The Essentials: Negotiating Strategically

AMY GALLO: You’re listening to Women at Work from Harvard Business Review. I’m Amy Gallo. Like many of us, Marisa Mauro built her current career by negotiating. She had been making cheese in small batches since she was a teenager. In her early 20s, having mastered the craft, she started a one-woman business, Ploughgate Creamery. Over the next few years, she grew the business and gained recognition. She even one a first-place award from the American Cheese Society. But then a fire burned down the facility where she rented space. Marisa took a break from cheese-making and got a job waitressing. And then one day she caught wind that the Vermont Land Trust had opened applications to farmers interested in buying at less than market price 50 acres of land and the century old defunct farm on it. Marisa submitted a business plan to make butter there, that the Land Trust accepted. But before she could put that plan into action, she had to formalize it legally by creating a conservation easement.

MARISA MAURO: And that is a forever document that stays with the farm to protect it, so that it stays in farming and also that it’s not developed.

AMY GALLO: After finalizing the easement she negotiated for all the labor and equipment and raw materials needed to get the farm functioning again. As a small business owner, she’s never stopped negotiating. It’s an everyday practice. But until now, she hadn’t really stopped to name and analyze and appreciate the underlying principles. Which is Ashleigh Shelby Rosette’s specialty. Ashleigh is a professor at Duke University. Her research and teaching focuses on negotiations, or as she defines it, interdependent decision making.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: So interdependent means that we’re unable to participate without someone else. And decision making, meaning the process by which we choose an option from the available alternatives.

AMY GALLO: This concept of interdependent decision making, Ashleigh says, encompasses several different types of scenarios.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: So, some negotiations are distributed in nature, whereby the goal is to claim value. Others are integrative in nature, whereby the goal is to create value and then claim value. Some negotiations are transaction based, and that’s where you want to make a deal. And other negotiations, it’s not about the transaction, it’s about conflicts and disputes and disagreement of ideas.

AMY GALLO: In this conversation, we’re bringing together Marisa and Ashleigh’s wisdom to talk through negotiation tactics that help us get what we want and need. Ashleigh, Marisa, thank you so much for joining us today.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: Happy to be here, Amy.

MARISA MAURO: Thanks for having me.

AMY GALLO: Marisa, what types of negotiations are you engaged in regularly?

MARISA MAURO: So, I think being a small business owner, you have to be involved in many different levels of negotiation with different demographics of people. So, I have to get my product to market through distribution. There are many ways that works, with pricing and logistics. Then there’s the farmers who I’m buying cream from directly. There are farmers that also lease my land for other agricultural purposes. And then employees is the other one.

AMY GALLO: Making job offers, negotiating raises, maybe?

MARISA MAURO: Yeah, not many folks ask me for raises, but I believe in giving raises to hold onto good people.

AMY GALLO: Yeah, can you share an example of a recent negotiation you went through?

MARISA MAURO: Yes. So, the dairy farmers that I purchase cream from recently told me they were going to have a shortage of cream in the coming months, and they were unsure of a solution. So, I called a meeting to bring us all together to find a solution. Building relationships is very important to me in running a small business, and so when I went to meet with the farmers, I baked a pie, and I brought butter, and I sat everyone down around a table, and that was a great way to break the ice with them. In my mind, a contract would have been ideal, but it’s not always possible for the nature and scale of my business. And when I entered the meeting, literally the first thing one of the farmers said was, “I bet you were hoping for a contract.” So, I knew that was immediately off the table. So, I asked them to explain to me more the inner workings of the processing plant. And I asked them questions around volumes other customers were getting, staffing and equipment that they currently use. And through these discussions I learned that they needed an additional piece of equipment to solve the issue. So, I said, “There it is. I can help.” And I was able to source the equipment and keep us on track. It wasn’t about prices, but it was about ensuring that I could get the volume of cream I needed to hit the sales goals that makes my company viable.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: There’s so much there in terms of just someone who studies negotiation to potentially unpack here. And I think you’ve highlighted a lot of really important ideas. One, that negotiation occurs in phases. And the phases can be short, or they can be long. But it depends on the type of negotiation that you’re walking into. And the goal of the negotiation. Right? So, for you, this is a long, continued relationship. And sometimes that first phase of building rapport can last five minutes. Sometimes it can last for months, just trying to make sure that you had this certain level of trust. Before the transaction can even take place. So, you recognizing that, and most importantly, them communicating that up front, I think helps to manage the process quite well. So had you engaged and talked for about two hours thinking that you’d have a deal at the end of those two hours, that might have been very frustrating for you. But because they initially said, “Look, let me just tell you about our process. There’s probably not going to be a deal today.” Then you can say, “OK, now the pressure is off. This is just here. We’re just sharing information. We’re just getting to know each other.” And because of that rapport that you attempting to develop, it sounds like they were willing to share with you, be vulnerable with you, and then you were actually able to find a way that you guys could work together, something that probably didn’t hurt you very much, but helped them a lot. And then further, what you’re doing is, you’re actually giving the basis, right, for that transaction that comes later on. So, first phase can be short. It can be long. But nonetheless, recognizing what’s the goal, diagnosing that ahead of time, and it sounds like you did that exceptionally well.

