Business Negotiation November 8, 2012

Face Saving Negotiation Strategies

Asian cultures are said to be more concerned about face-saving than Western cultures. I’m convinced that Westerners are just as concerned about saving face. Perhaps our concern is deeply hidden, but it’s there. Face-saving is one of the big hidden issues in every negotiation.

People negotiate on two levels: personal and business. A bad deal for a person’s organization may not be bad for them personally. Conversely, if an individual suffers loss of face in dealing with another, even the best agreement will leave a bitter aftertaste. All of us need to validate our self-worth. When our self-image is threatened, hostility emerges.

When an individual feels threatened they may make threats of their own, walk away, or become apathetic—but all usually get angry. Experiments show that people, given a chance, retaliate against the person who attacks their ego. Those who have “lost face” are willing to suffer losses to themselves if they can cause the abuser to suffer. Research clearly supports that the person whose “face” is threatened withdraws. The more critical the attack, the less information the face-saver communicates. Loss of face becomes significantly more serious when the abuse is visible to friends or associates who are important to them.

A negotiation can hardly be conducted without questioning the other person’s situation and position. One must probe into the facts and assumptions. But take care to avoid making these probes personal. They should be directed at the business issues and not at the competence of the other person.

There are ways to minimize the potential hostility that might be created when a person is put into an awkward position. Try blaming errors and discrepancies on third parties, or other people no longer with the organization. Another technique is to blame differences on policies, procedures, or systems that neither of you control. These “bad-guys” serve to direct responsibility away from the person and towards non-threatening channels.

Here a few tension reducers I’ve found useful:

“Given the data you have, I can see your conclusion, but have you considered . . . .”

“It’s certainly open to several interpretations, but I believe that . . . “

“Here is some information you may not have had an opportunity to review.”

“Perhaps there are other factors I’m not aware of.”

“Let’s look at it this way.”

“The difference between our points of view is not large, however we need to consider …”

“I think your XYZ department may have led you in the wrong direction.”

I know some people who still believe that a strong personal attack pays off. I don’t. It is dangerous to abuse another person no matter how angry you are or how justified your position. Always leave the other party a face-saving way out.