Archive for the 'Negotiation Advice' Category

Hi folks.  It's been over seven weeks since my last entry - ouch!  I guess the summer was just too much fun. 

I just got back this evening from an engagement in the US with a multinational client of ours.  Over the course of the day, I was reminded again of an important principle we often talk about with clients but which doesn't always get enough attention: the notion of keeping "The Big Picture" in mind when making decisions in negotiations and relationships.  Specifically, keeping your end goal in mind when deciding about any given "move" in the negotiation.  

I have noticed more and more over time that our clients seem to be much less strategic in their thinking than before - at least as it relates to day-to-day decisions and projects.  

Why? 

These days, to get some peace and quiet and some focus time, you really have to make a very conscious choice about it.  And, it requires more discipline than before, because simply escaping the physical setting of your office is not enough to give you that space.  You've also got to turn all those electronic gadgets OFF.  YES, TURN YOUR CELLPHONE/BLACKBERRY/IPHONE OFF!  "STEP AWAY FROM THE DEVICE!"  It's practically a biological impossibility in some people's eyes.  These devices become addictive, people say.  They don't call them "Crackberrys" for nothing.  

But, the payoff is well worth the effort. 

More and more research is surfacing about how inefficient "multi-tasking" is.  Our brain just gets into the groove on one activity when we switch to another, and our flow of thought is broken.  To get back into that flow takes some extra time, and, we've got to spend time getting into and out of whatever "activity #2" is that we interrupted "activity #1" for.  

We see these impacts show up not only in poor decisions, but in the scattered and unfocused way of being we notice in many of our clients.  They never really seem to be in control of where they're headed.  They just seem to be barely keeping a lid on things, and usually haven't given things much thought because they're just jumping from one activity to the next. 

So, give yourself a gift next time you've got an important project to work on:

Unplug.

Give yourself even 30 minutes - yes, it sounds outrageous, 30 WHOLE MINUTES of uninterrupted time focusing on that item.  Then, see what the quality of your thinking is like.  Here's to the power of focus, and to the power of looking beyond our navel.  

In my last two postings I discussed a situation with a long-time colleague where I created a problem by (a) ignoring my instincts, and (b) more specifically, ignoring my instincts that told me NOT to address a potentially sensitive topic in an email.  

I'm happy to report that now, the relationship has been repaired.  

How?  Through an honest, authentic, open conversation where each one of us was willing to be vulnerable, to tell the ugly truth about what we thought and felt, and where each one of us was willing to acknowledge something we could have done differently.  

I began by apologizing for even putting the topic in an email in the first place.  I could immediately feel a shift in his energy - a positive shift.  In fact, I sensed relief.  We took the time to hear each other out (I heard him out first since he was the aggrieved party, so at a minimum I felt I should let him speak first if he wanted to).  We also took the time and demonstrated the courage and commitment to really put it all out there, and to explore openly questions or items that came up.  In the end, I asked him how he felt, and his answer was, "Much better.  There's a wound that needs a bit of time to heal, but I feel much better."  

For me, what's ironic (or not really ironic, when you stop and think about it), is that I feel closer to him now than I did BEFORE THE PROBLEM.  In fact, I sent him a note the next day saying exactly that.  On the phone we both acknowledged the notion that you really get a sense for what people are made of when there is a problem.  Their response to that situation will tell you a lot more about what they're REALLY made of than 5 years of "happy happy" contact. 

What's my lesson?  There are several, actually:

• First, as I already noted, listen to your instincts!
• Honour your closest relationships.  If you make a mistake, hang in there and clean things up.  Why injure or destroy a great relationship because of one fight?
• If you make a mess, you have to be willing to be authentic about cleaning it up.  You need to be willing to show your warts and look bad.  I know this doesn't sound attractive, but if you reflect on your experience, this is exactly what creates the opening for something new. 

So, I'll chalk it up to being human and to growth.  Still, it's painful each time, so I'm happy that I've got some frameworks to guide me and my feelings through this process.  

Many thanks,

Peter.  

In my last blog entry I gave an example of a situation where I ignored my instincts (or talked myself out of them), and made a mess as a result.  I can't count the number of times I've done that, and every time the story is the same.

If your gut is yelling at you saying:

"STOP!  DON'T DO IT!  THIS IS A BAD IDEA!  SOMETHING'S NOT RIGHT!",

you ignore it at your peril.  

