May 242010
 

10 Aug ’08

From an article in the New York Times of August 7. 2008 by Jonathan D. Glater:

Note to victims of accidents, medical malpractice, broken contracts and the like: When you sue, make a deal.

That is the clear lesson of a soon-to-be-released study of civil lawsuits that has found that most of the plaintiffs who decided to pass up a settlement offer and went to trial ended up getting less money than if they had taken that offer.

Helping people to negotiate fast, fair settlements is what professional mediators are trained to do. It makes sense financially, emotionally, and practically – and the evidence supporting its efficacy continues to accumulate.

Link to the full article

Immanuel Kant

 Commentary  Comments Off
May 232010
 

19 May ’08

Famous dead philosophers are not often associated with mediation and negotiation. But these quotes from the philosopher, Immanuel Kant seemed very apropriate:

Portrait of Immanuel KantAll the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions:
What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope?

Act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world.

Just the kind of hard-nosed optimism that a successful negotiator needs!

May 222010
 

06 Jan ’08

Long ago I lost count of the number of people that approached me for assistance with a conflict problem, but who in reality, were not seeking advice or assistance of any kind! What they appeared to want was validation that some other person or party was the to blame for the conflict and for all of their problems. Of course, a good mediator or advocate will try to validate the legitimacy of someone’s feelings – but it is often impossible for an uninvolved party to ascribe blame. More importantly, even if in the rare instances when it is easy to find fault, ascribe blame, and know who to ascribe the blame too… it serves no useful purpose to do so.

Blame does not solve problems. Blame does not improve situations. Most of the time blame does not even make people feel better. One of the services that a mediator provides to parties in conflict, is to help them move away from blame-based problem thinking, and to move towards goal-oriented, solution-focused thinking. At the end of the day, blame will not make a problem go away, but it may be possible to improve a difficult situation considerably by looking forward and by exploring possible solutions.

May 212010
 

16 Nov ’07

Conflicts can arise from many different sources. In complex, multicultural societies, like those common in major urban centres, a sometimes overlooked source of conflict is the cultural diversity itself. Cultural diversity brings numerous benefits to us, but it is easy to forget that part of our diversity is that we see the same things in different ways. In my travels through Europe and Israel I have been fortunate to meet wonderful people with world views that are different than the one that I grew up with in Toronto of the 60s and 70s. A few examples from my own experience can highlight some of the ways in which different world-views, and associated value systems, can lead to very difficult to resolve conflicts.

  1. What’s Wrong With Hiring my Son?” – In North America and Northwest Europe we value fair competition, independence, and rewards based on merit. Providing a job, promotion, or public benefit for a relative is considered to be dishonest, and cheating. We try to help our kids to be competitive by encouraging them to study hard, work hard, and play by the rules. But in some Mediterranean and Middle Eastern societies family bonds are much more valuable than other types of social bonds. For a person to be in a position of power, with the ability to provide direct aid to a close relative… and then not to aid that relative, is practically incomprehensible. It would be considered the pinnacle of absurdity to refuse to help a family member in need. What we see as nepotism, some other cultures perceive as common sense.
  2. But They Signed The Contract!” – In most Western cultures a signature on a contract is an irrevocable bond. We tend to be very careful about what we sign our name to, because we know that once we have signed a deal we are committed to its terms. When I was growing up, the father of one of my close friends used to complain about “those people over there” who would simply refuse to honour the contracts that they signed. Even when the deal was done, it seemed that there was more negotiating to do. He was shocked because when he left for home everybody seemed pleased with deals. But in the part of the Middle East that he did business, deals were cemented through relationship bonds and the people there did not really see much significance to the act of writing their names on a piece of paper. They were not being deliberately dishonest, and they were not trying to cheat. It was just that the “signature part” of deal making was not nearly as important as the relationship building, and accumulated trust over time was. Now this was nearly 30 years ago, and things may have changed “over there” since then — but it is still easy to see how a cultural miscommunication can lead to conflict inducing perceptions.
  3. I asked for directions and he looked me in the eyes and lied.” – This one still occurs in Israel from time to time. People with European backgrounds place a very high value on so-called objective truth and honesty. For us, it is much very important to be honest, straightforward, and accurate. So, if we are asked for directions we either give good directions, let the questioner know where they might find the directions, or simply apologize and say, “I don’t know”. But in the Middle East a much higher premium is placed on hospitality and service to those in need. If asked for directions, one has a moral duty to provide directions. It is considered impolite and rude to refuse to provide an answer. It is more important to provide “an” answer than it is to provide “the right” answer. Besides, it shouldn’t be long before the questioner asks for help again and is provided with the proper directions and maybe even a ride to their destination by someone else. No harm was done and you answered their question!

