend/Attack. more intense attacks slowly and, in doing so, causing the
The difference is that its use is controlled and unemotional. other party to build up their defensive behaviour in the
An observation showed that skilled negotiators, if they did characteristic Defend/Attack spiral.
decide to attack, gave no warning and attacked hard.

© Huthwaite International / 11
 Whitepaper

Counterproposals

During negotiation it frequently happens that one party puts forward a proposal and the other party immediately responds with a
Counterproposal. Skilled negotiators seem to avoid making these immediate Counterproposals.

Frequency of Counterproposals per hour of

face-to-face speaking time

Skilled negotiators 1.7

Average negotiators 3.1

The difference outlined above suggests that the common strategy of meeting a proposal with a Counterproposal may not be
particularly effective. Using Counterproposals has a number of disadvantages:

■■ They introduce an additional option, sometimes a whole new issue, which can complicate and cloud the clarity of the negotiation

■■ They are put forward at a point where the other party is least receptive, being preoccupied with their own proposal

■■ They are often perceived as blocking or disagreeing by the other party, not as proposals.

These reasons probably explain why the skilled negotiator is less likely to use Counterproposing as a tactic than the average
negotiator.

12 / © Huthwaite International
Huthwaite International | Change Behaviour. Change Results.™

Argument Dilution

Most people have a model of argument which looks rather If this model has any validity then the skilled negotiator would
like a balance or a pair of scales. In fact, many of the terms we be likely to use more reasons to back up an argument than
use about winning arguments reflect this balance model. We would the average negotiator. We found that the opposite was
speak of “tipping the scales in our favour”, or “the weight of true. The skilled negotiator used fewer reasons to back up
the arguments”, or how an issue “hangs in the balance”. each argument. Although the balance-pan model may be very
commonly believed, the studies suggest that it is a
This way of thinking seems to indicate that there is some disadvantage to advance a whole series of reasons in support
special merit in quantity. If we can find five reasons for doing of an argument or case. In doing so, the negotiator exposes a
something then that should be more persuasive than only flank and gives the other party a choice of which reason to
being able to think of a single reason. We feel that the more dispute. It seems self-evident that if a negotiator gives five
we put on our scale-pan, the more likely we are to tip the reasons to support a case and one reason is weak, the other
balance of an argument in our favour. party will exploit this reason in response. The more reasons
advanced, the more a case is potentially diluted, rather than
strengthened.

Average number of reasons given by negotiator to

give back each arguement/case (s)he advanced

Skilled negotiators 1.8

Average negotiators 3

Unfortunately, many negotiators who have received some The skilled negotiator tended to advance single reasons
form of higher education place a value on being able to put insistently, only moving to subsidiary reasons if the main
forward reasons to back their case. As a result they frequently reason was clearly losing ground. It is probably no coincidence
suffered from this dilution effect, not on the principal that an unexpectedly high proportion of the skilled
argument, but on the weakness of the incidental supporting negotiators studied, both in labour relations and in contract
points introduced. negotiations, had received relatively little formal education. As
a consequence they had not been trained to value the
balance-pan model and more easily avoided the trap of
advancing a whole flank of reasons to back their case.

© Huthwaite International / 13
 Whitepaper

Conclusion
The behaviour profiles outlined are, of course, only part of the For many years Huthwaite has conducted negotiation skills
story of what makes a skilled negotiator. programmes for a wide range of multinational organisations,
using case studies as a vehicle for trainees to practise their
The research also revealed considerable differences between skills, and for behaviour analysis of the negotiations to take
skilled and average negotiators in the way in which they place.
planned for their negotiations. Much further work remains to
be done to produce a complete model for successful From this analysis, the trainees receive hard data about their
negotiating. performance that can be compared with the skill model
outlined above. This allows objective decisions to be made
However, the model as it currently stands does give a valuable about which behaviours to change, and enables the trainees
insight into behaviour profiles that can help anyone to be a to measure the improvement in performance over
better negotiator. It does give people an objective framework subsequent practice sessions.
against which to compare their own performance.
This form of training consistently produces measurable
This can only be done, of course, if people are given objective changes in the performances of trainees. Changes that many
feedback about their own performance, from trainers or organisations tell us have produced significant improvements
coaches who are skilled in the behaviour analysis techniques in the outcomes of real negotiations, which is what skill
needed to produce an accurate profile of the trainee’s training is all about.
behaviour patterns during negotiations.
Research by Huthwaite Research Group Limited.

14 / © Huthwaite International
Huthwaite International | Change Behaviour. Change Results.™

© Huthwaite International / 15
 @Huthwaite_Intl
huthwaite-international
TheHuthwaiteGroup

Hoober House
Wentworth
South Yorkshire
S62 7SA
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)1709 710 081

Email: enquiries@[Link]

Huthwaite International
Change Behaviour. Change Results.™

© Huthwaite International. This document is the copyright work of Huthwaite International and may not be reproduced (in whole or in part, in any form or by any means whatever) without
its prior written permission. SPIN, Huthwaite, the Buying Cycle and the Company logo are trademarks and are registered in many countries throughout the world. The copyright notices and
trademarks on this document may not be removed or amended without the prior written consent of Huthwaite International.