Negotiate emotionally – decide rationally!

If you want to win a deal and win the best terms, you need one thing in particular: self-management – and not an adrenaline-controlled skip-action or even a hasty decision.

Adrenalin costs money and time

Why do I stress that? Because that’s exactly what many negotiation tactics are aiming for. With all sorts of tricks, the pros try to destabilize their counterparts and drive as much adrenaline into their blood as possible. The more involved, the worse the person negotiates.

And how many times have I experienced that the tactics are growing and that often the buyer pulls the salesman by the nasal ring through the negotiating arena. Emotionally charged, people are finally easier to control. If you let the adrenaline prevail, you not only react and argue emotionally, but you also decide from the affect. This is deadly to your negotiation strategy. On top of that, you lose money and time.

What not meant to be personally!

Be clear: every attack is all about the thing – the deal. Even if the other side starts screaming or becomes personal, it is not directed against you as a person. It only aims to remix the cards for the trial.

The best reaction is not to play the offended liverwurst, but to stay calm and just let yourself fall. This does not mean that you have to endure everything humbly, but that you remain factual in your head and, if necessary, you hold the conversation partner to the composure. For rational decisions are the better decisions and technical arguments the more convincing.

Believe me, nothing is personal in negotiations: anyone who controls his emotional budget and perhaps even shivers out the roaring lion confuses him a lot more.

Emotions as a trump card

Or just turn the tables and roar back in surprise. Screaming or excitement can be helpful in negotiations, but only if you decide to use that emotion for your success in a rational and controlled manner.

This works when the emotions arising from an attack are completely uncoupled from the reaction – almost as if you were meditating. In such situations, I put on my poker face, take a deep breath and then decide how to react rationally. That may sound a bit esoteric, but it is not. It is part of the art of negotiating to have emotions under control. Everything else makes you predictable.

For example, one big car manufacturer in Bavaria has a salesman who is known to freak out in negotiations. In the last round he always tears the offer and leaves the room screaming. Where is the surprise effect left?

People who are quick to get out of their skin and do not have their feelings under control have no business in tough negotiations. But even if you are a very emotional person, you can practice a poker face and get your emotions under control in heated situations. Because the best counselor in a negotiation is the awareness that you decide for yourself and are not tempted to make decisions in the affect.

Rational psychology: Before Kant, psychology was not just a description of the act of consciousness; it saw in the soul a substance or a person. Aristotle called the soul the “life-principle” of the body. Rational psychology dealt with three topics: the substance of the soul, the relationship of soul and body, and the immortality of the human soul. Kant criticized rational psychology because he did not think that the human soul was immortal. In the first main part of the Critique of Pure Reason, rational psychology is exposed as pseudo-science, as it attributes to the soul substance, indissolubility, personality, and thus immortality and spirituality.

Synthetic judgments a priori: “The sum of angles of the triangle is always 180 degrees” is a synthetic judgment a priori. “Synthetic” because something is said that is not included in the definition. (“A triangle always has three corners” would be the counterexample.) And “a priori” is this judgment because I can make it without having any experiential knowledge. (I do not have to survey millions of triangles to come to this conclusion.) Kant’s philosophy is an attempt to cope with the fact that, with all reasonable skepticism, there are synthetic a priori judgments. Fausti Wehklage “I see that we can not know anything”, it is too easy – we can well know something: examples provide mathematics and Newton’s physics. But now the cardinal question: Are there also metaphysical judgments a priori? Can metaphysics be promoted to an exact discipline? What about the sentence “The world has a beginning”? No answer is also an answer: “Transcendental ideas have a merely intelligible object to which we have neither grounds of possibility (as independent of all empirical concepts) nor the least justification to accept such an object on our side, and which therefore a mere Thought thing is. ”

Reason and Mind: The difference between reason and reason is that even highly developed animals such as great apes can have reason, that is, consciousness (apes can recognize themselves on photos and in the mirror). But reason is only peculiar to man; it enables him to think logically. However, reason can never be grasped by reason itself. Kant illustrates this with an example: In the midst of a deep, big ocean lies a small island, the island of the mind. The people who live on this island, they know it inside out, have completely explored and bored increasingly. Far off the horizon, behind fogs, they can see the island of reason that seems like a paradise to them. So they break up and let boats to water. But the sea is stormy and rough, and soon deceptions that guide the seafarers from the path will appear. It is impossible for them to reach the distant island of reason, and so they must finally yield and return to the island of the mind. The mind forms concepts and links them to judgments. Reason connects the judgments to conclusions. Just as reason classifies the manifold of intuitions into concepts, reason combines the manifold of concepts and judgments into a higher connection.