“Trust me”

This overused term is now the hallmark phrase in motion pictures for the producer who is not to be trusted. People who must say “trust me” are often the very people who don’t deserve to be trusted. When someone says “trust me” as a substitute for providing the specific details you requested, be very cautious. Ask again for a commitment. If the person balks, explain that it’s not a question of trust, but an acknowledgment of the fact that circumstances change. Explain that the agreement must be enforceable, even if the current negotiators are no longer accessible. You want an agreement so clear that you don’t have to trust the other person.

Phrases You Should Never Use during a Negotiation

Clear communication is as much about getting rid of bad habits as it is about acquiring any new skills. As you look over this section, ask yourself whether you do any of the things that interfere with communications. Getting rid of those habits will serve you better than any new skill. The truth is, being clear requires periodic checkups like an annual physical. Everyone needs to look at this aspect of home and office life from time to time. Bad habits creep into communications rather easily.
Certain phrases go “clunk” against the ear every time you hear them. Here are some phrases that have little place in life, let alone a negotiation. When you hear these phrases, a yellow caution light should start flashing in your head. These phrases often indicate a situation that needs to be addressed. And if you hear one or more of these utterances come out of your mouth, stop immediately. Laugh about the slip or apologize, but don’t assume that the listener doesn’t have the same set of yellow caution lights that you do. Maybe the listener doesn’t, but you can’t take that risk.

Worst case: The deal closesa

When a lack of clarity is a major factor in a negotiation, the biggest disasters occur when the deal closes and no one realizes that confusion remains. When written contracts are to follow, a lack of clarity is usually caught by the lawyers during the drafting stage, and the ambiguity can be worked out. In a less formal situation, the confusion generally isn’t discovered until much later. When that happens, both sides feel cheated and misled. People are rarely neutral about the cause of miscommunications. Blame is never far behind the discovery that the two parties failed to communicate well. Each party feels intentionally misled. The acrimony often permanently damages the relationship between the parties. The fallout often damages reputations, too. The truth of the matter is that the results of an intentional lie and a mere miscommunication are often about the same. Preventing an innocent miscommunication is well worth the extra energy expended.

The prices you pay without even knowing

Deals that don’t close are to be expected if you’re not clear during the negotiations. The harder item to assess is how the dynamic of the discussion changes when communications are not clear.
When you are not clear, the other party feels insecure. Rather than confront you on your lack of clarity, the person you’re negotiating with often just compensates in one of two ways:

• Reciprocal obfuscation: That term simply means that the other party starts to be unclear, too. (I love the irony of using a hard-to-understand phrase to describe things that are hard to understand.) The other party doesn’t know where you stand, because you are not being clear. So, they won’t feel comfortable making a clear commitment either. This situation substantially slows down a negotiation and may make productive communication almost impossible.
• Leaving lots of room to maneuver: If you are not clear, others won’t feel safe enough to tell you specifically what they want. Rather than commit to a position, your counterpart will leave lots of room to maneuver, until you clarify where you want to end up.

These consequences are almost impossible to detect. Instead, you begin blaming the lack of clarity or indecisiveness on the other party. If you run into one of these behaviors, see whether the problem didn’t start with you. Even if it didn’t — even if you are dealing with someone who is naturally unclear or reluctant to take a position — you can push that person to greater clarity or decisiveness by communicating more clearly yourself.

Deals that disappear because being unclear

A common example of lack of clarity occurs when one party intentionally makes an unrealistic opening offer. Early in the negotiation, one person throws out an outrageous opening offer although it is intended as a trial balloon, it is presented as though it were a reasonable offer or worse, as something for which there is very little negotiating room. If the offer doesn’t get the expected reaction (shock, disbelief, laughter, and ultimately bursting of the balloon), the person who made the offer often recounts, with great animation, that the other person “didn’t even bat an eye.”
Too much is made of the fact that a counterpart doesn’t faint when an unrealistic number is offered. What you don’t hear about so often is the follow-up. As I was writing this blog, I purposely followed up every time I heard such a story. I tracked the negotiations to see the results. I was not totally surprised to discover that — in a majority of the cases — the deals fell through. In all but one case, the reason was an excuse other than the initial high demand, such as scheduling conflicts, changing concepts, and postponements. This little study of mine was not scientific in any way, but it provided interesting support for my theory. When you start with an opening offer or a demand that is well outside the reasonable range, the other side will often slink away rather than get involved in a futile negotiation.
It would be difficult to ascertain what percentage of negotiations never get underway because the initial demand was too high. I believe that it happens more often than most people suspect. The person who is turned off may never say a word to the party making the demand. Think of your own behavior. If you think the prices in a boutique are outrageous, do you say so? Or do you smile at the shopkeeper and say, “Just looking”?

The highest cost of being unclear

The first Gulf War (Desert Storm) may well have been avoided if the diplomats had been clearer in the days just before the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. President Saddam Hussein of Iraq wanted to destroy Kuwait for a number of reasons — all of which were good and valid to him. He was not prepared to take on the United States, let alone the entire world. Therefore, he met for several hours with America’s Ambassador April Glaspie. The ambassador said to Hussein, “We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”
Astonishing.
The ambassador insists that there was more to the discussion than was printed in the transcript, but she doesn’t deny these comments. A disparity exists between the two parties’ renditions. Assume that each party related the events as accurately as possible. Obviously, they were not as clear with each other at the time of the original discussion as they were in the reporting of the discussion afterward.
Even Hussein’s telling of the tale indicates some lack of clarity regarding his intentions toward Kuwait. He never said his intention was to eliminate Kuwait from the face of the earth. On the other hand, the United States never even hinted at the kind of response that was ultimately invoked. Obviously, the communication was not clear. Clear communications may or may not have prevented the Gulf War. A clear message from the United States to Iraq may not have been believed. Perhaps Iraq was willing to wage war against the United States for some mysterious reason. The world will never know. However, documents show that within the month before the invasion, the United States communicated directly to Saddam Hussein in a way that caused him to think Iraq could cross the border into Kuwait without repercussions. If you ever question the wisdom of being clear, please think for a moment about the men and women who died in the Gulf War and their families who still miss them. Every war provides stories of the high human price paid for failed communications. In World War II, Japan actually intended to send us a two-hour warning before the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The Japanese decoder at the embassy was out sick that day, and his replacement could not type. Consequently, the message wasn’t delivered to anybody in authority until after the fact.

General distractions

Other barriers to clarity can be fatigue, laziness in preparation, or the clutter of distracting interruptions.

• Fatigue: You may be just plain tired and unable to focus. Pay attention to your body’s signals. Sometimes a brisk walk outdoors revives you. Good nutrition and adequate rest are requirements for a master negotiator. If you eat right and get plenty of sleep, you can eliminate the need for cup after cup of coffee to stay alert. But, in a pinch, an occasional dose of caffeine works, too.
• Laziness: You may not have prepared well enough and you are dreading being clear on some facts that are unsubstantiated. If this situation strikes a familiar chord, do your homework.
• Interruptions: Your listener may be doodling or not making eye contact. The room temperature may be extreme. Noise levels may be too high for you to be heard clearly. Hopefully, you are assertive enough to request these changes appropriately.

If the conversation or negotiation is important, be sure that you are well rested, prepared, and in an environment where clear communications can be heard.