Business Negotiations Are Not That Simple.

Suppose you are a father or mother. There is a 5 year old daughter in the family.

The main dish of this evening is Brassica oleracea, which is one of the most nutritious foods in nature.

But your daughter doesn't want to eat.

"Honey, finish your cabbage."

You gently advise.

My daughter looked at you and said with emphasis, "no! I hate cabbage!"

Who is in the dominant position?

You are an adult, maybe rich and powerful, physically strong, but your daughter has a lot of advantages in this situation.

Why do I say so? Because she can - and only she can - eat cabbage.

She controls what you want to achieve, and at the moment says "no", she has nothing to lose.

This is not all.

She may feel that this problem is very important to you, which will enhance her strength.

She will think that in order to get her cooperation, you may be willing to exchange something with something.

The understanding of this key advantage can easily be applied to negotiations with stubborn politicians, grumpy customs officers and tight budget budgeting officials, as in negotiations with children.

No matter how powerful you are, when the other party controls your decisions, you'd better be careful with such people.

Now go back to the table.

How do you deal with cabbage? You can take care of it, but your daughter is unlikely to care about nutrition standards.

Therefore, no matter what conventional advantages you have, it will not play a big role.

Another option is to tempt the little girl and encourage her to cooperate.

You can specifically promise something that she likes, such as sweets or a pleasure, which may appeal to her.

She knew that if the negotiations broke down, she would lose all of those fun.

Promising to give her something good may give you an edge.

However, parents all over the world know that it is dangerous to use this advantage to their children.

The temptation to persuade children to do what she should have done will eventually hurt her, and it will increase your life rather than reduce it.

What happens if you resort to explicit threats, such as spanking, sending her back to the room or desserting from the menu?

Yours

And the right to speak makes it easy for you to use threats, but doing so is like taking cabbage.

If she obeys the threat, you will pay for it.

She will eat cabbage as slowly as possible, and look at you with a stubborn eye from time to time.

A member of the Walton Management Negotiation Workshop once told me that one night when he took the threat strategy, it took his child 4 hours to finish his meal.

Dinner becomes something that deviates from intention.

Worse still, suppose she thinks you bluff, forcing you to turn the threat into action. What happens? You send her back to your room, but she still hasn't eaten cabbage.

So you either have to escalate the conflict or admit defeat.

What conclusions do we get?

Your child may look weak, but she has an advantage in this situation.

Therefore, your solution should be to acknowledge children's preferences to a certain extent, or to let her choose another nutritious vegetable, reduce the quantity of cabbage, add condiments, and make a good wrapping when making cabbage.

If you admit that your child has an advantage in this situation, the strategies adopted reflect her interests in some ways, especially if she understands that she wants to control decisions that affect her. You can better fulfill your parents' responsibilities.

Similarly, if you take the same approach with a stubborn politician, a customs officer and a budget supervisor you want to carry out a work plan, you will become a more professional practitioner.

There's another thing about how small people get it.

The case is related to gambling in Atlanta, New Jersey.

This example is similar to the story of Tiffany's high-level right to use, involving Donald Trump, but this time he did not perform so well.

Vera Colkin (Vera Coking) is an elderly widow and owns a Malospka Residence in the central part of Atlanta, New Jersey.

She has a conservative character and has lived in that house for almost a lifetime.

At that time, the gambling industry had been blown to Atlanta. Several interested developers expressed interest in buying Mrs. Kim's real estate to build a casino.

Bob Gusio (Bob Guccione) first came to visit. It was said that his offer was $1 million. In 1980s, the land price was very high, but he was rejected.

Ancient Theo finally failed to win the gambling license and gave up the plan to build a casino.

The second one came to Donald Trump. He had no intention of paying $1 million. He only wanted to negotiate with Mrs. king on the basis of the open market price of the house, and was also rejected.

In the end, Trump built nearby Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.

In a big expansion process, he tried again to negotiate with Mrs. king.

The latter demanded $1 million, and he refused.

After more than 10 years of trapping, litigation and media attention, Trump abandoned the original plan, and the enlarged Trump square circled Mrs. coconsin's apartment from three sides.

Trump asked the Atlanta entertainment regulatory agency to announce that Mrs. Kim's property was illegal and dismantled, so that she could pull the nail on her face, and then the government intervened.

She didn't get scared. She hired a lawyer to defend her homeland and hold on to protest. She was called "Trump's ulcer".

Finally, she received support from a foundation that was committed to the use of the constitution to protect private property rights.

At the same time, cartoonist Gary Trudeau (Garry Trudeau) published comic strips in the newspaper, making irony about Trump's assets in Atlanta, making Trump the laughing stock of the whole country.

Vera Colkin is an old lady without relatives and friends, but she also has advantages.

Why? Because she owns legal property rights.

She knew Trump needed her place, but she was obviously not in a hurry to sell it.

She controls Trump's needs, and at least in her opinion, if he says no, he will not bring losses to himself.

In fact, perhaps psychologists would think that she used this dispute to get what she might want to spend all her life on, money that she could not buy: the world's attention.

Therefore, advantages can not be equated with social economic forces of general significance.

Analyze the specific situation you are facing, then ask yourself: what needs do I control the other side? What needs do the other side control over me? If the paction fails, who will lose the most? Do not judge the advantage according to wealth or position.