𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: What do these three things have in common?:
1. Jonny Bairstow’s controversial dismissal from the Ashes
2. The new National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)
3. Negotiation

𝐀𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫: Objective standards

English cricket fans are in uproar at Alex Carey’s stumping of Bairstow. And yet, there is footage of Bairstow trying the same action just days ago. Everyone wants consistency in umpiring until they don’t!

The new NACC, which commenced operations this week, is likely to be flooded with vexatious claims. Of course there will be lots of genuine claims to investigate, but there will be many where people simply don’t like an outcome and now have an avenue to complain.

Objective standards in a negotiation are things like benchmarks, industry protocols, best practice and expert opinions. When they suit our case, we love them. I like to ask the other party in a negotiation what makes their position legitimate. If they aren’t relying on an objective standard, I have the upper hand.

Strengthen your position in a negotiation by using objective standards, and challenge the other party if they are inconsistent. And don’t get stumped.

Image courtesy of ABC:  ABC News
#negotiation #negotiationskills #TheAshes #NACC

BASE jumping involves jumping from Buildings, Antennae, Spans (bridges) and Earth (cliffs) with a single parachute.

It’s pretty insane stuff! Do these people have a death wish?

To most of us, BASE jumpers – and their extreme sport cousins like big wave surfers, waterfall kayakers and free climbers – just seem like reckless daredevils.

However, Dr Eric Brymer, a psychologist who specialises in performance in extreme contexts, suggests otherwise. He says that extreme sports are far safer than many regular activities, like motorbike riding, because the risks are so closely examined.

Brymer tells us that extreme adventurers spend most of their time training for when things go wrong. Big wave surfers will run along the bottom of the surf holding rocks so they can train for when they get it wrong and the surf is hammering them. BASE jumpers will undertake meticulous preparation for a jump and only proceed if every variable is within limits.

According to Brymer’s research, those who engage in extreme sports are anything but irresponsible risk-takers with a death wish. On the contrary, they are highly trained individuals who have worked hard to hone their skills and minimise the chance of misadventure.

So, what can negotiators learn from BASE jumpers and other extreme adventurers?

Just as BASE jumpers train and test their capabilities in safe simulations, so negotiators should identify the damaging things that could happen and prepare their responses.

This is an under-valued tool in a negotiator’s toolkit. If you can work out how you’ll react when things go wrong, you will be prepared when they do. Better still, work out what the absolute worst thing is that the other party could say to you and then role-play your response until you can deliver it without a flood of emotion.

BASE jumpers claim they have an enhanced capacity to see every nook and cranny of the ground below even though they are travelling at more than 300 kms/hour. Imagine if training for disaster gave negotiators the skill to see every nuance of an interaction unfold in slow motion, allowing them to respond with pre-prepared interventions. I’d call that extreme negotiating.

Have you heard this negotiation hack?

When you reach an impasse, say “there must be a solution” and then stay quiet and let the other party talk.

There are three clear reasons why this can work.

1. Firstly, generating options and alternatives is a key tenet of principled negotiations. Getting the other party to contribute options can lead to a breakthrough.
2. Calling for solutions reframes the impasse from something negative to something positive.
3. Silence at the right time in a negotiation is a masterstroke. We should always let silence do the heavy lifting.

Give this a try next time your difficult conversation reaches an impasse and let me know how you go.

This article (LINK) claims that Putin doesn’t negotiate.

I’m not so sure about that.

Yes, he uses aggressive tactics. Yes, he rarely appears to compromise. And yes, he is definitely in it to win it. But does that mean he doesn’t negotiate?

Putin may not perform well in an integrative negotiation, a type of negotiation related to value creation so that both sides achieve their goals. This type of negotiation requires parties to explore and acknowledge each other’s wants and needs and, from what we know about Putin, that could be a stretch.

However, Putin may well excel at distributive negotiation, the type of negotiation where one party’s success comes at the expense of the other party’s.

Studies (including by Leanne ten Brinke of the University of California, Berkeley) have shown that people with psychopathy score very well in distributive negotiations, especially face to face, because they require a high level of competitiveness and a low level of agreeableness. The opposite is true for integrative negotiations.

So, while I’d have low expectations of Putin negotiating a fair international trade agreement, I’d be pretty keen for him to act on my behalf next time I buy a car.

With the world mourning the loss of Queen Elizabeth in the past week, it’s appropriate to reflect on her unprecedented 70-year reign. Her devotion to her role and her dignity and selflessness were extraordinary. While I admire and respect the Queen’s life of service, I also think that Australia should have its own head of State, so please allow me a little levity in this post.

It’s evident that the three Ps have taken over in Britain – the plan, the pomp and the protocol. However, the biggest dilemma noted in the press seems to be exactly what role the wayward members of the family should take in the proceedings. If you need a hint on which three members I am referencing, their initials spell out a processed sandwich meat.

As usual, I view everything through the lens of negotiation, and King Charles would be well-advised to consider these three tips for negotiating with family members:

1. In family negotiations, positions (what people want) matter less than interests (why they want it). If the King understands the interests of the aforementioned wayward family members, he may be able to negotiate outcomes that meet their needs without flouting the protocols (a second-row seat but with clear camera angles, for instance).
2. There are many different negotiation styles (compete, collaborate, compromise etc) but negotiations with family need to consider the impact on the long-term relationship. If possible, the King should be using an accommodating style in these negotiations unless the protocol matters more than his relationship with the processed sandwich meat crowd.
3. If tips 1 and 2 don’t help in the family negotiation, the King needs to rely on objective standards, like precedent and statutes. With a little bit of research, I have discovered that the Duke of Windsor (the King who abdicated to marry Wallace Simpson) did attend the funeral of his brother, King George VI, but his wife was not invited!

And if all else fails, ramp up the three Ps, stay calm and carry on.