The heater – the flame of Sauron itself – works in winter, so no need for Mum to be sad. But unfortunately the hot air points downwards, and when the heating’s off in summer, if you drive at more than 110km/h in sandals then it’ll really burn the toes on your right foot. So in summer it’s best to wear a trainer on that foot.
I haven’t smoked in the car for the last month and a half. Before then I did. A lot. But no more than the car’s previous owner and his many friends, who would all pile in and smoke together, in winter, with the windows closed. The uncharacteristically grey colour of the ceiling means there’s no hiding that.
One big plus: the muffler’s gone, so the beast roars like a demon! It sends even super manly bikers running and keeps them at a distance, offering you a more comfortable drive.
But one of the biggest plusses of this car is that highway patrol categorically do not want to stop you. Even if you pass straight in front of them with your seatbelt unfastened and your lights off, all they’ll do is watch you go with a pitying look. What that’s all about I’ve never been able to guess. Plus, expensive (and less so) cars are really afraid of cutting into your lane.
At times this gives you the feeling of being in a presidential cortège – until that sharp metal thing in your backside brings you back down to earth.
And so, dear reader, how do you think the seller got on with finding a buyer? The price, of course, was purely symbolic, but we’re not talking petty cash. Thirty thousand roubles for the pleasure of driving some scrap metal to the dump?
For your information: the car was sold the very day this advert was posted.
Read the following scenario and consider Mikhail and Ivan’s reasoning. Who was right?
A family acquires a plot of land. They build a small house, which they plan to use as a holiday home in summer. However, in the spring they discover that water accumulates on the plot and drains poorly. Ivan, joint-owner, finds a contractor online who agrees to fix the problem.
Mikhail, the contractor, diligently measures and calculates everything before giving Ivan a quote. Ivan is happy with the quote, which is 200,000 roubles for the work and materials. Ivan pays an advance of 140,000 roubles, and Mikhail gets to work.
Once a week, Mikhail calls Ivan to discuss his progress. In some of these calls, Mikhail mentions that new details have come to light, but says that the issue can still be resolved.
The work is completed, and the day of reckoning arrives. Mikhail informs Ivan that he owes him another 160,000 roubles. Ivan is confused: they have a verbal agreement and a contract stating that the remaining balance due is only 60,000 roubles. Mikhail argues that there were issues with the land, that the job was more complicated than expected and that additional materials were required. When Ivan asks Mikhail why he didn’t ask for his approval, Mikhail simply shrugs and replies that it goes without saying.
Email me your answers at [email protected], and I will make sure to get back to you.
And so, we have now seen how not to fall into the position of ‘mouse’. But, given the type’s weaknesses, would you be happy to come up against a ‘mouse’ in negotiations? Let’s see. Here, the golden rule is this: tempting though it may be, don’t try to take everything from them. Having promised you the world, chances are that the ‘mouse’ will hide away and no longer negotiate with you. Which means you’re still left without your goal.
Let’s come back to the example we looked at above, of the negotiations between the chief engineer and the contractor’s representative. Delighting in his own inflexibility, the chief engineer considers himself the victor, when he is actually leading himself and his organisation to losses. He enjoyed his power, but gained no benefits.
You see, although the contractor made promises, do you think they’ll actually follow through? I can assure you, you can find thousands of reasons and pretexts as to why a deadline might be moved. What’s more, the negotiator who couldn’t defend his interests is more likely to relay the results of the negotiations to his manager in the following way: ‘He wasn’t going to listen to us; he started threatening to break off all business.’
People are inclined to justify their own behaviour; he’s hardly going to tell himself the truth – that he couldn’t convey their position to the customer. And the manager (who, being only human, is no stranger to emotions) might, in the heat of the moment, decide that if the customer won’t meet them halfway, then they’ll just play it by ear and see what happens.
If a negotiator is behaving like a ‘mouse’, there’s no point putting pressure on them and taking everything. Show them there is a road to life (as already described) and roll out the red carpet. They will happily walk down it.
How might the chief engineer have conducted discussions, based on the strategy ‘Show your enemy there is a road to life’?
1. If you (or your representative) don’t trust the strength of your position, then under no circumstances should you start negotiations. It is important to find something you can base your arguments on; where the strength of your position lies.
2. If you can’t find a good argument for your position, then you need to admit what you’ve got wrong. That will become your strength.
3. If you come up against a ‘mouse’, don’t try to take all you can from them. Use the ‘road to life’ play; give them a way of leaving the negotiations with their dignity intact. The red carpet play would also work here.
The tank
This is a very common behaviour model, and it’s pretty self-explanatory: the ‘tank’ is a confident person, but not a courteous one. Our society often approves of this behaviour, and as a result tank-ish behaviour is precisely what many strive for. So what sort of behaviour are we talking about? Well, a ‘tank’ is typically guided by their interests and their interests alone. Others’ interests mean absolutely nothing.
But there’s no hiding it, ‘tanks’ do achieve great success in life, and negotiation, of course, is no exception. So it should come as no surprise that this behaviour model is often used in negotiation. More than that, it’s often very successful. It doesn’t even stand comparison to the ‘mouse’: the latter comes out far too unfavourably, and the success of ‘tank’-style negotiators is exaggerated even more in contrast.
However, there is one serious downside to this model: it is angled towards instant results, not on aligning strategic relationships.
The executives of a supplier (S) and client (C) have come to an agreement regarding the rollout of a new accounting system. The deadlines and budgets for the project have been set out, but the functionality required (the scope of the work) has yet to be finalised.
A deadline is approaching, and S asks C to review the schedule, to which C replies: ‘We’re sick of this! First you start the work, and only then do you start your grumbling.’
S: But listen, we just want to update our agreement.
C: You’re just swindlers and frauds.
S: Wait, what are you suggesting?
C: Well, that’s how you’re