2

A conversation with Marisa Mauro and Ashleigh Shelby Rosette

Whether we’re negotiating a salary, a deal with a supplier, or flexible work arrangements, we need to go in prepared. Otherwise we risk not getting the things we want and need. But what are the most important factors to consider ahead of time? When, if ever, should we reveal to the other party our priorities—and terms we absolutely can’t agree to? And because advocating and bargaining for ourselves, our employees, and our businesses can feel so personal, how do we manage the emotions that come up?

Like many of us, Marisa Mauro built her career by negotiating. She started a one-woman business, Ploughgate Creamery, after mastering the craft of making cheese in small batches. Over the next few years, she grew the business and gained recognition, winning a first-place award from the American Cheese Society. But the facility where she rented space burned down, so Mauro took a break and got a job waitressing. One day she learned that the Vermont Land Trust had opened applications to farmers interested in buying 50 acres of land and the century-old defunct farm on it at less than market price. Mauro submitted a business plan to make butter there that the Land Trust accepted. But before she could put that plan into action, she had to formalize it legally by creating a conservation easement. Next, she negotiated for all the labor, equipment, and raw materials needed to get the farm functioning again. As a small-business owner, she’s never stopped negotiating. It’s an everyday practice. But she hadn’t really stopped to name, analyze, and appreciate the underlying principles.

Marisa Mauro spoke with Women at Work host Amy Gallo and Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, a Duke University professor whose research centers on negotiations.

AMY GALLO: Marisa, what types of negotiations are you engaged in regularly?

MARISA MAURO: As a small-business owner, I have to be involved in many different levels of negotiation with different demographics of people. I have to get my product to market through distribution. There are many ways that works, with pricing and logistics. Then there are the farmers I buy cream from directly and the farmers that also lease my land for other agricultural purposes. And I also negotiate with my employees.

AMY: Can you share an example of a negotiation you went through?

MARISA: The dairy farmers that I purchase cream from told me they would have a shortage in the coming months and were unsure of a solution. I called a meeting to bring us all together. Building relationships is important to me in running a small business. When I went to meet with the farmers, I baked a pie, brought butter, and we all sat around a table. That was a great way to break the ice with them. In my mind, a contract would have been ideal, but it’s not always possible for the nature and scale of my business. The first thing one of the farmers said was, “I bet you were hoping for a contract.” So, I knew that was immediately off the table. I asked them to explain to me the inner workings of the processing plant. And I asked questions about the volumes other customers were getting, and about the staffing and equipment that they use. I learned that they needed an additional piece of equipment to solve the issue. I said, “There it is. I can help.” And I was able to source the equipment and keep us on track. It wasn’t about prices; it was about ensuring that I could get the volume of cream I needed to hit the sales goals that make my company viable.

ASHLEIGH SHELBY ROSETTE: You’ve highlighted some really important ideas. One, that negotiation occurs in phases. And the phases can be short or long—it depends on the type of negotiation and the goal (see table 2-1). So, for you, this is a long, continued relationship. That first phase of building rapport can last five minutes or months, just to make sure you have a certain level of trust before the transaction can even take place. So, you recognized that and, most importantly, the farmers communicated that up front, which helped to manage the process quite well. Had you talked for two hours thinking that you’d have a deal at the end, that might have been very frustrating for you. But because they initially said, “Look, let us just tell you about our process. There’s probably not going to be a deal today.” That allows you to say, “OK, now the pressure is off. We’re just sharing information. We’re just getting to know each other.” Because of the rapport that you were attempting to develop, they were willing to share with you and be vulnerable. Then you were able to find a way that you could work together, something that probably didn’t hurt you very much, but helped them a lot. And you gave the basis for that transaction that comes later on. So, the first phase can be short or long. You recognized the goal and diagnosed that ahead of time.

TABLE 2-1

The negotiation process

Every negotiation involves different players, interests, and goals. Despite those differences, most negotiations follow the four phases shown here. Once you understand the process and strategies for each phase, you can adapt your approach to individual situations.

Source: Excerpted from “Understand Negotiation,” Harvard ManageMentor, https://hbp.myhbp.org/hmm12/content/negotiating/understand_negotiation.html.

AMY: I like this idea of phases, Ashleigh. It sounds like the first phase was the baking of the pie. She planned for this conversation by thinking about the connection with the farmers. What is the correct preparation? Do we always need to bake pies?

