|
Have you ever seen the advertisement for negotiations skills seminar
that reads: "In business, you don't get what you deserve, you
get what you negotiate."?
I never liked that phrase to begin with and now there is a
"groundbreaking" book out with almost the identical title! So
what is my problem? Am I knocking a concept that has drawn many
professionals to the seminars and has had many companies putting
it on in house?
Well, there are probably many good points made and considerable
information provided for those who participate, but I simply
object to the tone of the advertising. I object to the overall
premise that negotiating skills and techniques are the "keys to
success in business and life."
I believe that professional procurement today is about building
strategic relationships with those suppliers and supply chain
partners who can contribute to your organization's success as
you contribute to theirs. Somehow it seems that if one must
count on using these negotiation seminar strategies, techniques,
tactics and tips to deal with suppliers then strategic
relationships may never get off the ground. Suspicion and
mistrust will be built from the very early beginnings.
The negotiation seminar advertising uses the term of "win-win"
throughout their narrative. If the training is really about
win-win negotiating between customers and suppliers, why in
topics such as "escalating authority" are there references to
"the opponent?" Does win-win apply to a situation in which the
parties view themselves as opponents? For example, if you are
having a serious personal relationship and begin considering
marriage, would you think of your intended as "the opponent" in
this deal?
Can you get a better deal at the altar if you apply your
negotiations training to the contractual obligations? (Of
course, with the increased use of pre-nuptial agreements, maybe
this negotiation stuff is needed to get what you deserve!). If
one thinks of serious business relationships as more personal in
this way, then the training pitch seems less appropriate.
In another advertisement, they refer to the success that class
participants had when they used their training to negotiate
great personal deals on their cars. Are we to believe that we
should deal with our organization's key suppliers in the same
manner as we haggle over big ticket purchases at home? It's time
for procurement professionals to reflect on just what we should
really accomplish when we deal with vendors.
The best business relationships, supplier to customer, are
really no more than an extension of sound, personal relationship
building where honesty and trust are the foundations for the
future. Can't trust your supplier to hold up to that standard?
Then maybe it is the wrong supplier! Or maybe we have to explain
better how to do business in the future.
If you know exactly what you want from a supplier (i.e., you've
done your research), then tell them what you need. Trust them to
tell you what they can and cannot do. If the deal works, get it
done and don't sweat the small stuff. It's the relationship
building that is important, not the nitpicking negotiating
tactics. More often than not, a good supplier-customer
relationship will provide benefits over time that never would
have been imagined when the initial "negotiation" occurred.
What comes to my mind is the best supplier agreement I've seen
to date- two pages with no terms or conditions but only a
listing of shared values between the customer and the supplier
that should prevail in all future activities together. The
agreement was signed by the key players (and executives) at each
company and went on to support years of successful, profitable
results for both parties in the marketplace.
|
