Those who argue lose – really?

Do you also encounter viewpoints in negotiations that seem completely incomprehensible to you? A position or demand that makes you wonder, “How can anyone believe such a thing in the face of the actual facts?” Surely you can think of an example right away.

Depending on your political persuasion, you agree with one or more of the following statements:

• How can anyone think that you can pay so little/so much?
• How can you believe that the market is moving up/down despite the clear facts and figures?
• How can you deny that commodity prices are rising/falling even though the data is clear?
• How can you claim to want to fight the shortage of skilled workers but at the same time ignore the issue of home offices?
• How can you believe that you will find a solution in this negotiation with this approach?
• I have never heard such nonsense!

Have you ever had similar thoughts in negotiations? Have you ever felt your pulse quicken at one or the other statement at the negotiating table? Depending on the goals to be achieved in negotiations, many people have very clear opinions and convictions. In debates at the negotiating table, one often tries to convince the other through arguments. These are often based on two assumptions:

1. The other side has it completely wrong.
2. The other side only has this “ridiculous” opinion because they don’t yet know or understand the right information and arguments.
3. If the other side realizes how many arguments speak for their own position, they will change their mind.

These assumptions are reinforced by the fact that you can observe a corresponding behavior in discussions – especially on television. Whether it’s a talk show or a court hearing, arguments are made. Many intuitive negotiators have a similar view. For them, negotiating is above all a “battle of arguments”. However, it is sometimes overlooked that in talk shows or court hearings, a so-called “third instance” is present: the viewer in the talk show or the judge in the court hearing. This instance is sufficiently independent and then decides which of the arguments it is more inclined to follow. The talk show guests then vote with applause, the judge with his verdict. We don’t have this “third instance” in the trial. Here, no one is independent and everyone has an agenda. The negotiating parties are left to their own devices to find a solution. And that’s where you quickly reach the limits of argumentation in negotiations.

The main problem with the battle of arguments is that it doesn’t work – especially when it comes to really winning over the negotiating partner. If you want to successfully conclude your negotiation, avoid the mistake of believing that it only depends on better arguments. This assumption can quickly backfire and ruin the hoped-for deal. Many of the supposedly “brilliant” techniques of rhetoric and persuasion are completely ineffective when it comes to actually convincing someone. In this article, you will learn why this is the case and what alternatives are available to you.

We humans are true masters at finding confirmation for our own position. If our own opinion does not match new insights, we do not want to admit it. This is known as “cognitive dissonance”. Each of us rules over the kingdom of our opinions and positions. Divergent opinions are tantamount to lèse-majesté. The realm is stabilized by a series of psychological effects such as confirmation bias, overconfidence^[1], distorted judgment heuristics^[2], reactance^[3] or “reactive devaluation”. Reactive devaluation^[4], for example, refers to the phenomenon that proposals are rejected because they come from the “opposing camp”. A well-known experiment illustrates this effect: US Americans were asked about a proposal for nuclear disarmament. If they were told that the proposal came from President Ronald Reagan, 90% agreed. However, if they were told that Mikhail Gorbachev was the originator, the approval rate dropped to just 44%.

Arguments have their place in the toolbox of persuasion. They are most effective when you have successfully established a connection beforehand that serves as a “ramp” for your arguments. Only after a positive relationship has been established should you think about arguing. The FBI also uses this approach under the name “Behavioral Influence Stairway Model”. Very briefly put: active listening creates empathy and rapport. Only then is there a chance to influence the other person.

To successfully use arguments in negotiations, the following 4 points will help you:

First analyze, then argue

Before arguing, there is first the need to analyze. This requires, first and foremost, the ability to listen – the core skill of every negotiator. If you “bombard” your counterpart with a flood of arguments, you not only risk their interest in reaching an agreement, but you also quickly lose focus on a crucial aspect: learning about the motives of your negotiating partner.

However, arguing correctly means recognizing and prioritizing the interests and motives of your counterpart. These interests are often not immediately apparent, but can be uncovered by asking precise sequential questions^[5] and listening carefully during the conversation. The more information you gather, the more targeted your arguments can be. Always remember that you never know enough in a negotiation.

Once you understand your counterpart’s true motives, you can construct a targeted and effective argument. Start with the strongest argument that offers the greatest benefit for your counterpart. If your counterpart rejects this argument, you may not have fully grasped their true motives. In this case, you should ask further questions and gather additional information to better understand their actual interests. Only in this way can you successfully shape your argument and convince your counterpart.

Less is more!

Don’t make things more difficult for yourself by presenting argument after argument^[6]. This can lead to your negotiating partner feeling constrained in their freedom of choice, as well as giving them the chance to pick out your weakest argument and refute it.

In a scientific experiment by Kurt Carlson (Georgetown University) and Suzanne Shu (Anderson School of Business), researchers also found that from the fourth argument onwards, the scepticism of the other party increases and with each additional reason, the purchase decision is increasingly negatively influenced.

Therefore, limit yourself to a maximum of three well-chosen arguments, which you sort according to their relevance. The greater the benefit for your negotiating partner, the more convincing your argument.

Put your strongest arguments at the beginning and end.^[7]

Stealing Thunder

If you want to convince your audience, anticipate possible weaknesses in your own argument. This is called “stealing thunder”^[8]. Anticipate possible counterarguments to avoid contradiction and show understanding for the objections of the other party. This way, your negotiating partner will see that you have dealt with their positions. By stating the counterargument yourself, you also make the argument “useless” for the other side. In addition, you can combine this approach with the rhetorical pattern “thesis-antithesis”.

Neuropsychological argumentation before egocentric argumentation

Neuroscientific studies show that decision-making processes are stimulated by a very important factor: emotions that arise in the limbic system of our brain and are responsible for whether we decide for or against something. We therefore do not act rationally (even if we believe we do), but always emotionally.

Complex arguments can be counterproductive for decision-supporting emotions. According to scientific research, people shy away from the effort of processing conflict situations such as negotiations^[9]. You should also avoid negative triggers that provoke resistance. Everyone has their red buttons. Rhetorical questions, insinuations, or telling the other side what they “should” or “must” do are not helpful.

Emotionalize your arguments with the associated motives and interests for the negotiating partner. Show him the “securities” that your product offers his company for the future, for example, if you have previously found out that product recalls have caused significant costs. Use storytelling. You can and should prepare pictorial language and striking examples. A good story is more effective than a dry number. Use positive wording and incorporate your personal experiences to use “tactical empathy” to work on the relationship level.

Conclusion:

Just because you perceive something as right or logical does not mean that your negotiating partner sees it the same way. If you constantly impose your opinion on your counterpart, it will quickly lead to resistance. In the worst case, your negotiating partner will feel patronized by your arguments and perceive that your dismiss their own point of view as inferior or wrong. This leads to an increase in uncooperative behavior, triggered by you. Your counterpart feels blocked and goes into confrontation. Therefore, you should not constantly emphasize what you believe is right. Instead, focus on understanding the meaning of your counterpart’s concerns (motives and interests) and argue neurologically. This way, you will successfully shape your argumentation and have another tool to achieve your goals in critical negotiations.