Category Archives: Personality Types

When Negotiating, NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL

Do you believe your bosses want you to make every possible deal?

I certainly hope not. Your bosses really want you to make profitable deals. They want you to walk away from bad deals. 

That’s one of the principles of my new online course at Udemy.com: Is Trump’s Negotiating Strategy Right For YOU? It’s based on the live courses I’ve taught to the world’s largest multinationals in twenty countries. I’ve interviewed senior executives in many of those companies, and virtually all of them want their subordinates to be tougher, to negotiate deals that increase the bottom line.

They would agree with this blog’s title: “No deal is better than a bad deal.” Here’s just one example.

Top management of a major publishing house hired me to teach negotiating skills to their acquiring editors, the people who negotiate contracts with authors. This publisher had been purchased by a huge conglomerate that was extremely dissatisfied with its poor profits. The executive who hired me insisted that their editors had to become much tougher because the firm was writing off over $100 million in unearned author advances.

When I told the class that this was our objective, one editor angrily objected, “Those bean counters at X (the conglomerate) don’t understand that publishing is different from most industries. If I don’t overpay for a big book, I won’t get a chance to bid on future big books. I have to prove to the agents that I’m a player.”

I replied, “You mean if you don’t lose money on this book, you won’t get a chance to lose money on the next one.”

She was furious. She didn’t say another word, sat in class fuming until we broke for coffee, left, and never came back. Within a few months she left the firm. I don’t know whether she quit or was fired, but do know that her negotiating objective was extraordinarily stupid. She neglected her firm’s bottom line and top management’s priority because she wanted to be “a player.” If you value your career, don’t make her mistake.

You may think, “That’s an interesting story, but it’s just one anecdote. I’d like more solid evidence.” That’s a reasonable position, so here are some spectacularly bad deals:

  1. In 2004-2007 bankers and millions of their customers wished that mortgage loans for over a trillion dollars had never been made. The bankers took huge losses on the loans, and the customers bought houses they couldn’t afford and frequently lost through foreclosure.
  2. Several American cities cannot provide essential services because so much of their budgets is spent for employees’ pensions. The cities’ negotiators gave in again and again to excessive demands.
  3. World War II could have been prevented if Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, had refused at Munich to yield to Hitler’s outrageous demands.

The lesson couldn’t be clearer: No deal is UNQUESTIONABLY better than a bad deal.

Walking away rather settling for an unsatisfactory deal may make you very uncomfortable, but you’ll just have to accept that short-term discomfort and become tougher.

Tough negotiating won’t just help your career. It will also put money – perhaps lots of money – into your pocket. You can’t negotiate good deals unless you’re willing to walk away from bad ones.

To subscribe to my blogs and newsletters, click HERE.

WHAT’S YOUR NEGOTIATING STYLE? Take the Quiz to Find The Answer

Personal styles greatly affect negotiations.

  1. Donald Trump and people like him get some great deals, but lose deals and create enemies.
  2. Friendly people make many deals and have good relationships, but get exploited.
  3. Analytic people thoroughly study the issues, but they ignore personalities and essential

That is, every style has strengths and weaknesses.

Let’s look at your style. A brief quiz will identify your natural style. Then we’ll discuss your strengths and weakness.

DIRECTIONS

For each question divide ten points among the three styles:

  1. Aggressive
  2. Friendly
  3. Analytic

You can give all ten points to one or two styles or divide them among all three.

Some questions ask what you do and why you do it. Others ask only what you do.

Don’t try to give the “right” answers because there aren’t any. Say what you really think, feel, and do.

  1. When negotiating, I emphasize:

___ A. Power

___ B. Friendly relationships

___ C. Facts & logic

  1. When I’m buying, my first offer is:

___ A. Much less than I’ll pay because I want to get the lowest price

___ B. Close to what I’ll pay because I don’t want to insult the seller

___ C. Very close to what I’ll pay because it’s the most reasonable offer

  1. When shaking hands, especially with strangers:

___ A. I move close, shake briefly and forcefully, squeeze their hand, and

look intently into their eyes. My body language says, “I’m stronger,

smarter, and tougher than you are.”

___ B. I move close, shake gently, hold their hand for long time, and smile

warmly. My body language says, “Let’s be friends.”

___ C. I stay far away, shake briefly, and have little eye contact. My body

language says, “I don’t want a personal relationship.”

