6. The larger the audience, the more you should exaggerate gesticulation. Theatre actors know well the power of dramatizing one's message. The same clearly goes for voice: the larger the room and the more people who are listening, the louder the volume should be.

Body language of the audience.

Audiences have the upper hand during speech-giving. They are on the receiving end, usually (though not always) sitting cosily and comfortable. Their job is to a.n.a.lyze and evaluate the speaker while she/he sweats, blushes and considers taking tranquilizers. The audience is being entertained; the performance has been tailored for their eyes and ears. "Bread and theatre!", they used to demand in ancient Rome, and now, as ever, audiences need to be fought over, persuaded and cajoled.

Comedians know about the audience's advantage and are always keen to turn the tables. They start picking on members of the audience or ask latecomers questions, making fun at the expense of someone's embarra.s.sment. But usually audiences have an easy ride with being mere listeners. However, they have the power to help the speaker or distract them. They can show their support in the form of clapping or nodding, or express disagreement by booing, hissing or vigorously shaking their heads from side to side. The frequency and strength of these signals can be used to gauge the degree of liking or disliking of the message.

Interestingly, Atkinson (2004), in his study of speech-making, found that audiences seem to know implicitly the rules of when, how often, and how much to clap. His comparisons of different recordings of political speeches, including some from non-English-speaking countries, showed a striking similarity in the duration of general spontaneous clapping: this would last around eight (plus or minus one) seconds. He also found that some types of messages such as boasts about "us", insults about "them", speech introductions and "clap trap" techniques produce the greatest response from the audience. Consequently, Atkinson proposed there is a shared knowledge of an "unwritten rule" regarding how much applause is necessary to acknowledge and support the speaker.

TRAINING SPEAKERS.

The power of audiences is striking. Consider one of the favorite pastimes of many psychology undergraduates, involving cla.s.sical conditioning and public speaking. Imagine a tutor giving a lecture in a medium-sized auditorium. It is early morning and the attention levels of the audience are understandably low. The lecturer walks nervously from one side of the room to the other; lecturing is not his favorite activity and they would rather finish it off quickly. Suddenly, the speaker notices how attentively some students on one side of the room are listening. They nod vigorously in agreement, smile at the occasional jokes, and take dutiful notes of the material. Gradually, after several minutes, the lecturer starts talking only to that side of the cla.s.s. His body is orientated to one side and his gestures are selective in that direction. The canny psychology undergraduates in the audience had conditioned the speaker to talk to them exclusively through positive nonverbal reinforcement of his behavior.

The body language of the audiences can: 1. Allow the speaker to learn about the listeners' agreement/disagreement with the speaker's message.

2. Provide the speaker with the feedback necessary to improve the quality of his/her speech (for example, to speak more loudly).

3. Let speakers know if they have been understood (correctly).

4. Act as a confidence boost. Signals of liking, such as laughter, cheering or smiling reinforce the esteem of the speaker and his/her ability to convey the message.

5. Tell you about who is who in the audiences. Proximity to the stage can reflect status, purchasing power, personality or motivation.

Speakers also evaluate their audiences. They can see who is attentive and who is not. Who yawns, who slouches, who glances away. If you, on the other hand, want, as a member of the audience, to attract the speaker's attention and create a favorable impression about yourself, show, or even better, do more active listening.

Speech-giving paraphernalia.

Dress.

Appearance, as we saw earlier, matters a great deal. The key to successful dressing for speech giving is, however, suitability and comfort. There is definitely no one grand rule for how to achieve a winning look. It depends on the context and the environment where the speech is taking place. Obviously, formal business events, such as conferences or meetings, should be attended in formal business dress, but more relaxed settings allow for a looser dress code.

It is, indeed, credibility and confidence that counts in speech-giving, not the latest designer fashion craze. Nowadays, popular public speechgiving is followed by close-up shots of what the speakers were wearing or forgot to put on, so perhaps special attention should be paid to dress if one expects to be filmed or photographed at the venue. Discreetly check your appearance moments before you are called on stage, to avoid embarra.s.sment or untidiness.

Authority can be projected by wearing formal suits or dresses in darker colors. Consider the significance of the tie in creating an impression of power. It is, in fact, most noticed when wearers takes their ties off: their whole look suddenly becomes much more friendly and relaxed.

In most cases, dress sense should be synonymous with common sense. If, however you are in doubt about your look, ask family or (real) friends for advice. Remember that some clothes might be fashion statements, but not everyone is aware of which colors are "in" this season.

Tables and lecterns Tables and lecterns are commonly used during presentations. Sometimes for no specific purpose apart from being there. Atkinson (2004), however, advises against using them, as audiences usually perceive them as barriers impeding rapport building. However, some speakers might choose to stay behind a table or a lectern because of their fear of speech-giving. Physical objects of a large size located between the speaker and the audience demarcate the border between the listener and the talker. They may in some cases communicate defensiveness and distance.

On the other hand, speakers generally find tables quite useful. They are convenient, practical tools to help in speech-giving. Lecterns are particular good for resting notes on, and tables are well suited for setting up your laptop, resting a briefcase, or putting up a projector.

Given this contradiction, should one stand behind tables and lecterns, or move about? The answer is simple and obvious: use them purposefully, but do not hide yourself behind them all the time. Aggressive, nervous gripping on to lecterns or tables can sometimes result in the "white knuckle syndrome" that is an easily detectable giveaway of anxiety and stiffness. Both excessive movement or complete absence of any at all send a negative impression to the audience. The former movement pattern conveys restlessness and unease, while the latter is most likely to be seen as a manifestation of fear.

Good advice includes: 1. Check if the technology allows you to move about freely, and think of a strategy to overcome any limitations, perhaps by asking for another type of microphone or switching off unpleasant stage lighting.

2. Also, ensure your microphone is in working order and, most important, do not forget to switch it off once you have finished speaking. We have all heard of those people who used the restroom facility while still having their microphone switched on.

The setting of the speech should also reflect its nature, add some value to it (artistic or political) but not distract from the performance. At some poetry readings or in some plays the set is, indeed, minimal: it does not detract from the message in any way. Set designers know how to match the set to the play. Contemporary popular music, for example, capitalizes on tricks and gimmicks such as special lighting and fireworks to create an unforgettable show. The same is often true at conferences, especially those of political parties. The logo, the colors, the motto all ensure maximum visibility and provide perfect photo opportunities for message promotion.

NEGOTIATION SKILLS AND STYLES.

In short, negotiating is about reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. Sometimes negotiation is a relatively straightforward process, but at other times it takes months, or, in some extreme cases even years. One example to ill.u.s.trate this: investment banks first a.n.a.lyze the market, then approach and persuade a client whom they think can benefit from an acquisition of another company, and negotiate the terms of the takeover or merger. It is therefore evident that negotiations in such a case can be extremely laborious, slow and painstaking, and involve business ac.u.men, tact, determination and patience.

Business negotiations involve many steps and issues on which common grounds need to be found: from financial terms to 'late completion' agreement, from employment matters to contingent liability.Each party has its own agenda, plans and conditions. Negotiating is therefore about needs and wants. Needs are the requirements of the offer, while the wants are the extra "icing on the cake". Negotiation is thus about research, planning and strategic thinking. Homework about the other party, the potential reaction to your offer, and the other party's current and future needs would be of great benefit before and during the negotiation process.

Negotiation is both a skill (to get more of what you want while giving up less of what you have) and an art (doing the deal diplomatically and quickly). It shares some of its style with poker and some of its substance with chess. Notice how many idioms frequently used in "business speak" have come from card games such as poker: * An ace in the hole/Have an ace up one's sleeve/To hold all the aces.

* To come/turn up trumps.

* To deal someone in.

* To follow suit.

* To force someone's hand.

* To play one's cards close to one's chest/To play one's cards right.

Negotiation is reminiscent of poker in the way that players try to deceive or trick each other, and thus raise the stakes to achieve the maximum payout. This is not to say that deception is an a.s.set in negotiations. On the contrary, successful negotiations leading on to prosperous business deals have to be open, fair and honest. However, a degree of compet.i.tion seems always to be present. To put it differently, full honesty and transparency is not expected. Further, in poker, as in any negotiation, the game unfolds gradually, stage-by-stage, card-bycard. Thus the players need to stay alert and agile, to decide when it is best to raise or to fold.

Negotiations remind many of chess, with its elaborate give and take dance. Some of the moves are deliberately capitulating, to enable a later advantage to be established. Chess, like negotiations, rely on a detailed, forward-projected strategy. In chess, as in negotiations, it is necessary to calculate the odds and re-evaluate tactics at every step of the game.

What does research on body language say about the process of negotiation? First, it emphasizes the dynamics of group processes. Whether it is a one-to-one transaction or involves several teammates matters a great deal to the negotiation strategy. Dyads reach agreement faster, especially if the two people have worked together before. Larger groups need to a.s.sign roles and responsibilities to each person, to avoid confusion and set the chain of command prior to the beginning of the negotiation. Nonverbal signs of status, a.s.sertiveness and dominance indicate who is in charge of the group, who makes the ultimate decisions, or who is the right hand of the leader.

Second, because of its subtlety, nonverbal communication can be a powerful tool in negotiation. Whereas words and verbal statements are usually taken as a binding promise of action or intention, nonverbal statement of agreement, allegiance, or rejection are not. They hint or "nudge" the other party towards a plan of action rather than state them explicitly.

TABLE 6.2 Nonverbal signs in negotiations Negotiation is a process of message exchange. Apart from the substance of the negotiation (what the negotiation is about), there is also the issue of strategy (for example, concession-making) and the behavior of the negotiating agents. The nonverbal component of communication is connected to the behavioral aspects, but this chapter will also consider stages in the negotiation process and the relevant nonverbal behaviors.

Nonverbal signals can point to friends and foes among the other negotiating party members (see Table 6.2). Alliance and cooperation can be conveyed through closer interpersonal distance, while antagonism and doubt would result in parties seating further away from each other. Nodding and smiling are universal signs of agreement, though the frequency of display might be prescribed by cultural etiquette. Postural echo is a phenomenon characterizing a friendly or intimate relationship, and this usually happens without any awareness or intent. Thus, a lack of such echoing would signal that there was little understanding or a low intimacy level among the negotiating parties. Signals of distress and doubt tell of confusion or hesitation. There are cla.s.sic signs of uncertainty such as hand over mouth gestures ("speak no evil"), little eye contact ("see no evil") and touching one's ears ("hear no evil").

It is nevertheless hard to devise a definitive description of even the most common nonverbal signals used in negotiations. This is because such behaviors vary across contexts, agendas and times. Also because negotiations are complex, multistage processes which unfold over several phases of negotiation. Hendon and Hendon (1989), in their book How to Negotiate Worldwide, list six typical stages of business negotiations. Below is a brief description of what sorts of actions and preparations are involved in each of them. Some involve relevant nonverbal behaviors, while others entail reasoning, planning and superior verbal skills.

Pre-negotiation.

Pre-negotiation includes two stages.

First, it is the time for a simple costbenefit a.n.a.lysis. Is the deal and the effort one needs to put in the negotiation worth the trouble? What are the prospects, the opportunities and the problems of the scenario?

Second, if the decision is affirmative and the negotiations are to go ahead, do your groundwork. The trick is to gather enough knowledge about the other party, and knowing your own standing. Set your objectives, take the market and the environment into account, consider the difficulties and the threats of changing circ.u.mstances. Make a list of your significant and marginal concerns. Do the same for the other company. Most importantly, decide on the acceptable trade-offs. What are you prepared to give up, and what would you like to get in return for that? What is going to be your opening offer? What sort of reaction would that evoke in the other camp? What is your back-up? Who are you going to take with you? Who is the best person to negotiate or deal with the client?

Entry.

At this stage you will need to pitch and sell your presentation to the client. We have described in the previous sections the nonverbal aspect of sales and presentations. To reiterate: be friendly and project sincerity through open body language such as relaxed but elevated posture; smile and nod in agreement to send out signals of receptiveness and attention; give a firm, steady handshake when greeting and saying goodbye; make sure that, if the sale were to fall through, it would not be because of a personal dislike, but because the terms of the deal were not satisfactory for both parties.

The last recommendation is probably even more relevant to negotiations. Some of them do not reach closure because the parties cannot agree on some specific clauses of the business contract, but once the setting changes, negotiations re-open. Make sure the clients still want to do business with you.

Establishing effective relationships.

Here is where body language has a definite role to play. To achieve effective working relationships, one needs to establish rapport and gain the trust of the other party. Subtle matching of your client's body language can sometimes do the trick, but more often, that is not enough. In private life, trust is built up gradually, by allowing another person into more delicate and personal spheres of one's life. In business it is more complicated: when money is involved, everyone looks out for their own interests. Trust in business means knowing that the other party will play fair, will abide by the rules, will not take advantage. This is the message your body language should be sending alongside your verbal utterances.

And look out for those signs of rea.s.surance in the person with whom you are negotiating. Are there contradictions between what a person is saying and what his or her body is showing? If yes, what are the possible reasons for this? Do not a.s.sume falsehood or faking immediately, but get to know the other party. Observe his/her interactions within the team, the telephone mannerisms, and conduct outside the boardroom to determine a baseline behavior pattern. If you are still unsure, ask questions directly and make a mental note of the person's reaction. The preceding chapter offers a comprehensive review of the psychology of lying and its nonverbal components.

The overall purpose of this stage is to learn more about the other party. Consider cultural variations in friend- and acquaintancemaking. In the West, for example, personal matters are disregarded, while the organization and the effectiveness of the transaction are of major importance. Time is money, and money doesn't wait. Other cultures (the Middle East, South America, South Asia, for example) place the emphasis on relationship development. They tend to spend longer at this stage getting to know the people with whom they are dealing. They value patience, respect and long-term vision as alternatives to efficiency and time-saving methods.

Hendon and Hendon (1989) also point out that at this stage of negotiations both parties learn about the actual needs and goals of the other party. The initial entry pitch is usually based on a (sometimes inaccurate) perception of these, thus the aims need to be refined by a further exchange of ideas and information. Trust and a.s.surance are critical to win over the other party and facilitate the flow of discussion and disclosure.

