Tag archive: behavior
The Considered Response
Negotiation involves work. People rarely bargain for the fun of it or because they have nothing better to do. They negotiate to gain satisfaction. What we will now consider are ways to increase the value of our responses to whatever the other party offers or concedes. Whether we say “Yes” or “No” to their offer it is important we do it right; that is, we must enhance their satisfaction and maintain a good relationship.
Concessions are normally made by both sides to bring parties together. The person making the concession hopes to narrow or bridge the gap that separates them. How one handles the other side’s offer can either set the stage for further improvement or serve to harden the disagreement.
A time-tested approach to adding value and credibility to your responses and counteroffers will be suggested. I call it “The Considered Response.” One of the best negotiators I ever encountered employed the “considered response” whenever he negotiated. It worked this way. Whenever the other side made a demand or concession his first reaction was to listen carefully and take notes. Then, when they were through, he would say nothing but make calculations on a sheet of paper. After what appeared to everyone to be a longer period of time than it was he would say, “I can’t afford to accept your offer. It’s simply not enough.” His way of responding indicated to the other that he had seriously weighed their arguments and position, even though he had not agreed.
Frankly, I can’t be sure that he really figured anything out on that sheet of paper. For all I know he might have been doodling. But I do know that his “considered response” gave his answer credibility and respect. It became, when negative, a stronger “No.” And when he said “yes” as he often did, the other person perceived it as a more satisfying “Yes.”
The “considered response” is a powerful tool. By disciplining yourself not to shoot snap answers “from the hip,” your strength as a negotiator will increase. The rule is this: The next time the other side makes a demand or offer, be it acceptable or not, don’t respond to it with a “Yes” or “No” right away. Keep quiet and think about it for a while. Better yet, write down on a paper a few “pros and cons” and some calculations. Then answer “Yes” or “No” or whatever is appropriate. Your considered response will give greater weight to your answer and greater satisfaction to the other person as well. Few negotiating behaviors provide much time-to-think, negotiating space, response credibility and appreciation for the other’s offer or concession as a considered response. Make it part of your response pattern.
Read more »
Creating a Negotiating Climate Conducive to Compromise and Collaboration
Differences are rarely easy to settle even when both sides have the best intentions. They are, however, easier to settle if an enabling climate of negotiation exists. Three factors play a major role in creating such a climate: where and when the talks occur, how emotional factors are handled and the degree to which those at the table are heard and listened to. If these factors are implemented, the meeting will go better. If not, the differences between the parties grow rather than diminish.
A quiet, appropriate place and time to talk is essential. One would think that such a suggestion is only common sense. But I have seen some career-tipping internal negotiations conducted in the midst of clattering machinery, on busy stairways, and in crowded offices surrounded by curious listeners. Important meetings in today’s busy world are subject to frequent interruptions. That setting is no place to negotiate or decide anything.
Sufficient time must be set aside to discuss major issues. Time tends to follow the 90-10 rule. Ninety percent of the time will be spent on minor points and ten percent on important matters. Time must be managed at any negotiation. Where critical matters are at stake an agenda should be negotiated and agreed to in advance. It takes good management skill to set up and run an effective session.
A good negotiating climate must also deal with controlling emotional outbursts. Emotional outbursts are not uncommon in the workplace but occur more often in commercial buy-sell transactions. There, people feel less constrained to say what they please than in the office where they have to work with others on a daily basis. Nevertheless, unwelcome outbursts do occur at meetings and workplace negotiations that serve to disrupt ongoing dealings by making it more difficult to resolve problems peacefully. Managers must find ways to reduce these bursts of anger.
Team leaders as well as all team members have a crucial role in diminishing emotional impediments. They must jointly insist that any outburst stop immediately regardless of whose dies or view is favored. The time to silence such outbursts is the moment harsh words arise. When members of the group collectively accept responsibility for keeping control of outbursts they will cease before they damage everyone there.