ASHLEIGH: A frequent mantra that I use is that a good negotiator is a prepared negotiator. And preparation begins before the negotiation. Marisa thought about what she could do before they sat at the table. Another good way to prepare involves a planning document, where you actually write down the things that are important to you. What are your goals? What are your alternatives? How are you going to begin this negotiation? A good planning document can help minimize your anxiety, increase your confidence, and minimize gaffes at the negotiation table. It’s a written record of some of the vital issues. Thinking about these issues before the negotiation puts you in a better place to manage the process. You may even map it out. In this first meeting, we want to accomplish this; in phase two, we want to accomplish that.

MARISA: If I wanted to create a document for future negotiations, what questions do you suggest I include?

ASHLEIGH: First we diagnose the type of negotiation. Is this distributive, where I’m trying to get the most for myself? Is it integrative, where we’re both trying to get something and create value? Once you diagnose the type of negotiation, then that’s going to dictate the types of questions to consider. What are the issues on the table? List all the issues and then rank them. Which ones are the most important to me? Which ones would I be willing to give on? In a perfect world, this is my ideal target. What’s the least that I’m willing to accept? If I don’t get a deal, what am I going to do? Keeping an eye on that alternative is important. You need to know when you want to walk away, to make sure that you don’t take something subpar in this negotiation. The stronger that alternative is, the better the negotiation tends to be. Because you have a really strong alternative, you push really hard in that negotiation, because you’re not going to take anything less. But think about these things before you negotiate and not in the middle of it. (See table 2-2.)

Table 2-2

Identify the type of negotiation: Single- versus multiple-issue negotiations

Before you begin bargaining, you need to know what kind of negotiation you are engaging in. This knowledge will influence your strategy and the choices you make. The two main types are single-issue negotiation, also known as distributive or win-lose negotiation, and multiple-issue negotiation, also known as integrative or win-win negotiation.

Source: Excerpted from “Prepare to Negotiate,” Harvard ManageMentor, https://hbp.myhbp.org/hmm12/content/negotiating/prepare_to_negotiate.html.

Also focus on the opposing party. What is their goal? If you think about what your alternative is, what will cause them to walk away? What are their most important issues? Use the negotiation process to go through a diagnostic to see what you thought about ahead of time. Because they’re trying to guess what is the least amount that you’re trying to get, and you’re trying to get what is the most amount that they’re trying to pay. Gathering that information, thinking about that whole process of all those issues, helps you determine what the bargaining zone is so that you end up coming to a favorable agreement.

MARISA: Would you say my negotiation with the farmers was an integrative negotiation?

ASHLEIGH: No, you took a distributive negotiation and made it integrative by adding an additional issue. You were able to uncover that additional issue by developing rapport with them, such that they were willing to trust you and share information. Sometimes when you don’t have that rapport and trust, people will keep their problems close to the vest, because they think that you might take that information, exploit it, and use it against them. But instead, you took something that was initially about getting a deal to move your business forward, and you made it much bigger than that, so you weren’t claiming value. You were actually creating value for both of you. You turned a distributive negotiation into an integrative negotiation, and you did that exceptionally well.

AMY: What about the role of relationships? It sounds like Marisa prioritized her relationship with the farmers. Is that something that most people should do in a negotiation?

ASHLEIGH: It depends on the nature of the negotiation. One of the characteristics of the negotiation that Marisa has described is the notion of recurrence. In a long-term or recurring negotiation, relationships are important, especially as circumstances change. In this situation, circumstances changed in that there was going to be a shortage of cream. The relationship allows for trust and the sharing of information. Imagine what would have happened if you hadn’t developed that relationship. You would be without your cream. You wouldn’t be able to continue your business. But you were able to do so because of that relationship. In integrative negotiations, that notion of trust is really important. But some negotiations are distributive in nature, where it’s all about claiming value. If you’re going to buy a car, you’re never going to see the salesperson again, and you’re just trying to get a good deal, so the relationship isn’t quite as important.

AMY: Marisa, thinking about the anxiety that many of us feel in negotiations, what part causes you the most concern?

MARISA: A lot of times I’m pretty direct with people. Sometimes I come off as aggressive, and then the other party shuts down. But it’s just my nature. Sometimes I have anxiety around that when I see the other party shutting down. Because I’m an entrepreneur and fast paced, and I see opportunity, I get really excited and passionate. But not everybody’s at that level. I don’t have time for the fluff around it. So sometimes, if I’m trying to solve a problem, or I’m trying to negotiate, I want to just hear the facts, not all the details.

