Practise trading across several issues in a realistic role-play.
Trading across several issues is hard to do well when you can't see what the other person cares about. The only way to get comfortable with it is to practise with someone whose priorities are hidden from you. This module has covered if-then offers, shrinking steps, packages and a clean close. The exercise below uses all of them in a role-play with a scoring system. Afterwards, the scores show whether you and your partner found good trades or simply met in the middle.
You need a partner and about 35 minutes. One of you plays a freelance illustrator. The other plays the marketing lead of a small company that is commissioning a set of illustrations for a product launch.
You negotiate four issues: fee, deadline, revisions included and payment terms. Each issue has three possible settings, and each side scores every setting differently. In the list below, the freelancer's scores come first and the client's second.
Fee: S$3,000, S$3,500 or S$4,000 (invented, like every figure in the exercise). Freelancer scores 0, 40, 80. Client scores 40, 20, 0. Deadline: three weeks, five weeks or eight weeks. Freelancer scores 0, 10, 20. Client scores 60, 30, 0. Revisions included: three rounds, two rounds or one round. Freelancer scores 0, 10, 20. Client scores 40, 20, 0. Payment: all on completion, 30% upfront or 50% upfront. Freelancer scores 0, 20, 40. Client scores 10, 5, 0.
Each side also has a reservation point, which is the minimum points total it will accept. Below that total, it will not sign. The freelancer will not sign a deal worth less than 60 points, and the client will not sign a deal worth less than 50 points.
Before you start, each of you should cover up or ignore the other side's scores. The freelancer looks only at the freelancer numbers and the client only at the client numbers, because in a real negotiation you have to guess the other side's priorities. If you have both already read both columns, ask a third person to run the exercise and give each of you only your own column.
Take two minutes to prepare. Rank your issues by how much they matter to you, note which ones you could give up cheaply, and decide what you would open with. Write one or two if-then offers, using lesson 5.1, Every concession gets something back, as your model. Build at least one package, following lesson 5.3, Put several offers on the table at once.
Then negotiate for 15 minutes. Open with questions before numbers, as lesson 4.2 sets out. Trade using if-then offers, and put at least one package on the table. If you reach agreement, summarise it item by item, the way lesson 5.4, Close the deal and write it down, shows you. If 15 minutes pass with no deal, stop. No deal is a legitimate result, as long as it happened because no option beat your reservation point.
When you finish, write down the final terms for all four issues.
Now reveal both score columns and add up each side's points for the four settings you agreed. Then compare your result with two example pairs.
The first pair splits every issue down the middle and agrees on S$3,500, five weeks, two revisions and 30% upfront. The freelancer scores 40 + 10 + 10 + 20 = 80. The client scores 20 + 30 + 20 + 5 = 75. Both totals are above the reservation points, so it is a deal, and it looks fair. Splitting the difference like this, by settling at the middle setting on every issue, leaves points on the table for both sides.
The second pair trades across issues and agrees on S$4,000, three weeks, three rounds of revisions and 50% upfront. The freelancer scores 80 + 0 + 0 + 40 = 120. The client scores 0 + 60 + 40 + 0 = 100. The freelancer does 40 points better than in the split deal (120 against 80), and the client does 25 points better (100 against 75). Through questions and packages, this pair found out that the client cares a great deal about speed and revisions and much less about fee and payment, and that the freelancer's priorities are the reverse. Giving each side the issues it valued most produced more for both of them.
The difference between the two deals is the value created by trading across issues instead of compromising on each one. Real negotiations have no points tables, but they work the same way. The issues each side values most are rarely the same, and the deals that serve both people best come from finding out what each side values most.
Talk through three questions together. First, which trade created the most value? Look for a value-creating trade, where one side gave up a little and the other gained a lot. Second, when did you first realise what the other side cared about, and what gave it away? Third, was either of you tempted to split the difference, and what happened when you were?
To finish, record your final terms and name the single trade that made both of you better off.
Run the role-play, record the final terms, and write down which trade created the most value for both sides.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).