Controlling How We Are Perceived

We develop an impression of others pretty quickly, and we are wired to be flexible with the first impression IF we see evidence that we are wrong (“when I first met her, she seemed a little ditzy, but I could see after just one real conversation that she was better versed than I on a lot of subjects”). If evidence indicates we are right (and sometimes, if we just NEED to be right) our impression will develop into something stronger (like an opinion) and we may even “upgrade” its status to a “fact”. My point is that how people perceive us can be controlled.

It is easiest to influence their perceptions at the beginning of a relationship because we are wired to be flexible at first and become more rigid as we find evidence. We even refer to the process as “forming” an opinion. If someone is forming an opinion about us, WE are the source of the evidence. And even if they know something about us from a different source, we provide the evidence that they can use to modify that opinion of us, until their judgment of us is aligned with the evidence they have.

This sounds like an opportunity to “pretend to be someone that you aren’t”, but it isn’t. It is an opportunity to determine behaviors that may be holding you back (or coloring people’s perception of you in an unflattering way) and tailoring them to portray your true feelings and thoughts in a way that they can easily understand them. That is, to be more transparent and accessible, less cryptic.

In short we can present ourselves in a way that promotes productive and beneficial working relationships without being false or fake in any way – just by have the a full understanding of how we actually feel, and how to communicate that to the world. I will make some suggestions as to how excellent communicators and leaders typically feel about relationships and common ways those feelings manifest themselves. You MUST tailor these to suit who you are – you should seldom use someone else’s words to express your own feelings. NOTE - beware self-help advice that offers you “scripts” – if your words don’t align with your feelings and actions, the people you are trying to communicate with will identify you as a fake. Think of the people you have known whose words didn’t align with their actions. How did you feel about them?

My suggestions (from the last newsletter) were as follows:

·         Giving the benefit of the doubt as far as our counterpart’s motives

·         Using inquiry like a journalist would and listening to answers

·         Working actively to prevent defensiveness

·         Being honest and explicit

 I will expand a little on those and give you an overview of a model I named THE SCORE to help you remember the elements.

The objective is to be a person that does not promote defensiveness in others. Defensiveness is the primary reason that people are not open and honest at work – they think what they say will somehow cause them trouble, so they “defend” against that trouble in a MYRIAD of ways. My method (THE SCORE) is a method that requires only three things:

1)      You know what makes for good communication

2)      Adjust YOUR way of communicating to conform with those rules (in YOUR unique way),  and

3)      Facilitate other people in communicating in that same way (usually, without them knowing it).

I will teach you these things, so don’t worry that you don’t know them now – you will over the next few weeks. As you begin to practice them, others will just see you as the kind of person they can talk to about anything and it will seem natural to do so. They will feel that way because you will SHOW them that you are that kind of person.

Some of the ways we promote defensiveness in others are listed in the table below. Ways to PROMOTE DEFENSIVENESS (detract from good communication) are in the first two columns). Ways to INHIBIT DEFENSIVENESS (encourage good communication) are in the last two columns.

Example Behaviors that Promotes Defensiveness	Common Names for Bad Behavior	Behavior to Inhibit Defensiveness	Common Names for Good Behavior
Acting as if your ideas are fully formed, vetted, and can’t be improved upon.  Input or critique is not welcomed	Arrogance, Closed-mindedness	Explicitly stating that our ideas have some room for improvement. Use other’s involvement in the formulation of ideas to create buy-in	Tentativeness; Humility
Ignoring or arguing with the feelings or opinions of others such that you indicate that they don’t matter (or don’t exist)	Self-centered; Isolated; “Steamroller”; Disconnected	Explicitly demonstrating an understanding of the feelings and opinions of others, considering them,  and expressing that they are important; Speaking kindly, giving the benefit of the doubt	Empathetic; Fair-minded
Using vocabulary or terms that is not familiar to the person with whom we are trying to communicate; or using vocabulary that is aimed below their level of capability	Snobbish; Show-off; Talking Down; Confusing	Using vocabulary chosen specifically for the people with whom we are communicating (defining unfamiliar acronyms, using two syllable words, explicitly asking for understanding, watching non-verbal cues for confusion)	Simple; Clear; Meaningful
Using prepared “boilerplate” information that doesn’t take the specific audience into account; Using words to manipulate; offering weak excuses	Insincere; Manipulative; Dishonest; Condescending	Speak from the heart, being kind and honest ; being fair and firm	Sincere
Telling rather than asking; listening	Closed minded; Disconnected; Rude	Asking questions, including follow-up questions to answers	Curious
Acting as if your ideas are fully formed, vetted, and can’t be improved upon.  Input or critique is not welcomed; Cutting others off	Closed minded; Arrogant; Rude;	Sharing the weak points of your own position; asking for suggestions; listening summarizing to assure understanding; weighing trade-offs; changing your mind when warranted	Open
Cutting others off; insulting; dismissing their ideas without reasoning	Disrespectful; Rude	Listening; fully considering proposed ideas; giving reasons for disagreement	Respectful
Holding multiple discussions at a time; not focusing one someone speaking to you; multitasking (phone, email) while someone is discussing something important with you	Disrespectful; Disengaged; Disingenuous	Focusing your attention on your counterpart; rescheduling discussions based on their priority in order to give attention	Engaged

