Each year almost 50,000 people apply to pitch their start-up businesses on Shark Tank. Only a few hundred of them are invited to Sony Studios for taping. And barely half of them actually appear on television.

Two of the lucky ones were my former Harvard Business School student Nate Barbera and his classmate Des Stolar. How they beat those odds offer great lessons for anyone pitching an idea, seeking investors, or courting potential business partners. Nate and Des’s was promoting their novel product—Unshrinkit—a potion that restores improperly washed wool garments to their original size.

They had developed it as part of an HBS requirement that MBA students launch a company and secure real customers. At the outset Nate and Des were mixing the stuff in their dorm room sinks. Even after finding an outfit to produce and distribute their product, sales online and in stores were small compared to the potential market. To build a real business they needed publicity—and what better way to get it than an appearance on Shark Tank.

Nate and Des did three things right to get on the show.

First, they understood that they had to pitch themselves rather than their product. After all, the show’s producers are in the entertainment business. They need entrepreneurs with distinctive personalities who will spark reactions from the panel of sharks. In reviewing applications, perhaps the producers expected Nate and Des to be stereotypical know-it-all MBA students, though that’s not how they come across at all. He is an earnest engineer and she is warm, confident, and ultra-smart. The sharks clearly would be intrigued by their personal story.

Second, Nate and Des prepared obsessively, reviewing all the prior episodes to see what makes a winning pitch and—even more important—how the sharks interact themselves. Nate and Des also dissected the pros and cons of various offers they might receive. They even drew elaborate decision trees mapping out different ways the process might unfold. Naturally they focused on Lori Greiner, the “queen of QTV,” a great platform for their household product.

Shark Tank tapings are grueling. What we viewers see is radically edited down. Nate and Des were on stage for two hours and three minutes without a break. When you’re in front of the camera, of course, things happen very fast.

Des recalls being peppered with demanding questions from the sharks and the futility of trying to answer them all. Midst it all, she told herself, “If I pretend that I’ve only heard the question that I like and I answer that, maybe just maybe, it will lead to a follow-up question I like even more.”

Once she did that, there was a “domino effect where every single question aligned with the story that Nate and I wanted to present, and they all thought we were doing well.” But then there was a crisis. Des describes it as “the most nerve wracking portion of the entire session.” Lori withdrew, saying, “I love you guys. I like the product. I don’t think the market size is there.”

In the heat of the moment, under the glare of the TV lights, Nate and Des let go of their plan and deftly pivoted. Lori’s statement was crushing, not only because she had been their top choice, but because her knowledge of home goods could sway the opinions of the other four sharks.

Des kept her composure and asked Lori to explain her thinking. Lori admitted that had been a long time since she had last done her own laundry, but she didn’t think many people would make the mistake of mishandling their woolen garments.

The other sharks—sensing that Lori had misjudged the market—started arguing with Lori, confessing that they make mistakes like that all the time. That allowed Nate and Des to step back and let the other sharks convince themselves of the product’s potential value.

In the end, three of them made offers, with Mark Cuban jumping in at the last moment with the best one. Having watched Cuban in all the prior episodes of the show, Nate and Des knew that he doesn’t like to haggle, so after quickly nodding to each other, they happily said yes.

They were glad to get his endorsement, of course, but even more important making that deal ensured that their segment would air—and not just once, but in reruns, too. Since it first appeared, sales of Unshrinkit are way up and it’s now available in Canada and Europe. (Nate and Des's whole story is also a cornerstone case in my HBX Negotiation Mastery course.)

Few of us will make it to national television, of course, but whenever we’re pitching a new idea, we’d be smart to remember that first and foremost we must win people’s confidence and generate excitement. Though we can’t anticipate everything, diligent preparation actually enhances our ability to improvise when things take an unexpected turn.

This article was originally published on LinkedIn Pulse.

About the Author

Professor Mike Wheeler's current research focuses on negotiation dynamics, dispute resolution, ethics, and distance learning. He is the author or co-author of eleven books, and his self-assessment app—Negotiation360—was released early in 2015. Additionally, Professor Wheeler's new HBX course, Negotiation Mastery: Unlocking Value in the Real World, is now accepting applications.

Two University of Chicago psychologists, Kaitlin Woolley and Ayelet Fishbach, recently ran a set of experiments to see whether what people eat impacts trust and cooperation.

What the researchers discovered surprised me. And it should be food for thought for you next time you go to the bargaining table.

