Many people don't tackle negotiations in a proactive way; instead, they simply react to moves the other side makes. While that approach may work in a lot of instances, complex deals demand a much more strategic approach. The best negotiators look beyond their immediate counterparts to see if other constituencies have a stake in the deal's outcome or value to contribute; rethink the scope and timing of talks; and search for connections across multiple deals. They also get creative about the process and framing of negotiations, ditching the binary thinking that can lock negotiators into unproductive zero-sum postures. Applying such strategic techniques will allow dealmakers to find novel sources of leverage, realize bigger opportunities, and achieve outcomes that maximize value for both sides.

The traditionally close relationship between corporate legal departments and big law firms is being disrupted--in part because the former are concerned about costs and lack of accountability. But executives now have many more choices about how to get their legal work done: They can use technology to do document search, bring in high-end temporary lawyers to manage major projects, or send routine processing work overseas. It's tempting for legal departments to react to these new options by asking, "How can we acquire the same services at a lower cost?" But aiming for relatively small, short-term savings could critically damage important relationships, the authors write. Instead, corporations should seize this chance to do four important things: assign legal work to the providers best suited to a particular task; lower legal costs without sacrificing quality; achieve greater transparency and accountability; and derive greater value from in-house counsel. The recent downturn has resulted in excess capacity at many law firms and heightened scrutiny of the billable-hours model. Technology has both created a problem--by generating oceans of data that must be collected, preserved, and reviewed in litigation--and offered solutions, in the form of "smart searching." And over the past few years, new types of legal-services providers have emerged. These three factors have led many companies to renegotiate terms with their law firms. They should beware, say the authors, of focusing on discounted rates rather than aligning incentives between client and counsel. And if legal services are unbundled, firms should be alert to the opportunity to reintegrate them for valued clients.

It may not be negotiator’s remorse but at certain times you may feel sorry that – or at least wonder why – you ever closed a deal. In such a case, you’ll probably discover that you did the deal for the sake of doing a deal – not to build a sustainable, positive and productive relationship. These authors describe how to make sure that every deal delivers value.

Many deals that look good on paper never materialize into value-creating endeavors. Often, the problem begins at the negotiating table. In fact, the very person everyone thinks is pivotal to a deal's success--the negotiator--is often the one who undermines it. That's because most negotiators have a deal maker mind-set: They see the signed contract as the final destination rather than the start of a cooperative venture. What's worse, most companies reward negotiators on the basis of the number and size of the deals they're signing, giving them no incentive to change. The author asserts that organizations and negotiators must transition from a deal maker mentality--which involves squeezing your counterpart for everything you can get--to an implementation mind-set--which sets the stage for a healthy working relationship long after the ink has dried. Achieving an implementation mind-set demands five new approaches. First, start with the end in mind: Negotiation teams should carry out a "benefit of hindsight" exercise to imagine what sorts of problems they'll encounter 12 months down the road. Second, help your counterpart prepare. If they agree to something they can't deliver, it will affect you both. Third, treat alignment as a shared responsibility. Fourth, send one unified message. Negotiators should brief implementation teams on both sides together so everyone has the same information. And fifth, manage the negotiation like a business exercise: Combine disciplined negotiation preparation with post-negotiation reviews. Above all, companies must remember that the best deals don't end at the negotiating table--they begin there.

Every company today exists in a complex web of relationships formed, one at a time, through negotiation. Purchasing and outsourcing contracts are negotiated with vendors. Marketing arrangements are negotiated with distributors. Product development agreements are negotiated with joint-venture partners. Taken together, the thousands of negotiations a typical company engages in have an enormous effect on both its strategy and its bottom line. But few companies think systematically about their negotiating activities as a whole. Instead they take a situational view, perceiving each negotiation to be a separate event with its own goals, tactics, and measures of success. Coordinating them all seems an overwhelming and impracticable job. In reality, the author argues, it is neither. A number of companies are successfully building coordinated negotiation capabilities by applying four broad changes in practice and perspective. First, they've established a companywide negotiation infrastructure to apply the knowledge gained from forging past agreements to improve future ones. Second, they've broadened the measures they use to evaluate negotiators' performance beyond matters of cost and price. Third, they draw a clear distinction between the elements of an individual deal and the nature of the ongoing relationship between the parties. Fourth, they make their negotiators feel comfortable walking away from a deal when it's not in the company's best interests. These changes aren't radical steps. But taken together, they will let companies establish closer, more creative relationships with suppliers, customers, and other partners.