What’s the link between these three classifications?

I can speak with authority about two of them, but I have no grounds to claim I am an athlete.

Unless … mmm, no!

At the current Paris Olympics, there has been a lot of commentary about this combination of the classifications: Women Athletes.

Firstly, there’s the furore surrounding Algerian boxer, Imane Khelif, who has been banned from competing in previous boxing championships on gender eligibility grounds but is allowed to compete at the Paris Olympics.

Secondly, and closer to home, there has been quite some jocularity about the gold medal performances of Australian female athletes compared to their male counterparts. So far at the Games, Aussie women have collected twelve golds to the men’s two!

The satirical news website, Betoota Advocate, among others, have even questioned whether the economic investment in men’s sporting endeavours is justified.

Humour aside, and with trepidation, I’m stepping into a conversation about gender.

It’s indisputable that gender plays a big role in the status of an athlete and their likely results. We know men’s and women’s events are separated because of disparities in inherent characteristics like strength and speed.

You may be surprised to know that in negotiation, the same holds true – inherent characteristics impact performance.

Women aren’t better or worse negotiators than men … but they have different challenges.

The factors at play are a mix of inherent characteristics and stereotypes. Girls are expected to be accommodating and relationship oriented while boys are expected to be competitive and assertive. And these expectations are normalised in negotiations.

Studies repeatedly show that women who appear to be overly assertive are frequently judged (by both men and women) to be less ‘likeable’ than women who conform to a more accommodating stereotype.

It’s a “likeability penalty” – women can be likeable or assertive but not both!

If women don’t negotiate for themselves, they won’t achieve the outcomes they desire. If they do negotiate assertively for themselves, they risk the backlash. It’s a double-edged sword.

So what can be done?

The difference in inherent characteristics isn’t the problem. Women don’t need fixing. The likeability penalty, however, does, and more people should be factoring it into their individual interactions with women.

I also think that the inherent characteristics women have as relationship builders is a vastly under-utilised advantage in negotiation. More women should learn and lead negotiations, and more leaders should harness this key resource.

I write a regular newsletter that hundreds of people read (no pressure, Fi) and just recently, on a single day, I had two people unsubscribe.

No-one has ever unsubscribed before, and then I got two in one day!

I may have met these people but I don’t know them, and I certainly don’t why they unsubscribed … but it really got me in the feels.

In the same week, about 50 new subscribers signed up. Guess which number I thought about more?

Why do we care so much about rejection?

Why does it hurt?

The late great Daniel Kahneman (the Nobel Prize winning behavioural psychologist and author of Thinking, Fast and Slow) and his research partner, Amos Tversky, coined the term “loss aversion” for this experience of rejection.

Kahneman and Tversky claim that losses impact us far more than gains do – “the fear of losing $100 is more intense than the hope of gaining $150” – and, consequently, many of us are highly motivated to avoid losses.

Once you are aware of the loss aversion bias, you’ll see it in action everywhere.

A particular bugbear of mine is how salespeople (especially in shops named things like Hardly Normal and HC Low-Fi) are always keen for us to buy extended warranties. On the one hand, we are told the computer/TV/phone is highly reliable, and on the other, we are told it is advisable to pay for an additional year of warranty. These stores are using the loss aversion bias to bolster their profits simply because we fear the loss associated with equipment failure.

In workplace conflicts, I see the loss aversion bias happening all the time. People choose to avoid confrontation because they perceive the potential loss of a harmonious work environment as more significant than the possible gains from resolving the conflict.

A classic example of loss aversion is choosing a safe, low-return investment over one that attracts some risk but offers huge returns. This is the same thing as choosing to avoid conflict instead of choosing the harder but more valuable path of facing up to it.

Avoiding conflict is loss aversion in action.

As for me, I’ll be focusing on my net subscriber numbers and the privilege that it is to share my thoughts with you!

I recently heard some children talking about the Reflection Room at their primary school.