AMY GALLO: Well, I like this idea of phases, Ashleigh.

MARISA MAURO: Me, too.

AMY GALLO: And it sounds like the first phase, Marisa, correct me if I’m wrong, was the baking of the pie. Right? I mean, she was planning for this conversation by thinking about the connection with these farmers. And I’d love to hear your thoughts, Ashleigh, on that sort of preparation going in. What is the correct preparation? And do we always need to bake pies?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: So, a frequent mantra that I use when I am discussing negotiations is that a good negotiator is a prepared negotiator. And preparation begins prior to the negotiation, not necessarily at the negotiation table. So, a good thought process is what Marisa did in terms of thinking about what she could do prior to the negotiation was exceptionally important. Another good way is what we call a planning document. And so that may mean, Marisa, even though it may be a good idea to keep these things in your head, but to actually write down those things that are extremely important to you. What are your goals? What are your alternatives? How are you going to being this negotiation? So, documenting that and reflecting on that can be an exceptionally important tool to prepare for the negotiation. And so, a good planning document, it can help minimize the anxiety, increase the confidence, minimize gaffs at the negotiation table. So, it’s a written record that documents some of the most important issues before you negotiation. Right? And so, thinking about these issues before the negotiation puts you in a better place to manage that overall negotiation process. And you may even go so far as actually to negotiation and map out that process that you were talking about. You know, this is the first meeting. In this meeting we want to accomplish this. Alright? Phase two, this is the next meeting. So, a good negotiator is a prepared negotiator. And Marisa, it sounds like you were a prepared negotiator.

MARISA MAURO: I really love that, Ashleigh. Are there some questions, like if I wanted to create a document or a format for future negotiations, is there like a list of questions that you suggest?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: Absolutely. So again, first we diagnose the type of negotiations. Right? So, you know, is this distributive, where I’m trying to get the most for myself? Is it integrative, where we’re both trying to get something and create the value? So first you diagnose the type of negotiation. And then once you diagnose the type of negotiation, then that’s going to dictate the types of questions that you might want to consider. But some very basics are, what are the issues on the table? That’s number one. So, listing all of the issues. Then going back and ranking those issues. Which ones are the absolute most important to me? Which ones would I be willing to give on? I also mentioned the notion of target, and that is, in a perfect world, this is my ideal target. I would like to walk away from this agreement, and this would make me exceptionally happy. But you also want to include in that document, alright, that’s my target. But what’s the least among that I’m willing to accept? Right? Before walking away. And then you also, Marisa, need to fundamentally know, if I don’t get a deal here, what am I going to do? And keeping an eye on that alternative is really important. Number one, you need to know what you want to walk away to, to make sure that you don’t take something subpar in this negotiation. Right? And the stronger that alternative is, the better the negotiation tends to be, because you have a really, really strong alternative, you push really hard in that negotiation, because you’re not going to take anything less. When your alternative is a bit weak, right, you know, then you don’t quite have as much power. But the thing is, the most important thing, Marisa, is thinking about these things before you negotiate and not in the middle of the negotiation. The one thing that I would also say, also focus on the opposing party. So, if you think about what your goal is, what is their goal? If you think about what your alternative is, what you have to walk away to, what is that they have to walk away to? If you think about what your most important issues are, what are theirs? And then you use the negotiation process to go through a diagnostic to see about, what is it that I thought about ahead of time, and is that true? Because guess what. They’re trying to guess what the least amount is that you’re trying to get, and you’re trying to get what the most amount is that they’re trying to pay. And so, giving that information, thinking about that whole process of all those issues, a priori, helps you determine what that bargaining zone is, so that you end up coming to an agreement that is exceptionally favorable to you, and not something that is subpar.

