Taking Out "But"

In a dialogue over a specific topic, there is typically room for agreement and disagreement.  When people hear “but,” they only hear that side. 

Every weekend, after the Chiefs play, my friend and I discuss the game. “Jamaal Charles ran very well, but he needs to get more touches.  Thomas Jones is a good counter-point, but he is too old to be the focus of the offense.  Matt Cassel threw pretty well today, but you can still tell he kind of sucks.” In all of these situations, it was easy to feel a little down about the game.  Even though the Chiefs were winning, the discussion led us to reflect mostly on the flaws, the mistakes, and the buts.  It was as though the point of the discussion was not to discuss the merits of the game, but was instead to admit positives in order to point out negatives.  If a person uses “but,” when legitimately trying to discuss merits, they almost immediately lose half of the argument.  Loaded interjections make it seem like the truth is about to be said, and the rest of the sentence was meaningless prologue.

In negotiations, language is critical.  Sometimes “but” really is meant to give the impression that the coming, post-but alternative is the truth, whereas the preceding comment means little, if anything.  If there is a true positive and a true negative, “but” cannot come up.  No buts, howevers, or any other language that could mitigate one side of the argument.  This is why I don’t think it is a good idea to just change the which part of your sentence comes first. “But” always accentuates something.  This also indicates that if you want to emphasize one side of an argument, BUT is useful. 

See:

The assembly staff is doing well with the order, but there are problems with the manufacturer. (Negative)

There are problems with the manufacturer, but the assembly staff is doing well with the order. (Positive)

If you want to give the positive impression, giving the bad news first is the way to go.  Giving an equal approach has no room such interjections.

There are problems with the manufacturer.  The assembly staff is doing well. (Just facts, even if one precedes the other.)

It is important to try to limit your language, but you should also consider the impact of body language in accidentally creating emphasis. (Note: are you focused on body language now?  It would make sense with the transition I made using the word “but.”)  Body language and tone can probably convey the same message, so a respectful demeanor combined with a lack of buts will lead to a conducive negotiating environment.

Employment Negotiations Value

It is difficult to pinpoint exactly how negotiation plays a part of the general employment setting.  The things that stick out to me are concession making and values.

            Concessions help give a bargaining range, and values give us the easiest concessions.  They can go hand in hand, and it seems easiest to apply both when negotiating a salary.  There were two examples of this exact setting in the text, and while one was about perception—it was the clever line about “of course I’m kidding, but you started it—it seems like the first negotiation of any employment.

            If a person starts with a moderate or too high sum for a desired salary, the end result could become negative.  Either you will get laughed out of the room, or you will have to concede something for a lower salary than you ever wanted.  The limits and means of each company will lock them into a clear bottomline that the employer may not have, but they have a greater range of concessions on low value option.  For example, they may have room on bonuses, stock options, or retirement plans, but they have only a certain cap on long-term salary.  The employer can poke at different offers and see where a weak spot in the options is. 

            Perhaps the employee is looking for a longer contract, or a guaranteed package if the contract is ever terminated.  The value of security may outweigh a bonus, or the ability to make more money over the long haul.  These type of value-based concessions can lead to a favorable outcome for both sides, as opposed to creating an outright “winner” or “loser.” Still, it is preferable for each side to get as much as possible, so no one will concede JUST to concede.  The key for an employee is to shoot high, and look for the holes that will help you stay highest, only conceding high personal value items last.

Distributive vs. Integrative...Fight! (or be friends)

Distributive bargaining is obviously an aggressive type of bargaining.  It is inherently “zero sum” with winners and losers on specific items of a negotiation.  Integrative bargaining is about resolving conflicts by finding a positive outcome for both parties.  I can tell you which one I prefer after you tell me what I am negotiating.  No one wants to engage in distributive bargaining when you don’t have much leverage.  You will just get bossed around.  The is a competitive “game,” and you can trade off items in the negotiations, but this hard-nosed approach is much more fitting for a bad break.  Trying to reach goals together is almost always better if you plan on working with the other party again. 

Then again, if one party is hard-nosed (using distributive bargaining), they could have a leg up on a party trying to meet everyone’s needs.  If they can sell for as low as $1000, the other party is playing hardball, and the first party will not…they may sell for $1000.

