`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> 電影開始的時候，大廚說：你們知道為什麼我做的飯這麼好吃麼？ -It's because I have a secret ingredient. Do you know what it is? - Love. `?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> 看完電影，如果問：什麼是談判成功的秘方？ -耐心 `?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> 現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中多數(shù)人都不懂什麼是“利害”。比如，有很多會問：船員的生命是能夠拿冷冰冰的金錢、數(shù)字來衡量的嗎？這根本就是問錯了問題！ 真正的問題，在於難平的欲壑之上，如何“利害相權(quán)”，搭起一座難搭的橋，堪堪能渡過難關(guān)。 的確，海盜手中有槍。但是，這並不改變談判雙方的對等位置！ 這是一場心理的較量，真正唯一能改變雙方位置的，是雙方的心理。 談判中有兩種時間壓力，一是最後期限，一是時間成本。 海盜們沒有現(xiàn)代的“時間”觀念，因此海盜天然佔(zhàn)據(jù)一定的上風(fēng)。 也因此伯克利畢業(yè)的談判專家特別提醒： Time is a western concept. It means nothing to them. 本片當(dāng)中實(shí)際有兩場談判。一場是曠日持久的人質(zhì)談判。還有一場是那場“意外”。 大談判總的來說很不容易，影片中展示了很多很經(jīng)典的談判技巧： Do not show your emotions. If you do, they hold on you. If they come with threats, so ignore them. OK? Remember, we do not offer more money. It's their turn to go down now. We must continue to negotiate until we come to an agreement. 從數(shù)字來看，船公司的策略相當(dāng)成功，而且讓步的步子幾乎是越邁越小，耐心得到了回報。如果不是當(dāng)中CEO的情緒失控和海盜開槍，甚至有可能更加多快好省地達(dá)成目標(biāo)： $250,000 (cap at <$5,000,000 --- I repeat. We must go down to less than five million before we can talk seriously.) $900,000 ( $650,000) $1,500,000 ( $600,000) $2,800,000 ( $1,300,000) (Note: after the the gun shot) $3,300,000 ( $500,000) ->Deal 反之海盜的步子越邁越大，也標(biāo)識著他們在喪失耐心 $15,000,000 $12,000,000 (-$3,000,000) $8,500,000 (-$3,500,000) $3,300,000 (-$5,200,000) ->Deal 而丹麥人與海盜們的小談判卻談崩了，並因此帶來了意外的結(jié)果。原因可以從過程看得很明顯，就是因?yàn)椴粔蚰托摹?但是你不能因此怪他們，因?yàn)榇九c海盜的整個談判過程都有專家團(tuán)隊(duì)的專業(yè)指導(dǎo)，甚至即使這樣，在中間過程都還出了錯。 更重要的，所有丹麥人在”you have a deal”之後全都忘乎所以地高興起來，他們以為There’s a deal，認(rèn)為海盜會嚴(yán)格細(xì)緻地按照協(xié)議來辦事。這就是今天典型的西方人的價值觀念。以船長為最典型，因?yàn)樗粌H僅單純地相信了這個交易的可靠性，還恢復(fù)了他做為“船長——Captain”的自我意識。 所以中國人講話，即使談攏了，離開人家的會場之前，甚至在電梯里、廁所里也不要亂說話。 往深里說，是海盜們不懂“契約精神”嗎？錯！是丹麥人徹底忘記了“契約精神”是怎麼來的。 所謂的“契約精神”，絕不是“互相尊重”和“互惠互利”的結(jié)果，而是長時間“互相傷害”、“互相欺騙”的叢林法則下的產(chǎn)物。 要想形成“契約精神”，就得先讓不執(zhí)行契約者明白其所付出的代價。 實(shí)際上，這最終是一種妥協(xié)精神。 而要讓人付出代價、學(xué)會妥協(xié)，就需要時間，就得學(xué)會耐心。 也因此在這個社會上倡導(dǎo)“契約精神”的，大多不是騙子，就是傻子。每遇到這種人，我總是敬鬼神而遠(yuǎn)之。 別忘了，丹麥人的祖先們也是海盜。 `?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> PS:之所以注意到這部影片，是因?yàn)榭匆娏薴t上很好的一篇文章，原文和譯文請參見： http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1a322ad6-6293-11e3-bba5-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1a322ad6-6293-11e3-bba5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2tavuvqmD 談判“黃金守則”zz （注：請使用原鏈接，文章內(nèi)容只是我不小心貼上去的） 作者：英國《金融時報》專欄作家 盧克?約翰遜 從我們小時候起，談判就在生活中發(fā)揮著極為重要的作用。為家庭作業(yè)而討價還價，為合租公寓、買車或商定勞動合同條款而討論條件——我們?nèi)魏螘r候都離不開談判。 但談判科學(xué)是一門不受重視的學(xué)科，恐怕很少人真的以嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)態(tài)度或先見之明練習(xí)談判技巧。 毫無疑問，絕大多數(shù)人都會高估自己的談判能力。商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖應(yīng)當(dāng)尤其樂於提高自己的談判本領(lǐng)。 最近上映的一部電影，提醒我們在交易談判中應(yīng)當(dāng)遵守兩條黃金原則：一是要耐心，二是不能感情用事。 這部電影名叫《怒海劫運(yùn)》(A Hijacking)，講述了現(xiàn)代非洲海盜劫持了一艘丹麥貨船及其船員以勒索贖金的故事，非常驚心動魄。 我不會講述電影的情節(jié)，但它很值得一看，能教會我們在談判的過程中如何沉著應(yīng)對，以達(dá)成更有利的結(jié)果——即便在利害攸關(guān)時也是如此。 已故的澳大利亞商人羅伯特?霍姆斯?