MARISA MAURO: Thank you, Ashleigh. That was really helpful. So, this, would you say this is an integrative negotiation, Ashleigh? The one with the farmers?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: No, I think what you did was you took a distributive negotiation and you made it integrative by adding an additional issue. And you were able to uncover that additional issue by developing this rapport with them, such that they were willing to trust you and share information with you. Sometimes when you don’t have that rapport, and you don’t have that trust, people will keep their problems close to the vest, because they think that you might take that information and exploit it and use it against them. But instead, what you did was, you took something that was just about initially on the face getting a deal such that you could move your business forward, and you made it much bigger than that, so you weren’t claiming value. You were actually creating value for both of you. And so that is successfully turning a distributive negotiation to an integrative negotiation, and you did that exceptionally well. It’s almost textbook how well you did that.

MARISA MAURO: Thank you.

AMY GALLO: Let me ask about the role of relationships here. It sounds like what Marisa did was prioritize her relationship with these folks, with these farmers. And is that something, Ashleigh, you think most people should be doing in a negotiation? Or does it depend on the nature?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: It definitely depends on the nature of the negotiation. One of the characteristics of the negotiation that Marisa has described is the notion of a recurring negotiation. So, this is a long-term negotiation. And so, when there’s going to be a long-term negotiation or recurring negotiation that’s ongoing, relationships are exceptionally important, especially as circumstances can change. And it sounds like in this situation, Marisa, circumstances changed in that there was going to be this shortage of cream, whereas previously, there may not have been a shortage of cream. And so, that relationship allows for the trust and the sharing of information. Imagine what would have happened had you not had that relationship or hadn’t developed that relationship. You would basically be without your cream. You wouldn’t be able to continue your business. But you were able to do so because of that relationship. Now, so for integrative negotiations, that notion of trust is really important. But you know, not all negotiations are this way. Some are distributive in nature, where it’s all about claim value. So, if you’re going to buy a car, right, and you’re never going to see the person again, and you’re just trying to get a good deal, well, the relationship isn’t quite as important as it might be in the situation for Marisa.

AMY GALLO: Well, let me ask about salary negotiation, because I think that’s a negotiation many of our listeners have struggled with or people have to face multiple times during their career. That strikes me as integrative in that you want to have a strong relationship with the people you’re going to be working with. You also want to get as much as you can in terms of the number. Do you agree that’s integrative, or do you think of it differently?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: So, salary negotiations should be integrative. But most people view them distributive in nature because of the way you just described them, and that is, instead of describing it as negotiating the entire job, people describe it as negotiating the salary. The salary is going to be a fixed pie. Your gain is going to be my loss. My gain is going to be your loss. But when we think about job negotiations, it’s not just about salary. It can be all so about options and location and title and responsibility and the ability to move up within a certain period of time and moving expenses. And so, when you think about negotiating the job, you’re negotiating that package. And that package has the potential to be integrative in nature. But when you’re just taking about salary, and it’s how much money I get, then that’s just purely distributive. But I think something you’re highlighting, though, and that is the notion of distributive negotiations and integrative negotiations, they are embedded in these relationships. And that’s what causes a bit of difficulty, right? Because there is this pull and tug between, wow, I want to get as much money as I possibly can, but I also don’t want to offend the person who I could be potentially working with for the next 10 to 15 years. And if this goes wrong, I may lose this job. So that’s when we talk about interdependent decision making because I can’t do this by myself. I’m dependent upon the other party. That’s when all that anxiety comes up. Right? And so, we want to think about negotiations more strategically, more analytically, just to make sure that we help to manage that process, reduce that anxiety, and increase that confidence.

AMY GALLO: Yeah. Marisa, thinking about the anxiety that many of us feel in negotiations, for you, what part causes you the most pause or the most concern?

