When to strike back, attack the fortress, "white face" "black face", "turning point" first, document tactics, deadline consequences, breaking the deadlock, covert operations, golden cicada shedding its shell, capturing tigers while pretending to be a pig... One, Timely Retaliation The success of retaliation depends on whether the timing of the retaliation is correctly controlled. Retaliation can only be used when the other party threatens you with "fear tactics", so it can also be said to be a defensive battle that advances by retreating. Tom's successful example is enough to show that retaliation is what is called "borrowing force to use force", which means using the other party's strength and adding your own strength to play a "multiplicative effect", achieving victory at once. Secondly, attention must be paid to the fact that if the other party does not think you are a "man of inconsistent words and deeds", then the result will have to be greatly discounted. Johnson believed that Tom was a "man of his word", so before Tom officially declared war, he made a compromise. If the situation were exactly the opposite, the result would naturally be very different. Therefore, before using the retaliation method, you must first understand whether you are a man of inconsistent words and deeds or a man of your word in the eyes of the negotiating opponent. Two, Attack the Fortress Negotiations, especially business negotiations, often involve more than one participant. In this kind of "one-on-many" or "many-on-many" negotiation, the most suitable approach is to "attack the fortress". When there is more than one negotiating opponent, the person who actually holds the final decision-making power is only one of them. Here, we temporarily call this person "the opposing leader" and the other negotiating deputies "the opposing members." "The opposing leader" is the person we need to pay special attention to in the negotiation, but we cannot neglect the existence of "the opposing members" for this reason. During negotiations, sometimes no matter how hard you try, you cannot convince "the opposing leader." In such a situation, you should shift your target and launch an offensive towards "the opposing members," making them understand your ideas and relying on them to influence "the opposing leader." The process may be more arduous than normal negotiations, but regardless of doing anything, the most important thing is to persevere and strive continuously to achieve ultimate success. When you cannot convince "the opposing leader," you need to find another way and direct the attack towards "the opposing members." This is like capturing fortresses outside the city in ancient times; once the outer fortresses are taken, the main city can be conquered easily. Capturing the city requires taking the fortresses that protect it first, thereby making it as if entering a place without resistance. Similarly, when unable to convince, you should change your approach and try to sway "the opposing leader" through "the opposing members." When using the "attack the fortress" tactic, the key lies in "changing explanations repeatedly." Obviously, "the opposing leader" has already heard your ideas more than once, and now, if you present the same arguments to "the opposing members," "the opposing leader" will naturally feel uninterested. And "the opposing members" will similarly not be able to listen attentively to your repetitive explanations. Therefore, even though the goal is the same, during the repeated explanations, you need to pay special attention to the variability to avoid counterproductive results. Another thing to note is that even if you have seriously convinced "the opposing members," it cannot guarantee that they will also seriously convince "the opposing leader" as you did them. If "the opposing members" are unwilling to do so, even if you exert all your efforts, the "attack the fortress" tactic will still be difficult to succeed. Three, "White Face" and "Black Face" Once, the legendary figure - billionaire Hughes - wanted to purchase a large number of airplanes. He planned to buy thirty-four, and among them, eleven were absolutely necessary. Initially, Hughes personally negotiated with the aircraft manufacturer, but no matter how much they talked, they couldn't reach an agreement, which eventually made this wealthy man furious, and he stormed off. However, Hughes still didn't give up, so he found an agent to continue the negotiations on his behalf. Hughes told the agent that as long as he could buy his favorite eleven planes, he would be satisfied. The result of the negotiation was that the agent managed to buy all thirty-four planes. Hughes was highly impressed by the agent's abilities and asked him how he had done it. The agent replied: "It's very simple, every time the negotiation reached a deadlock, I would ask them - do you want to negotiate with me? Or do you want Hughes himself to come and negotiate? After my question, the other party could only helplessly say - well, well, everything will be done according to your wishes!" To use the "white face" and "black face" tactics, you need two negotiators, and these two negotiators should not both attend the first round of negotiations. If both appear together, if one leaves a bad impression on the other party, it will definitely affect their perception of the other, which is very disadvantageous for the second round of negotiations. The first negotiator plays the role of the "black face," whose task is to provoke the reaction from the other party - "this person is not easy to deal with" or "encountering such a negotiation opponent is truly unlucky." The second negotiator plays the role of the "white face," acting as the "peace angel" to make the other party feel "finally, I can breathe a sigh of relief." Thus, the two alternately appear, taking turns until the negotiation reaches its goal. The first negotiator only needs to make the other party feel "I really don't want to continue negotiating with this person," which is enough. However, this tactic can only be used in situations where the other party desperately wants to reach an agreement through the negotiation. When the other party intends to solve problems through negotiation, they won't interrupt the negotiation due to a poor impression of the first negotiator. Therefore, before the negotiation, you must first try to understand the attitude the other