阿?考特(Robert Holmes à Court)是一個很有手腕的人。他曾說：“有一個著名論斷是，你能判斷出誰將在談判中勝出，就是停頓時間最長的那一方。” 考特逐漸掌控了娛樂大亨盧?格拉德(Lew Grade)的娛樂帝國Associated Communications Corporation（簡稱ACC），但所付價錢僅為AAC內(nèi)在價值的幾分之一，其中的操作手法經(jīng)典地便體現(xiàn)了他的談判哲學(xué)。 牛市、杠桿以及寬松資金面使得一類談判者在許多交易中占據(jù)了主導(dǎo)地位：就是那些不斷報出比其他人更高價格的人。 在競購企業(yè)時，我們公司的報價總是比別人低。可能是我們太謹(jǐn)慎了。但從長遠(yuǎn)看，總是出價最高很少真能奏效。 隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)周期的輪動，企業(yè)的利潤水平和估值倍數(shù)有升有降。當(dāng)然，如果你用的是別人的錢，那麼一擲千金就變得容易多了。 相比之下，我們公司掌管的大部分資金是自有資金，所以分配使用很嚴(yán)格。 最接近某項(xiàng)資產(chǎn)的人通常最瞭解它值多少錢：他們出價時，你就要當(dāng)心了。我有幾次把公司賣給了內(nèi)部人，之後經(jīng)常感到後悔。 Twitter的創(chuàng)立，就是管理層以有利可圖的條件收購一家企業(yè)的經(jīng)典案例。 埃文?威廉姆斯(Evan Williams)擁有一家名叫Odeo的初創(chuàng)企業(yè)，Twitter則是Odeo的附屬項(xiàng)目。 2006年，威廉姆斯告訴投資方，Odeo成不了氣候。他說：“我將繼續(xù)投資Twitter，可Twitter是否有資格得到像Odeo那樣的風(fēng)險投資則很難說……” 因此，他提議由自己從投資方手中買下Odeo和Twitter的全部股權(quán)——據(jù)說只花了500萬美元。五年後，他購入的這些資產(chǎn)已價值50億美元。 如果我投資一家公司，總價只是考量因素之一。收購價看起來便宜，實(shí)際價值可能遠(yuǎn)高於錶面價值，反之亦然。 管理層、資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表、商業(yè)潛力和與供應(yīng)商的長期關(guān)系，都是影響收購意願和理由的要素。 通常說來，圍繞企業(yè)投資的談判會涉及方方面面，因?yàn)槿魏魏贤己w一系列復(fù)雜的要素：包括擔(dān)保條款、盡職調(diào)查，可能還有項(xiàng)目附帶權(quán)益。 大多數(shù)私人公司都很少出售，而且到下一次易主時公司可能已發(fā)生翻天覆地的變化。與此同時，專家估值多數(shù)情況下都只是基於充足信息的推測。 過去幾年裡，敲定一項(xiàng)交易所用時間比信貸危機(jī)之前長了一倍。在我看來，這是一個積極的變化：因?yàn)槲以趥}促投資時常會犯錯。 當(dāng)你對一項(xiàng)交易感興趣，但並不會不惜代價去達(dá)成交易時，通?？偰苓_(dá)成更有利的交易條款。你應(yīng)當(dāng)有一種控制力，使自己在交易條款令無法忍受時乾脆放棄。 無論對買家還是買家而言，擁有多種選擇無疑會比沒有備選項(xiàng)時將產(chǎn)生更有利的交易結(jié)果。對於任何交易而言，雙方在談判都感到滿意才可能會帶來完美結(jié)局。 譯者/邢嵬 `?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> Patience is key to life’s endless negotiation By Luke Johnson `?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> Executives who rush the process are likely to have a long time to dwell on their mistake `?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o> High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a322ad6-6293-11e3-bba5-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2tc1osif0 Negotiation plays a central role in life from an early age. Haggles over homework, discussions about sharing an apartment, buying a car or agreeing terms for a job – we must all negotiate all the time. Yet the science of negotiation is an obscure discipline, and I fear few of us really practise it with much rigour or forethought. High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a322ad6-6293-11e3-bba5-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2tc1uDtZ7 No doubt most of us believe that we are better negotiators than we really are. All business leaders should be especially willing to improve their techniques. A recent film serves as a powerful reminder about two of the golden rules in negotiating a deal: be patient and do not get emotionally involved. The film in question, A Hijacking , is a gripping tale about modern-day African pirates holding a Danish cargo ship and its crew to ransom. I won’t spoil the plot of the film, but it is well worth watching as a study in how to calmly draw out the bargaining to get a better deal – even when the stakes are very high indeed. The