I was very struck by one phrase coined by Michelle Obama and quoted by Hilary Clinton in the American Presidential election campaign: "If they aim low you aim high".
Too often in the negotiation of a massive company changing contract of one sort or another, the advisers nit pick over relatively small issues - the details of governance or of change control. Granted these are important but nothing to get stuck in the proverbial ditch over.
In a room in a London hotel locked into a negotiation many years ago of a strategic joint venture agreement I recall one of the parties was WPP who to their credit had brought along not just their lawyers but two executives as well, one of whom was Sir Martin Sorrell. His negotiation tactic was simple and ultimately effective. Set a low limit of liability and then stick to it. To a degree they could be flexible on everything else, but they just would not bet a significant part of their company by exposing it to excessive liability.
Being aware of what really matters to a client, what say its top four or five walk away issues really are, allows advisers to focus on major concerns and also to raise the debate, to "aim high" and whilst sorting out the detail not getting bogged down over relatively trivial matters.
Consciously setting high aspirations also means a good chance of achieving them. If the aim is not quality service for a reasonable price, but just to see how much one side can beat the other up because of perceived power or influence the outcome will not be good. This approach might bring short term satisfaction to some involved in the process, but will almost inevitably result in a poor bargain and resulting contract delivery failure which costs far more in my experience than getting it right for all parties in the first place.
Michelangelo said: "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
Too often in the negotiation of a massive company changing contract of one sort or another, the advisers nit pick over relatively small issues - the details of governance or of change control. Granted these are important but nothing to get stuck in the proverbial ditch over.
In a room in a London hotel locked into a negotiation many years ago of a strategic joint venture agreement I recall one of the parties was WPP who to their credit had brought along not just their lawyers but two executives as well, one of whom was Sir Martin Sorrell. His negotiation tactic was simple and ultimately effective. Set a low limit of liability and then stick to it. To a degree they could be flexible on everything else, but they just would not bet a significant part of their company by exposing it to excessive liability.
Being aware of what really matters to a client, what say its top four or five walk away issues really are, allows advisers to focus on major concerns and also to raise the debate, to "aim high" and whilst sorting out the detail not getting bogged down over relatively trivial matters.
Consciously setting high aspirations also means a good chance of achieving them. If the aim is not quality service for a reasonable price, but just to see how much one side can beat the other up because of perceived power or influence the outcome will not be good. This approach might bring short term satisfaction to some involved in the process, but will almost inevitably result in a poor bargain and resulting contract delivery failure which costs far more in my experience than getting it right for all parties in the first place.
Michelangelo said: "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
RSS Feed