AMY: That is such an interesting conundrum: How do I get through this negotiation as quickly and efficiently as possible, while also not damaging the relationship? That makes me think about the research around gender and negotiations, and how women are often seen as pushy or bossy when they’re advocating for themselves. Basically, they’re penalized for being assertive. Any advice for how Marisa can think about taking the right approach to her style in negotiations?

ASHLEIGH: Marisa, you were saying that you’re very direct. But what I heard you describe is that you were utilizing what you call “the fluff” very effectively. Your communication style may be very direct, but you really do understand how to build relationships. Those things don’t necessarily have to work against each other. The notion of being assertive and direct is something that as women we tend to have to manage because those perceptions and those stereotypes exist. Not everyone will perceive these as negative, but some will, which means that we have to manage those perceptions if we’re going to develop relationships effectively and ultimately get the type of deal that we want. When you think about being direct, you have to also step back and say, “What exactly does that mean? When I say that I am direct, I’m being direct in what way and in what capacity? Does that mean that I’m asking specific questions? Well, that’s not a bad thing, right?” And once you have established those relationships, people give you the benefit of the doubt. You have rapport, and they think, “Oh, well, that’s just Marisa, and she’s very direct.”

If you don’t have that rapport and people don’t know you, and you come out with guns blazing, that’s going to put them on their heels saying, “Hold up. Wait a minute.” So even though we want to be direct, we have to recognize how we’re being perceived and manage that. If you feel as though that other person is on their heels, you probably need to alter your communication style and pause to see what they’re thinking and how they’re reacting, as opposed to just kind of going and going. It’s all about managing that process.

So, thinking about that planning document, if you’re direct and know you’re negotiating with someone else who is direct, this should be fine. But if you’re direct and negotiating with someone who needs to take their time, that relationship is important. They want to get to know you a bit better. It is in your best interest not to circumvent that process, because that could be detrimental at the negotiation table. Preparing for the negotiation is not just about the issues, but it also involves thinking about who that person is on the opposite side of the table. I am not saying don’t be authentic, don’t be yourself. I’m simply saying that we have to manage this process such that we put our best selves forward and people perceive us in the way that we intend, not in a way that could be adverse to the negotiation outcome.

AMY: Marisa, you’re being direct and people shut down. When she sees that in her negotiation counterparts, how does she change tack in that moment?

ASHLEIGH: There are numerous strategies. Sometimes take a break and then come back and reset. Another alternative is to label the process, saying, “Did I come on too strong there? If I did, that wasn’t my intention. Tell me what you’re thinking about what I just said.” By disentangling the personality from the content of what has been said and labeling the process, you can easily do that. That way, they’re responding to the issue—the content of what you said—not the manner in which you may have delivered it.

If for some reason you’re emotionally entangled, or you’re communicating in such an assertive way that it can derail the effectiveness of the negotiation, then that might be the time to bring in a third party or an agent to talk on your behalf. Because if you can’t disentangle the emotion, assertiveness, or style from the issue, that can be very difficult to do.

MARISA: I really like the idea of labeling the process. That adds a personal touch, which is the way I like to operate. I’m the owner of a small business, and all my negotiations feel so personal. Do you have any advice on how to keep my emotions in check with this level of intimacy?

ASHLEIGH: On one hand, communicating emotions can have a positive effect, because it can convey how passionate you are about certain issues. So, to get what we want, we have to ask for what we want. People have to understand our preferences. Emotions can be a fantastic way to communicate what is or is not important to you. On the other hand, communicating emotions can have a negative effect, as it can hinder your ability to make good decisions and undermine your credibility. Make sure that emotions do not become integral to the decision-making process and the negotiation process, and if they are involved, that they remain tangential. One way to do that is to distinguish feeling your emotions from conveying your emotions. Sometimes we can’t do that. But at the negotiation table, what you feel does not always have to equate with what you say. Negotiators are in a constant state of managing emotions. Being in touch with your own emotions and perceiving others’ emotions can be an extremely important part of the negotiation process. And if this is something that people tend to struggle with, they should learn about emotional intelligence and the five steps associated with it.

