These are my notes and quotes from Start With No by Jim Camp. I wrote my key takeaways from the book for the subscribers of my Future of Conflict series.

Quotes from Start With No

Controlling Your Emotional State

One way of staying chill is to:

Focus on what you can control (the means), not what you can’t (the end)

(This is part of his argument against outcome goals as inherently destabliziling)

He has a strong focus on “Don’t be needy”. This of course resonates with anybody who has tried dating, looking for a job, buying a house. The neediness makes you lower your standards.

Talking can be an overt showing of need. This is why “No Talking” is one of my rules. An exaggeration, of course, but I make it a rule to make the point: Talking and showing need go hand in hand. One of my best students started out with an insatiable desire to make sure his voice was heard. This guy was bright and always wanted people to know that he was as informed and on top of things as anyone in the room. He needed to feel important. Okay, thought his shrewder adversaries, we’ll be happy to let you feel important as we skin you alive. This is a common issue that hard-driving, alpha-male types have to deal with daily: They want to know it all, or, short of that, they want to be seen to know it all. The adrenaline kicks in, the neediness becomes a biochemical fact, then the neediness becomes a biochemical addiction.

If there’s no need, there’s no fear of rejection, and there’s no desire to please.

The serious negotiator understands that he or she cannot go out into the world spending emotional energy in the effort to be liked, to be smart, to be important. This negotiator wants to be recognized as being effective and businesslike, that’s all. She spends her energy on the task of business.

On wanting vs needing:

The next time you watch one of the predator-prey nature shows on public television or one of the wildlife channels, watch the chase scenes carefully. There are always one or two in which the lion or the cheetah is not successful, and each time the scenario is the same: The predator gets closer to the prey closer closer, then slips back slightly and immediately gives up. On the spot. When the distance to the prey begins to widen, the hunter quits. She (the females do most of the hunting) will never waste energy on a losing cause. She saunters off, because it doesn’t matter. There are other wildebeests, other gazelles. Likewise, the trained negotiator has no needs, because it just doesn’t matter. There are other deals. Turn the page on this one. Let it go.

Another strategy he has — The Colombo Effect — is intentional and strategic imperfection. This helps the other side feel “okay”, and maybe even superior. Either way, they are neither triggered nor intimated.

Sometimes, this means being honest about vulnerabilities that affect both parties :

Some years back I worked with a company I’ll call Network, Inc., that was on the brink of bankruptcy. If this company had continued to ship its product at the contracted price with its primary customer, it would have gone out of business because it was losing $100,000 with every machine it shipped. Renegotiation was called for. Either that or bankruptcy. However, no one in the organization thought they should reopen the negotiation. They thought this move would look “unprofessional.” They said, “We’re going to look like fools.” The president balked as well, until I finally got his attention by asking, “How long do you want to continue to tape a $100,000 check to the side of each machine?”

When the president of Network called his adversary to broach the subject, he said, in just about so many words, “You have done such a great job negotiating, and we are so incompetent and so weak in negotiating, that we have been a poor supplier. We have put you in a terrible position, and we apologize for that. We take responsibility for our ineptness in negotiation.” This was the truth, and it needed to be said, but it was also effective in the way of Columbo. This helped to disarm the adversary. Nor was it unprofessional to make such an admission. That adversary is now my client’s biggest customer.

Emotions are always present in decisions. Be careful:

When we watch ourselves and other people carefully, we can actually see the transition from the emotional state the hara to the intellectual state the head. Every day, every hour, even every minute, under some circumstances, we flip back and forth between the emotional and the so-called rational. Our emotions rage all over the scale before we make a decision, and then we set about rationalizing it. Successful negotiation requires the com-plete understanding and application of this dynamic of decision making.

The key is to progress from emotions to decisions via precise decision making.

“No” is essential in this process.

“No” gets you past emotional issues and trivial issues to essential issues.

Embracing no is the flip side of being needy…

(No) does not tear down business relationships. It builds them. Saying and inviting and hearing no are the real win-win.

It takes the pressure off, cements freedom and autonomy

Make your case and invite them to say No.

He advocates “blank slating”, to get you to beginner’s mind, without expectations and assumptions.

Our assumptions always work against us.
Their assumptions can work for us.