  1. Which word best describes you?

___ A. Aggressive

___ B. Friendly

___ C. Analytic

  1. When preparing to negotiate, I emphasize learning:

___ A. People’s strengths and weaknesses

___ B. People’s personalities

___ C. Objective facts such as the market and production costs

  1. When negotiating, I communicate:

___ A. Deceptively to increase my power and hide my weaknesses

___ B. Openly to create a trusting relationship

___ C. Openly so everybody has enough information to solve the

problem

  1. My primary negotiating objective is to:

___ A. Win

___ B. Have a good relationship

___ C. Reach a rational deal

  1. My feelings about hard bargaining are:

___ A. Positive, I love competition

___ B. Negative, I detest competition

___ C. Negative, hard bargaining doesn’t produce rational deals

  1. I’d define a “good negotiation” as one that:

___ A. I win

___ B. Improves our relationship

___ C. Produces a rational deal

  1. I prefer to negotiate with:

___ A. Successful people. I don’t waste time with lightweights.

___ B. Nice people. I want friendly relationships.

___ C. Logical people. I want to focus on the facts in a logical way.

CALCULATING YOUR SCORE

Add up the points for A, B, and C and insert the total in the proper space. Make sure the three scores total 100.

  1. Aggressive        ___
  2. Friendly ___
  3. Analytic ___

INTERPETING YOUR SCORE

If a score was 55 or higher, it’s your natural style. The higher your score, the more extreme your style is. For example, Trump would get close to 100% aggressive.

If none of your scores is 55 or higher, but two scores total 80 or more, you’re that combination of styles.

If none of your scores was 55 or higher, and no two scores totaled 80, your style is balanced.

WHAT ARE YOUR NEGOTIATING STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES?

EVERY style has strengths and weaknesses.

EVERY style will succeed in some situations and fail in others.

Here’s a summary of the three basic styles’ strengths and weaknesses.

AGGRESSIVE

Negotiating Strengths: Their greatest strength is their love for bargaining. Discomfort makes many people avoid or rush through negotiations, but they enjoy playing the game.

They excel in adversarial negotiations, such as about prices.

They enjoy making extreme demands, stonewalling, bluffing, expressing anger, and even lying. These tactics often succeed because most people can’t or won’t act that way.

They will push right to the limit, getting virtually every penny on the table.

Negotiating Weaknesses: They are ter­rible at satisfying other people’s needs, working together to solve common problems, and building trusting relationships.

They compete even when they should cooperate. They have to win, even if a victory costs them more than it’s worth. They often try to push past people’s limit, losing both the deal and the relationship.

They won’t create the trust, cooperation, and open communication needed to solve common problems.

They see compromises, not as a means to reach mutually satisfying deals or build good will, but as signs of weakness. They often won’t make essential  compromises.

They create enemies. Other people may refuse to make concessions they had intended or walk away from an acceptable deal. “I’d rather lose money than let that SOB run over me.”

They won’t change a bad strategy. Changing feels like admitting their original strategy was a mistake, and they won’t admit mistakes. Trump once said, “My style of deal making is quite simple and straightforward.  I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.”[1]

They often can’t fit together a mutually satisfactory deal because they are too insensitive to understand and respond to other people’s signals.

Their impatience and poor attention to details can make them rush into an agreement without fully understanding its implications. Serious implementation problems often occur.

They push too far. Either the negotiations break down, or the others ache for revenge, don’t implement the agreement well, or decide not to do any future business. They win the battle, but lose the war.

FRIENDLY

Negotiating Strengths: Their strengths and weaknesses are the opposite of aggressives’. One is strong where the other is weak.

Aggressives win some negotiations, but miss many deals. Friendlies make deals that aggressives couldn’t make, turn around bad relationships, and establish a foundation for future cooperation. They reach win-win deals because:

  • They want everyone to feel good about the deal and the way it was reached.
  • They reduce tensions, bring together people who don’t want to cooperate, and break deadlocks. Nearly every family and organization needs people like that.
  • Because they communicate openly and honestly, they encourage others to do the same. Both sides can build on a foundation of trust and good information.
  • Since they want to understand people and listen well, they learn others’ situations and motives.
  • Instead of considering only one or two possible deals, they may experiment and produce a creative, superior solution.
  • They build solid, trusting relationships. People like to work with them and may even accept an inferior deal because they know that they can be trusted.

