Two of my granddaughters are sisters. One is 6 and the other is 3 years old.
They recently had the following interchange:
6 year old: “How many pecans do you want?”
3 year old: “Like, a million.”
6 year old: “I can give you five.”
3 year old: “OK.”
Classic sibling interchange.
Neither of these youngsters have ever attended any seminars or workshops on negotiating techniques. But boots on the ground, they understand negotiation dynamics extremely well. It’s their daily give and take. Their negotiating skill makes a real difference in their lives.
In this brief exchange they skillfully applied four of the bedrock principles of negotiation practice.
First, the opener: “How many pecans do you want?” It’s a valid approach to negotiation. Instead of naming a specific number, the 6 year old invited her sister to “go first.” I see this approach used now and then in negotiations, where one side doesn’t want to give away the store so they invite the other side to “go first.” By doing this, my 6 year old granddaughter didn’t start the bidding too high, and in effect she “took the temperature” of the 3 year old. If the 3 year old opened the bidding lower than expected, then the 6 year old would have already been ahead.
Benefits of this approach: Maybe the other side is looking for less or willing to give more than expected – and if they frame the negotiations lower (or higher) than expected, you’ve already won (in part).
Disadvantages of this approach: You give up an opportunity to choose the range in which the initial negotiations will take place. While this approach allows you to avoid giving away your true position, you also let the other side set the initial framework for negotiations.
Second, the range setting response: “Like, a million.” Given the opportunity to set the negotiating range anywhere, the 3 year old started high. A Google AI search says that a million shelled pecans weighs about 2,200 pounds – or about 1 metric ton. Given the opportunity of doing so, why not ask for a ton of pecans?
Benefits of this approach: You invite your negotiating partner to negotiate in a range that benefits you, and you don’t disclose your true negotiating range (in the hopes you may be able to reach an agreement better than one that would be in your true negotiating range). This approach is regularly used in mediated negotiations.
Disadvantages of this approach: If you choose a range that’s too high (or too low), then your negotiating partner may discount it entirely and respond with a counteroffer in an entirely different range. These dynamics are present in nearly every mediation.
Third, a realistic counteroffer based in reality: “I can give you five.” The 6 year old didn’t have a metric ton of pecans to give her sister and both girls knew it. An offer of five pecans was not only achievable, but it was also something the 6 year old was willing to give.
Advantages of this approach: If the counteroffer by the other side is so far outside what you are willing to do that it’s effectively impossible, then you reframe the negotiations into a realistic range where consensus can be reached. By taking this approach you save the negotiations and facilitate an actual resolution instead of having the negotiations end in impasse. This approach is used in many mediations.
Disadvantages of this approach: You show your cards (so to speak) and possibly end up giving up more than you might otherwise have to (think of the sister offering “four pecans” instead of “five”).
Fourth, acceptance of a less valuable offer: “OK.” Recognizing there was no way her 6 year old sister was going to give her a million pecans, the 3 year old acknowledged reality and accepted the five pecans that were offered. She would have liked more, but she knew she’d never get a ton of pecans or anything close to it.
Advantages of this approach: It recognizes the reality of what your negotiating partner is both willing and realistically able to do. It causes the negotiation to end in success rather than impasse. This approach is present in nearly every successful mediation.
Disadvantages of this approach: You may be leaving money on the table. Parties generally need a good, strong belief (or a reassurance) that the negotiations have truly reached the other side’s breaking point; otherwise, the negotiations may be protracted or may end in impasse. Few parties are willing to accept less when they suspect the other side is willing to pay more. This approach is present in nearly every successful mediation.
Replace the word “pecans” with the word “dollars” in this exchange and these girls could have been discussing any one of a number of different legal claims. Most parties never receive an advanced degree in negotiation techniques, but that’s OK because they don’t need one. Their first-hand lifetime experience has prepared them for mediated negotiations. So long as they have the help of a skilled attorney and a seasoned mediator they are well positioned for a successful mediation.
Robert Jacobs is a neutral with Judicate West. He has litigated cases throughout
California for more than 30 years. He serves as a mediator and arbitrator in Real Estate,
Business, Construction, Personal Injury, Employment, Medical and Dental malpractice
and Trust Litigation cases.