Listening is an integral part of the negotiation process. This article describes some listening strategies.

You may have stumbled onto the situation by accident, or it may have been a well-orchestrated plan, but here you are, sitting across the negotiating table from your customer/vendor/boss/employee/parent/child/fill-in-the-blank…and he opens his mouth to speak. What do you do?

You listen, of course.

And in the act of listening, you continue to exercise your negotiating skills, albeit with mouth firmly closed, because listening happens to be an integral part of the negotiation process.

When you listen, you set the tone and direction of the rest of the negotiation. Your counterpart across the table will interpret this as a sign of respect and maturity. He will suppress his urge to be defensive, knowing that you won’t suddenly interrupt him. He will avoid being redundant and tutorial, seeing that you have a look of patient understanding in your eyes. When he has spoken his peace and presented his case, he will afford you the same courtesy and, hopefully, an equal measure of silence.

You, in turn, will then be able to speak with a minimum of redundancy, except to concur with the points with which you agree (commonalties) and take exception to those you do not (differences). Recognizing that a well-formed argument reads like an oral treatise, with a beginning (opening argument), middle (supporting data) and end (conclusion or summarization), you can begin with your adversary’s closing statement and steer the conversation out of any potential negotiating quagmire and back to a safe middle ground or somewhere closer to where you need it to be to help strengthen your position.

Certainly, the art of negotiation is not simply a series of one-sided dissertations akin to Senate filibustering. But at least initially, a foundation should be built on both sides, like the anchor points of a bridge that rise and arch over a precipice to join midway.

So there you are, listening intently to the other side’s point of view. As suggested above, this negotiation could be about anything from a salary increase to a volume discount to a later curfew. Conceptually they’re all the same. You as the listener are guiding the conversation closer to the middle by the very act of letting the other person speak. At the same time, you need to be gathering facts and fallacies from what you hear in order to better present your case when your turn comes.

Negotiations come in two distinct flavors: distributive and integrative. The metaphor is intentional, for one or the other flavor is apt to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Distributive negotiation is the negotiation of necessary compromise. You don’t want to give any concessions, but you need to so that your adversary concedes something as well. In a successful distributive negotiation, each side will have relinquished an equitable portion of “the pie” to the other, and it is likely that neither will feel they have achieved a win, yet neither will feel the have lost to the other.

Integrative negotiation is the negotiation of mutual benefit. Unlike distributive negotiation, there is not one “pie” that must be divvied up (or distributed) among the parties. Instead, both sides work toward a win-win solution. While this is generally the more desirable form of negotiation, there are always those situations where such an ideal scenario is either unlikely or impossible. Consider, for example, a criminal who is plea bargaining. There is no win-win situation, only a minor reduction in sentence in return for some information. The end result to the criminal is never a “get out of jail free” card. It is just less time spent somewhere he would rather not be at all.

As part of your listening, then, you must be aware of the type of negotiation method your adversary is employing. This will help you determine if his objectives are to get his fair share or to get as much as he can. Knowing that, you can silently weigh your own options and either go head-to-head for “all of the marbles” or alter the course of negotiations such that you can convince him that a win-win situation is not only possible, but in his best interests as well.

In the most ideal situation, the person with whom you are negotiating will actually be looking for your guidance to arrive at an equitable solution. Often this is clear when he states his objectives with candor, confesses to his own lack of solution, and asks for your advice. But in doing so, he is asking you to suggest the very best outcome for him, not for you. His very lack of solution may be indicative of ignorance of the subject matter or even of his own true objectives. Therefore, your approach needs to be integrative, and with clear demonstration of the benefit to him. You also need to be open about the benefits to yourself and not give the impression that you are making a sacrifice. He may be ignorant, but he’s not stupid.

The listening aspect of negotiation is your opportunity to think. That’s something you may not bother to do when you’re talking. Your thoughts must play the negotiation like a chess game, anticipating moves, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, always looking for a way to either achieve your objective (capture the king), or manipulate the board to force a compromise that both parties are willing to concede to (stalemate).

If this sounds a bit conspiratory, it is only because you cannot rely on the other person to act fairly or to negotiate integratively. That doesn’t mean that you need to always “go for the throat”. It just means that you need to be aware of what is going on and exert influence to move things in the right direction…always. In the worst case, as in a losing chess game, the best way to end a failed negotiating session is with a handshake and a new start from square one.