Research is the cure to assumptions

Do as much research as possible
Take notes — literally prevents you from talking and thinking about yourself, living in the other person’s world.
If you feel you cannot blank slate due to other factors in your life, cancel the session

The Mind of the Adversary

His definition of Mission and Purpose is understand how you are relevant to the mind o The Adversary.

Effective negotiation is effective decision making… and the foundation of effective decision making is a valid mission and purpose to guide it.

Mission and Purpose guide every negotiation, without fail.

I know and have worked with quite a few freelancers and sole proprietors and owners of very small businesses who feel that their mission and purpose is self-evident. This was a mistake for my client in the Midwest, and it’s a mistake for anyone in his po-sition. The mission and purpose is not self-evident. If you work for yourself and do not have one in place, you are working at a great disadvantage. You’re just as vulnerable to working and negotiating on behalf on an invalid mission and purpose as is an employee at a giant, faceless multinational corporation. You must begin to develop one immediately.

But he’s not talking about a normal M&P. He’s talking about a context-dependent mission that is based in the Pain of The Adversary. More on that soon, but first…

I-centered mission and purpose are invalid

I want to make a million dollars before I’m twenty-one.
I want to make 10 million dollars this year.
I want to leave a legacy of 100 million dollars.
I want to become president and CEO of this company.
I want to be the most powerful politician in the state.
XYZ is committed to increasing sales this year by 25 percent.

These are some popular mission and purpose statements, if not stated quite so bluntly. This is how a lot of people and employees construe their life’s and their company’s work. Already, at this early point in the book, I imagine readers know the negative opinion I hold about all such statements, but the essential problem is not that these are narrow, shortsighted goals. The essential problem is that they are I-centered. They are set in the world of the individual building the mission and purpose. This is why they are 100 percent invalid and worthless for any person, business, or negotiation. I have nothing against money and power properly acquired and used, but they must be the result, not the essence, of a valid mission and purpose.

This is what he wants to see:

To help [The Adversary’s] management at the very highest level see our company as a new and revitalized organization that is going to change its effectiveness to the benefit not only of their company but also to that of the whole industry by becoming a more effective and competent supplier to that industry.

The M&P is fundamentally about Them, because it’s in the Adversary’s World

Setting the M&P in the adversary’s world is a fundamental way in which you see your adversary’s world clearly and without false assumptions, and get the adversary to see and act with the same clarity.

Why? Because Your M&P is always about someone else. Don’t ever forget this. You dont go anywhere without your adversary, by definition.

Another way of saying it is that your M&P is built in a deep understanding of Their interests.

You need to understand how you want to serve the adversary in every interaction, as well as what you want them to think at the end of the interaction.

Questions

The single most important fuel you have, the most important behavioral goal and habit you can develop, is your ability to ask questions.

On asking questions:

[It’s] overlooked in every book on negotiating I’ve ever seen”

Crux:

Your mission and purpose is set in your adversary’s world. Starting with M&P and going from there, you want to inhabit the adversary’s world, because that is the world about which you need information, and that is the perspective from which the adversary makes decisions. He doesn’t make decisions from your perspective, does he? Of course not. He makes them from his own perspective. Obviously. How do you find out about this perspective? How do you inhabit his world? By asking questions.

Questions help the negotiator go from emotional to rational:

The adversary’s answers to our questions build the vision that he needs to make decisions. No vision, no real decision: this is a rule of human nature.

Questions allow us to move around in adversary world and lead them to a clear vision and direction

(Ank: This all feels very manipulative!)

No vision, no decision?
No interrogative-led questions, no vision, no decision.

By vision, he means The Adversary imagining their pain.

Strategy: 3+

Repeat a difficult question and get it answered at least 3 times. That way you know you have agreement. Instead of shying away from it, go into the difficulty.

He uses “strip lines” to bring people back from high negative or high positive feelings.

Negative strip line involves empathy and restating their feeling.

Positive Strip Line is a bit different:

Now, the positive strip line is just that: a way to bring the adversary back toward a more neutral position from a position that’s too positive — yes, too positive. The well-trained car salesman puts a slight damper on his customer’s excitement over the black car by saying, “Black is a powerful color for a sports car, but it sure shows the dirt. It’ll take work.” This brings the positive adversary closer to neutral and at the same time urges him to validate his own enthusiasm for the color black — his vision of the color black. He replies, “Yeah, but if I buy this car, keeping it clean will be a pleasure.”

