I came across a new (to me) term recently that struck a chord as something I recognised from practice - negotiation anchors.

These can be defined as "an attempt to establish a reference point (anchor) around which a negotiation will revolve".

In a sense these are good things in that they can be pre-planned and organised to provide a structure for any discussion. They could relate to price or contract term or the amount of risk an organisation will take. As I discussed in my last post these can help to manage a negotiation and have everyone on the team in the same place.

However as is often the case such an anchor can also be a trap which exposes what Wikipedia describes as "the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered". Once the anchor is set there is a natural bias to interpret other information around the anchor. So, for example, an initial price offered in a sense sets the scene for subsequent discussions. It may actually represent far too high a price - more than the service or product is worth. Then any lower offer looks quite reasonable when it may not represent a good deal.

The same would be true of say a limit of liability or a KPI forming part of a service level regime. Any initial offer needs to be treated with care as it establishes a sort of playing field for the discussions which may not be genuinely representative of the parties' respective positions. And once established these negation anchors can be extremely hard to shift. This could result either in one part accepting a poor contractual position which will probably lead to problems later on in the delivery phase, or more likely the negotiation breaking down completely as neither side considers that are achieving what they require.

So anchors may be useful particularly if your contract negotiation ship is drifting towards the rocks and needs some solid reference points, but they need I suggest to be used with care because they may create a false landscape which is difficult to escape from and is not supported by true value or commercial reality. 

I was once part of a team planning a complex contract negotiation which involved a planned walk out if certain circumstances occurred. We had a group consisting of a business leader, a contracts officer, a finance representative, myself as a lawyer and an engineer. We rehearsed what would happen very carefully or at least thought we had.

The big moment came and we all stood up and started walking out - all that is except the engineer who obviously had either not understood the plan, or if he had got too involved in the meeting to recognise what was happening. When he suddenly twigged and stood up the spontaneity of our plan had gone.

Making sure everybody on your side of a negotiation is on the same page in terms of objectives, tactics and approach is to my mind critical. You must have a common purpose and plan and follow it and not work at cross purposes. If somebody disagrees during the discussion than have a prearranged way of calling a time out to discuss it.

There is nothing worse than, for example, going in with a position on some aspect of the contract only for say a senior salesperson who has not been closely involved to step in when they think the other side might disagree and offer to compromise some complex issue you have worked really hard to argue and are close to getting accepted.

The other challenge is to have the senior management of the business behind you. There can be different agendas at management levels in any organisation and it is really disheartening to have the other side escalate a point because they are getting nowhere in the room and have it conceded by an uninvolved and uninformed director.

All of this can be prevented by careful planning and by briefing not only the team but the ultimate decision makers if they are not directly involved. Not only briefing but explaining and getting informed and understanding buy in and then testing this. Unlike our engineer colleague there should be a group and organisation consensus as to what is to be achieved and how.

In life as a general rule I have learnt that the more you put in the more you get out of it. In developing relationships professionally or personally it seems to me that you have to give something of yourself to have others open up to you. Standing like a wallflower at the side of the disco or propping up the bar will never get you a dance.

It seems to me that paradoxically perhaps the same is true in a negotiation. I have seen procurement advisers whose sole aim in life has been to bully suppliers into submission. Conceding the mere introduction of a comma is anathema to them and the result is that the discussions are like a battlefield. It causes everybody to take a defensive position with no quarter conceded. No relationships are formed beyond common courtesy, and antagonism rules.

This may work if you are buying ball bearings, but has an entirely destructive effect in a more complex negotiation over say a service contract where some kind of meeting of minds and mutual understanding is essential not just to conclude the contract but deliver it as well (which is presumably what both parties want).

I suspect this attitude of "Give me what you want or get out of the room" is in part based on fear of embarking in a more complex and reasoned debate and entertain the consequences. A fear of wanting to dance. John F Kennedy in a slightly different context said "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

In this situation giving more of yourself and establishing some some kind of rapport, and maybe yes maybe conceding some issues in order to gain others, creates a relationship of trust that extends far beyond the negotiating table. The accords reached and relationships created are far more likely to promote a successful delivery under the contract, with the ability to reconvene and resolve problems if necessary.

As I embark on a two week holiday in the Mediterranean I am struck by how hard it is as a professional person to switch off, to forget the challenges, worries and concerns of daily life and just concentrate on enjoying the break.

This is natural. It goes with the job. Whether you are a lawyer, doctor or management consultant it is not a 9 to 5 job. Your clients or patients and relationships with bosses and subordinates do not just go away because you are out of the country.

We can't all be like Winston Churchill who said: "Working hours are never long enough. Each day is a holiday, and ordinary holidays are grudged as  enforced interruptions in an absorbing vocation."

So how do we switch off and at least of not forgetting them put these concerns to the back of our minds? Not doing so can ruin or at least diminish the recuperative effects of a vacation. I think perhaps the first thing to do is to acknowledge that this is likely to occur, especially during the first few days of your holiday and then again the last as you plan to go home again, and find ways to deal with and manage it.

I have no perfect answer but I think it is something around becoming immersed in the here and now of the holiday whatever that may be, the beach, the different climate, restaurants and places to visit. Getting the most out of the new country, language and culture or whatever form the vacation takes. Activities like cycling, skiing, tennis, swimming and running work well. It is hard to think of your office when you are snorkelling and looking at the local fish or embarking on a difficult red run at a ski resort.

It probably comes down to being able to compartmentalise your mind and focusing on what you are doing now, which is a healthy and positive thing to do anyway. We are of course privileged to be able to take holidays in the first place which keeps things in perspective.