compromises). If at all, concessions are generally made late in the negotiation process. Before this point, a US-American negotiator will try to assess if the desired goal can be achieved without giving in. When negotiating with US-Americans, the suggestion is thus to accordingly remain very patient.

Regarding constructions and formulations, US-American negotiators are often very pragmatic. If they are satisfied with the economic result, they often accept changes of formulations or constructions within the contract. According to the basic positive attitude displayed by American society towards taking risks, given the corresponding chances and the basic optimism “to make it work”, US-American negotiators are willing to take relatively high risks. This facilitates setting ambitious goals (→ ambitious target price setting) and making even more ambitious first offers (→ first offer). In order to reach an agreement, various techniques are applied. Apart from offers, arguments and the attempt to convince by means of logical conclusions, aggressive convincing tactics are particularly important. Since many US-American negotiators negotiate hardball, pressuring tactics (esp. time based) and also deceiving tactics are very common (see further below under the topic lists). Even exerting personal pressure on one individual negotiator is part of the negotiation repertoire.

4.3.6  Negotiation Preparation

Proper preparation is generally very important in the USA, even if the pressure of routine tasks often causes practical deficits in the preparation for negotiators all over the world. For important negotiations in the US, mock negotiations are practised as part of the negotiation preparation. Law firms sometimes even have a pseudo courtroom to practice the situation of the court hearing more realistically.

4.3.7  Place, Time and Composition of the Own Negotiation

Team

Negotiations often take place at the premises of the US host. If practical arguments suggest it would be wise to use other rooms, e.g. in a hotel, these will be booked. As US-American negotiators appreciate short negotiations, there is usually a distinct temporal forerun before bigger negotiations. If high business chances are at stake, negotiations are also planned for the short term. Negotiation time is thus very valuable. Once established, negotiation plans are accordingly generally very tight and binding. In global comparison, US-negotiation teams are relatively small. In contrast to the latter, legal negotiation teams—especially those charged with concretising the basic contractual agreement—are generally quite large.

4.3.8  Small Talk

As already mentioned above, → small talk is only of limited relevance in the USA. When striving for a quick, efficient negotiation, small talk merits little to no attention. It is, however, a different story at social events connected to the actual negotiation. Business, traveling, global events, sports (particularly popular sports such as baseball, American football, basketball, golf and tennis) and, in country regions, hunting and fishing are popular topics for small talk. US-Americans also talk about politics and religion (at least more than is the case in Germany). Due to the strong political tensions in the USA, foreign negotiators are advised to stick to → active listening regarding these topics. Even if a US-American negotiator happens to make critical statements regarding the current political situation in his/her country, it is strongly advisable not to criticise the USA. The general bond between US-citizens and their country is very strong. Attacking the USA with negative statements as well as criticising their values and traditions is often perceived as a personal attack.

4.3.9  Strategies andTactics

In view of the advanced status of education with regard to negotiations, it is unsurprising that the use of strategies and tactics is very common. The enormous diversity of tactics makes it impossible to address even all the essential ones. As a general recommendation, good negotiators should endeavour to shift the → burden of justification to the other side, since it becomes much more difficult for the person obliged to justify arguments to enforce demands.15 Pressure tactics and tactics using deception are very popular among US-American negotiators and often take the form of → deadlines or → take it or leave it offers. Even though the style of communication is open, the use of indirect pressure is predominant. Many US-American negotiators favour the combination of indirect pressure and presenting a feasible alternative over simply exerting pressure. This approach increases the probability of a successful compromise, as the other party does not simply yield to imposed demands.

Personal relationships are generally not a priority for US-negotiators. According to hearsay, US-American negotiators often attempt to exert personal pressure on individual negotiators.16 In addition to numerous negotiators who use the tactical knowledge they gain as a “recipe” to be applied, there are most certainly other negotiators who use a deliberately planned tactical approach. In this regard, knowledge on combining auctions with negotiations (→ negotiauction) is utilised in the purchasing department. Potential suppliers are in close proximity and make offers in the certain knowledge that there are other competitors, although their respective

15 Cf. Solomon and Quinney (2010), p. 41, here with the term of burden of proof. 16 Cf. Solomon and Quinney (2010), p. 55.

offers are not known. What’s more, suppliers are given performance parameters, for which individual offers are invited. This serves to enable → cherry picking: it is generally expected that price concessions can be elicited from the overall most cost-­ effective supplier in those sections where he/she demands higher prices. In this way, there is a tactical non-disclosure of the fact that he/she is already the most costeffective supplier.