People have brought emotional intelligence into the negotiation arena. The notion of self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, empathy, and ultimately building great social skills at the negotiation table are the steps involved in demonstrating our emotional intelligence. That can be a way such that we feel our emotions, but don’t necessarily convey them. Conveying emotions is not always negative, but there is balance. So, for example, some of our research says it’s not just about the emotions that you feel naturally, but you can use emotion strategically at the negotiations table. So we know that when we’re in a positive mood, then we’re more creative. But we know when there’s a distributive negotiation, we may need to be a bit more rational, more poker-faced. Sometimes when we’re trying to claim value, and we’ve been at the table for a long time, we need to throw a little negative emotion in there. There are so many layers to emotions at the negotiation table that it really should be one of those things that we think about when we’re preparing for the negotiation. (See section 3, “Manage Your Emotions.”)

So if you’re thinking, “This is my baby, this is personal,” know what your triggers are. Practice how to react to those triggers. If you know that when somebody says this, it’s going to make you react in a certain way, and if that’s not the way you want to react, then you probably need to practice responding in a different way so that when those triggers come up, you’re prepared for them. When you’re feeling an emotion, you choose whether or not it’s in your best interest to convey that emotion.

AMY: I love this idea of familiarizing yourself with your own triggers. For me, it’s when someone insinuates that I’m not being fair, because that’s something I really pride myself on. So, if someone I’m in a negotiation with starts to act as if I’m being unreasonable or disregarding their feelings or thoughts, I get really upset. Do you have any specific tips on how to practice responding, especially when we know we get really emotional around those specific issues?

ASHLEIGH: What you just described is a sole focus on self and not considering the opposing party. You have to recognize that fairness is a perception. And what you perceive to be fair may not be what the other party perceives to be fair. “Fair” can be based on need. It can be based on precedent, inequality, inequity, things of that nature. When you think about your trigger, step back from it and say, “How might my definition of fairness be different from their definition of fairness?” And perhaps you should incorporate that into your process. Say, “This is something that’s really important to me. I define fairness as this. How do you see fairness? Do you see fairness in the same way in which I do?” So, if you know that’s going to be a trigger, design that in your negotiation process up front. Thinking about those things and addressing them can go a long way to making sure that those triggers don’t derail your negotiation process.

AMY: How do you decide at what point to reveal your interests or your position to the other party?

ASHLEIGH: It depends on the type of negotiation you’re engaging in. Whether to reveal and what to reveal is not a simple yes-no decision. It usually depends on the situation and the type of negotiation that you find yourself in. Many negotiators’ initial response or inclination is to reveal as little as possible so as not to be taken advantage of or exploited by the opposing party. If we step back and think about that negotiation tactic to reveal as little as possible, it is somewhat counterintuitive to the ultimate goal in the negotiation. If the goal is to get a deal that is favorable to you and your circumstances, you eventually have to share the information. That’s the opposite of keeping things secret. If we don’t reveal our preferences and priorities, we may not get them. If we think about why we feel the need to hold our information close to the vest, it usually derives from the lack of trust that we have toward the other party. And in turn, the lack of trust that they have for us.

One way to build trust is to share information. Usually the norm is reciprocity; they will be relieved, and they will start sharing. This is not always the case. There is a Russian proverb, famous during the Reagan era: “Trust, but verify.” Use the same tool of sharing information and reciprocity, but don’t share something big. Share something little. Then usually the person will share something little with you. Now, if they didn’t get the memo that the norm is reciprocity, you’ve got to label the process—“I just shared something with you. Can you share something with me?” Then you hope they share. Ultimately you start understanding people’s preferences and priorities. So, if you have trust, share information. If you don’t have trust, find a way to start building that trust. Maybe you need to have that Russian proverb in the back of your mind.

MARISA: Would it be good to just say the goal out of the gate? Like, my goal is X.

ASHLEIGH: Yes. If you don’t have any reason to believe that they are going to exploit you or utilize any information against you, and if you don’t think that they would perceive your sharing as weakness, then yes, share. Ask for what you want up front and be direct about it. Ask for what you really want, not for what you would be willing to settle for.

Asking for what you want at the end of the negotiation wastes a lot of time talking about things that are completely irrelevant to you or you don’t necessarily care about. If it’s something important, give yourself time to talk about it. What would have happened in your negotiation with the farmers had they not told you that they couldn’t afford the equipment? If they had waited until the very end, when you’re about to walk out the door, saying, “Well, you know, it really is this.” Would that have been the most effective use of the time that you spent with them? Probably not.

Adapted from “The Essentials: Negotiating Strategically,” Women at Work podcast, season 7, bonus episode, May 24, 2021.