MARISA MAURO: Well, I think a lot of times that I’m like pretty direct with people, and I come off sometimes as like aggressive, and then the other party shuts down. But it’s just my nature. It’s not what I’m trying to do. And so sometimes I have anxiety around that when I see the other party shutting down. Because I’m also like an entrepreneur, and I’m kind of fast paced, and I see opportunity. And so, I get really excited and passionate. But not everybody’s at that level. So sometimes I come off as a little too much. And I don’t have time for like the fluff around it. So sometimes like, if I’m trying to solve a problem, or I’m trying to negotiation, I’m like, just tell me the facts, not like all the details.

AMY GALLO: Right. That is such an interesting conundrum of, how do I get through this negotiation as quickly and efficiently as possible, while also not damaging the relationship? And that, Ashleigh, makes me think about the research we know around gender and negotiations, and how women are often seen when they’re advocating for themselves as being pushy or bossy or basically, they’re penalized for being assertive. Any advice around how Marisa can think about taking the right approach to her style in these negotiations?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: Actually, Marisa, you were saying that you’re very direct. But what I heard you describe previously is that you were actually utilizing what you call the fluff very effectively. Right? So, I think your communication style may be very direct, but you really do understand how to build relationships. And so, those things don’t necessarily have to work against each other. I think you are showing how it can actually work quite well with each other. Now, this notion of being assertive and being direct, that is something that as women we tend to have to manage because those perceptions and those stereotypes are ever present. It would be fantastic if we lived in a world where that was not the case. But it is the case. And not everyone will perceive these as negative, but some people will, which means that we have to manage those perceptions accordingly if we’re going to develop those relationships effectively, not damage those relationships, and ultimately get the type of deal that we would like to get at the end of the day. And so, when you think about this notion of being very direct, I think you have to also step back and say, “hm, what exactly does that mean? When I say that I am direct, I’m being direct in what way and in what capacity? Does that mean that I’m asking specific questions? Well, that’s not a bad thing. Right?” And most importantly, Marisa, once you have those relationships established, people give you the benefit of the doubt. You have that rapport, and they’re like, “Oh, well, that’s just Marisa, and she’s very direct. And we know that Marisa’s that way.” Now, here’s the problem. If you don’t have that rapport, and people don’t know who you are, and you don’t have that basis, and you come out with guns blazing, well, you know, that’s going to put anybody on their heels and say, “you know, hold up. Wait a minute.” So even though we want to be direct, we have to recognize, one, how we’re being perceived, and manage that process. If you feel as though that other person is on their heels, and they’re like, “whoa,” then you probably need to alter your communication style and pause a little bit and see what they’re thinking, see what they’re reacting, as opposed to just kind of going and going and going and going. So, this is all about managing that process. And so, thinking about these things, Marisa, a priori, in that planning document, if you’re direct, and you know you’re negotiating with someone else who is direct, this should be fine. But if you’re direct, and you’re negotiating with someone who needs to take their time, that relationship is exceptionally important. They want to get to know you a little bit better. It is probably in your best interest not to circumvent that process, because that could be detrimental at the negotiation table. So, this notion of really preparing for the negotiation, not just about the issues, but thinking about who that person is on the opposite side of the table, as you are, also goes into that planning process as well. And to be clear, I am not in any way saying, don’t be authentic, don’t be yourself. I’m simply saying, we have to manage this process. We have to manage it such that we put our best selves forward, and people perceive us in the way that we intend, and not in a way that could be adverse to the negotiation outcome.

AMY GALLO: What advice, Ashleigh, for her in that moment? So, Marisa, you very aptly describe, you feel like you’re coming on strong. You’re being direct. And people shut down. When Marisa sees that in her negotiation counterparts, how do you change tact in that moment?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: So, there are numerous strategies that you can have at your disposal. Sometimes taking a break and then come back and have a reset. Another alternative that can be very helpful is labeling the process, meaning, you know, did I come on too strong there? If I did, that wasn’t my intention. Tell me what you’re thinking about what I just said. Disentangling, right, that personality from the content of what has been said, and by labeling the process, you can easily do that. That way, they’re responding to the issue, the content of what you said, and not the manner in which you may have delivered it. And labeling the process can be a second way that can help you get back on track. Now, sometimes, if for some reason you are so emotionally entangled, or you’re communicating in such an assertive way that it can derail the effectiveness of the negotiation, then that might be the time that you actually bring in a third party. Or you bring in an agent to talk to your behalf. Because if we can’t disentangle the emotion or the assertiveness or the style from the issue, and sometimes when it is our baby, right, when it’s our business, that can be difficult, very, very difficult to do. So, you may need to bring in someone what who can speak for you to disentangle those styles. So, whether, number one, you can step away from the process. You can take a break. Number two, you can label the process. Number three, you may need to bring in someone. So those are just a few tips that you can have at your disposal.