Woolley and Fishbach paired up 124 subjects—all strangers—to do a labor relations exercise that I assign in my MBA Negotiation course at Harvard Business School. Under the rules parties have to go through successive rounds of concessions to narrow the gap between management’s offer and the union’s demands. (Their article is forthcoming in the Journal of Consumer Psychology.)

The researchers added what might seem like an innocuous twist. With one group, they gave each negotiator sweets (Tootsie Rolls or a cookie). For another group, each negotiator got salty food (potato chips or pretzels).

Don’t jump to conclusions. You might have guessed that the candy sweetened up the first group, so that they reached agreement faster than the group that got the salty snacks. Nope. There was virtually no difference in how those two grounds negotiated.

But the experimenters had also a created a third group, where one negotiator in each pair was given sweet food and the other got something salty. These mismatched pairs took twice as long to reach agreement than the pairs in the first two groups who ate the same thing. It wasn’t merely that the pairs who ate different food wasted time. Under the rules of the game, the subjects lost real money! Everyone had been told in advance that the longer they took to resolve the dispute, the less they’d be paid for doing the experiment.

Remember, nobody in any group got to choose what they ate. It was entirely random. So this wasn’t a case of people with similar tastes somehow bonding together. The similarity (or difference) in the food people were given to eat was entirely subliminal. Nevertheless the impact on the negotiation process was significant.

What’s going on here? And what does it mean for us next time we negotiate in the real world?

Woolley and Fishbach relate their experiments to a broader body of research on social mimicry. Studies have shown, for example, that mirroring other people’s gestures and expressions can foster trust and bolster persuasion (though it must be done subtly). Parallel work on verbal mimicry likewise suggests that trust can be enhanced by speaking at the same rate as your counterparts and repeating some of the words that they use.

These effect are real, but don’t go overboard. At a business lunch, you’re not guaranteed to win over a prospective client merely by ordering the same drink or meal that she does. She has to perceive value what you propose and be convinced that you can deliver on your promises.

But in the back of your head you should be monitoring how well you two are connecting. Whether or not you’re in sync is a function of your particular personalities, emotions, and behavior. It’s what each of you do and say—and how each of you reads the other.

Woolley and Fishbach add to the evidence that interpersonal connection is more than that. External factors come into play, as well. Cooperation is also influenced by whether the sun shining or what music is playing in the background. Those kind of atmospherics are beyond our control, of course. If anything, though, that’s an argument for giving greater attention to those things that we can do to improve trust and cooperation.

So, after the server has taken your prospect’s order (and it’s something palatable), it wouldn't hurt to say, “You know, that sounds good. I’ll have that, too.”

This article was originally published on LinkedIn Pulse.

This article was originally published on LinkedIn Pulse.

Improvement in any realm requires tracking and evaluating your performance. That's true in the gym. And it’s true for negotiation, as well.

I pushed this advice in a post three years ago. I recommended that if you’re serious about enhancing your effectiveness, keep a journal of all your negotiations, large and small. Write down your plans beforehand. Critique them afterwards. Make this a habit, you’re guaranteed to sharpen your strategic skills and enhance your agility.

Learning the right lessons from your negotiation experience is now the cornerstone of all my teaching, in my MBA classroom and in Negotiation Mastery, the new online course I’ve created for HBX, Harvard Business School’s digital learning platform. For both environments, I’ve developed a battery of exercises to instill the habit of clear-eyed, focused self-reflection.

All the performance-related content we cover in a 40-hour course can’t be distilled in the limited space here. But I’m glad to share—for your personal use—a particular tool that many students find helpful. It has three functions. First, is identifying areas where improvement will give you the biggest payoff. Second, is illustrating how problem-solving and interpersonal skills must be aligned to constitute coherent strategy. (The third pedagogical function I’ll mention toward the end.)

Here’s the survey: Rate your relative strengths in respect to four essential negotiation skills. You can gave as many as 7 points to a particular skill or as few as 1. You have a total of 16 points to allocate overall and you must use them all. (Giving more points to one item necessarily means you’ll have to reduce points for something else.) There are no right or wrong answers, of course.

1.   Capitalizing on opportunities to create value.
2.   Asserting your interests.
3.   Understanding the motivations and feelings of other parties.
4.   Getting the maximum possible in the agreement.

As you probably noted, two of the skills are outcome related: expanding the pie (#1) and securing your share of it (#4). Classic negotiation theory posits that there is a fundamental tension between these two skills. Parties who conceal their interests and priorities miss opportunities to make value-creating trades; on the other hand, negotiators who reveal their preferences unilaterally risk exploitation if counterparts bluff or stone-wall.