If you trust the other party, integrative bargaining can help both parties reach their needs, and it can be done in a timely fashion.  With distributive bargaining, it is more likely that at least one party can lose.  If you have leverage or feel you need to get certain parts of a deal, the intensity of distributive bargaining can be a good way to get the most for a client.

Both are valid ways to negotiate, and depending on your relationship with the other side, and the needs of your party, that is how one should realistically approach the negotiations.

Real live negotiating...sort of

Negotiating in the real world is a rarity. There are few things that are actually “okay” to negotiate. They tend to be major purchases with commissions to be made. Each side has certain amounts of leverage and personal giveaway. However, most places do not have such a side of salesmanship. While some employees will take it upon themselves to negotiate, some will simply refuse to do so because there is no personal benefit, or simply because they do not want to deal with it or a minor purchase.


I gave real world negotiating a try on two occasions this week. I considered going to a car dealership because I believed that would give the best negotiating atmosphere, but I have NO desire to purchase a new car. My first shot at negotiating came on a whim after doing some reading of a Negotiating text. I was at a pizza place (Original Pizza—it probably doesn’t need anonymity considering the outcome) with a friend. I noticed that prices of specials were listed, but everyday prices were not listed. I inquired about the price of a calzone, and I was told it was $3.70. I asked if they ever have specials on it, and why they didn’t list the prices someplace. The cashier just shrugged. It wasn’t busy at all, so I offered to buy a drink if he made the price just $3.00. The situation would have been funny if it wasn’t so uncomfortable. With the look he gave me, you would think I asked him to turn his skin inside-out. “Uh, I can’t do that,” he replied, assuming I was a giant idiot. “Well, what would the usual deal be, if the day was right for a calzone deal?” To be honest, I don’t remember what he said, but I replied to add $.25 to that, and we both get a deal. He was having none of it. “I don’t have a button for that today, and I don’t feel like getting in trouble.” Considering he would get no personal benefit, and I was with a friend, I decided ending negotiations was correct—but I did not get that drink.

I gave negotiating a better faith try at a location I won’t name specifically, but would liken it to a smaller GameStop—a location that buys and sells video games, movies, and the like. Deals can be made if you sell games, so I thought some lee-way might be given, and I wouldn’t mind having a good Super Nintendo game—I loved that system growing up, and mine still works. I tried negotiating once at an actual GameStop, and with other people around, the were very hard-line on not negotiating at all. In this situation, I was alone in the store with the one clerk. I had brought in a couple terrible Super Nintendo games that held very little value, but was interested in another Super Nintendo game of his. I wanted either Mario Paint—a pretty rare game valued at $20, or Return of the Jedi, a less rare game held at $10.50—notably, they had 2 copies of that game. I first inquired about Mario Paint, and he did not want to budge on that price. This wasn’t like holding a car where you need to buy insurance, and can cost you in the long term. Mario Paint may actually GAIN value for its rarity. While the Star Wars game could gain value, I doubted it. The games I brought in were valued at a return of $.60--$.75 if they were used in a trade-in, which I was doing. My goal was to get a dollar back on that to buy Return of the Jedi for $9. I started by offering $7, and I was rebuffed, but the cashier seemed open to talking—and he kind of enjoyed not just sitting around. “These other games for the system are around $2-$8. This game isn’t really that much better. It is priced up for being a franchise like Star Wars.”

“But Star Wars is a popular thing.”

“Oh yeah, how long has that been sitting here?” This changed his expression. He thought about it, and he knew it had been there for awhile. “I can give you a quarter deal on it, but more than that would be a little weird. I might have to fudge numbers.”

“You can price up a few other popular things slightly and make back the change in one sale.” This got him, too. “I can pay $8.” He still didn’t agree, but said he had a final offer—I pay an even $9. This was my goal, and I liked it. I asked for $9 after tax, and he said he didn’t want to figure that out, plus what he would do with the numbers. That seemed like a deal-breaker from his voice, so I just took the deal. It wasn’t a great one—just saving 75 cents, but there is something thrilling about that.

The key seemed to be engaging a person who has an interest in negotiating. Maybe he was allowed to negotiate—the prices may not be fixed at all, and perhaps he took me, but I saved more than the average person paying sticker price. I don’t plan on negotiating the price of most things, because most people don’t stand to benefit, but this one actually worked out—even if I look like a nerd for buying an old video game.