Negotiating Anything, Any Place : Telephone Negotiations and Memos of Agreement ( Part 1 )

Good Day Readers, Today we will start our Next Part which is “Negotiating Anything, Any Place : Telephone Negotiations and Memos of Agreement“.
The telephone is a vital verbal link in Modern Life. On a daily basis, you probably use a phone more often than you do a knife, fork, or spoon. A phone is attractively shaped. It’s smooth to the touch. It’s easy to pick up.
It Looks harmless? No. It can cause serious misunderstandings (“I had no Idea you meant that!“). it can be employed as an instrument of deception (“Your check is the mail“). And it is a powerful economic force — millions of dollars are gained or lost according to the degree of understanding with which it is used.
Above all, the telephone commands attention. When its persistent ringing occurs, there is always the instinctive thought, “Who wants me?” Even would-be suicides have been lured from high, narrow ledges by the compelling need to answer its call.
yet despite it’s significance, few people take the time to examine the unique role the telephone plays in Negotiations. Let us analyze this widespread activity.
Characteristics of Phone Negotiations:

• More Misunderstandings

Because visual feedback is lacking, it’s easier to be misunderstood on the phone than in person. Talking to someone on the phone, you can’t observe facial expressions and behavioral cues. the interpretation of voice tones is often faulty. 
Not Only can voice tones be “Misread,” but innuendos and hidden meanings can be conjured up where none exist — or missed where they do exist.

• Easier to say No

It’s effortless and uncomplicated to say no on the phone. Let’s assume I dial your number. I politely say, “I’d like you to do the following, if you don’t mind —“
You briskly reply, “I can’t. I’m awfully busy right now. Thanks for calling anyway.” Click. 
Because we aren’t face to face, you have no difficulty turning me down.
But if I see you in person, you can’t get rid of me that easily. I walk into your office and gasp, “Please — I’ve come a long way! Oh, what a trip!“
Standing there, perspiring profusely, tears in my eyes, I beseech your favor. It is Unlikely that you will deny me under these circumstances.
Feeling guilty that I traveled so far, you may worry about my physical and mental state. Naturally, you would like to resolve the matter without a fuss. All things considered, the odds are strong that you will go along with my request.
Any time an Idea, Proposal, or Request calls for a change in the current handling of affairs, it requires a personal oral presentation. Documents, Letters, and phone calls may precede or Follow such a meeting, but they are not persuasive in themselves.
The message is simple: If you are serious about getting something you want, present it yourself — in Person.

• Much Quicker

Telephone Negotiations are always shorter than Person-to-Person dealings. This is true because the length of a Face-to-Face meeting must justify the time, travel, and expense invested.
Consider a hypothetical situation in which your child is having some difficulty in school. Should you call the Teacher involved, the Phone conversation might last 5 – 10 minutes. However, if you took time from your busy schedule to go in person, the discussion could extend 30 minutes to an hour.

• More Competitive

Owing to the relative brevity of a Phone transaction, there’s often insufficient time to share information and experiences and to explore the satisfaction of Mutual Needs. This reality, combined with the Formal Nature of Phone Contacts, produces a climate in which competitive Win-Lose behavior Flourishes.
on the Phone, people tend to be impersonal and stick more to the point. Conversation is not spontaneous, and the governing rules and procedures are the focus of discussion. As a result, the side with the stronger case prevails.
Theoretically, if you are a competitive Negotiator with more Power, it would be to your advantage to resolve a dispute by Telephone. Insisting that the Negotiation be done this way is part of your strategy to win at my expense.
Not surprisingly, in this context, I desire an eyeball-to-eyeball meeting. then you will see me, not as a statistical exception to a general rule, but as a flesh-and-blood human being. 
When Negotiators see each other  and get involved in the normal exchange of greetings, nods, smiles, and head scratching, it dilutes Antagonism. 
Discussion is freer, and there’s less time pressure and a better opportunity for a mutually beneficial outcome.
Before going any further, let me briefly mention a frustrating and difficult Negotiation. As almost everyone knows, the Telephone company can be formidable adversary.
After receiving your monthly statement, you call the business office concerning an unusual charge of $72 for a call allegedly placed to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from your phone. As an Orphan, Living Alone, without Friends, who never married and failed geography in Public school, you plead not Guilty.
Yet in trying to explain this injustice you are confronted with an immovable object in the form of a supervisor whose voice and self-confidence remind you of General Douglas MacArthur — in drag.
After countless telephone conversations, even the innocent among us are inclined to capitulate. In Large measure, the reason for the lack of Negotiation success in such a situation are the subject of this chapter: In essence, you are playing poker with a dealer named Lucky, who invested the game and is using his cards.

• Greater Risk

By its very nature, a negotiation via telephone is generally quicker and more competitive than a personal meeting. It follows that such a negotiation is likely to produce a winner and a loser.
Implicit in these observations is an axiom to remember: In any type of Negotiation, quick is always synonymous with risk.
Whether a conflict is resolved by phone or even in person, undue haste puts one party in potential jeopardy.
Who takes the risk in a quick settlement? The person who is less prepared and cannot determine equality. Let’s say that I cannot ascertain, based upon my data and observation, that your proposal is fair. Instead, I must rely totally upon your representation. 
If you are a sincere, honest, and straightforward person, I will benefit from my faith in your integrity. But what if your display of decency and façade of fairness are Illusory? What if underneath those reassuring words lurks a “Soviet-style slicker” ? In this case, I will be brutalized and humiliated.
Therefore, if you are less prepared, cannot verify the statements made, and have no basis to trust the other person from past dealings, the general rule is to wait it out. Jumping into a muddy puddle makers it muddier.
After it has had time to settle, you can see the bottom and know what you’re getting into. More often than not, success comes to the Negotiator with greater patience and staying Power.
So if it might be a one-tome Transaction and you cannot determine equity, slow things down and drag your feet. the best thing to do, when you do not know what to do, is to do nothing. It is only good sense to act when it is to your advantage and to avoid acting if acting would be solely to the advantage of you adversary.
Remember, power is never constant; the passage of time can cause your bargaining leverage to increase.
Sometimes a Negotiator will want to push for prompt action. Let’s assume that I am better prepared than you or can atleast ascertain, based upon my data and observation, that this agreement will meet my needs. 
I need not rely upon your representations or even your Integrity. Obviously, in this instance, I will “Go Quick” without incurring any unnecessary Risk.

So Readers, In next Part we will continue to discuss further about it.
“Advantage-Caller“
Do not Forget to Follow my Website for Future Updates.