The same can be said for insisting that everyone who has something to say is given the opportunity to do so. Each person at the meeting has a part is assuring that the right of others to be listened to not be impinged upon by snide remarks or negative body language. All at the session have a role in cutting highly emotional behavior short.
If organizers fail to actively structure the time and place of talks, the issues to be covered, steps to diffuse dysfunctional emotional outbursts and techniques to foster open communication, then the climate of negotiation inevitably has a reduced chance of achieving meaningful results.
Read more »
Your Assumptions are Probably Wrong
Making assumptions about the other party and their negotiating position is a natural part of the bargaining process. We make assumptions before negotiations take place and revise them as new information is discovered along the way. Unfortunately, the very assumptions made to guide our actions at the table lead us astray because they are all too often incorrect.
The trouble with assumptions is that they are as likely to be wrong as right. What is in the mind and domain of the other person is hard to know. For us to forecast future trends, costs and problems is extremely difficult. Knowing what the other will do if confronted with deadlock is at best an educated guess. There is much we cannot know when assumptions are made about those we oppose and their future actions or behaviors under pressure. They themselves may not know.
Yet, whatever the issues at stake, assumptions must be made. We have to ask ourselves questions like, “Am I asking for enough (or too much) and why?” and, “What will the other side do in response to what I say or do?” and, “What can they live with, what’s their bottom line?”
Time is a factor in negotiation. Assumptions must be made about time pressures facing the other party and how these pressures will affect their choices and decisions in dealing with us.
Negotiating effectively demands not only that assumptions be made, but also that they be tested in the light of what is learned at the table or elsewhere. How can we best do so?
We do so by creating ‘negotiating space.’ We leave room for talk and bargaining. We leave time for explanations to be provided by both parties for everything they demand and offer. We give in slowly and in small increments. We ask for something in return for offering concessions and learn from the other side’s response. We explore by exchanging information to get a better picture of what they want and what they really need. We talk directly to them, both on and off the record, to discover what we need to know in testing our assumptions.
Our assumptions are like anchors. If they are wrong, and we believe them, they will hold us back from reality. If we test them carefully they can guide us to fair and reasonable agreements.
Read more »
The Power of Time and Legitimacy
Time is a key factor in bargaining strength. If one party has time to reach an agreement and the other doesn’t, the one who does in in a stronger position. The problem with evaluating time as a factor is that we tend to underestimate our strength because we are more aware of the time pressures on ourselves than on the other person.
Below are five ideas to build time power.
Read more »
- Leave time to negotiate. When forced to decide quickly you won’t do well.
- Be on time or early for the meeting. Getting there with time to spare will help talks get started in a more relaxed manner.
- Be prepared. Don’t just hope for the best. Too many people go into negotiations with little or no preparation and pay a high price for that luxury. Leave enough time to plan.
- Pick the right time and place to talk if you possibly can. If the time or place is wrong, negotiate a better venue.
- Give yourself time to think. Caucus often. Take breaks.
The Relationship Mode
Two or more team members enter into a negotiation. They are trying to reach a consensus on how to resolve a problem facing them. Their viewpoints differ. Each specializes in something different. Each is motivated in part by personal interests. Both would like to resolve the matter dividing them and complete the project successfully.
Why should we care so much about their relationship to one another? In the book, A Behavioral Theory of Labor Relations, it says:
“Two parties negotiate. The negotiating process shapes the division of the product of their joint efforts. The negotiation process also facilitates the resolution of joint problems and the integration of their interests. A third result of the negotiation process is a maintenance or restructuring of the relationship of the participants toward each other.”
Whatever the issue, the parties come to the negotiation with attitudes toward one another. The bargaining process is affected by their relationship, be it good or bad. Whether they like, trust and respect each other mediates their every offer and counteroffer, their responses and positions, and of course their strategies and approaches.
How they treat each other as the negotiating session proceeds then affects their initial relationship for better or worse. Negotiators wary of each other as talks start may change is the other person is candid and open during the process. Respect can grow or diminish as each party exchanges viewpoints.
