Category Archives: Negotiations

Six Red Flags In Any Relationship, Not Just Outsourcing

A recent article over on the Outsourcing Center, an Alsbridge Company, highlighted “six red flags to help avoid a bad outsourcing relationship from ever starting” that is a good read for anyone negotiating any kind of deal with a product or service provider, including a deal for (supply management) software and associated services.

The following six soft characteristic red flags are indicative of a provider that is likely to bring with it a dysfunctional and damaging relationship.

  1. Selling, Not Solving
    Is the provider listening and offering what you need, or selling what they have, whether or not it solves your problem.
  2. Telling, Not Listening
    Does the provider assault you with the triple digit PowerPoint presentation rapid-fire, without letting you get a word in edgewise, or let you drive the conversation, breaking out slides only as needed.
  3. Homogeneous, Not Diversified
    Is the provider diverse enough to understand your cultural nuances, or only aware of his or her own company’s culture.
  4. Complicating, Not Simplified
    Is the sales process, and proposed solution, overly complex, or is it simple and straight-forward, addressing the problems you have now, not the problems you may have in five years. While it’s important that the provider can grow with you, it’s not important that they dive into details of problems you don’t have today, or sell you solutions before you need them.
  5. Far, Not Near
    Relationships and decision making should be as close to you as possible, not half a world away.
  6. Arrogant, Not Supplicant
    The provider should be confident, but not arrogant. The provider should be willing to listen and understand your problem before proclaiming that they have solved it before. That’s confidence. And that is what you want.

While the lack of these red flags will not guarantee a good relationship, as a nearby supplicant solution-driven diversified provider that listens and simplifies can still be incompetent, at least there’s a good chance that the relationship can work. And any odds of success are much better than virtually guaranteed failure.

Boilerplate Blasphemy

A recent article over on the eSide that explained why you need to “Focus on the Fine Print”, while a little simplistic, did a great job of pointing out the most important thing you need to remember when you are in contract negotiations:

The advantage always goes to the drafting party.

Always. Why? Because the drafting party always takes home-court advantage. While it is theoretically possible to prepare a contract to the advantage of the other party, I’ve never seen it happen. Even the fairest contract I’ve ever seen gave home-court advantage to the drafting party in the section on Governing Law.

Thus, if you are given a choice as to whether you should start with your paper or their paper, start with yours. And then remember that:

The fairer the contract is, the faster the negotiations will go.

You should only take the advantage where you absolutely need it. If you try to take it in every clause, the other party will likely be insulted at your lack of willingness to at least offer a few concessions and negotiations will not go well.

Remember that the point of a good contract is to build a framework for a problem-free working relationship. Keep that in mind, and drafting will go easier.

Are You a Contract Hypocrite?

Tim Cummins penned a great article for the newly relaunched Negotiator Magazine site on how “Hypocrisy in Contracting Leads to Wasted Negotiation” since ridiculous demands just lead to repetitive, predictable negotiations that bring little or no value to either party. And this happens more often than not since most large companies would never sign their own contracts, which are diametrically different from those they demand when buying, which is just ridiculous.

Not only do we have to ask what happened to our ethics (that most professional associations insist upon), but we have to ask why we are risking failure for the sake of assigning blame should things go wrong instead of working together to insure that failure never happens. Especially when research is demonstrating that creativity and innovation are closely linked with greater mutuality in key terms which creates a joint responsibility to ensure success.

It’s not hard to harmonize buy-side and sell-side contracts, and it’s not hard to put together a contract you’d actually sign with fair, bi-lateral terms and conditions that share risks and rewards and protect both parties. (the doctor is just an engineer, his paper works that way, and he didn’t need an arrogant overpriced lawyer to create it — in fact, he didn’t need a lawyer at all!) So why can’t we move forward on this issue?

The Impact of Culture on Transnational Interactions

The newly relaunched Negotiator Magazine has a great article by Charles Craver on “the impact of culture on transnational interactions” that is a great read for anyone looking to improve their CQ (Cultural Quotient). It’s a great companion article to SI’s 2009 series on Overcoming Cultural Differences in International Trade and SI’s 2010 series on Cultural Intelligence (which were both edited by SI’s resident expert on Global Trade, Dick Locke).

In SI’s classic series on overcoming cultural differences, we introduced you to Dick Locke’s eight key factors that govern the differences between your culture and that of your potential business partner (supplier, service provider, customer, etc.), which were:

    • power distance
    • uncertainty avoidance
    • individualism
    • polychronic vs monochronic time
    • personal/impersonal
    • buyer/seller rank
    • importance of harmony
    • importance of face

Charles reviews the common cultural differences of time (and punctuality), personal/impersonal (including the exchange of gifts), the importance of face and harmony, and individualism (and the difference between the approaches taken to negotiations by individualistic cultures and group cultures) as well as the importance of distance (as some cultures will need at least two feet, while others will want to be in your face), respect (including the exchange of business cards in some cultures), social events and cultural exchange (and the need for some cultures to build a rapport through bonding activitis before beginning negotiations), and wealth (and the need for the wealthier party to bring quick benefits to the poorer party) and provides some unique insights that not all Global Sourcing professionals are aware of.

In addition to explaining some key cultural differences that newly minted global supply management professionals may not be aware of, such as:

  • how it is unusual for people in Latin American or Middle Eastern countries to show up on time (as delays of thirty or forty minutes are acceptable)
  • how people from Middle Eastern countries want to be less than one foot away from you when they talk
  • how people from cultures that place great importance on saving face find displays of power to be crude and inappropriate and will hesitiate to initiate law suits or break off negotiations

the article makes a point of noting that a negotiator who speaks the language isn’t enough. The organization needs someone who also understands the culture and the nuances of the language. For example, when the Japanese say that “it would be difficult”, they are really saying they can’t do it. Since they can’t say no and save face, which is important in their culture, they have to convince you that what you are asking is difficult and hope that you will ask for something else instead.

The article also makes a great point of emphasizing the Preliminary Stage where the participants first work to establish a rapport with each other. In this stage, the participants should engage in non-controversial small talk to get to know each other and take advantage of any opportunities presented by the host to explore the city, history, and culture of the country they are visiting. This helps to dispel negative preconceptions and stereotypes on both sides of the table and increases the chances of a mutually beneficial relationship.

Negotiation Tactics with Naughty Vendors

As discussed in Common Negotiation Ploys, while your goal as a procurement and contract professional is to get the best deal you can, the sales people at each and every vendor that you deal with have the same goal. And while you’re splitting your time between determining internal customer requirements, writing RFXs, negotiating contracts, managing contracts, and educating and managing your internal customers, your sales counterparts get 100% of their time dedicated to sales — and they’re spending all of that time trying to figure out ways to get more money from you.

And if they can’t get it from an honest day’s hook, the vast majority have no problems getting it by a con man’s crook. Your average sales professional has a dozen ploys ready to go before they even contact their first customer, because they get weeks of training before they’re let out into the field while you get a 2-hour crash course in negotiations, if you’re lucky.

So what can you do? First, you can learn what the common ploys are (as discussed in Common Negotiation Ploys and Some Basic Counter Tactics) and how to spot them, then you implement basic counter-tactics, as described in Stephen Guth’s Contract Negotiation Handbook, and, finally, you take the offensive using some negotiation tactics of your own.

There are at least eight solid counter tactics that you can use to counter the sixteen plus ploys an average vendor will throw at you. This post will discuss three of my favorites.

Power of No

If the vendor won’t budge on price or terms at all, and you know there is considerable margin in the deal, just say “the deal is off” (and give reasons such as the internal customer changed their minds, budget was not approved, etc.) and wait. The vendor will then start e-mailing / calling everyone looking for a chink in the armour to exploit and revive the deal, but if everyone holds fast, and the deal is for a significant amount of money, the vendor will eventually make concessions to save the deal.

You may have to “burn” yourself with the vendor to make it work, where the customer becomes the primary negotiator and you work behind the scenes, but it almost always works, as long as everyone holds fast and provides a unified front of “no deal” because vendors panic when they think they have lost a (big) deal, especially if they thought it was “in the bag”.

Columbo

If you’re willing to become the slow-witted police detective that uses his shabby appearance and absent-minded persona to lull suspects into a false sense of security, and wait until the deal is done to try for “one more concession”, and the concession isn’t ridiculous, it’s often an easy way to get one more concession from the vendor.

Columbo was successful because he always started out by pestering suspects with seemingly trivial questions, which wore them down, and then he was able to pop his signature tactic of exiting the scene of a conversation but then stopping in a doorway or returning one moment later with a “just one more thing” on the unwitting suspect who then went berserk and confessed. It worked because the subject had already mentally closed the door on the conversation and dropped his or her guard.

In the same way, if you wait until the vendor thinks the deal is done and all that is left is getting the contract executed, and you ask for just “one more thing” that is reasonable, you can take advantage of the vendor’s strong desire to close the deal quickly to get the contract signed. For example, a few days of free training, an extra few months free before maintenance fees, better on-site service guarantees, which don’t cost the vendor much but cost you dearly because of their mark-ups, can often be acquired at the last minute with no negotiation effort on your part if your customer is willing to sign tomorrow.

Price Slice and Dice

This requires some mathematical and technical skill on your part, but if you’re willing to dive into the data, you can often reverse engineer the vendor’s pricing to determine how much you really should be paying. If you can get a variety of pricing scenarios from the data, not only can you attempt to interpolate or curve fit them to various models until you find one that works. However, if you get enough data, you also increase the chances the vendor will slip up and provide you with additional data that is favourable to you (such as formulas in spreadsheets, etc.) that maybe the vendor didn’t want you to see.

The great thing about this negotiation tactic is that it’s easy to get a variety of pricing scenarios from a vendor that wants your business. First of all, the vendor wants to seem helpful and will, thus, have no problem answering innocous requests for various pricing scenarios and, secondly, because the average sales person doesn’t have a lot of mathematical skills (and knows basic math skills are approaching an all time low in North America where less than 1 in 7 American adults are “proficient” at math), he will see no harm in providing different pricing scenarios.

For a deeper discussion of these tactics, and five others (good negotiatior / bad negotiator, silence is golden, signature limit lasso, endless BAFO, and school zone), I strongly recommend picking up a copy of Stephen Guth’s Contract Negotiation Handbook. In addition to a deep dive into common ploys, counter-tactics, and negotiation tactics of your own, it outlines five tactic-killers that your internal customers could unwittingly use to pull the rug out from under your feet and some tips that can make the difference between a great result and a good one.