While I immediately pictured the funny mirrors at an amusement park, the trepidation on their faces indicated it was something altogether different.

Some quick research showed that quite a few primary schools include a Reflection Room in their behaviour management processes.

The Reflection Room isn’t intended to be a punishment, but it is a place for children to go when things go wrong. They get to tell their side of the story, reflect on their behaviour, work out what they need to do to put things right, and commit to making better choices in the future.

What if adults had a Reflection Room?

We are constantly surrounded by conflict … in our homes, workplaces and in community groups. Some conflicts are minor, others major, but what they all have in common is our tendency to very quickly shift the blame to others.

I am sorry to say, however, that there are very few instances of conflict where we are totally innocent.

No, really. We are almost always guilty of contributing something!

Think of a recent conflict you were involved with and be really honest with yourself:

• Did you want to reach agreement, or did you mostly just want to get back at someone for something that happened in the past?
• Were you more concerned with winning the argument than finding a solution?
• Were you so uncomfortable about addressing the real issue that you left it too long and made it worse?
• Did you minimise your role in the conflict by exaggerating the other person’s actions?
• Did you blame external circumstances to avoid taking responsibility?
• Did you work so hard to keep the peace, you had to lie about what was really happening?
• Did you pretend not to play favourites, but you really did?

It’s a hard pill to swallow but we have almost always contributed something, even it’s only small.

If adults had a Reflection Room, they might understand more about how they behave in conflict.

The authors of Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking when the Stakes are High call this type of reflection “working on me first, us second”. They say that, without reflection, our progress will be hindered by our tendency to believe that we are blameless and others are at fault.

The only person you can directly control is the person in the mirror.

Do you have something you should ponder in the Reflection Room?

It may not seem like it, but you are negotiating every day.

Every time you try to influence someone to give you something or do something for you, you are negotiating.

Sometimes our negotiations are big ones – promotions, pay rises, supplier negotiations. Sometimes they are small – who is picking up the kids or getting the coffee.

It’s obvious that being a better negotiator will help with those big, life changing negotiations. New jobs, partners, promotions, homes – the outcomes of these negotiations have a profound impact on our lives.

But are the small negotiations that important?

I would argue that they absolutely are. And here’s why … when we get used to asking for small, low stakes things, we are so much better at asking for the big things.

A client of mine is highly successful in her chosen profession and has a unique and sort-after skill set. Even though she is extremely capable and well regarded in her industry, she was paralysed when it came to negotiating a promotion she knew she deserved.

Over several months I challenged her to engage in larger and larger negotiations. She learnt to ask without getting agitated, she learnt to identify her stress triggers and she progressively gained the confidence to tackle the big negotiation she was facing.

This is the giggle-vomit test. (American academic, Linda Babcock, calls this the giggle test, but I think giggle-vomit is much more evocative!)

Here’s how it works:

1. Pick several small things that aren’t important to you, like a free sample of icecream, an upgrade in a hotel, a free half hour on the tennis court.
2. Work out what seems like an ambitious request … and then double it!
3. Ask for this doubled request and try not to giggle, blush or get queasy.
4. Afterwards, try to pinpoint any triggers that caused a physiological reaction.
5. Keep practising until you can comfortably ask for outrageous things without a giggle-vomit response.

We all want to be great negotiators when we are in the big arena, in the big moments that change our lives, but success there starts with practice in the small negotiations.

Don’t get left behind. Build your negotiating skills one day (or one icecream sample) at a time.

____

If improving your negotiation skills is something you’ve been thinking about, I currently have three slots available for one-on-one coaching. If you book before 30 June, an EOFY discount will apply.

When my son was learning to talk, he loved following his dad around the house and asking: “What do, Da?”. It was exceptionally cute the first five or ten times, and my husband would patiently explain what he was doing … but it got tedious pretty fast.

“What do, Da?”

“I’m building a deck.”

“Ah … what do, Da?”

“I’m building a deck.”

“Ah … what do, Da?”

“I’m STILL building a deck.”