These strengths make them valuable members of most families and organizations, especially intensely competitive ones.

NEGOTIATING WEAKNESSES: Their cooperative strengths can be much smaller than their bargaining weaknesses. Many negotiations don’t contain significant cooperative opportunities, but there is always conflict

Many friendlies deny reality about conflict. They essentially pretend it doesn’t exist. Without conflict there’s no need to negotiate.

Getting to Yes dishonestly became a best seller by pandering to the naïve belief that conflict doesn’t exist. It claimed its win-win approach is an “all-purpose strategy” that works in every situation, even with hijackers. A later edition repeated that lie after hijackers killed over 3,000 people by flying airplanes into the World Trade Center.

They openly share information and expect others to do the same. But many people withhold information, bluff, and lie while negotiating. The information friendlies give away is often used against them.

They make too many concessions. Even in obviously competitive situations such as price negotiations, they concede too much rather than fight for their fair share.

ANALYTIC

Negotiating Strengths: Their impersonality helps them to remain cool and analytic, even when others become emotional or irrational.

They prepare very thoroughly. They may carefully study the market, compare several products, and learn various vendors’ prices, reputation, and after sales service. This thoroughness builds their power:

  • They have important facts right at their fingertips.
  • They learn about other alternatives.
  • They can walk away from this deal and make a different one.

While negotiating, they analyze issues thoroughly and don’t act impetuously. They understand the implications of any position before acting.

Because they don’t talk carelessly, they often get much more information than they give. Some people to talk too much, even about sensitive subjects, trying to force some reaction from them.

They are willing to walk away rather than accept a bad deal or respond to an unrealistic position.

Their thoroughness reduces implementation problems. Everyone knows what to do.

Negotiating Weaknesses: Their greatest weakness is their dislike for negotiations, especially its “irrational” elements. They often respond to their discomfort, not to the negotiating process’ demands.

Although they prepare thoroughly about the issues, they often ignore “irrational” subjects such as the other people’s personalities and probable reactions.

They can be so uncomfortable that they try to convert bargaining sessions into analytic, problem-solving meetings.

They ignore essential rituals, especially the mutual concession ritual. (I give a little; you give a little; and we reach a deal that makes both of us feel we gained by negotiating). Many people regard that ritual as the essence of negotiations.

Instead of building “fat” into their proposal, then trading it away, analytics start near or even at their bottom line. Others resent their refusal to “bargain in good faith.” Rather than “lose” by making all the concessions, they just walk away, even if the analytic’s offer is within their range.

They are insensitive to other peoples’ motives and concerns. They miss signals, including quite obvious ones, because they don’t care what others want, think, or feel. They care only about objective facts and figures.

They may prepare so thoroughly that they won’t consider alternatives that haven’t been thoroughly researched. They may miss opportunities for more creative and mutually-beneficial deals.

They may also be too rigid because they believe that what is right or most cost-effective can’t be compromised. They may place so much emphasis upon certain facts, principles, or procedures that they can’t make compromises, especially tactical ones.

Too much time can be spent clarifying issues, including unimportant ones. There may not be  not enough time to make trades, explore creative alternatives, etc.

Predictability is their final weakness. Others can often accurately determine and exploit their limits, priorities, power, and strategy. Then they will use that knowledge against the analytics.

WHAT’S NEXT

I hope you’re learned some valuable lessons from this quiz and discussion. But there’s lots more to learn. My book and online course will teach you how to:

  1. Build on your strengths and reduce your weaknesses
  2. Select the right strategy for various situations
  3. Adjust your style when negotiating with various types of people

For more information about my online course, click HERE.

For more information about my book, click HERE.

To subscribe to my blogs and newsletters, click HERE.

[1] “Flashy symbol of an acquisitive age: Donald Trump,” TIME, January 16, 1989.

No Deal Is Better Than A Bad Deal

Do you believe your bosses want you to make every possible deal?

I certainly hope not. Your bosses really want you to make profitable deals. They want you to walk away from bad deals.

That’s one of the principles of my new online course at Udemy.com: Is Trump’s Negotiating Strategy Right For You? It’s based on the live courses I’ve taught to the world’s largest multinational in twenty countries. I’ve interviewed senior executives in many of those companies, and virtually all of them want their subordinates to be tougher, to negotiate deals that increase the bottom line.