In turn, the other two skills—asserting your interests (#2) and understanding others (#3)—describe the relational dimension of negotiation. Many people feel that these are in tension, as well. Making bold demands may stress a relationship, for example, while being overly empathetic might compromise one’s own interests.

I’ve analyzed thousands of responses to this survey. Individual results vary widely. Some people believe that they're very good at one particular skill, but much worse at others. Others are more balanced (though very few give themselves 4 points on each one).

Yet in spite of this variation, results tend to cluster into five different categories. You can think of these as bargaining styles, if you like. That shouldn’t be surprising. It’s logical that means and ends would be connected: how you engage your counterpart should influence the outcome.

If you graph your own responses, a pattern will emerge. Here’s an example of someone who gave the most points to items 1 and 3. It’s the most common profile (though it only represents 30 percent of respondents).

These are people who believe that they are good at understanding their counterparts’ thoughts and feelings. That may explain both their confidence that they are relatively good at creating value, but also their doubts about claiming it.

Contrast that pattern with the profile of someone else who give the most points to items 2 and 4. (Ten percent of respondents fall into this cluster.)

If there’s interest, I’ll put up a supplementary post showing three other kinds of self-portraits, but I want to emphasize several larger points here. First, however you happen to see yourself as a negotiator, most people you deal with likely have a different style, at least to some degree. To succeed, therefore, you must be agile. That means flexing yourself so that you deploy different skills depending on the situation and whom you’re dealing with.

Second, consider how you want to be seen and understood by your counterpart. Their impressions will be influenced by what you do and say. It’s not always easy, but you can appear strong without seeming intimidating—and open without being vulnerable.

Finally, your self-image may not match how other people perceive you. In my teaching, the third function of this test serves as a template for peer feedback. After each simulation, students rate each other using this same model. One person may discover that she is better as self-advocacy than she thought, for example. Someone else may find that he’s not as good at engaging with others as he thought that he was. Both of them can recalibrate their profile and tweak their learning agenda, accordingly.

A post like this simply doesn’t support that kind of peer-to-peer coaching that you’d get in a course, be it in-person or online. (Nor does a book, for that matter). But if in your work you ever negotiate as part of a team, you surely should pair up with a colleague to exchange candid and constructive advice. Build on what you do well naturally and focus on areas where there is greater room for improvement.

This post was originally published on Linkedin Pulse.

The greatest achievement of John F. Kennedy’s presidency was resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis in the fall of 1962.

Agreement wasn’t a foregone conclusion. Kennedy himself calculated that the chance of a nuclear catastrophe was at least one in three, maybe higher. But he had learned a lot about negotiating from his failed summit talk with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev a year earlier in Vienna. Those lessons still apply today. And they apply to everyday transactions.

First, Kennedy was agile strategically.

Among his own advisors, hawks argued strongly for immediate attacks on the missile sites being built in Cuba. Kennedy understood that military action might soon be necessary but he was determined to use the limited time available to pursue alternatives that wouldn’t trigger World War III. Imposing a blockade on Cuba (he called it a “quarantine”) was less provocative and gave him the chance to negotiate.

Second, he stress-tested his options by actively seeking counsel from experts with widely divergent views.

As a result, he avoided the “confirmation bias” trap, that is, being told only what others thought he wanted to hear. As a result, he fully understood the risks entailed in whatever path he might take.

Third, he used multiple channels of communication, instead of relying solely on formal messages telexed back-and-forth between Washington and Moscow.

Much later it was learned that Kennedy’s brother Robert (who was also Attorney General) held three secret meetings with Soviet Ambassador to the US, Anatoly Dobrynin. In these private sessions they floated proposals and developed a measure of personal trust.

Fourth, the President understood that the other side was not monolithic.

Just as with his White House advisers, there were hawks and doves within the Kremlin. He had to craft a resolution that would have sufficient support within both governments, but he didn’t have to please the hardest-to-please parties.

Fifth, Kennedy allowed Khrushchev to save face.

In return for the Soviets’ removing their missiles in Cuba, the president publicly pledged that the United States would never invade that country. Given the humiliating Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, there was little likelihood that the US would make another such attempt, but the guarantee gave the Premier something he could trumpet as a victory. My friend Bill Ury calls this tactic “building a golden bridge.” It enables a counterpart to justify an agreement to others (and also to himself).

Finally, Kennedy enriched the deal with a side agreement.

