You missing your negotiations full value potential. Why do we negotiate as keep trying to improve the horse and the buggy? Why do we struggle for tiny improvement in something old and outdated? Instead of struggling with that horse and buggy? Couldn't we speed ahead with something far superior than a horse and a buggy? I'm sure similar questions were asked in the late 1800s.

They were answered by the early pioneers within common factoring. And our world was changed forever. The same sort of questions should actually be asked today, in the field of negotiation. We negotiate today, just as we did in the 1850s. We haven't improved, we haven't changed. So we haven't made any progress on innovation.

Yes, we need to do some new technology. But we've only let us perfect the tired old zero sum game where you win at my expense or I win at your expense. We need a change mindset, which means that I see so many negotiation advisors and trainers out there all around the world straining to improve the horse and the pocket techniques. So they're working really hard just to try and create a little bit more speed and efficiency to the horse and the barking and why when they could not know when they don't see the whole picture or see the whole approach. Instead of that zero sum game where I win or you lose, one side is winning and the other side is losing one of them. The negotiation was treated as teamwork, what everybody comes away as a winner.

Imagine a buyer and a supplier working together to secure the greatest values, the greatest possible measures of success for both parties. And you know, I know you might be thinking already well, of course we always try to accomplish that. But many negotiators quite honestly believe that that's what they're doing. But please excuse me for being blunt, though. In truth, they are mistaken they actually not focusing on trying to create the best possible outcome for both parties. But with a shift of approach they could be wasting most efficient edit and achieving far superior results.

If you are via trying to ask yourself, do I know my suppliers cost when I asked for changes in delivery times method frequencies, payment terms, warranty periods, installation time, efficiency level educational actions, warehousing, etc, etc, etc. If your honest answer is something along the lines of No, I don't really know and I don't much care about their customer their concerns is up to them to meet my requirements. If so, I advise you to seek immediately medical attention because it appears that you're suffering from an all too common disorder called nun Trina it's a threat disease I just invented and in Latin, the name means lack of learning this Order. Now let's say your supplier and even procurement officer asked you to speed up delivery by month. Do you immediately ask what's the value to you? If we're able to do that?

If not, you would be wise to go to the same medical checkup because you'd likely suffering from non Trina as well. When you leave a negotiation, do you know your counterparts cost and benefit for all the variables involved in the transaction? Does your counterpart know all of us? If so, then you're engaging in value creating negotiation, which by the way, is the replacement for all time horse and buggy series some negotiation evolves down negotiation is a horse and buggy. This is your sleek new car. If you have only vague ideas or none about your counterpart values and costs and your counterpart is operating, operating in the same on uniform darkness, then you're both riding along stuck in the horse and buggy inefficiency of the 1850s.

The good news is though you don't have to be stuck in the 1850s. smarter ship is the modern answer. It leads negotiation parties to agreement on how they proceed before negotiation became, both parties commit to free sharing of information, most important cost and values. And this turn negotiation into a team effort towards maximum value for all normal us against them struggles for advantages and dominance. Managing is based on a new concept called nickel economics in economics is the end the leveraging of asymmetric values and cost between parties in a negotiation. Allow me to illustrate by an example.

Let's say I'm a buyer negotiating with you as a seller. I asked you to advance delivery time of an order by let's say three weeks because I know I would have internal savings of $10,000. By doing that, you know that three week delivery advance will cost you $2,000. Our cost you obviously really don't want to take on yourself. In an old time series some negotiation, I would try to leverage you into agreeing anyway. I would say something's like if you want my order, you will have to deliver three weeks earlier.

You might decide to agree, even though your bottom line would be caught by $2,000. Could you refuse, and if you refuse that, I might just cancel the order. Now let's look at the same scenario using the principle of smartness ship negotiation. We would agree in advance to be open and honest and to discuss all the variables and values in play. I would tell you that it would benefit me financially. If you moved up delivery by three weeks, you would reply that a three week advance was possible that body would increase your cost If we then laid out the figures involved, we would discover the neck economics in this situation, my $10,000 plus minus your $2,000 cost would equal $8,000 in total nacre economic potential.

Now, we might agree to a 5050 split of that $8,000 potential, you agree to the three week delivery advance but increase your price by 6000. Each of us would realize a net value increase of 4000 for me 10,000 minus 6000. For you 6000 minus true. You get the order you need and once I get the delivery I need and want and we both enjoy maximum potential values. Not only are both of us happy with the outcome, but negotiation was made easier, and then our mutual trust was increased, which is a huge benefit to our relationship down the road. We know that out to foreigners was entered the values in a negotiation often goes missing.

Thank you for your attention.