Reality-testing the adversary’s positivity makes them recommit to their vision

The Vision comes from Pain?

But what exactly do we need a vision of?
(Pain) is what brings every adversary in every negotiation to the table.

People make decisions in order to alleviate and take away this current or future problem — this pain.

Pain is the reflection and the root of M&P

M&P help you focus on what you want to do
Pain is what you want to solve

Both are in your adversary’s world. Examples of Pain:

Your pain in a negotiation can be your need to put this particular machine on your factory floor and not one of the competitive products. But maybe you don’t know that you need this particular machine; maybe all you understand is that you need a pretty good machine. My primary job in this negotiation is to create vision of your real pain, that this is the only machine for your purposes, that this technology is the future of this industry, and that without it your efficiency and your business plan will suffer. Meanwhile, my own pain in this negotiation is that my company has committed 60 percent of its resources to the development of this machine, and we want to establish it as the new industry standard. Our adversaries, if they’re on top of things, will make sure that we know that they know that we’ve bet the farm on this machine. They will have found this out through research, of course.

Other scenarios: Your pain can be your desire to hire this particular person, who is head and shoulders above any other candidate you’ve interviewed; or, on the other side, it can be your desire as the applicant to get this particular job because the salary twice what you’re making now. Or the pain can be your desire an an editor to buy a particular manuscript from an author because it’s the best “airport novel” you’ve read in years, or it can be your burning desire to sell this airport novel for major money, because you’ve gone through your life’s meager savings while writing it for the past two years. It can be your desire to sell this Porsche today, not tomorrow, or it can be your desire to be the only big shot in Ohio driving this model. It can be a dance company’s need to book this gig because they need the revenue and it fills out the schedule, or it can be the need of the performing arts theater to fill in the blank on their own schedule. It can be the football player’s burning desire to play for a top program, or it can be the desire of the coach of the top program to get this particular kid for his team.

Pain is essential:

In a really efficient negotiation, both parties will work to clarify the vision of the pain of the adversary. In any event, you must never enter a negotiation in which you haven’t seen your adversary’s pain. Never.

Time and pain: Never be under time constraints. Time increases pain. Use it to your advantage for the other side.

Who’s the real decision maker?

Know who’s a blocker and who’s the real decision maker.

Start at the top, get referred down to a blocker.

Three proposals to a blocker, in decreasing effectiveness:

Bill, I’d like to make a deal with you. I’d like to go over our proposal with you. If what I present to you is not acceptable and you know it won’t fly, just tell me no, it won’t fly, and I’ll go away. Fair? Fair. That will be our deal. If you like what I propose and feel it is what the committee is looking for, all I ask is that you allow me to represent myself to the committee. Fair?

Bill, I understand that under no circumstances will anyone but you talk to the committee. All I ask is if you don’t like what I show you, just tell me no and I’ll get out of your hair. But if you like our proposal and wish to recommend it to the committee, all I ask is that you let me coach you on my proposal and what you might say. Allow me to wait out in the hall, just in case there are any questions the committee wants answered. That way you are protected with adequate information in case something unexpected comes up. Fair? That will be our deal.

Bill, I understand that no one is to be present during the committee meeting, even in the hall. All I ask is that you allow me to coach you on what to say, and if any question arises, allow me to wait in your office. You can call me there and I can provide you any in-formation you need. Of course, if you don’t like my proposal today, it’s okay, you won’t hurt my feelings. Just tell me no and I’ll go away. We’ll take a shot at working with you next time around.

Agendas

Every interaction should have an agenda, like every interaction should be guided by M&P

5 things can go on an agenda

Problems
1. Put all the problems you know about that could be in their mind on the agenda, instead of running away from them?
Our baggage (potential problem — guesses — assumptions)
1. Asking about bias. “Is the fact I’m inexperienced, a woman, or a lawyer going to affect our negotiations?” Use the 3+ strategy from above
Their baggage
What we want
1. Each want should be clear, involve a decision by them, and phrased such that it is yes or no, to maximize agency
What happens next
1. Negotiated 3+, always on the agenda

Some good and bad examples of “What we want” as agenda items:

BAD:
We want to share our vision of our business and how the negotiation should proceed.
GOOD:
We want you to reject or accept our vision of our business and how the negotiation should proceed.