What is it about questions? Why do they stop us in our tracks?

Well, actually, questions are the answer to a whole range of conflict and negotiation situations. You can use questions:

1. TO LAG
   If you are in any form of difficult conversation and your emotions are getting the better of you, asking a question will pause the pressure on you.
   How?
   The lag gives you time to regroup, get your emotions under control and you may well learn helpful information that you might otherwise have missed.
2. TO SNAG
   To negotiate and manage conflict, you need to understand the other party. Obviously, questions help with this.
   How?
   Use active listening to snag important information. When the other party is answering your questions, listen carefully and don’t start thinking about what you will say next.
3. TO BAG
   If you think the other party is lying to you, using questions rather than statements saves any potential humiliation for you.
   How?
   If they are lying, your prolonged, polite questioning should bag them in the lie. If they aren’t lying, you won’t embarrass yourself by making a false accusation.
4. TO ZIGZAG
   Sometimes, asking what feels like a dumb question opens up a new direction for the conversation or negotiation.
   How?
   In any high-stakes discussion, people focus on their own positions. A zigzag or change of direction, like a “dumb” question, can surprise people and make them consider things from a different perspective.
5. TO BRAG
   Asking questions isn’t just about getting answers; you can also use questions as a strategy to share important information.
   How?
   Disguise a humble brag as a question, e.g. “Would you like to hear about the work I am doing with XX client?”

Here are some ways you can learn more about using questions to master negotiation and positive conflict challenges:

1. I can speak at your conferences and events.
2. I can train your teams in negotiation and conflict management.
3. I can facilitate collaborative agreements with your leadership teams.
4. I can provide coaching to help you improve your negotiation and conflict skills.

The opposite of conflict is not peace … it’s complacency.

Okay sure, in the context of war, the opposite of conflict is peace, but for most of us, in our daily lives, the opposite of conflict is complacency.

This is best depicted in my model:

Complacency is when we just don’t give a hoot and we ignore what’s going on. Not caring and not acting is complacency in action – or rather inaction! Complacent people in organisations are those coasting, downplaying challenges and probably job hunting.

Combativeness is when we get involved in skirmishes whether we care or not. Combative people love a good fight but don’t have the best interests of anyone or anything at heart.

Concealment is when we do care but don’t speak up because we are afraid to, or we think we can’t make a difference. When we conceal what we know and what we value, we remain voiceless.

+ve Conflict is when we step up to the conflict because we do care and are willing to act. This is different to combativeness because it comes from a place of caring.

An organisation without conflict keeps its poor performers, never tries new ideas, doesn’t identify risks, can’t fully explore decisions and doesn’t listen to its employees.

Leaders who don’t know how to lean in to conflict encourage the fake harmony of concealment, which in turn will eventually give way to complacency.

Sure, conflict is hard, and we don’t want conflict for conflict’s sake, but there’s no progress without conflict.

Dissent needs to come to the surface. It will leak out anyway, in resignations, passive aggressive behaviour, undercurrents of resentment and overall stagnation, so find ways to explore dissent.

Consider these questions:

• Are you tempted to hire yes-people or do you want people who will speak up?
• How are people treated when they disagree?
• Are opposing opinions given consideration or they dismissed?
• Does the culture of your organisation reward complacency or concealment?
• Is combativeness addressed?
• Is fake harmony celebrated?
• Do you invest time in having the hard conversations?

Conflict and success are linked; there’s no escaping it. You want a culture where positive conflict is encouraged and complacency is weeded out. Let’s get better at conflict!

=====

Here are some ways I can help:

1. I can speak at your conferences and events.
2. I can train your teams in negotiation and conflict management.
3. I can facilitate collaborative agreements with your leadership teams.
4. I can provide coaching to help you improve your negotiation and conflict skills.

I read an article in a trashy magazine this week. And what I read shocked me!

The marriage of Queen Mary and King Frederik of Denmark is on the rocks, and it is deemed thus because body language experts have told us so.