On the twelfth day of the standoff, with tensions mounting, Khrushchev sent a letter that made it seem that a deal was imminent. But then several hours later a more belligerent message appeared, with added demands, including insistence on US removal of Jupiter missiles it had installed in Turkey, bordering the Soviet Union.

That issue was potentially a deal-killer, as the Americans didn’t want to appear as if they were blackmailed into making a significant military concession. But it was suggested (apparently by Secretary of State Dean Rusk) that President Kennedy reply formally to the initial, more conciliatory Soviet proposal, and then have Robert Kennedy privately ask Ambassador Dobrynin deliver the written letter to Khrushchev along with an oral message to Khrushchev that the US missiles in Turkey would be withdrawn.

These six elements were all critical parts Kennedy’s negotiation strategy. They were bound together by a tough-minded appraisal of the situation. Like a chess master, Kennedy played both sides of the table, thinking several moves ahead, trying to anticipate how the Soviets might respond to American actions. He didn’t wish away the risks. He allowed for possible miscalculation on their part, rather than counting on them to respond “rationally” to the carrots and sticks he might deploy.

The same kind of tough-mindedness is essential in our own negotiations, even though far less is at stake. Having that attitude compels us to confront that whatever unfolds won’t be fully under our control. Whoever we deal with may be as determined—and fallible—as we are ourselves. Recognizing that reality compels us to be both agile strategically and creative in executing our plans.

This post was originally published on Linkedin Pulse.

If you want to be a great negotiator, you have to be a great improviser. There’s no choice in the matter. You can’t script the process. It’s too unpredictable. The people you deal with will have their own ideas about how things should go.

That’s why we all can learn from master improvisers in other fields, especially jazz. I described a business application of this principle in one of my early posts. In another—on the importance of paying heed—I quoted pianist Herbie Hancock of sometimes being so focused that “I’m listening with my toes.”

Today’s negotiation lesson comes from trumpeter Miles Davis who said, “It’s the notes that you don’t play that matter.” 

I found another great example of how this maxim applies powerfully to negotiation in my colleague Deepak Malhotra’s new book Negotiating the Impossible. Right there on page 145 in bold type he channels Miles by saying: “Ignore ultimatums. The more attention you give to them, the harder it will be for the other side to back down if the situation changes.” 

He’s absolutely right. (I only wish the book was available back in January when I wrote a post on dealing with take-it-or-leave it job offers, as his advice applies there, as well.) 

When someone says, “absolutely not” or “it’s against company policy,” the natural impulse is to ask why or ask for an exception--or to challenge the assertion itself. But often it’s smarter to let the remark pass without comment. Your counterpart may have spoken in haste. Given time, he or she may soften their position—provided you haven’t reinforced it. 

The worst thing to do is to rise to the bait. Don’t ask if they really mean what they just said. If someone paints themself into a corner, why hand them another bucket? Instead, let the moment pass, as Miles said. It’s in the same spirit of the feisty credo of the actress Ruth Gordon (the star of the cult classic, Harold and Maude.) “I never face facts,” she said. “I never listen to good advice. I’m a slow starter but I always get there.” 

But what if your counterpart persists? Deepak recommends re-framing the ultimatum using less rigid language so it’s easier for them to back down. If not now, then maybe later. For example, say something like, “I can understand how, given where things stand today, this would be difficult for you to do . . .” 

Note how much those three italicized words pack so much meaning into that short phrase: 

• Understand is an acknowledgment that you have heard their problem, so they don’t have to state again;
• Today reminds them that things may change, especially if you can jointly tackle their underlying constraints; and
• Difficult sounds more pliable than impossible. It implies that somewhere within a tangled problem, there’s a solution struggling to find its way out. 

This style of response is what another colleague of ours, Deborah Kolb, calls a “turn.” It’s a deft rephrasing that keeps the door open for further discussion. Done well the transformation might take hold without even being noticed. 

Deepak realizes, of course, that some ultimatums are truly non-negotiable, but thinks there’s little harm in ignoring one when you first hear it. If it is real, he says, “they will repeat it over and over again, in all kinds of contexts and in all kinds of ways.” 

That advice reflects Deepak’s refreshing perspective on the overall negotiation process. He is skeptical about street wisdom such as never make the first offer, or always negotiate on your own turf. Depending on the circumstances, what would be right in one situation might be disastrous in another. 

It comes down to making judgment calls, he says, case by case. And that requires operating from more general principles such as controlling the frame, being mindful of optics, and helping others save face (all of which are factors in deciding how to respond to ultimatums). 

