Grammar of Diplomcacy
In business, the grammatical and lexical choices you make can have a powerful effect on the outcome of a meeting or negotiation. Compare the following:
1.We reject your offer
2.I'm afraid at this point we would be unable to accept your offer
In 2 the use of softeneres (i'm afraid) restrictive phrases (at this point), modal verbs (would) and rephrassed negatives (unable to accept) make the rejection itself more acceptable.

Look at the following ways of making what you say in a negotiation more diplomatic:
1. Modals: would, could, may, might
This is a problem -> This would be a problem
Of course, there;s a disadvantage to this -> Of course, there could be a disadvantage to this
In both examples above the the speaker sounds less direct, but in the 1st exemple the basic message doesn't change. This would be a problem still means it is a problem ! But it sounds better.

2. Qualifiers: slight, a bit, rather, a few etc
There may be a delay -> There may be a slight delay
We're dissapointed with the discount you're offering -> We're rather dissapointed with the discount you're offering
Qualifiers soften the impact of bad news, but don't actually change it.

3. Rephrased Negatives 1: not very, totally, completely + positive adjective
We are unhappy with this arrangement -> We're not very happy with this arrangement
I'm unconvinced -> I'm not totally convinced
Using positive adjectives makes you sound more positive - even when you use them in the negative!

4. Reprashed Negatives 2: unable, not ale, not in a position to
We can't go any higher than 7% -> We're unable to go any higher than 7%
We won't accept anything less -> We are not in a position to accept anything less
Try to avoid using can't and won't. They make you sound powerless and obstructive.

5. Negative question forms: shouldn't we...? wouldn't you..?
We should be working together on this ->Shouldn't we be working together on this?
You'd be taking an enormous risk -> Wouldn't you be taking an enormous risk?
Negative question forms are incredibly powerful in negotiations. Questions sound more sensitive than statements and are also more persuasive. Use them to make suggestions and give warnings.

6. Comparatives: -er, more, less
We're looking for something cheap -> We're looking for something cheaper
Would you be prepared to consider this -> Would you be more prepared to consider this ?
The use of comparatives makes what you say sound more negotiable.

7. Softeners: unfortunately, Im afraid, to be honest, with respect
This doesnt meet our needs -> Unfortunately, this doesnt meet our needs
You dont quite understand -> With respect, you dont quite understand
Softeners at the beginning of a statement signal bad news: With respect is a particularly bad sign!

8.Restrictive phrases: at the moment, at this stage, so far etc
Thats our psition -> Thats our position at the moment
I dont think we can go any further -> I dont think we can go any further at this stage
Using a restrictive phrase does not exclude the possibility of future movement

9.The passive: it was understood, it was assumed
You said you were ready to sign -> It was understood you were ready to sign
We thought you had accepted these terms -> It was assumed that you had accepted these terms
By avoiding the use of statements beginning You said...and We thought...and using passive forms instead, you depersonalise the situation and reduce the amount of personal responsability or blame.

10. The -ing form: were aiming, had been hoping
We aimed to reach agreement today ->We were aiming to reach agreement by today
WE had hoped to see some movement on price -> We had been hoping to see some movement on the price
Using the Past Continuous keeps your options open - you were aiming to reach agreement and still are.
The Past Perfect Continuous closes the door a little more - you've stopped hoping, but-coule be persuaded to hope again.