I have delivered hundreds of hours of negotiation training to government and corporate teams, and I am often asked about body language. As a negotiator, I am reading body language all the time. It’s part of the toolkit. But here’s the thing … it’s a very inexact science.

When the other party crosses their arms, they aren’t being defensive. Or maybe they are! Or maybe they’re just cold. One piece of data is just not enough for you to make a call.

In conflict situations or negotiations, you should instead be looking out for:

1. involuntary body language, and
2. gesture clusters.

Involuntary Body Language

The limbic brain deals with our behavioural and emotional responses. If you jump when you hear a loud noise, or cover your mouth when you receive bad news, that is an involuntary response from the limbic brain.

A fleeting facial expression is also likely to be a limbic brain response.

These involuntary movements are authentic expressions of what we are feeling. We can mask them, but not for the first micro-second.

Watch for looks that flash across your counterparty’s face as you speak, or even when you shake their hand. These micro-second reactions can be very enlightening.

Gesture Clusters

If your counterparty’s crossed arms don’t give you enough information, you need more data.

Look for gesture clusters.

If they are touching their face, that means nothing, but if it’s combined with throat-clearing, fidgeting and avoidance of eye contact, you can safely assume that they are uncomfortable – perhaps feeling nervous, or even being deceptive.

A gesture cluster of a cocked head, relaxed arms and leaning in indicates that they are receptive to you and are evaluating what you are saying.

Incongruent body language is obvious, so watch out for theirs and take care with your own. Conversely, authentic body language builds trust and credibility.

Now, back to Mary and Fred … do we really believe what a body language “expert” can tell us from looking at a few photos and videos? Highly unlikely in my opinion.

Have you heard of the term “Shadow Culture”? Or am I just slow to the party?

I heard the term for the first time just recently so I did a quick search on Google and LinkedIn hashtags. It turns out that the term isn’t widely used, so I am turning up to that party now … in my best party dress.

Shadow Culture is the behaviour in communities and organisations that is tolerated even if it contradicts explicitly stated values. It is the implicit culture, the unpublished but deeply understood operating manual that includes any shady stuff.

Take for instance the PwC tax leaks scandal. According to the Switkowski report, bad behaviour was tolerated at the firm because of the shadow culture of “growth at all costs”.

Another example is the AFL Club that secretly drug tests players and asks them to fake an injury if they test positive. While listing trust and respect as core values, the club’s Shadow Culture is clearly mistrust and disrespect (and illicit drugs).

In my field I’ve observed negotiations where ethics and probity are agreed as the rules of engagement but, in practice, ethics and probity are swiftly discarded. When working through conflict with leadership teams, I’ve seen huge discrepancies between what leaders say they value and what behaviours they tolerate. I have worked with many organisations that claim to value collaboration, but often leaders want the veneer of collaboration without having to explore opposing views from within their ranks.

The values we demonstrate will always speak louder than the values we espouse – this is Shadow Culture.

Not all Shadow Cultures are negative, but when they are, it is a failure of leadership to let them take root.

Leaders should:

1. Walk the Talk: Leaders need to exemplify the behaviours they want to see. They need to demonstrate ethical conduct (in negotiations and conflict resolution and, you know, always!) and set the standards for others to follow.
2. Promote transparency: Leaders need to encourage open dialogue about norms and values. Conflict shouldn’t be hidden; it should be explored without fear of reprisal.
3. Reward the right behaviours: Leaders should regularly evaluate the alignment between stated values and actual behaviours and reward values-aligned behaviour in negotiations and conflict situations.

I call this a Positive Conflict Culture. It’s a culture where leaders invest in building capability in negotiation skills, where they develop the ability of managers to identify and mediate conflict, and where they deploy a conflict-friendly culture that encourages constructive dissent so that the shadow cultures are exposed to the harsh light of day.

I’d love to help you explore how you can move your organisation away from an unhealthy Shadow Culture to a healthy Positive Conflict Culture.