I think our instincts are a form of higher wisdom, helping guide us along the way.  I don't think our gut feeling discerns right or wrong in an absolute sense, but I do think it discerns right or wrong FOR US, AS INDIVIDUALS.  And that makes all the difference.  

So, next time you find yourself trying to make a difficult decision, or conflicted about something, give yourself some time to reflect on it.  Look for the voice of wisdom inside you, or notice the feeling you get when you consider the various courses of action your could take.  Then, FOLLOW ITS ADVICE!

My guess is you'll be glad you did. 

P.S. No major update on the situation yet.  My assistant is going back and forth with my colleague trying to figure out times that will work for the two of us to connect this week.  So, there's at least contact of some kind.  Stay tuned. 

Late last week I ignored a piece of advice I regularly give to clients, and I am paying the price.

If you have a sensitive topic to address, email is almost certainly NOT the right vehicle.  

Well, I was reminded the hard way.  A sensitive subject came up through some client work I was doing last week.  It was a subject I needed to raise with a long-time close colleague who is many time zones removed from me.  I had promised the client I would respond in a timely fashion, and also wanted to give my colleague time to think about it before he and I discussed it, rather than just "springing it on him" in a phone call.  So, I chose to put the subject out there in email on Thursday as a way to start the process.  

In the message I sent to my colleague, I explicitly explained that email was not my preferred method for handling this, and that my purpose for putting the topic in email at all was as noted above (that is, to be responsive to the client and to give him time to think about it over the weekend so we could address it this week).  On purpose, I did not stake out my position on the subject - because I had not established one, and because it's often a bad idea anyway.  We need to jointly develop a solution based on our varying interests, wants, needs, and goals.  I asked him to think about it and suggested we get together on the phone to discuss it as a next step. Well that didn't work.  

I arrived at the office on Monday morning to a fairly strongly worded email in which he laid out his position in no uncertain terms, and also explained how upset he would feel if this were not the outcome.  OOPS.  This is EXACTLY WHAT I DIDN'T WANT.  And, his response is completely understandable.  Now he's staked out a strong position, and it seems like a binary choice between agreeing to that or having something bad happen, when actually almost nothing is a binary choice.  Usually there are many, many possible courses of action to address any given situation, and I feel the same is true here. I replied to the email acknowledging his views but not engaging the topic any further, and saying I'd have my assistant reach out to book a time with him so we could speak about this "live". 

I also sent him a separate note apologizing for putting the topic out there in email and for any unnecessary upset it has caused compared to talking about it "live", and I assured him that I was committed to finding an outcome that met all of our interests really well.  

So far, there is only silence on his end.  No response.  

He might just be busy, but he's usually pretty good at responding at least quickly.  My worst-case assumption says, "He's really angry and doesn't want any contact right now."  My more balanced perspective says, "He might be upset, he might be busy, he might be both, he might be neither.  I can make up any story, and the best thing to do is not obsess about it and just wait until he's ready to talk."    I know we'll work it out and all will be well, but I also know I've done some damage and created worry that didn't need to be there (on his side and on mine).

Here's what stinks most about the whole thing:

When I wrote the message to him last week, MY INSTINCTS WERE TELLING ME NOT TO SEND IT IN EMAIL, BUT I TALKED MYSELF OUT OF IT and sent it anyway.  I said to myself, "He knows me well, he trusts me, and all I'm doing is asking him to think about it before we get on the phone.  It'll be fine."  What I didn't adequately consider was how strong of a reaction this might evoke in him.  All of this could have been handled in a simple 5 minute conversation by phone.  Arghhhh!  I am frustrated with myself for not listening to my instincts, worried about the impact this might have on our relationship, and disappointed that he has not replied to any of my subsequent messages.  

I'll chalk it up as another reminder of an old lesson.  We humans learn slowly sometimes, don't we?  

Just two days ago I posted an entry about this new topic I will be writing about. 

I described my definition of "Sustainable Living" as including much more than "simply" living in a planet-friendly way (as if that weren't already enough of a challenge).  I defined it to include every aspect of how we live our lives.  I'm specifically thinking about what I call "human-friendly" practices, like taking care of our body, mind, and spirit (aka life force), eating well, having leisure time, getting rest and exercise, and so on.  

Given that my firm's work lies in the fields of negotiation, conflict management, and relationship building, one could quite fairly ask the question: why are you writing about this?  What the heck does this have to do with what you, your colleagues, and your company do for a living?  