All three of the above examples are based on my own experiences and anecdotal evidence. They are meant to be illustrative of the pitfalls of cultural naivité, and not lessons in sepcific cultures and cultural traits! As I mentioned in the second story, some of the specific stories are 30 years old and may or may not still be relevant. But the lessons that I learned from these stories still apply today, and will continue to apply anywhere and any time that people from different cultural backgrounds work together. It is not always critical to know everything about, or every difference between, different cultures — but it is vitally important that what might at first seem to be “obvious” dishonesty, bad faith, or bad behaviour may in fact be anything but. Maybe someone is looking at you and wondering what the heck it is that you are thinking!

May 202010
 

28 Aug ’07

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

~ Albert Einstein

 

03 Jul ’07

The Solution-focused approach to goal attainment has evolved over the years to integrate what I think are the most effective elements of solution-focused and narrative psychology, with the most effective elements of the interest-based win/win negotiation model developed by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard University Negotiation Project.

There are five factors needed for a solution-focused approach to goal attainment. They are:

  1. Needs - Three Fundamental Needs that every person has
  2. Interests - Understanding Everybody’s Interests
  3. Goals – Solution-Focused Goal Setting
  4. Options - Knowing the Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement (ATNA)
  5. System - The Goal Focused Action Cycle

I discuss these ideas more fully on my web site at http://www.goalfocused.com

May 202010
 

The previous blog post makes a strong case for being nice. It’s important to be nice for both moral and practical reasons. But sometimes, what passes for nice, isn’t.

When being nice is just an excuse for avoiding conflict, instead of a way to help address conflict, people’s interests can be ill-served. I am referring to a certain kind of management style that tends to set people up for massive failure because opportunities for guidance, coaching, and leadership are missed and replaced instead with avoidance or false complements. While it is important to be nice, and to treat others with compassion, there is nothing kind about allowing someone to fail, when you are able to help them succeed. Unfortunately, I frequently encounter people who have been told for years that their work is satisfactory, and meets expectations, when in fact it does not. Sadly, the first time these people find out that there was a problem is when it is being addressed through negative consequences like project failure, discipline, or even termination. By this time it is usually too late to change the outcome for the victim of all these years of “niceness” or “benign neglect”.

People need honest feedback in order to succeed at what they are doing. If someone is struggling to reach their goals, they should be helped through coaching, guidance, and compassionate leadership. Part of treating people kindly and fairly is helping them to improve their performance before it is too late.

On Being Nice

 Commentary  Comments Off
May 182010
 

06 Apr ’07

Nice, niceness, compassion, complements, helpfulness…

Sometimes it seems like these words, and the concepts that they represent, get lost in the day to day scramble to “get things done”. Or maybe people believe that “niceness” has no business in the hard-scrabble world of business. But being nice matters. Not just because of the intrinsic human value of compassion over cruelty, but because in addition to the “feel good factor” of being nice, there are tangible, observable, and measurable benefits.

Whatever your role is in any organization, it is possible to reflect on the benefits of niceness, and on the costs of meanness. One of the first principles of negotiation is the ability to put yourself in the position of your negotiating partners. Good negotiators are always asking themselves what they would do if their roles were reversed. Another basic negotiation skill is to move conversations away from blame and towards “going forward” solutions. It is not hard to make the connection between these two principles, and being nice. Every good negotiator knows that people respond positively to complements, and negatively to harsh criticism. It is easy to foresee that by being nice to others, we are far more likely to achieve the outcomes that we desire too.

This does not mean that we should give praise where none is due, or reward bad behaviour. Most people can see through false complements, and insincerity is probably more damaging than silence. Bad behaviour cannot be rewarded because what gets rewarded will probably be repeated. But there are nearly always opportunities to offer sincere complements about some aspect of someone or their behaviour. And helping other people to achieve their goals is a pretty good way to ensure that other people will help us to achieve our goals too.

Part of being nice is treating people fairly. People who feel that they are treated fairly also feel that they have a stake in what they are expected to accomplish at work. One of my colleagues, Blaine Donais, writes extensively about fairness in the workplace on his blog, Workplaces That Work. Being nice, fair workplaces, complements and compassion. These should not be “wishy-washy, airy-fairy” concepts! Workplaces that are unfair, cruel, or exploitive don’t work. It should not be difficult to realize that people do better work when they are treated fairly and treated nicely.

So what’s so wrong about being nice? It feels good to do good, and it encourages others to do good too. And if you model good behaviour and “niceness”, the chances are greater that your behaviour will be rewarded in kind – and with kindness.

May 182010
 

06 Apr ’07

In previous entries to the Goal Focused Way Blog, I have described the Three Fundamental Needs motivation model that I developed based on the pioneering work in this field by Abraham Maslow. My model is based on balancing the three most fundamental needs of all people; Security Needs, Status Needs, and Stimulation Needs. Ethical negotiators are always mindful of the interests that people have as a result of their individual weighting of these three needs. Unfortunately, our negotiating partners are not always ethical negotiators. Less ethical and more cynical negotiators sometimes flip over the three needs “coins” to attempt to gain advantage from their hidden “dark” sides. We need to be aware of these dark sides so that we are prepared for their use. The three undersides are Fear, Greed, and Lust.

Fear:
Fear is on the underside of the Security Needs coin. While ethical negotiators attempt to satisfy the needs of all parties for security, through trust-building, seeking mutual interests, attaining common goals, and building checks and balances into agreements – unethical negotiators attempt to gain advantage by threatening security needs by using fear of consequences, and intimidation tactics. Fear is a powerful human emotion and exploiting it is often successful for gaining short-term advantage. It is almost always counterproductive eventually, as the results of fear-based negotiation can only be maintained by unending surveillance and intimidation. Compliance ends as soon as enforcement is relaxed or escape is possible. Still, there will always be negotiators who are not capable of foreseeing longer term consequences or who simply lack empathy and don’t care about longer term outcomes. When a negotiating counterpart attempts to use fear as a tool, we need to try to refocus them on the positive side of the Security Needs coin by providing the opportunity to explore and uncover the longer term negative consequences of using it to gain agreement.

Greed:
Greed is on the underside of the Status Needs coin. As with Fear, unethical negotiators will attempt to gain advantage by trying to appeal to your desires for higher status and material gain. In many ways greed is the most dangerous of the three dark needs because it is used to undermine the greater good of a mutually beneficial agreement. Greed is used as a tool to blind one party to risks, or to the unrealistic goals of a potential agreement. Greed requires unethical exploitation in order to successfully gain agreement. Agreements based primarily on greed nearly always leave at lease one party feeling “cheated”, and because once greed becomes the primary motivation for agreement, neither party can be sure if they will be the one “left holding the bag” when the agreement collapses.

Lust:
Lust is similar to greed, and it can be viewed as being on the dark side of Stimulation Needs coin. Whereas greed is used by unethical negotiators as a tool to exploit Status Needs, lust is used for the unethical exploitation of Stimulation Needs. Lust, with its inherent sexual associations, can be thought of as a tool to corrupt individual negotiators, one person at a time. For example a large corporate entity could get “greedy” and attempt to exploit weaknesses in a smaller corporation to gain an unbalanced agreement, while the CEO of the company may simply lust after the assets of the smaller entity or lust for the opportunity to humiliate a perceived opponent.

Dealing with the Dark Side:
The ethical negotiator knows that fear, greed, and lust are only effective for short term gain and that the gains obtained through their use as exploitive negotiating tools are often illusory. When dealing with negotiators who rely heavily on these to force agreements, it is important to remember the more positive needs on the upside of each of the dark-sided coins. Attempt to flip them over again by using the basic active listening tools of restating and reframing. Reframe exploitive comments to restate needs in terms of the interests that would have the highest probability of satisfying the associated Fundamental Need on the bright side of the same coin.

May 182010
 

Value proposition theory is usually associated with corporate marketing campaigns, and market segmentation efforts. At its core there are three components:

  1. Buying motivators
  2. Supporting qualifications
  3. Value added

In an article by Sharon Graham in the online career counselling journal ContactPoint, she discusses using Value Proposition Theory as a career counselling tool. She addresses the three components:

  1. Employers wanting to fill positions are essentially purchasing employees and therefore they have specific buying motivators. These motivators generally relate to the company’s bottom-line. An organization might be looking for an employee to help them generate revenue, save money, or solve a problem.
  2. In order to effectively market and sell him or herself, your client needs to demonstrate supporting qualifications that directly address the employer’s buying motivators. Your client’s qualifications are likely to encompass specific skills, abilities, level, stature, education, experience, credentials, and accomplishments.
  3. Your client’s added value is the distinctly individual benefit that he or she brings to the table. The unique offering that your client presents is the “clincher” in the sales pitch to the employer.

It is possible to see how this same theory could be applied to negotiation and conflict resolution as well.

  1. Buying motivators could be seen as Interests and/or Needs
  2. Supporting Qualifications can be viewed as the “mutual problem statement”, as shared interests, or as the advantages inherent in a “win/win” outcome, and,
  3. Added Value is the avoidance of escalation, increased costs (financial, time, emotional, relationship), and the advantage of early mutually agreed settlement.

Full article on Contact Point:

Value Proposition Theory: Applying a Holistic Approach to Job Search

© 2011 The Goal Focused Way Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha