Archive for March, 2010

By Karen S. Walch

Much of the tactical training in classic power and Machiavellian negotiation asserts that it is necessary to concentrate your forces in order to destroy and weaken the will of your counterpart. The key to power is a single mindedness of purpose and absolute concentration on one’s goals and task to win at all costs. It is believed that this approach can be used successfully because most people live in a “state of distraction, and thus, a focused arrow will find its mark every time because it is easy to overwhelm and beat the distracted into submission.” This week’s law will focus on some of the classic hardball tactics which are used either intentionally or habitually by Machiavellian negotiators who count on distracted and unprepared negotiators and how to lead away from the hardball approach.
Read more »

By Karen S. Walch

“Crush the enemy” is a key strategic tenet of Sun-tzu, the fourth century BC author of the “Art of War.” The idea is that in your struggles with those who want to control or attack you, it is necessary that you “have no mercy.” You must crush them totally as they may wish to attack and prey on you. The wisdom here is that direct annihilation of a counterpart’s forces must always be the dominant consideration because leaving a “half-dead viper only makes the venom grow stronger.” Victory in warfare or negotiation is achieved when you allow your counterparts absolutely no options. The classic goal of power is to control others completely, to make them obey your will and give those who oppose you “nothing to negotiate, no hope and no room to maneuver.”
Read more »

By Karen S. Walch

Conflict is considered to be immutable and inevitable in classic notions of power.  The word conflict has historically been most frequently equated with “contest.” Therefore, without the discipline of an egoistic, competitive, “winner-take-all” orientation, it has been believed that those without power are negotiation losers in a struggle for the world’s limited resources, opportunities, time or capital.  Classic tactics used to annihilate others have been perpetuated for centuries, and are designed to mercilessly beat negotiation opponents in the battle of wills and an absolute win-lose contest.  This week’s law will explore some alternative views about the principles and tactics used to share limited resources which are more frequently used today by negotiators in the contemporary global environment. I will draw on martial arts principles, in general, and Aikido practices in particular, to provide some insight about the ways contemporary negotiators think about conflict and their counterparts.
Read more »

By Karen S. Walch

Although classic power assumptions about functional egoistic self-interest were developed in the context of historical statecraft, Machiavellianism, for example, has developed into a common framework relied upon in many business and personal negotiations. It has become so prevalent that today some social and personality psychologists describe those individuals who tend to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain as narcissists. In the 1960s, the MACH-IV test was developed to measure a person’s level of Machiavellianism. Maybe some of you have taken it! People scoring above 100 are considered high Machs and those who score below 60 are low Machs. This week’s law will address some of the personality research on egoism and narcissism as a way to more clearly understand how the pursuit of egoistic self-interest impacts negotiation tactics.
Read more »