They would agree with this blog’s title: “No deal is better than a bad deal.” Here’s just one example.

Top management of a major publishing house hired me to teach negotiating skills to their acquiring editors, the people who negotiate contracts with authors. This publisher had been purchased by a huge conglomerate that was extremely dissatisfied with its poor profits. The executive who hired me insisted that their editors had to become much tougher because the firm was writing off over $100 million in unearned author advances.

When I told the class that this was our objective, one editor angrily objected, “Those bean counters at X (the conglomerate) don’t understand that publishing is different from most industries. If I don’t overpay for a big book, I won’t get a chance to bid on future big books. I have to prove to the agents that I’m a player.”

I replied, “You mean if you don’t lose money on this book, you won’t get a chance to lose money on the next one.”

She was furious. She didn’t say another word, sat in class fuming until we broke for coffee, left, and never came back. Within a few months she left the firm. I don’t know whether she quit or was fired, but do know that her negotiating objective was extraordinarily stupid. She neglected her firm’s bottom line and top management’s priority because she wanted to be “a player.”

If you value your career, don’t make her mistake.

You may think, “That’s an interesting story, but it’s just one anecdote. I’d like more evidence.” That’s a reasonable position, so here are some spectacularly bad deals:

  1. of their customers wished that mortgage loans for billions of dollars had never been made. The bankers took huge losses on the loans, and the customers bought houses they couldn’t afford and frequently lost through foreclosure.
  2. Several American cities cannot provide essential services because so much of their budgets is spent for employees’ pensions. The cities’ negotiators gave in again and again to excessive demands.
  3. World War II could have been prevented if Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, had refused at Munich to yield to Hitler’s outrageous demands.

The lesson couldn’t be clearer: No deal is UNQUESTIONABLY better than a bad deal.

Walking away rather settling for a deal you dislike may make you very uncomfortable, but you’ll just have to accept that short-term discomfort and become tougher.

Tough negotiating won’t just help your career. It will also put money – perhaps lots of money – into your pocket. You can’t negotiate good deals unless you’re willing to walk away from bad ones.

TRUMP-LOVERS & TRUMP-HATERS DENY REALITY

You can’t afford to be so foolish.  Good negotiators are brutally realistic. They accept reality, even when they intensely dislike it.

I recently published an online course at Udemy, “Is Trump’s Negotiating Strategy Right For YOU?

It states that Trump’s negotiating strategy works wonderfully in some situations, but fails abysmally in others. Some Trump-Lovers and Trump-Haters refuse to accept that obvious fact.

What Trump-Lovers Deny

Some Trump-Lovers deny that his extraordinary aggression creates enemies, loses deals, and prevents absolutely critical cooperation. For example:

  • We’ve had the longest government shut down in our entire history.
  • 40% of his staff have left.
  • Some prominent Republicans have attacked him.
  • Many foreign leaders don’t trust him.
  • The Democrats are desperately trying to impeach him

What Trump-Haters Deny

Trump-Haters are equally blind to reality.

A distinguished professor reacted to my course’s title with this extraordinarily silly email: “I’m deeply suspicious of anything that has ‘Trump’ and ‘Strategy’ in the same sentence. He has none. Never has. So it’s simply not possible that it could be ‘right for you.’”

Since Trump made billions and won the American presidency, that statement is a purely emotional denial of reality. If he didn’t have a strategy, he couldn’t have been so successful.

Another friend was equally irrational. I said that Trump had gotten some great deals.

He angrily replied, “Name one!”

It would be a silly response for anyone, but it was especially silly for my friend. He knows that Trump couldn’t have become a multi-billionaire without making great deals, and he also knows that Trump’s books describe manygreat deals. He just can’t accept those facts.

I mentioned only one deal, Mar-A-Lago. My friend knows that Trump bought it for a small fraction of its worth. Did he accept my answer?

Of course not.

He said, “That wasn’t a great deal.”

Saying that buying a property for much less than it’s worth isn’t a great deal because you hate him is like saying, “Ty Cobb wasn’t a great baseball player,” because he was an exceptionally nasty SOB.

Ty Cobb was one of history’s greatest players. His batting average is the highest of all time, and he received 98.2% of the votes for the Hall of Fame.