late Robert Holmes à Court, a master Australian wheeler dealer, once said: “It is a well-known proposition that you know who’s going to win a negotiation: it’s he who pauses longest.” The way in which he gradually managed to take control of impresario Lew Grade’s entertainment empire ACC for a fraction of its underlying value was a classic example of his philosophy in action. Bull markets, leverage and easy money have allowed a particular sort of negotiator to dominate in many situations: the guy who repeatedly offers more than anyone else. At my firm we are outbid all the time at auctions for companies. Perhaps we are too cautious. But consistently being the highest bidder rarely works in the long run. Economic cycles turn, and profits and multiples can fall as well as rise. Of course, it is a lot easier to pay lavish sums if you are using that wonderful material, other people’s money. By contrast, at our firm a lot of the cash on the table is ours, so it is strictly rationed. Those who are closest to an asset tend to know its worth best: be careful when they make you an offer. I have sold out of companies on a few occasions to insiders and often regretted it. The creation of Twitter is a fascinating example of management buying a business back on lucrative terms. Evan Williams had a start-up called Odeo – with a side project called Twitter. In 2006 Mr Williams told his investors that Odeo was going nowhere, saying “I will continue to invest in Twitter, but it’s hard to say it justifies the venture investment Odeo certainly holds...” So he made a proposal to buy them out – reputedly for $5m. Five years later, the assets he bought were priced at $5bn. If I invest in a company, the headline price is only one factor. An acquisition that appears cheap might actually be much more expensive than it seems, and vice versa. The management, balance sheet, commercial potential and continuing engagement of the vendor are among the many issues that influence one’s desire to buy, and the rationale of the purchase. Usually negotiations over a corporate investment are multifaceted, for any contract needs a complex set of elements: warranties, due diligence, perhaps a carried interest in the project. Most private companies sell only occasionally, and will probably have altered a lot by the time they next change hands. Meanwhile, expert valuations are mostly merely well-informed guesswork. Tying up a deal in the past few years has taken twice as long as it did before the credit crunch. For me that is a positive development: when I rush an investment I usually make mistakes. Inevitably you strike a better deal when you are keen but not desperate to close the transaction. If the terms are intolerable, then you should be able to walk away. Having a choice of options – whether as buyer or seller – will surely generate a better outcome than having no alternative to fall back on. And a negotiation that leaves both sides feeling good is perhaps the ideal conclusion of any exchange. `?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.??.?′ˉ`?.?′ˉ`?.? ><((((o>