MARISA MAURO: That’s awesome. I really like your example of labeling the process. Because I feel like that also adds like a personal touch, which is the way I like to operate. And yeah, one of my questions for you today was actually, being the owner of a small business, all my negotiations feel so personal. So, any advice you have on keeping my emotions in check with this level of intimacy? Because sometimes I can be like a little bit of a hot head, because it is so personal, and so my business is an extension. I live here. I work here. It’s hard to create the separation. And as much as I like building relationships, sometimes negotiations are challenging and feel very personal.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: No, that makes perfect sense. I think, you know, on one hand, communicating emotions can have a positive effect. Because it can convey how passionate you are about certain issues. And so, to get what we want, we have to ask for what we want. And people have to understand our preferences. And emotions can be a fantastic way in communicating what is or is not important to you. On the other hand, communicating emotions can have a negative effect, as it can hinder one’s ability to make good decisions and can undermine your credibility. And so, it’s really important to make sure that emotions do not become integral to the decision-making process and the negotiation process, that if they are, they remain tangential. And one way to do that is to distinguish feeling your emotions from conveying your emotions. And that’s really important. And sometimes we can’t do that. Sometimes I don’t do that well. Many people don’t do that well. But at the negotiation table, what you feel does not always have to equate with what you say. Right? Because negotiators are in a constantly state of managing emotions. And being in touch with your own emotions and perceiving others’ emotions can be an extremely important part of the negotiation process. And if this is something that people tend to struggle with, I kind of hate to use this term, because it’s one that’s probably overused a little bit, but that is, be in touch with what emotional intelligence is, and the five steps associated with emotional intelligence. And it’s something that’s been studied for a long period of time. People have brought it into the negotiation arena as well. But the notion of self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, empathy, and ultimately building great social skills at the negotiation table, those are the steps that are involved in proving our emotional intelligence. And that can also be a way such that we feel our emotions, but not necessarily convey them. The other thing that I would say is, I don’t want to make it sound like conveying emotions is always negative. There really is this balance. So, for example, some of our research says, it’s not just about the emotions that you feel naturally, right, but you can actually use emotion strategically at the negotiations table. The emotions in negotiations have been studied quite a bit, and so we know that when we’re in a positive mood, then we’re more creative. Right? But we know when there’s a distributive negotiation, we may need to be a bit more rational, a bit more poker faced. And sometimes when we’re trying to claim value, and we’ve been at the table for a long period of time, well, sometimes we need to throw a little negative emotion in there. There are so many layers to emotions at the negotiations table, that it really should be one of those things that we think about when we’re preparing for the negotiation. So again, thinking about this notion of personal, yeah, this is my baby, this is personal, know what your triggers are. Practice how to reactive to those triggers. If you know that when somebody says this, it’s going to make you react in this way, and if that’s not the way in which you want to react, then you probably need to practice reacting in a way that you would like to react, such that when those triggers come up in the negotiation, you are prepared for them. And you are choosing, you’re feeling an emotion, and then you choose whether or not it is in your best interest to convey that emotion.

AMY GALLO: Ashleigh, I love this idea of familiarizing yourself with your own triggers in the negotiation. And as you were talking, I was thinking, oh, for me, it’s when someone insinuates that I’m not being fair. Because that’s something I really pride myself on. So, if someone I’m in a negotiation with starts to act as if I’m being unreasonable, or disregarding their feelings or thoughts, I get really upset. And you mentioned practicing ahead of time. Any specific tips on how to actually practice that, especially when we know we get really emotional around those specific issues?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: So, Amy, what I heard you just tell me is, one of the things that you don’t want to subtly do in a negotiation. What you just described is a sole focus on self. And not considering the opposing party. You describe this notion of, you know, well, if someone accuses me of not being fair, well, that’s my trigger. You also have to recognize that fairness is a perception. And what you perceive to be fair, may not be what the other party perceives to be fair. Fair can be based upon need. It can be based upon precedent, inequality, inequity, things of that nature. So first, when you think about, you know, my trigger is when people say that I’m not being fair, step back from that and say, “How might my definition of fairness be different from their definition of fairness?” And perhaps that should be incorporated into your process, and say, “This is something that’s really important to me. I define fairness as this. How do you see fairness? Do you fairness in the same way in which I do?” So, if you know that’s going to be a trigger, and it may come along, design that in your negotiation process up front. So, thinking about those things a priori and addressing them can go a long way to making sure that those triggers don’t derail your negotiation process.