His record speaks for itself. The same can be said for Trump. Whether you love him or hate him, don’t deny reality: He’s a huge winner.

I must add that I detested Trump long before most people knew his name. I lived near Atlantic City, played poker in his casinos, and learned that he mistreated his employees, bullied local businesses, and even tried to run over a little old lady. She owned a house he wanted to tear down for his parking lot. But I don’t let my dislike for him blind me to the fact that he has negotiated MANY great deals.

To negotiate well, you MUST accept reality, even when you intensely dislike it.

If You’re Extremely Detached

This blog continues the discussion of “Extremely Detached People.” To read it, click here

Recommendations For Extremely Detached People.

 Loosen up. Accept the obvious reality that negotiations are often illogical, that there are gaming elements, that emotions and “irrational” factors frequently and inescapably affect many negotiations.

Build on your natural strengths, but adjust to the problems your personal style creates. Accept the fact that most people like rituals, so do them. It doesn’t cost that much time or energy to have a long handshake, make small talk, and take other actions that will create a relaxed atmosphere.

The mutual concessions ritual is – by an enormous margin – the most important one. Ignore your discomfort and perform it. Otherwise, many people will believe that you refuse to bargain in good faith.

More generally, try to tune in to people. Go beyond the facts and figures, and try to understand what they want and why they are acting this way.

If they like to bargain, suppress your natural tendency to make reasonable offers, then stay at or near them. Position yourself by making a first offer that gives you enough room to swap concessions.

Try to put together deals that satisfy both sides, including their personal and political motives. You may not care about those motives, but they do.

Continue to plan thoroughly, but build some flexibility into your plans. “If they do this, I’ll do that. But, if they object to this position, I will….”

Apply the MSP concept. Set a firm Minimum or Maximum Settlement Point based on your economics and other factors, and commit to it with someone important such as your boss. Then explore the bargaining range for creative win/win alternatives. Doing so will help you to resist the pressures to take a narrow approach.

During the negotiation show a lot more flexibility. Set your plans aside temporarily and focus on what both sides want to accomplish. Then openly consider a variety of acceptable solutions and resist your natural tendency to stick to the one best solution. Most people are much less logical than you are, and some solutions can seem illogical and still work. Negotiations, by definition, include ambiguous areas. When necessary, seek or accept a solution that’s less than ideal, but still satisfies both parties’ major objectives.

If possible, consider completely new ways to put the deal together. Since you naturally dislike rushing into areas you haven’t analyzed, get their ideas about other ways to structure the deal, then break to analyze their proposal. Perhaps you’ll be surprised: Their approach may be better than yours, and some combination of the two may be even better.

Above all, accept that negotiations are between people, not computers, and work on that personal dimension.

You can view a free video, “The Negotiating Process,” by clicking here.

You can rent a video about negotiating styles for $1.99 by clicking here.

If You’re Extremely Dominant

This blog continues the discussion of “Extremely Dominant People.” To read it, click here. 

Recommendations For Extremely Dominant People.

Lighten up. Don’t push so hard. And concentrate on understanding the other side. These themes interact with each other because your obsession with winning may prevent you from understanding, or even trying to understand them. All our recommendations relate to these themes. Build on your natural strengths, but adjust to your personal style’s negative effects.

Don’t make everything into a battle. Focus on the important ones, and let other people win a few.

Work on listening better. Remember, understanding other people is the single most important negotiating skill. Listen with your eyes as well as your ears, and try to understand more than just their negotiating positions. Look for signs that you’re pushing too hard, that they are becoming unnecessarily uncomfortable, stubborn or thinking of walking out. Try to understand how they feel and what they want from you besides just a good deal.

Be more flexible. Make your offers a little more reasonable, your concessions a little larger, and your compromises less grudging. Make them want to concede instead of creating unnecessary rigidity. Don’t make the Law of Irrationality work against you.

Don’t overemphasize pure bargaining. Look for problem-solving and trading opportunities. How can you structure a deal that satisfies both parties?

Continuously remind yourself of the importance of letting them save face; then make a concession or take whatever other action will make them feel better.

Above all, try for a greater emphasis upon win-win.

You can view a free video, “The Negotiating Process,” by clicking here.

You can rent a video about negotiating styles for $1.99 by clicking here.

