In a negotiation, you’ll rarely get a better deal than the one you first ask for. If you’re selling your company and set a price of $1 million, you likely won’t get higher. And if you’re a possible buyer and offer $500,000, you probably won’t be paying less. There’s room in between — indeed, both buyer and seller probably expect that — but that comes later, not at the beginning. And one other thing as well: when you ask for that price of $1 million, never simultaneously say, “But that’s negotiable.” Doing so only shows weakness. It ensures you’ll never get full price — or anything close to it.
A good negotiator, in short, has to be tough. Most people would rather be well-liked — toughness makes them looks extreme and inflexible. But if you believe in what you’re selling, toughness is also the best shot you’ll have of getting a deal done and getting what you want.
Comments
Tommy boy, the Obama who was the pushover so desperate for bipartisanship and goodwill" has never come to town. The pugnacious, "steely" President Obama sought no bipartisanship when he forced Obamacare on the GOP and the nation. Same with his "stimulus". This man is not capable of leading, or of negotiating. He is just a spoiled child, who wants what he wants, and will continue to chastise the opposition. This is Obama 1 redux, who is now a lame duck, so he can be even more partisan.
To Richmond 12, obama IS capable of leading--trouble is, it's in the wrong direction, and we will discover this when it's too late to change direction.
Millions and millions of Americans DO support the President and feel that he DOES represent their interests, and most importantly, that he IS acting as a leader, especially now. The trouble with you guys is that he is not doing the things you want, but that ship has sailed, and progress will leave you behind, whining. FORWARD!
Given the premise of this article, to sucessfully negotiate one must be tough. I am sure all the democrats would have no problem if the Tea Party regained momentum and stood their ground.
This comment has been removed.
Following up on HHK2, that's a big "if". Good luck with that....
The way Obama shoved Obamacare down America's throat showed him to be bipartisan and flexible?
Down the throat? Really? Would you explain that?
Down the throat defined? Sure. How about Nancy Pelosi telling her Democratic majority in the House to "Deem" that House passed an ObamaCare bill that was identical to the Senate bill so that there would be NO House /Senate conference followed by another vote in the Senate. Where the new vote would include newly elected Senator Scott Brown. And how about the ARM-TWISTING and BRIBERY of Senate DSemocrats in order to get anti-abortion senators to look the other way? Louisana Purchase? Cornhusker Kicback?
To look backwards and whine about Obamacare does noone any good. If Republican's wish to remain relevant they had best figure out a way to sound relevant. I know that comment writers love to pontificate but the fact is if the young, if Hispanics, if minorities and women continue to vote in the numbers they have been voting Republican's better come up with a version of their philosophy that sells. You can spend all day pounding the keys about what a bad guy Obama is but if the majority don't believe you, then you're wasting your time.
Republican's need to engage try to gain what they can in negotiatioins and move on like grownups. Sit there and play the Party of No and things will only get worse.
That's what Obama is asking for also, for Republicans to "engage". Because that means that they are just more Democrats. And you may have heard the old saying: If a voter is given a choice of voting for a Democrat or a Democrat, he will vote for the Democrat every time!
Wingnuts favorite dish? Sour grapes.
This comment has been removed.
The Obro has about 18 months before he becomes a lame duck no matter how pugnacious he is, and the Democrats are likely to lose seats in both the House and the Senate in 2014. There is a reason why presidents in their second term tend to turn their focus to foreign policy, it's because their chances of getting major domestic legislation through Congress are slim to none. He can spend 2015 and 2016 trying to bring peace to the Middle East, rebooting the Russian relationship, or some such nonsense, but his last two years in office will be as dull and meaningless as they were for Clinton and Reagan.
This comment has been removed.
No, checks and balances, the cornerstone of our system of government. Genius, actually.
I am constantly amazed by those on the right who after having their ideas soundly rejected by the electorate believe they can bounce back with the same stuff. As "Kitch" pointed out go ahead run against gays, womens reproductive rights, old dixiecrat nonsense and see what happens. Sure every time you get an off year election you can pull down the seats but all that means is that you are forever nothing but a regional party for the bumpkins of the nation. Grow up and start acting like you have some kind of education. Start acting like women, latinos and other minority groups exist and you could posssibly once again become a national party. Until then you're nothing but the white guys of America club and fact is old white guys. I'm old and I quit the party long ago due to its conflict of interest with religous groups. This nonsensical behavior is driving everyone except a simpleton few away.
Good grief did anyone see DeMint today. What an ignorant moron.
In my opinion, the president is good example of what the "art of the deal" should not look like. He is a superior campaigner, but not well versed in the art of politics (as defined by the inside the beltway politics). Proof in point was the need to use Biden's political skills to negotiate with the GOP. Reagan and Clinton proved to be superior politicians. Why? because no matter how much leverage they had, they always found a way for the other side to come out of the negotiation with something. They didn't play zero-sum. I don't understand why the president feels the need to dig his thub in the eye of the GOP (other than the urge for payback which is understandble, but not presidential). His attacks put the other side on the defensive and effectively squash any move towards compromise. He can still present a firm stance on his positions if he only knew how to be more of a politican than campaigner.
You are ignoring the scorched earth policies of the Tea Party/Grover Norquist crowd. They voted to see the country in economic chaos than allow President Obama credit for the turn-around. There is no "negotiating" with attitudes like that.
"Tom Keane says"At a minimum, Obama’s new mettle will gain him more respect from his opponents. It may even make him a more effective and productive president." You are JOKING, right Tom?