I would have no problem simply answering, "Nothing.  It's a personal interest, not a business interest, and it's one I think people are interested in hearing about".  But, that's not what I believe to be true here. 

My goal when I'm working with clients is to help them discover that the best business deals generally aren't actually the ones where they "got one over on" their "opponent".  Instead, we illustrate - through real-life examples and exercises - how they can generally do much better over time if they create business arrangements that work for ALL parties.  These deals are robust and SUSTAINABLE, as are the relationships they help build.  This applies equally well to political or trade agreements within, between, or among countries.  We work in settings like that as well.  

So, my belief is that there is a direct connection between the notion of sustainable living and one's approach to negotiations and relationships.  If you pay attention to the themes we highlight in articles, book reviews, or in the "Negotiation Advice" section of my blog, you will see the link between the two, I believe. 

Here's to outcomes that work for all parties involved. 

The old adage states: "Your reputation follows you around". 

I disagree.  I think your reputation runs out ahead of you.  And, the worse it is, the faster it runs, and the farther out in front of you it goes.  

Today, I am returning to an earlier theme in order to explore this often-overlooked piece of the negotiation success puzzle.

When I am asked for advice relating to negotiation or conflict management, I am typically asked questions about the what kinds of strategy moves can boost the "substance" or "content" of the negotiation.  Rarely, however, does anyone ask about the impact of any given strategy on their reputation or credibility. 

What is ironic about this is that, through my years of experience working in many different settings around the world, a person or group's reputation and credibility are consistent important predictors of how much "influencing power" they will have.  BUT, most of us put very little focus on this as we plan and carry out our strategy. 

From the executive suites of global companies, to the offices of the World Health Organization in Geneva, to the National Ministry of Health in Kenya, I have seen this pattern repeat itself.  These two variables have a significant impact on your power to persuade.  Another key factor is the strength of the interpersonal relationship between and among individuals, as measured by the level of goodwill, trust, and respect that exists. 

These are key currencies you trade on.  If you don't have this, the only currency left is force.  Force, of course, can produce a result.  And, it is typically accompanied by resentment and a desire to even the score somehow.  This does not tend to produce sustainable, positive outcomes.

Therefore, if you are interested in improving your power to persuade, I recommend strongly that you invest proactively in building your reputation as a trustworthy, Do you really want people coming into negotiations with you with THAT kind of a frame?  Armour on, weapons at the ready? 

The next obvious questions that surface are: how does one build credibility, and, what kind of a reputation is a good one to have?  I will address this in my next entry.   

"Go Slow to Go Fast"

This is a phrase we have said to our clients for many years.

In fact, it is one of the core principles behind how we suggest people can increase their success in managing their differences with others.

My two most recent blog entries dwelt on the theme of the "Slow" movement, as described in the superb book "In Praise of Slowness".  It chronicles how we have been consumed by the ever-increasing pace of our work and personal lives, and what we can do to regain balance. 

A key theme in the book is that, often, by trying to go fast, you are actually less efficient and less effective; you complete your task more slowly, or produce inferior quality, or both.  When reading the book, I noticed that in fact, what the author was saying was exactly the same as the what my colleagues and I have been communicating to clients for years. 

As the book says, "Slow is the new Fast". That may be a bit of an oversimplification, but not much.

Perhaps a more complete (but less catchy) way to say it is:

"Going slowly at the outset (and at key points along the way) helps you go quickly overall."

As I mentioned in my most recent posting (May 11th), I am not an enemy of speed.  In fact, I’m a speed-lover, and an adventure-seeker.  But these days, more than either of these, I am a "balance-lover".

I have long said "variety is the spice of life", and this dance of fast and slow is no exception. The two need each other.  After all, without the contrast of speed, slowness means nothing. All of life is like that. If we did not have darkness, light would mean nothing. Without a valley, there is no mountain, and so on.  In fact, this applies to emotions and concepts just as well as it does to physical objects.  Without sadness, how does one recognize happiness?   

So, how can "Slowness" improve your success in negotiation?  In a few very fundamental ways.  Very simply by giving you the opportunity to consider your goals and strategy more robustly, as well as the goals of the other party, not to mention giving you time to consider a wider range of options. It also lets you approach the entire situation in a more measured way.  I am aware that these points seem too simple to be useful, yet, my guess is that if you reflect on your own experience (especially when things did not work), you will see these patterns. 

We are often our own worst enemies in this regard.  More on this theme in some future posts.  