AMY GALLO: Yeah. Right away, I can see my preparation for myself can be, instead of getting defensive when someone insinuates that I’m not being fair, ask a question around, what is fairness. Right?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: Exactly.

AMY GALLO: That’s fantastic.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: It goes back to this notion of one of the most important things is to consider the perspective of the opposing party. When we prepare for a negotiation, one of the reasons that we tend to not ask for what we want, or one of the reasons why we tend to negotiate against ourselves, is because we only perceive our perspective. We know how desperate we are, how much we want it. We never consider that the other party may be in a comparable situation. And so, thinking about everything that might be your trigger, think about what their trigger could be as well. So, this asymmetry of focus in preparation of negotiations only on ourselves can be to our detriment. But the power comes when you’re actually also considering the other person’s perspective, their position, and why they may have the position that they do.

AMY GALLO: I love that. I want to ask about the revealing of information, and sort of how much you share. I tend to be a very open book. It sounds, Marisa, like maybe you are also very up front. And you talked, Ashleigh, about strategically using emotion, and I also wonder about strategically using information. How do you decide at what point to reveal your interests or your position to the other party?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: So first, it depends on the type of negotiation you are engaging in. That’s number one. So, let’s just kind of get that diagnostic over to the side and out of the way and say that, you know, this is the consideration in terms of whether you should or should not. So, whether to reveal, and what to reveal is not as simple as a yes/no decision. But it usually depends upon the situation and the type of negotiation that you find yourself in. Now, for many negotiators, their initial response or inclination is to reveal as little as possible so as not to be taken advantage of or exploited by the opposing party. Now, if we step back and think about that negotiation tactic to reveal as little as possible, it is somewhat counterintuitive to the ultimate goal in the negotiation. If the goal is to get a deal that is favorable to you and your circumstances, you eventually have to ask for it. You eventually have to share the information, which goes the opposite. Right? That’s completely opposite of keeping things close to your vest. If we don’t reveal our preferences and priorities, we may not get them. So now, if we think about why we feel the need to hold our information close to the vest, it usually derives from our lack of trust that we have towards the other party. And in turn, that lack of trust that they have for us. So, one way to build trust is actually by sharing information. And so, if you don’t have a reason not to trust, then trust and share information. And usually the norm is reciprocity, and they will be relieved, and they will start sharing. Now, just to be clear, this is not always the case. There is a Russian proverb that was made famous during the Reagan era, and it was called, trust but verify. Right? So now, in that situation, what you do is, you use the same tool of sharing information and reciprocity, but you don’t share something big. You share something little. And then usually the person will share something little with you. Now, if they didn’t get the memo, that the norm is reciprocity, and I share, you share, I share, you share, then again, now we’ve got to label the process. I just shared something with you. Can you now share something with me? And then hopefully they share. You share a little bit more. They share a little bit more. You share a little bit more; they share a little bit more. And ultimately you start understanding people’s preferences and priorities. So, if you have trust, share information. If you don’t have trust, find a way to start building that trust, and maybe you need to have that Russian proverb in the back of your mind, and that is, trust but verify.

MARISA MAURO: What you were just saying, I was curious, would it be good in a negotiation just to say the goal out of the gate? Like, my goal is X.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: The answer is yes. If you don’t have any reason to believe that they are going to exploit you, if you don’t have any reason that they’re going to utilize any information against you, if you don’t perceive that they would perceive your sharing as weakness, then yes, share. Ask for what you want. And ask for it up front and be direct about it. Most importantly, ask for what you really want, not for what you would be willing to settle for.