A negotiation within a negotiation is taking place as they talk. The parties, while discussing and exchanging ideas on the issues, are re-establishing their relationship. At the end of the process they may think well of the other or wish never to work with them again.
Three basic rules govern the relationship mode and deserve a place in a negotiator’s planning and preparation kit.
Read more »
- The relationship that exists between the parties affects how they will act at the table and the behaviors, strategies and tactics they will employ.
- What one or the other does or says during the talks has an effect on the attitude and behavior of the other as talks progress.
- The relationship between parties not only affects the outcome of their bargaining but also, in a reciprocal way, the outcome and how it was reached affect their willingness to abide by the agreement and their future negotiations.
To Bury or Surface Divisive Matters?
Matters frequently arise at work that cause personal discomfort to persons involved. Yet, despite discomfort, many prefer to submerge differences rather than resolve them through open negotiation and compromise. Whether one should bury such issues or allow them to surface requires good judgment because the resolution of even smaller differences is rarely achieved without conflict and risk to one or both parties. Unintended consequences are hard to predict.
Burying the matter for another day is a choice. Some difficult issues to disappear over time even when nothing is done. Yet, an emotional price is paid when we avoid confronting a painful issue. Such matters generally fester and grow harder to cope with when submerged. When we avoid negotiation now, underlying tensions may explode in fury later.
With all the dangers inherent in submerging or burying internal differences, why do people do so? As managers we should understand their reasons. Some choose to tolerate disturbing annoyances in the hope that the issue will resolve itself. Though rare, these serendipitous events do occasional happen.
Some continue to tolerate the strange behavior of others because they are simply too busy with more important matters. Others do so because the offending person has been on the job longer than they or has tenure or political clout.
Many in the workplace live with distressing situations because they doubt that relief is possible. The situation is often partially attributable to external systemic factors such as chronic computer breakdowns, inadequate systems and procedures or systemic organizational problems. When this is the case it seems a waste of time to negotiate in hopes of a resolution. With patience and collaboration a better way can be found even when structural boundaries or impediments exist.
There are good reasons for choosing to submerge or postpone difficult issues for another time but the price is high. Those of us who have done so know how hard it is to remain quiet for long periods while our anger boils. It’s no surprise that one day we explode and express in a moment what has been on our minds for years.
There is a prudent option available. My advice is to open such issues to negotiation between the parties in the most tactful way possible. Work together for a both-win solution to overcome the difficulty separating you. Be sensitive to the psychological dangers and unintended consequences attendant to opening difficult matters. Good judgment and preparation are essential. Choosing the right time and place to talk is critical.
The decision to negotiate differences rather than submerge them is difficult. The tendency most people seem to have toward submerging interpersonal differences should be tempered in favor of taking somewhat greater risks.
I believe that differences and problems exposed to quiet, polite, reasoned and open discussion lead to better results and relationships in the long run. They allow the process of cooperative, collaborative negotiation to lead us to lasting agreements that are more creative and satisfying. Despite its initial difficulties, open discussion ultimately moves us toward more stable relationships with which to weather future storms.
Read more »
When Constructive Feedback Works Best
If you are looking to take your negotiation skills to the next level from the comfort of your own home, check out our virtual negotiation programs
When a subordinate does something wrong or fails to follow directions, most managers feel justified in correcting their behavior by speaking to them in a constructive manner. If this constructive feedback is done well the individual may move toward positive change. If done poorly it will leave a trail of hurt feelings and result in little to no behavioral change. We will explore several approaches to constructive feedback designed to help other move in a positive direction.
- When you maintain a high ratio of positive to negative interactions. The manager who maintains a high ratio of positive to negative feedback will find their peers and subordinates more receptive to change. Later, by maintaining a good ratio over time, your words of advice when things go wrong will fall on friendlier ears.