BAD:
We want our company to be seen by your company as committed to your success.
GOOD:
We want to know whether you do or do not see our company as committed to your success.

BAD:
We want your feedback on our suggestion about changing the rate scale.
GOOD:
We want you to reject or accept our proposed change in the rate scale.

BAD:
We want the termite report.
GOOD:
We want you to either submit or refuse to submit the termite report.

BAD:
We want more time to reply to your RFP (Request for Pro-posal).
GOOD:
We want you to either refuse or grant us more time to reply to your RFP.

Paying It Forward

The role between self-esteem and paying it forward. This may be the best part of the book.

People with high self-esteem accomplish great things

Giving gifts has a better effect on self-esteem than receiving them
Therefore, we should dedicate time to giving gifts and “paying it forward” if we want to accomplish great things.

This story goes back to the mid-1950s, when the queen of England decided to put up for sale the land she owned in the Lake Muskoka region of Ontario, Canada. This land had never been owned by any white man before the queen. It had been taken from the original Canadians by treaty. My dad bid for a lot, sight unseen, on Go Home Lake, and to his family’s delight, his bid was accepted. In our first visit to our new holding, my father met an old trapper and hunter on the lake named Joe Bolier.

Joe was starting to build summer cabins for new people on the lake… Dad and Joe negotiated for our new cabin, and a deal was struck with a handshake. Nothing was put in writing. The cabin would be ready when we returned next summer.

Right on schedule, we showed up with enough old furniture and other stuff to make the new cottage our summer home. Joe stopped by to say hello and to be sure Dad was happy with his work. Dad was happy, and he said so. Then he looked Joe in the eye and asked if he was happy with the deal. Joe said, “Well, Larry, I didn’t do well here. I lost money. I underestimated the cost to carry all the lumber up over the cliffs.” Dad didn’t blink an eye and asked, “Joe, would another $800 cover your loss and give you a fair profit?”

The man was startled. He hadn’t met many landowners like my father, but this was the right thing to do on Dad’s part, and as a businessman he knew it was. Honestly, I think Dad, as an American, was a little uncomfortable in Canada. He wanted to feel good about his presence in the country. He was protecting his high self-image by doing the right thing. He was paying line for line, deed for deed. Dad was paying forward for a lifetime of service from Joe.

Quotes about “win-win” being “win-lose”

Representative dis of win-win:

It all sounds so good, what stick-in-the-mud could possibly disagree that win-win is the model to use in negotiation? Well, I disagree. Based on my nearly twenty years of experience as a negotiation coach, I believe win-win is hopelessly misguided as a basis for good negotiating, in business or in your personal life or anywhere else.

Not criticizing it from a tough guy perspective!

Nor am I a go-for-the-jugular tough guy who enjoys bullying people, as if this were the only alternative to “win-win”

“The promise is just manipulation. It’s all double talk.”

What is the poison that resides at the heart of the big lie that is win-win… It’s called compromise

So, the recipe in interest-based negotiation (á la Getting To Yes) is collaboration, not compromise. See this article.

People use “win-win” to cajole people into compromising, and play upon their desire to be a team player.

He also conflates “win-win” with emotion-based negotiating. Of course, any conversation, decision, or negotiation can be done with or without emotion.

This book is a refutation of all such emotion-based negotiating. As an alternative, I present for your consideration decision-based negotiating.

He re-iterates (incorrectly, I believe)

“Win-win” is often “win-lose” because it invites unnecessary compromise, because it is emotion based, not decision based, and because it plays to the heart, not to head.

He does seem confused about whether win-win is too soft or too hard sometimes:

The negotiators on the other side were real tigers. Their entire strategy for every negotiation was to play the win-win game, bludgeon their win-win adversaries, and drive down every price from their many suppliers. And they were successful in doing so. They had certainly succeeded against Network. Several members of the Network team were completely cowed by these negotiators, who, they were convinced, would get angry and walk away if Network tried to change its losing situation into a profitable one by renegotiating. In fact, these folks lost their jobs because they refused to go along with the new negotiating system I was coaching.