MARISA MAURO: Oh, good advice.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: If you think about this, asking for what you want up front versus asking for what you want at the end of the negotiation, you’ve wasted a lot of time talking about things that are completely irrelevant to you, or you really don’t necessarily care about if you think, well, you know, I’ll wait, and I’ll save it. Now, let’s think about that for a moment. How much sense does that really make? Because if it’s something so important, give yourself time to talk about it. Give yourself time to perhaps build upon it. Think about what would have happened in your farmers negotiation had they not told you that, you know, they couldn’t afford this equipment, or something of that nature. Right? If they had waited until the very end, when you’re about to walk out the door saying, “Well, you know, it really is this.” Would that have been the most effective use of your time that you spent with them? Probably not. So, this notion of sharing information is counterintuitive. But if you don’t ask, you may not get it. Right?

MARISA MAURO: Yeah.

AMY GALLO: Well, even I think of, Marisa, you revealing that you are relying on them in order to get the cream that you need to make your product, keeping that until the end of the conversation probably would have been counterproductive to the conversation, rather than revealing that up front. Although it does make me also wonder, is there a situation in which revealing your need or revealing what some people might call sort of your desperation, might be counterproductive?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: Oh, absolutely. Not everyone is going to have your best interest at heart. Some people will perceive that as weakness. You have to know, and you have to see, you have to diagnose the negotiation to determine what is or is not appropriate. And sometimes what you may want to do as a strategy, I don’t hear people talking about this a whole lot, but this is something that was pretty popular a few years back, and that’s this notion of a post-settlement settlement, and that just simply means that sometimes the goal is to get a deal. OK? You want to get a deal. But sometimes when you get a deal, it’s not the best deal. But you get a deal, and you can always fall back on that deal. That means Marisa, get the contract, signed, sealed, and deliver that contract to make sure that they can’t go back on that deal. But if you were to share some information after the deal has been made, maybe to the extent to which you might be desperate, for example, take the farmers. Right? You signed some kind of deal. It was subpar. And even though they say, you know, we can’t get you the amount of cream that you want, and so let’s say that you wanted, I don’t know, what are the units that cream are sold in?

MARISA MAURO: Gallons.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: OK, gallons. So, what is a typical order that you would like to get?

MARISA MAURO: 200 gallons a week.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: OK. Let’s say that you wanted to go to the farmers, and you said, “you know, I’d like to put in my order. I’d like to have 200 gallons this week.” And they said, “No, I’m sorry, I can only give you 20.” “OK. I’ll take that for now. Let’s sign, seal, and deliver it. Can you give me 20? I can get 20. Got the contract, sure.” Put that aside. “Now, let’s just talk about this for a moment. Tell me why you can only give me 20.” Now, the contract is done. It’s signed, sealed, and delivered. So now they may be willing to share more information with you about their situation and their need for this additional equipment that they may not have been able to share a priori. So sometimes the desperateness, or our level of desperateness might be something that we want to share later, as opposed to earlier. So, to be clear, when I say share information, communicating what you want does not necessarily equate to sharing all of the circumstances that necessitate that preference.

AMY GALLO: So, Ashleigh, you have been studying and thinking about negotiations for such a long time. You’re like in it. Do you find yourself in this like always negotiating mode all the time? Like, strategically interacting with people? Or is it something you can deliberately turn on and off?

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: So, I have never been asked this question before, so I am not usually stumped, but you have stumped me with this one. I will say that I’m not in a perpetual on mode as a negotiator. But I will say that negotiation skills are life skills. And they can be beneficial in numerous aspects of our lives outside of a deliberate context.

MARISA MAURO: I just think that’s great, and I think it’s so true. So much of what I learned today I feel like I can apply to so many of my relationships, not just for negotiations, but for just living life.

AMY GALLO: Ashleigh and Marisa, thank you both so much for joining me for this conversation. I’ve learned so much from it. And your insights have been really helpful. Thank you.

MARISA MAURO: Yes, thank you. I’m honored.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: My pleasure. Thank you for the invitation.

AMY GALLO: For more of Ashleigh’s wisdom, which I personally cannot get enough of, I encourage you to listen to her appearance in our season one episode, “The Advice We Get and Give.” You might also want to check out the HBR Guide to Negotiating, and well as the many articles on this subject that we’ve published on HBR.org. Women At Work’s editorial and production team is Amanda Kersey, Maureen Hoch, Adam Buchholz, Tina Tobey Mack, Erica Truxler, and Rob Eckhardt. Robin Moore composed this theme music. Email us at Womenatwork@hbr.org. I’m Amy Gallo. Thanks for listening.