- When your relationship with the other is good. Criticism, even when directed with the best of intentions, is hard to take. When the relationship between parties is strained, it is rarely effective and certain to be resented. The rule is simple; the stronger the bond between the parties the higher the probability the feedback will be accepted and acted upon. Building relationships based on respect, trust and appreciation is part of your job description no matter how busy you are.
- When it is asked for—but. When the other party requests your suggestions or advice is it generally wise to offer it, but be careful. What they might really want is not your honest opinion but some positive affirmation or approval instead. Criticism or feedback, solicited or not, is something done only with prudence, tact and forethought.
- When it is accepted as part of the training process. Constructive advice is accepted when it is provided as training. Once the training period is over, people tend to perceive further feedback not as training but as criticism. Instead of welcoming new suggestions they resent both the message and messenger.
- When the criticism or advice is specific and timely. Feedback provided for performance problems that took place is the past is far worse than none at all. Such feedback is destructive because it is likely to cause bickering and faultfinding rather than improvement. To be useful, feedback must not only be expressed soon after the problem arises but must also be focused on the specific task to be corrected.
- When both parties are involved in solving the problem together. The more associates have worked together to solve joint problems the less they will view their difference and associates’ corrections as criticism or ego-threatening.
- When the feedback is preceded by strong positives. If you find it necessary to criticize another the better way to do so is to start with positive things the other person has done and follow that with one (yes, one) specific and timely matter requiring improvement. Suggestions are more likely to be accepted if restricted to the main dish rather than a smorgasbord of large and small problems.
- When the advice allows the other to sort things out for themselves. The more you leave others free to work in their own way the more responsive they will be to your suggestions.
Behaviors, Habits and Approaches that Encourage Others to Express Themselves
There are certain behaviors, habits and approaches that can encourage others to express themselves. The suggestions below can lead to better communication and understanding in the workplace.
Read more »
- Even a single person acting alone in a group can exert a positive or negative effect on how the entire group will listen and exchange views. When interruptions or cross talks occur, that person can insist that the person speaking be accorded full attention or, by allowing the disruption to go unchecked, make matters worse. If you want others to express themselves well, offer them a ready audience and platform to do so.
- Getting others to speak up and express their views fully is a negotiation. If you want them to expand their views about some matter, ask them to do so. They may be reluctant to tell all they know because they are shy or apprehensive about whether you are interested. A comment like, “Tell me more,” “Help me understand,” or, “Please explain that,” may be helpful in getting a better explanation. As for those in the group or team who are reluctant to speak at all, a good way to get them started is to ask their opinion of the matter at hand. As in any negotiation, if you don’t ask for something, you’re not likely to get it.
- The higher the ratio of pleasant and positive interactions between team members to negative ones, the more team members will feel free to express themselves. Simple social actions such as a welcoming smile, a warm help or an occasional lunch together serve to show respectful attention and regard. Each interaction adds to the others and strengthens the milieu in which open expression thrives.
- Too many people use and manipulate what other people say as a springboard to speak about what they themselves want to say. They do it in two ways. Either they wait until the speaker says something that allows them to divert the conversation in their preferred direction, or they jump in with questions that are really statements leading into their own preferred positions. Both trespass on the speaker’s space and should be avoided.
- Another habit that cuts the flow of ideas at a meeting may originate with the person in charge who gives only casual attention to the issues under consideration as it quickly becomes obvious that he or she has already made up their mind about what is to be done. Once this bias becomes apparent, others lose interest in expressing alternatives. I’ve wasted time at many such meetings and resented being used that way.
- Be patient. If people are given more time to think and get prepared they do a better job of expressing their thoughts. No matter how smart someone appears to be, it takes them time to put together what they want to say and to decide what their position is on any matter. Some, of course, are quicker than others, but that in itself does not ensure that their input will be more valuable. Those who are slower and more methodical may have the best ideas. Without time to sort out their thoughts they may choose to say nothing. Be patient.