Don’t Be Too Timid To Bargain

Don’t Be Too Timid To Bargain

These simple negotiating techniques can help you save money on almost everything

By Donald And Dorothy Stroetzel

THE SALESMAN SQUINTS at the price tag. “This refrigerator will cost you $859.99,” he says. You wince; the most you want to pay is $700. What do you do? Do you tell yourself that $159.99 isn’t really that much and pull out your credit card? Or, do you muster your courage, look the salesman in the eye and ask, “Will you take less?”

“Those four- words can save a family hundreds, even thousands, of dollars a year,” claims Alan Schoonmaker, a New Jersey psychologist who coaches business negotiators for Control Data, Mobil Oil, and other large corporations.

Prices of many family purchases—actually the biggest ones—are negotiable. Yet most people are too timid to try it. Here, from Schoonmaker and other experts, are tips to help you bargain your way to savings:

 

 

 

 

Extremely Dependent People

Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey Rooney, and many other people who marry repeatedly illustrate extreme dependence. They are so desperate for love and acceptance that they can never get enough of it. They change mates again and again, hoping that someone, somewhere, will fill that aching void.

Jimmy Carter was – by a huge margin – the most dependent recent president. Of course, he could never have become president without considerable dominance, but he had many extremely dependent characteristics. Instead of leading forcefully, he was deliberately self-effacing (smiling constantly, carrying his own luggage, walking at his inauguration, asking to be called, “Jimmy”), and he pleaded for understanding and affection from us, our allies, even the Soviets. He also illustrated some of dependency’s positive effects. After years of war, Nixon, and Watergate, we needed a decent, warmer president who inspired trust and openness.

General Characteristics: They crave people’s love, acceptance, understanding, and approval. They can’t feel good about themselves unless people like them. They really are dependent upon others’ feelings about them.

If You’re Too Dominant

Recommendations For Extremely Dominant People.

This blog continues the discussion of “Extremely Dominant People.” To read it, click here

Lighten up. Don’t push so hard. And concentrate on understanding the other side. These themes interact with each other because your obsession with winning may prevent you from understanding, or even trying to understand them. All our recommendations relate to these themes. Build on your natural strengths, but adjust to your personal style’s negative effects.

Don’t make everything into a battle. Focus on the important ones, and let other people win a few.

Work on listening better. Remember, understanding other people is the single most important negotiating skill. Listen with your eyes as well as your ears, and try to understand more than just their negotiating positions. Look for signs that you’re pushing too hard, that they are becoming unnecessarily uncomfortable, stubborn or thinking of walking out. Try to understand how they feel and what they want from you besides just a good deal.

Be more flexible. Make your offers a little more reasonable, your concessions a little larger, and your compromises less grudging. Make them want to concede instead of creating unnecessary rigidity. Don’t make the Law of Irrationality work against you.

Don’t overemphasize pure bargaining. Look for problem-solving and trading opportunities. How can you structure a deal that satisfies both parties?

Continuously remind yourself of the importance of letting them save face; then make a concession or take whatever other action will make them feel better.

Above all, try for a greater emphasis upon win-win.

You can view a free video, “The Negotiating Process,” by clicking  here.

You can rent a video about negotiating styles for $1.99 by clicking  here

Extremely Detached People

Recommendations for Detached People

Because extremely detached people shun publicity, we don’t know much about them. We have all met highly detached accountants and engineers, but they don’t reveal personal information. Nor can we get much from other sources. People magazine doesn’t write about them (and they would be horrified if it did). Two excellent examples are fictional characters from another planet, Spock and Data of “Star Trek” (“I have no emotions.”).

General Characteristics: They like things, ideas, or numbers more than people. They don’t understand emotions and try to avoid them; they suppress their own emotions and are insensitive to other people’s feelings. They are shy, aloof, impersonal, and uncommunicative. Because they’re so indifferent to emotions, many people regard them as cold and uncaring, and that criticism is often justified.

They like order and predictability. Their desks, homes, offices and checkbooks are neatly arranged, and they often have tightly-controlled routines and schedules. One reason for avoiding people is that they are not as orderly and predictable as numbers or machines.

They are independent, but in a different way from dominants. They have even less need for warm relationship, but they don’t flaunt authority. They accept the impersonal authority of rules and procedures (at least those that make sense to them), but avoid people who attempt to control them directly.