Reformulating your strategy in light of the new knowledge.

Mistakes and errors have to be corrected; and a.s.sumptions reevaluated. The aim of this stage is to be better able ultimately to meet the needs of your client. Casual interactions are an important part of the deal-making process too. Do not miss an opportunity to connect with the other party in a more relaxed atmosphere, such as afterwork drinks or dinner. As far as nonverbal behaviors are concerned, calm, stable, open and trustworthy individuals (or simply people who project these qualities) leave better impressions, which are incredibly long-lasting.

Bargaining and concession-making.

The most energetic part of the negotiation is the bargaining stage. This is where your skills at give-and-take are put to the ultimate test. Remember your bottom line and be aware of not pushing the other party too close to theirs at the very beginning. Hendon and Hendon (1989) give the following recommendations to achieve success at bargaining: 1. Separate the people from the problems.

People problems are the ones concerned with misperception and miscommunication. They stem from emotional charges and perception errors. They are psychological problems and thus need to be addressed correspondingly, and not by business concessions.

2. Focus on interests, not positions.

Interests are wants and needs, while positions are courses of action. Positions are limiting (a customer wanting to buy a lipstick without a make-up bag), while interests are the essence of the request (to make them look and feel better by purchasing that lipstick). Thus, make sure you concentrate on the underlying needs and desires and not situational positions. Positions are usually negotiable and subject to a better alternative, while interests are the bottom-line needs at the heart of the negotiation.

3. Devise options for mutual gain.

Promote shared interests and options for mutual profit. This not only shows consideration of the other party's interests but also facilitates the progress of the deal.

4. Use objective measures.

In case of a dispute, or simply in order to avoid one, seek out independent, bias-free advice and specialist opinion on the subject matter of the negotiation, such as the value of goods or products.

Concession-making is a separate issue. In short, a concession is something you are prepared to sacrifice to get something in return. Concessions tend to be mutual: if one party gives way, the other is expected to follow. Thus concessions rely on the most basic building block of human relationships reciprocity.

Hendon and Hendon (1989) conducted a simple but insightful study into the concession patterns of negotiators. They studied the concession preferences of executives from fifteen different cultural backgrounds, resulting in a list of seven possible concession strategies. In the exercise partic.i.p.ants were asked to imagine themselves in negotiation situation, where they were able to concede $100 dollars off the asking price. They were then presented with alternative concession strategies and asked to rate them on effectiveness and how much or little they liked them. Table 6.3 describes these patterns of concession. It is clear from the table that there are quite a few strategies for concession-making. Concessions can be evenly (Strategy 1) or unevenly (Strategy 5, 6) spread out across time periods. They can be upfront (Strategy 4) or held on to until the very last moment in the negotiation (Strategy 3). They can even be intentionally deceiving by giving out slightly more than the total concession budget (Strategy 7).

The first strategy is obviously too consistent and thus can easily be exposed by the other party. The danger is that your opponent may soon realize how much money you are willing to give away and use this knowledge to his/her advantage.

The second strategy shows your generosity from the very start. While it may be beneficial in some situations, it may also jeopardize your later efforts to bargain and ask for a reciprocal concession from your partner.

TABLE 6.3 Patterns of concession between negotiators The third strategy is called "hard-nosed". You are only willing to concede at the very end of the negotiation if all else fails and no compromise or alternative has been found.

The fourth strategy is described as "naive". You reveal your sine qua non, your indispensable condition, at the very start of bargaining, which does not leave you much room for further maneuvering. Such a tactic can be advantageous if the other party also sticks to the same approach or, as Hendon and Hendon (1989) point out, if "both sides are long time negotiating partners and have achieved over the years a high level of trust" (p. 28). Otherwise it might expose you excessively and make you particularly vulnerable in further bargaining.

The fifth strategy is "escalating." An astute negotiator will soon realize that concessions turn out to be in their favor as the bargaining progresses and will try to extend the negotiations.

The sixth pattern is "de-escalating" making it clear to the other party that, despite initial generosity, your willingness to concede is gradually shrinking. That puts the pressure on your negotiating partner to get as much out of you in the beginning as possible.

The seventh pattern of concession is similar to the "de-escalating" strategy, but by demanding some money back at the very end you could put pressure on your negotiating partner. Your action clearly signals that, while you have given away too much, your big-heartedness has not been reciprocated. You can indicate to your negotiation partner that your expectations of their concessions have not materialized and that you are disappointed.

So which of the tactics did the executives like the most? The answers were split into three groups, according to the cultural preferences for, and expectations of, how business should be conducted. The USA's, Brazil's and South Africa's managers preferred the hard-nosed strategy; Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Taiwanese and Thai executives chose the de-escalating pattern as their favorite; and those from Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, India and Kenya gave the thumbs-up to the escalating strategy.