What is the difference between Honesty and Disclosure?  And, what is my advice related to them?  This is a question I am often asked by clients. 

In my last blog entry, I discussed the pros and cons of disclosure, and strategies for managing the risks while increasing the returns.  Connected to this point, many people have questions about how "honest" to be in negotiation.  Here are my thoughts:

HONESTY IS NOT THE SAME AS FULL DISCLOSURE.  This is the first important point to make here. Let's begin with some DEFINITIONS: HONESTY: Telling the truth; not misrepresenting the facts when asked about something. FULL DISCLOSURE: Disclosing everything there is to say about a certain subject, or your views, etc.

How much disclosure is appropriate? 

This is a relative question.  More disclosure is generally encouraged (especially in ongoing relationships), and, sometimes the line between the two can get very narrow in terms of its potential impact on trust, and therefore on your ability to produce good outcomes with each other.  For me, there are two key questions to consider in deciding whether or not to disclose something:

1. Could there be a negative impact on this person in the negotiation if I do not disclose it, and;
2. Do I think the absence of the information would have a material impact on the person's choice. 

If the answer to either one of these questions is "yes", then I think it is in your interest to disclose the information.  Even if the moral argument for doing so is not compelling to you, I think it is worth your while even from a selfish perspective.  Why?  Because in many cases, the person will discover the information later.  And, if either of the above conditions existed, your credibility and trustworthiness will be damaged, and thus, your ability to negotiate with them and produce good agreements, not to mention your very ability to be persuasive. 

How honest should I be?  Is telling the truth always a good idea? 

Regarding Honesty: I recommend it strongly.  Lying tends to come back to haunt you, and then carries a high cost.  What you lose is (a) your ability to persuade - your credibility; and (b) your ability to produce ANY agreement is significantly reduced.  Is telling the truth always a good idea?  No, it isn't necessarily, because sometimes the truth can be hurtful to the other party, or can expose you to considerable risk.  In that case, I recommend choosing not to disclose, rather than lying outright.  It is better to say, "I am not comfortable disclosing that information", than to tell a lie.  

Feel free to chime in with a comment if you'd like.  Feedback is very helpful.

I apologize for the delay in my blog entry this week.   I'm moving onto other topics now, since there is SO much I want to write about.  Here we go.

Today I was working with a client, and a common question came up in the workshop:

"How much information about my goals, interests and concerns should I disclose to the other party?  I'm worried that if I tell them too much, they'll use it against me."

This is an excellent question, and is very relevant.  In negotiation literature, this is often referred to as "The negotiator's dilemma", because it is so central.  I think there are in fact a number "Negotiator's Dilemmas", but this is certainly a relevant one.

HERE ARE MY OBSERVATIONS ON THIS POINT: 

1. I have found that most of us make two key mistakes in this area:
1. We focus only on the RISK of over-disclosing, but not the potential RETURN; and
2. We overestimate the risks and underestimate the benefits.
2. Not as many people are trying to take advantage of you as you think.  We allow fear to drive our actions more than we need to.
3. Not disclosing certain items will diminish your credibility and weaken your negotiating power later, when the other party discovers them.  Your credibility/reputation is a key currency of negotiating power.  Do you really want to cut your own feet out from under you?
4. If you don't tell someone what you want, they can't give it to you.

MY ADVICE:

1. Do a cost/benefit assessment about what you're thinking of disclosing (remember, cost AND benefit, not a "cost/cost" analysis, driven by fear and suspicion). 
2. Experiment by increasing your disclosure in relatively low-risk situations, and see what the impact is.  Two classic low-risk situations are:
1. When you have a strong, trusting relationship with the other party, and
2. When you don't "need" the other party that much, even if your relationship is not strong and trust is low.
3. Tell people "WHAT" the interest or concern is, without immediately (or at all) disclosing "HOW IMPORTANT" it is.
4. Disclose small pieces of info at a time, moving from lower-risk to higher-risk items. 
5. Use reciprocal disclosure to build trust and comfort. 
1. If you are disclosing information, and they refuse to reciprocate, then you may have good reason for being concerned, and should probably either (a) Discuss your concerns with them about their lack of disclosure; and/or (b) Lower your disclosure level.  If they don't respond to point (a) very well, they may not be the kind of person you want to negotiate with, and you may want to explore other alternatives for meeting your interests.

What do you think about this?  I'd love to hear your comments.