The meek shall inherit the earth
—but not its mineral rights.

—J. Paul Getty

Alfred P. Doolittle sings in My Fair Lady,

The song is supposedly British, but the lyrics, written by Alan Jay Lerner, could apply to almost any western culture. To many people this is a competitive world in which one’s success is measured not by how well you have done compared to your potential but by how many you have outdistanced. We all live in a society pervaded by potential Win-Lose situations in which the competitive struggle for admission to a “good college” can be just as rugged as the competition between McDonald’s and Burger King.

Some people interpret this to mean that all life is a constant battle of winning and losing. They see a world filled with rivals and competitors, with persons who want their job, their class standing, their money, their promotion, their parking space, their place in line, or their spouse.

The competitive negotiator sees almost everything as a constant struggle of winning and losing. He is a tough battler who seeks to meet his own goals at all costs without worrying about the needs and the acceptance of others. There is no doubt in his mind that he is right in his conviction and approach. For such a person each victory brings a sense of exhilaration.

Although such a view and strategy have limited application, there are some people who constantly employ this style without making a distinction between an associate and a true adversary. Though they may be concerned only with their own winning, the resulting outcome is the defeat of the other side. If their relationship is a continuing one, the outcome of this negotiation leaves a legacy that will affect the future relations of the parties.

The competitive (Win-Lose) approach occurs when someone or some group attempts to achieve their objective at the expense of a perceived adversary. These attempts to triumph over an opponent may run the gamut from blatant efforts at intimidation to subtle forms of manipulation. I call this self-oriented strategy the “Soviet style.” This term is descriptive, because more than anyone else, the Soviet Union’s leaders consistently try to win at the expense of other nations or groups.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not referring to a national or ethnic way of interacting. I’m talking about a negotiation style that has nothing to do with geography. There are people with excellent local pedigree, people we all encounter, who try to operate Soviet style.

How do you spot these Win-Lose negotiators? Obviously they try never to tip their hands. They’re much too slick to unmask themselves as “Soviets.” Seemingly humble and considerate, they appear concerned about your needs. They confront you with a smile on their lips and a twinkle in their eyes. They figuratively carry a Bible in their left hand and tote holy water in a hip flask. With their right hand they bless you, then benignly murmur, “Go in peace, my son!” Only after they’ve left do you notice a trickle of blood running down your leg. Only then do you have difficulty removing your coat because of the stiletto in your back. Only then do you mutter, “Son of a gun! Soviet!”

After they are gone and you become aware of the damages they have inflicted, it is difficult to do much. Again, the question: How do you recognize the Soviet style? You distinguish it by the specific behavior of the other side. All “Soviets,” whether from Memphis, use the same six steps in their negotiation dance:

1. Extreme initial positions. They always start with tough demands or ridiculous offers that affect the other side’s expectation level.
2. Limited authority. The negotiators themselves have little or no authority to make any concessions.
3. Emotional tactics. They get red faced, raise their voices, and act exasperated—horrified that they are being taken advantage of. Occasionally they will stalk out of a meeting in a huff.
4. Adversary concessions viewed as weakness. Should you give in and concede them something, they are unlikely to reciprocate.
5. Stingy in their concessions. They delay making any concession and when they finally do, it reflects only a minuscule change in their position.
6. Ignore deadlines. They tend to be patient and act as though time is of no significance to them.

Having outlined the six-step Soviet style, let me now elaborate on each of these points with specific examples and analogies: