How to Improve Linguistic Communication in Negotiations

How to improve linguistic communication in negotiations.

By Dr. Piotr Jednaszewski

Even the best prepared negotiators with regard to product and company presentation in all assumed and pre-assessed aspects of further international talks can fail with luck of understanding the other party. So, here comes my definition of understanding based on research, talks and negotiations  with people from over  40 different countries all over the globe.

Understanding is based on the ability to follow and remember in the logically and individually organized way the heard pattern of symbols, words and phrases in other words all what is planned to be conveyed by the speaker. Shortly speaking understanding is based on ability to link logically the received information without personal prejudice and bias.

In contrary not understanding or misunderstanding comes with lack of or inefficiency of such ability regardless of the source. Whereas the source may come from such factors like false analysis and interpretation, personal over or underestimation of presented information and much less trivial factors like lack of understanding vocabulary, phrases, idioms or certain cultural or socio-cultural aspects deeply engraved in different societies all over the globe.

There are few aspects to be aware of while preparing for any type of negotiations:

-          Linguistic

-          Psychological

-          Social

-          Cultural

-          Historical

Whereas I decided to present in this article LINGUISTIC aspect which comes with the individual negotiator`s linguistic knowledge and ability to use it. Therefore it happens that people from non English speaking countries being on the lower language level like upper intermediate can make better negotiators than those having language proficiency or being the native speakers. Why? The answer is: SIMPLICITY. The more simple and transparent our language is the better chance for being well understood. How many times it happens that during the conversation and listening to someone you are not really sure what he is saying, still understanding the words and phrases. Top managers attending my negotiation lectures and workshops are often surprised that difficult issues can be presented and discussed in a simple and approachable manner. Therefore that is the art of communication: SIMPLICITY.

Example:

Three multiplied by four equals twelve.

Simplified: Three times four is twelve.

Presentation level: If you have three times four, then you have twelve.

In the third sentence we achieved not only simplicity but personification.

The listener becomes involved and part of the communication process.

The same strategy refers to convincing the foreign shareholders to the changes in the company organization chart or final contract closure with other party. So, instead of saying:

Company pyramid structure kept by our board over the last 10 years is not only inefficient but cost producing, whereas matrix structure would be an alternative.

It sounds better to say:

We are in the phase of improving efficiency. This is our structure and this is matrix structure. Please look at the benefits. Which one do you think is better? Here we have both SIMPLICITY and PERSONIFICATION

SIMPLICITY and QUESTIONS

Simplicity and personification are good tools to convince and show the desired approach. However, people prefer to listen when being actively involved than being  passive observers. The same refers to the negotiations process. The other party should have both: clear picture of our aims and be an active part of the negotiation process. In that way we can constantly observe and check what is felt and expected by the other party and have a clear picture of intensions and agreed issues at the negotiation table. Hereunder I illustrated that process through simplified example:

Example

The shipment and insurance are carried  by your party whereas we adopt the packaging to your company policy and give you 3% discount on orders over 7000 USD monthly.

SIMPLICITY

You pay for the shipment and shipment insurance. We will adopt the packaging so you have your company logo and colours on the products. We also give you 3% insurance if you order for more than 7000USD monthly

Good but too long and other party is not involved in communication. Having the other party constantly involved in communication process can be only achieved through putting the right questions in the right place and time of negotiations.

QUESTIONS STAGE

Let`s look again at the simplified form which I divided into two parts:

Theirs:

You pay for the shipment and shipment insurance.

Ours:

We will adopt the packaging so you have your company logo and colours on the products. We also give you 3% insurance if you order for more than 7000USD monthly.

Changing into the question forms the above presentation evolves into communication confirming the negotiation process:

A: Let`s recap all issues we agreed on, right?

B: RIGHT

A: We change that packaging for you, fine?

B: FINE

A: We put your company logo and the colour, fine?

B: FINE

A: We will send you the new packaging samples for assessment and if all is fine we start production, yes? (with a smile)

B: YES

A: You pay the costs of shipment and shipment insurance, right?

B: RIGHT

A: And we give you 3% discount for every order above 7000 USD monthly, right?

B: RIGHT

As you can see, all the above questions are close questions leaving positive impact. There are no questions giving the space for any diversities and last minute changes, moreover the other party is involved in conversation and has the positive feeling because of positive answers.

NO QUESTION TAGS

Just a few words why not to use such forms as: We agreed on that, didn`t we?

BUT: We agreed on that, yes?

The variety of different cultures and language level of negotiators indicates that we should always use the safe forms, that is the forms to which the answer is exactly as expected not other if only possible. Simplifying that, what negotiator would say after putting the question:

We agreed on that, didn`t we?

And having the answer: Yes, we didn`t. or Didn`t we as in many cultures regardless of understanding, confirming and nodding is the form of showing the respect to the other party.

Another vital question is how to train and develop understanding of the scope and complexity of the message delivered by the other party. It seems trivial when the message delivered by the other party is relatively small, like: It was good to have your contract draft delivered before your coming.

Trivial as we get the message: GOOD / HAVE CONTRACT / BEFORE YOU COMING

But what happens if the listener gets a bit loner message: Mr. Yamamoto and Mr. Toshiko appreciate having the contract delivered due to your visit as we had the opportunity to go through the vital points and reanalyze within our teams some feasible solutions applicable when agreed during our talks unless other alternative were presented…

Here managers get the mixture and understanding depends on how much of that information was logically simplified and linked in the receiver`s mind.

This ability is to be trained by working first with the written and then listened texts through marking the core issues as presented below, and then retelling what understood and that especially refers to non native speakers of English but not only:

Mr. Yamamoto and Mr. Toshiko appreciate having the contract delivered due to your visit as we had the opportunity to go through the vital points and reanalyze within our teams some feasible solutions applicable when agreed during our talks unless other alternative were presented.

Cutting the long story short a trained mind gets the message:

THEY APPRECIATE CONTRACT /before VISIT / OPPORTUNITY / TEAMS REANALYZED VITAL POINTS for SOLUTIONS / OR (unless) ALTERNATIVE.

That exercise should be practiced again and again and again. The words and phrases can be remembered as symbols, logical patters, personal visualization. We should learn how to pick up and join ideas and chose the best alternative, code for our mind to link all presented ideas.

Summarizing the linguistic aspect of negotiations we should always remember that:

Simplicity and right questions are the key to be well understood whereas understanding the others needs to be practiced through different types of simplified visualizations. In other words we are able to control the talks while controlling our mind and the mind works in symbols.