Simon Sinek, the Consensus Edit

on

If you are familiar with Simon Sinek’s work, you’ll know he is best known for a viral TED talk and a book called “Start with Why”.

Sinek’s basic premise is that great leaders and organisations inspire people by communicating from the inside out. Instead of starting with WHAT they do and HOW they do it, great leaders and organisations:

  • start with WHY – their purpose or belief
  • move to the HOW – the actions needed to achieve the WHY (or maybe the special sauce that sets them apart)
  • and then to the WHAT – what they actually do or want done

It’s a simple and effective model to help leaders inspire others to act.

 

It strikes me that Sinek’s model could be applied just as easily to consensus building and negotiation.

In a negotiation, your position is what you say you want (price, scope, terms etc) and your interests are why you want them (the underlying needs or fears that motivate you). Too often we focus on positions without exploring interests.

When you do explore interests, you usually find that there are numerous ways for each party’s interests to be achieved beyond their initial positions.

If you are working with a team to build consensus, or you are negotiating agreements, start with WHY:

  • WHY do you want it
  • WHY do they want it
  • HOW could it be achieved
  • HOW could you work together to get there
  • WHAT is the best solution
  • WHAT will you do next

A Cricket Lesson

on

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

What can negotiators learn from BASE jumpers?

on

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.

 

 

The Role of Emotions in Negotiation

on

While intended to be funny, this Oscar Wilde quote can hold true in a negotiation.

Negotiations can be a tense and emotional experience. Many people believe that emotions should be left out of negotiations but, surprisingly, they play a significant role in the process.

Emotions can motivate people to reach a compromise, help build trust, and create a positive outcome for both parties.

When emotions run high, it’s important to acknowledge and manage them effectively. Emotions such as anger, fear, and frustration can quickly escalate and cause a negotiation to fail. On the other hand, emotions like empathy, gratitude, and happiness can lead to a successful outcome.

One way to use emotions to your advantage in a negotiation is by building rapport with the other party. If you can establish a connection based on trust and mutual respect, it can lead to a more positive and productive negotiation. Show empathy and understanding towards the other party, and try to find common ground that you can both agree on.

 

There must be a solution

on

 

 

 

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.

Negotiation has an image problem

on

People don’t know that they should learn to negotiate.

They think negotiation is something that only people in business suits do, or something that involves large sums of money. Or even an activity involving hostages and camouflage!

But, at the heart of negotiation is, simply, the desire to get something from someone else.

Negotiation means working out what you want; asking the other party for it; understanding their needs; anticipating and responding to any setbacks; and confirming what you’ve agreed.

We do this in our homes every week when we have the discussion about which takeaway food to order. This is no less a negotiation than what goes on at the UN. Maybe the stakes are higher at the UN and the issues are more complex … but the discussion about whether tonight should involve sushi or pizza is still a negotiation.

Regardless of negotiation’s image problem, we can’t escape the fact that we are all negotiating all the time … don’t you think it’s time you learnt more about it?

 

Does Putin negotiate?

on

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.

Tips for King Charles III

on

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.

 

Sydney Trains and Negotiation Ultimatums

on

I have been thinking a lot about what I would do in the negotiations between the NSW Government and workers at Sydney Trains. The industrial action has dragged on for over a year and has impacted commuters and travellers all over Sydney (https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/perrottet-declares-war-on-rail-unions-in-high-stakes-ultimatum-20220831-p5beby.html)

Without being in the room, it’s hard to know what actions I would be taking, but I do know this … giving ultimatums, as Premier Dominic Perrottet did yesterday, is a very risky move.

Premier Perrottet said “This ends today. I will not have our city grind to a halt, our people inconvenienced any more by the actions of a union movement that belongs back in the 1970s.”

If the 13,000-strong workforce refuses to accept the government’s latest offer, Perrottet has indicated he will terminate the rail unions’ existing enterprise agreement and take off the table all previous offers to modify the overseas-made trains.

From time to time, negotiations call for ultimatums. When all other options have been canvassed, sometimes an ultimatum is the only option left. However, this is a huge call by Perrottet. If he doesn’t carry through on this, it’s an empty bluff and his negotiation power will be severely diminished in future.

When ultimatums are used, negotiators need to have a good BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). I’m not convinced Premier Perrottet has a strong BATNA; there is no workforce in the wings ready to be deployed and the Fair Work Commission is unlikely to terminate the existing agreement at this stage.

However it plays out, you can be sure that other unions are watching the government’s moves carefully.

And I, like many others, will also be watching closely in anticipation of getting a reliable train system back.

 

Should we all be a little more Karen?

on

Last weekend, my son went with friends to Karen’s Diner in Sydney. Karen’s bills themselves as offering great burgers and rude service.

The diner has been named for the slang term Karen, which gained notoriety in the early days of the pandemic. Karen has become a pejorative term for a white, middle-aged woman with an over-inflated sense of entitlement.

Karens are infamous for demanding to speak to the manager, for refusing to wear masks, and for getting unreasonably irritated at any slight inconvenience.

But here’s the rub … Karens are usually asking for what they want, and shouldn’t we (by we, I mean women) all be doing a little more of that?

Data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency continues to show that women are vastly underpaid over their lifetimes and are missing out on top management roles.

Even in the best workplaces, if you don’t ask, you often don’t get.

We don’t have to ask for what we want with a Karen attitude (a “Karentude”); it can be done with courtesy. In my negotiation courses exclusively for women, I teach a model of Courteous Defiance that gives women confidence to negotiate for themselves.

My challenge is to those of you who don’t always ask for what you want … summon up some Courteous Defiance (or some Courteous-Karentude, if you will) and give it a shot. You might be surprised about what you receive.