party holds towards the negotiation. If it's "negotiable or not," then the "white face" and "black face" tactics will not be useful. Previously, it was mentioned that negotiations are more advantageous when conducted on your own territory. However, when using the "white face" and "black face" tactics, it is better to conduct the negotiation in the opponent's camp. Regardless of the methods used by the first negotiator to "challenge" the opponent, if the negotiation takes place in the opponent's camp, based on a sense of security that "after all, this is my territory," the opponent usually won't have an overly emotional response. Therefore, when the second negotiator appears, their attitude naturally won't be too hostile either. On the contrary, if the negotiation takes place on your own territory and the opponent is angered by the first negotiator, they might refuse to come again or directly request a change of venue. Once the negotiation location changes, the convenience may thus escape the unpleasantness of the previous negotiation, reinvigorate themselves, and face your challenge again with high morale. If this happens, the effectiveness of the "white face" and "black face" tactics will be greatly diminished. The effectiveness of the "white face" and "black face" tactics comes from the "joint operation" between the first negotiator and the second negotiator. The second negotiator uses the unfavorable impression the other party has of the first negotiator to continue their "carry forward" work. If the performance of the first negotiator fails, the second negotiator naturally won't have anything to perform. Four, "Turning Point" First "However..." This "however" is a frequently used speaking skill. A famous TV show host cleverly used this skill when interviewing a special guest. "I imagine you wouldn't like being asked about your private life, however..." This "however" is a warning, warning the special guest, "Although you don't like it, I am still going to..." In everyday language, synonyms for "however" include "but," "yet," "although," etc. Using these turning words as a "lead-in" when asking questions makes it easier for the other party to answer and avoids causing resentment. "However..." has the effect of inducing the other party to answer the question. The host mentioned earlier then asked: "However, the audience in front of the TV screen eagerly hopes to further understand your private life, so..." Being asked this way, even if the special guest doesn't want to answer, it becomes difficult to refuse. □ Relieving Tension During negotiations, when the issue itself is quite complex and difficult to broach, yet still necessary to discuss, one generally needs to use the "relief" skill. The relief skill in conversation helps prevent the other party from becoming angry and allows the negotiation to proceed smoothly. During the negotiation process, we may sometimes become emotional, sometimes have to raise certain personal attack-related questions, and sometimes unavoidably have to meet again with a negotiation opponent who was previously defeated. In such situations, how should you handle it? Here’s an example: Suppose your current negotiation opponent recently discussed a land transaction with you. At that time, the opponent thought the price they offered was very reasonable, but later realized it was not fair enough, feeling they had suffered a great loss. In such a situation, when this negotiation opponent meets you again to discuss another land transaction, they will likely be dissatisfied and frustrated. So, no matter how reasonable the price you offer is, the opponent will probably not easily agree. Their reluctance to agree isn't about the reasonableness of the price but because they've decided to sell the land at a higher price to compensate for the previous loss. Such examples occur frequently. Therefore, when you notice that the negotiation opponent harbors unusual feelings towards you, you must handle it cautiously. The best way to turn conflict into cooperation is to start by sincerely and straightforwardly explaining to the other party, eliminating any accumulated dissatisfaction and resentment, allowing everything to begin anew. Perhaps you can say: "The last land transaction is over, and now I indeed feel a bit guilty, however..." Then, you need to make the other party understand that you no longer harbor any resentment, enabling the negotiation to proceed smoothly. This is what is referred to as the conversational relief skill. □ Interrupting Conversations The "interrupting conversations" conversational relief skill possesses the power to alter the entire negotiation format. Ruomen once handled a litigation case that had been determined by the court. However, both sides of the negotiation still contested the validity of the court's decision, and after several discussions, no concrete conclusion was reached. Nevertheless, Ruomen noticed some slight signs of wavering confidence on the part of the opponent. The validity of the court's decision has a significant impact on the negotiation outcome. Therefore, although the opponent believed this topic no longer needed discussion, Ruomen continued to use the "interrupting conversations" relief skill, persistently bringing the topic back to the validity of the court's decision. Ruomen repeatedly informed the opponent, "Although we have sufficiently discussed the court's decision, raising it again would indeed spoil the mood. However..." Then he explained his views on the ruling. Whenever there was an opportunity, Ruomen restated his opinions on the court's decision. Eventually, the opponent's confidence completely wavered, and they ended up accepting Ruomen's viewpoint instead. Five, Document Tactics A financial company held a board meeting with twelve directors sitting around an oval conference table engaged in heated discussions. Eleven directors had paper and pens in front of them, while one director had stacks of documents and materials, each pile almost ten centimeters thick. The directors were actively discussing the central theme of the meeting - changes in the company's operational strategy. Amidst the chaos, the director carrying the massive amount of documents remained silent, and every director who spoke would inadvertently look at those piles of documents with a respectful gaze. After everyone had spoken, the chairman invited the seemingly well-prepared