Tag Archive for Negotiations

Reading Buy Signals

No matter what your occupation, we are all in the business of selling. If we aren’t selling a particular product, we’re selling ourselves! Most good salesmen agree that almost every form of sales includes the selling of oneself and when people buy, they usually buy us and not the merchandise. This is why it’s important to know when we are on the right track during a sales call. Buying signals include indicators that tell us that someone is not only ready to buy an item, but can also mean that they are ready to sign a deal, offer us a job, create a partnership or forge practically any other agreement. Let’s look at some of the ways we know when someone is about to commit to buying so we can tone down or stop our pitch altogether in favour of closing out. Pitching passed the point where a decision is made is always unnecessary, but sometimes even disastrous because we may end up saying something extra to take them out of the buying mood. So here are the various signals we should watch for during a sales pitch.

Eye contact: During the pitch process a buyer will sometimes try to feign disinterest (or might actually be disinterested) but as someone readies to buy, they increase eye contact.

Moving in: Buyers will shrink the distance between them and the seller usually by leaning inward, or if standing, by moving in closer. Translation – they don’t want the deal to slip away.

Touching the chin: Touching the chin is a powerful signal showing thought, and if seen along with accompanying buy-signals, closing should be attempted.

Greater relaxation: Tension is heavy during negotiations, but as demands are met and agreements created, a sudden release of tension from the body indicates that your client is prepared to accept the deal and is okay with its terms.

Any reversal of these signals, midstream or a lack of buy-signals shows that a buyer is not yet ready to purchase. With what we have covered throughout this book, it should be obvious from their body language, the reason they withhold the sale. If possible, addressing concerns as you go through hints in their body language, but if you miss them and get hung up put the ball in their court by asking them what needs addressing. This is only a fail-safe tactic since in most cases, as we have seen people give off plenty of solid clues to negative thought patterns.

When Mirroring Can Backfire

Mirroring can backfire around people who want to dominate instead of build rapport. Your boss who takes you aside and wants to put the “rivets to you” isn’t going to respond to mimicry. In fact, trying to mirror him is likely going to make matters worse. In most cases, a dominant boss who displays dominant body language is not interested in employing someone equally as dominant. The default condition, or rule of thumb, to working with dominant people, unless lead otherwise (by your boss), is to show submissive postures. Fight dominance in superiors with submission, that is, hold your legs together, arms inward and hands on your lap.

There are a few exceptions when dominance should be fought with mirroring such as when we wish to rise in ranks by building equality with our bosses or wish to compete head on with other dominant people for positions or perks. Other times a boss will require someone specifically to hold a position of dominance, so will be looking for someone who reminds them of themselves. Bosses will seek these people for higher management. Lawyers can and should posture dominantly to each other. For them it can work to thwart challenges. It is expected in lawyers, and in other professions, to fight fire with fire, but in normal circumstances, mirroring will only raise the hackles of others further.

A second related instance where mirroring is not advised is during confrontation and aggression and this defines our second rule of thumb which is to avoid mirroring in hostile situations. To avoid a full blown fist fight, diffuse aggression with submissive postures. This doesn’t mean you can’t come out the winner, it just requires a different approach. More than anything it requires defining winning in a different way than traditional. In other words, walk away unscarred, alive and you’ve won!

The final caveat to mirroring is to use it only during win-win negotiations and avoid it during win-lose negotiations. Win-lose situations are when one side clearly wins and the other looses. Poker is a win-loose situation where one person wins the chips directly from another person, whereas win-win situations happen anytime prices have room for flexibility such as negotiating on the price on a piece of carpet, a car, or a house, where once the price is agreed upon both parties will benefit. Other arrangements that are win-win are partnerships that involve no money at all, but rather an equal input of labour. Therefore, our final rule of thumb is to only use mirroring when there is give and take involved, or when the task includes cooperation beneficial to both sides. The caveat, of course, which was mentioned previously, is that all mirroring must always go unnoticed for it to be effective.

Using Mirroring In Negotiations

Negotiation finds itself in all walks of life. Even small children know that negotiation is important as they work to secure toys and privileges from parents and other children, although sometimes they revert to brute force and temper tantrums! Adults focus on bigger ideas, and negotiate for jobs, salaries and sales. Part of your occupation likely involves some form of negotiation on a daily basis but even if it doesn’t, most people find that negotiation finds itself in their personal lives as well, if not just to secure a better deal on a mattress or a watch at the hockshop.

We soon learn that our ability to influence, persuade, and interact with others play a large role in the final outcome and within this social game are liking, trust and therefore rapport. He who can control these factors best, will secure the large piece of the pie! Negotiations can be stressful affairs because we are almost dealing with a limited resource in some respect or another and this increasing the propensity for competition. It is the element of competition that further breeds distrust and conflict. Having methods to dilute these negative elements are of vital importance.

One of the key factors in negotiations is the desire to withhold information especially as it applies to more novice deal makers. We naturally expect deception and competition in deal making and so we prepare for the worst, but in actual fact, this preconception leads us to destroy the odds of coming out of the affair on the upside. Rather, research shows that it is the sharing of information that creates cooperation, builds trust, and influence others such that they see your side and empathize with you. Ultimately this empathy is what leads to positive outcomes for both parties, within the limits of constructive possibilities for both parties, of course. When negotiating, we must still balance cooperation and information sharing within the realms of the game such that we don’t give up too much information or reveal the outer limits that we are prepared to submit as loses to our negotiating partner. But this does not mean we shouldn’t be upfront about our net positions, as there is always a possibility that both parties can find mutual benefit, but if neither party shares information, how would anyone know what is at stake?

This brings us to mirroring as an effective tool to bring negotiators quickly onto the same page without using risky or damaging dialogue. In a 2008 study by Maddux and colleagues individual negotiators in an imagined negotiation scenario where instructed to subtly mirror the actions of the other. It was found that mirroring helped them secure a better outcome and allowed them to perform better as a whole than negotiators who were instructed to focus more on their own strategy and where no mention of mirroring was given. The subjects that mirrored in this experiment created more value for themselves under the parameter of the study and that benefit did not come at the expense of their opponents. The study suggests that mirroring creates more information sharing which lead to a greater ability to bend on concessions and hence formulate more positive outcomes for each party.

In their second study, they used two groups once again. One was instructed to mirror and the other was instructed to use their own strategy. In this case however, the subjects either acted as a buyer or seller and they were negotiating the purchase of a gas station. In the scenario, which was cleverly devised, there was no overlap in the price with which the seller was willing to accept and of which the buyer was willing to pay, making the negotiation more than about price alone. Some key outside factors that played into the negotiation was that the seller was keen to leave quickly to travel caused by burnout from running the gas station, but that upon his return he would require employment from the purchaser to recover some of his expenses. This was compatible with the interests of the buyer who wanted to hire managers to run the station in the future. The deal hinged upon the desire of the seller to divulge this information and to what degree, if any, either party would drop or raise their closing price. Not surprisingly, ten of fifteen groups where buyers were instructed to mirror led to an acceptable deal, whereas only two of sixteen reached a deal where the buyer did not. They also cross referenced the level of mirroring with deal success and found that as mirroring increased, so too did deal making. As a positive side effect, trust also increased with mirroring.

It’s obvious from these studies that mirroring can have a profound positive effect on negotiations. They can open the channels of communication and release valuable information between parties resulting in creation of value, deal making and trust. When no mirroring happens, deal making suffers, but when mirroring happens both parties stand to benefit.