Thinking about the wisdom of (sometimes) not facing facts and ignoring ultimatums (at least the first time you hear them) reminded me of a case I was involved in years ago. I was a member of the local land use planning board. Seldom did all five of us agree on the applications that came before us. But in one instance, we turned down a developer’s proposal with an unequivocal five to zero negative vote.

When we announced our decision, the guy cheerfully said, “Okay. What’s the next step?” 

He acted as if he had just won the first round—which was nuts under the circumstances. Anyone with sense would have given up. But this fellow came back again and at least two more times after that. He revised his plans and we tweaked our policy. Ultimately his project got built. 

Hats off to him! And my guess is that Miles and Deepak would give him two thumbs up for ignoring our initial veto. 

PS: If you’re interested in learning more about Deepak’s work, here's a recent interview with him.

This post was originally published on Linkedin Pulse. 

The last couple of months I’ve interviewed a dozen expert negotiators who’ll appear in an online negotiation course I’m helping develop at HBS. Among them are a dealmaker at Microsoft, a couple of entrepreneurs, the head of a real estate investment fund, and the mayor of a mid-sized city.

And then there’s Chris Voss, a former FBI hostage negotiator. What, you might ask, can a hostage negotiator like him teach the rest of us about making business deals or negotiating in our daily lives? Plenty, it turns out.

Chris is skeptical about a lot of conventional wisdom about negotiation. And on some important points, I’m convinced he’s right.

Specifically, he thinks the focus on win-win outcomes and expanding the pie has things backwards. To him, the process—not the result—is the heart of negotiation. In order to get something done, you have to connect with whoever it is that you’re dealing with. And if you can do that in a life-and-death situation, as he has done, then you can connect with anyone.

I found three of Chris's negotiation strategies particularly striking:

1. Employ Tactical Empathy

Chris says it’s not what you do or even say that drives success. Rather, it’s how you behave, your general demeanor, and your delivery that really matter.

Chris has perfected what he calls his “late night FM voice.” I heard it during our interview. He slows his pace and brings the pitch down.

There’s nothing threatening in his tone. He’s comfortable with silence. The idea is to get the other person to relax his defenses. It’s almost hypnotic.

Chris draws people out by asking how they are feeling, though he is ultra-careful in his phrasing. He wants to take any hint of aggression out of the conversation. In his experience, the singular pronoun ‘I’ gets people’s guard up. So Chris would never say, “I’m hearing that you think . . .” Instead he’d observe, “It sounds like . . ..”

2. Embrace a Negative Response

Rather than striving to get to yes, Chris loves it when the other person says “No.” It gives that person an active role in the conversation. They can feel a degree of control and security. And for Chris, who is listening, it opens up an opportunity for him to probe—delicately—for what it is they really want. According to Chris, “Great negotiators often seek ‘No’ because they know that’s where the real negotiation begins.”

Chris treads lightly when probing the other person’s mindset. He avoids asking any questions that might sound like cross-examination. For instance, he would never ask, “Why did you do it?” Instead, he’d say, “What caused you to do it?” In his view, the former phrasing invites defensiveness and self-justification. Instead, he prefers questions that begin with “what” and “how” because they are more open-ended.

3. Lead With Potential Objections

Chris believes the reasons why a counterpart won’t make an agreement with you are often more powerful than why they might. So, deal with objections first.

That’s akin to my post last year “To get a YES, expect a NO.” But in our interview, he took the idea further by describing the importance of doing an accusation audit in preparing for negotiation. I’d never heard that phrase, but his explanation seemed right to me.

“List the worst things that the other party could say about you,” he said, “and say them before the other person can.”  Starting out a negotiation by acknowledging the other person’s objections and resentments, takes them off the table. And it’s also disarming.

Chris gives an example in his recent book, Never Split the Difference. Since retiring from the FBI, Chris has been doing consulting and training. For one particular job, he had teamed up with some other people. But before the deal was struck, the client cut the budget significantly. That meant that the fees would be less than Chris originally offered his partners.

When he called them to break the bad news, the first words out of his mouth were, “I have a lousy proposition for you...” Chris went on to say that he knew that they would think he was a “big talker” and that he had “screwed up completely.”

Essentially, he was anticipating their negative reaction and if anything, exaggerating it, in order to clear the air. But then Chris added, “Still, I wanted to bring this opportunity to you before I took it to someone else.”

And as you might expect, after a little grumbling, his partners agreed to cut their rates.