director to say a few words. The director stood up, picked up the topmost stack of materials, briefly said a few words, and sat down again. Subsequently, after a short discussion, the eleven directors all believed that the final speaker's words were "reasonable" and unanimously agreed with his opinion, thus concluding the chaotic and lengthy debate. After the meeting, the chairman hurried over to shake hands with the decisive director, thanking him for his valuable insights and showing respect for the effort put into gathering the materials. "What? These documents have nothing to do with today's meeting! These things were organized by the secretary and handed to me to review. If there's no need to retain them, they will be destroyed. And I was planning to go on vacation right after the meeting, so I conveniently brought them to the venue. As for the notes I referenced while expressing my opinions, they were just summaries I jotted down while listening to everyone speak. Honestly, I didn't prepare anything beforehand for this meeting." This director provided such an explanation after being "misunderstood." Any matter cannot be judged solely by its appearance. In regular board meetings, except for paper and pens, people bring nothing else. But this time, the sudden appearance of a director carrying a large amount of materials naturally surprised everyone and led them to assume - since he brought so many reference materials to the meeting, he must have prepared thoroughly beforehand. Due to this assumption, whatever this director said would make everyone feel "weighty" and "reasonable," leading to unanimous acceptance without objection. Unlike meetings, if you want to use the "document tactics" during negotiations, the materials you carry must be relevant to the negotiation itself. If you bring a large amount of irrelevant materials to the negotiation hoping to "fake it," and it gets discovered, your negotiation credibility will collapse. As emphasized repeatedly, once negotiation credibility is lost, it is difficult to recover or compensate. Therefore, during negotiations, you must be extremely cautious and avoid committing mistakes that lead to "credibility bankruptcy," which is a principle of negotiation. Participating in any negotiation requires attention to whether the tactics or skills you use are applicable to the content of the negotiation, which is crucial. If the tactics or skills you use are insufficiently sophisticated or unsuitable for the negotiation content, it will hinder the smooth progress of the negotiation. The effects of the "document tactics" mostly occur at the beginning of the negotiation, specifically when both parties sit across the negotiation table. Why? Imagine if a large number of documents are suddenly presented midway through the negotiation, wouldn't the other party become suspicious? Carrying a large amount of documents to the negotiation aims to show the other party how meticulously you have prepared and how deeply you understand the negotiation content. However, if the documents are introduced halfway through, the other party won't perceive it that way. Another point to note is that once you adopt the "document tactics," you must see it through to the end, ensuring you bring all the documents to every negotiation session. Otherwise, it may raise suspicions or even contempt from the other party. If there's a valid reason for not bringing the documents, you should explain it clearly to the other party so they understand. When all major issues have been resolved in the negotiation, leaving only two or three minor issues, you can stop using the "document tactics." However, before removing all the documents, it's essential to inform the other party, "All major issues have been discussed! These materials are no longer needed," to avoid arousing suspicion. Also, if the negotiation venue changes, making it inconvenient for you to carry a large amount of documents, you must inform the other party, "These items are too cumbersome to carry." In summary, when you believe there's no longer a need to use the "document tactics," the most important thing is to ensure the other party doesn't have any doubts. Naturally, negotiations are more advantageous when held on your own "territory." However, sometimes you have to venture into the lion's den and conduct negotiations in the opponent's camp. If you're negotiating in the opponent's camp, you must consider the issue of carrying documents. It's inconvenient to carry a large amount of documents on public transportation, and there's also a risk of loss when taking a taxi. When the opponent sees you painstakingly "bringing" a stack of documents resembling a small mountain, their first thought will be - this person is definitely using the "document tactics" to deal with me. Therefore, when negotiating in the opponent's camp, it's best not to carry anything unnecessary or unrelated to the negotiation. Doing so not only keeps things light and avoids arousing suspicion but also subtly enhances credibility. And credibility is the key to successful negotiations. Six, Deadline Consequences From statistical data, we find that many negotiations, especially more complex ones, reach agreements just before the deadline. However, there are also quite a number of negotiations without set deadlines. If a negotiation has a deadline, then unless the deadline has arrived, the negotiators won't feel any pressure - the saying "you don't cry until you see the coffin" applies here. For example, people generally aren't afraid of death, knowing that everyone will eventually die, but always thinking it's "far away." However, if one day, the doctor suddenly announces that you only have a month to live, the shock is something anyone would find hard to bear. It's evident that as the negotiation deadline approaches, the anxiety and unease of both parties will increase, reaching its peak on the day and moment the negotiation ends - this is precisely the best opportunity to apply negotiation skills. Remember the 12-day meeting President Carter held at Camp David with former Egyptian President Sadat and former Israeli Prime Minister Begin? The aim of this summit was to resolve all unresolved issues between Israel and Egypt that had persisted for thirty years. The issues were extremely complex, so the negotiations progressed very slowly from the start, often pausing, with no one confident of reaching any