I suggest you look through the first two columns to identify the things that POOR COMMUNICATORS IN YOUR LIFE currently do that detract from good communication. It is usually easiest to see these things in others, especially those that already bother us. Then look at what GOOD BEHAVIORS they would have to implement to improve the situation. Wouldn’t things be better if they would do them?

Then look through the first two columns looking for things that YOU might do. I found it useful in my life to ask people if they thought any of the names in the second column applied to me. I wouldn’t ask them to explain, and I wouldn’t try to tell them they were wrong, or give excuses….. I would just thank them. Then I would practice the behaviors in the last two columns that were prescribed. It is difficult for people to tell us our short comings (unless they trust us). If you find that your circle of co-workers find you perfect, you need to search yourself. Are they just afraid to tell you the truth? If you are truly perfect, then I need you as a mentor.

THE SCORE is a model that I created that stands for:

Tentative

Humility

Empathy

Simplicity (and Sincerity)

Curiosity

Open

Respectful

Engaged

The right hand column in the table above corresponds with the model elements. We will go into detail on these elements next time.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Commitment, Consistency, Confidence, and Conviction

Commitment is a very powerful and misunderstood persuasive element. We are more likely to be persuaded by someone that is committed and consistent in their message than someone that isn’t. Many of us are taught to “sound confident and sure” and to be suspicious of people that “flip-flop” or “waffle” in their opinions. It’s almost as if being committed and confident are the same as being correct.


Well, they aren’t. They are just persuasive. You can be confident, committed, consistent, and WRONG quite easily. The problem with being in that position is that many of us find it impossible to “back up”, admit we are wrong, and get back on track.

Because of this, we have to be careful in our conversations about how we ask questions about others positions and how we express our own opinions about things. Since the lessons about commitment are so powerful, we must be careful not to commit before we are ready. We must also know under what circumstances we can reverse a commitment and how to do it. Finally, we must be able to help others feel comfortable in reversing a position to which they have publicly committed.

Let’s recognize that sometimes we will behave as if we are sure when we aren’t. Later, when the weaknesses in our position are exposed, we spend a great deal of time trying to save face. Why? Because we were so committed in the first place. Had we been a bit more tentative, we may be better off.

It is a shortcut to persuade a group by saying something like “The conclusion is inescapable – we must pursue this as I have recommended” when a better expression of reality may be “to the best of my knowledge, I think I am on the right track here. I welcome any additional input on the subject”. The short cut helps us move to a conclusion faster, and if it is the wrong conclusion there is little benefit in doing that. I am not saying we should be meek in expressing our convictions, but rather that we should leave enough uncertainty in them to allow others to feel comfortable in contributing other viewpoints. Please search this blog for “THE SCORE” for more about this.

So we commit to things we feel certain about and not to those for which we still need data. Next, how do we help others to keep from committing to things for which they aren’t truly certain? First, before they start to speak publicly about their certainty, we ask them questions about what they are basing their opinions on. It is usually unnecessary to tell them that they are wrong and best if we could point out that there are other views on the subject and, even though we may have strong suspicions about the best view, we should remain open to other opinions so we don’t have to “untangle” ourselves from any rushed judgments. In other words, we help others see that there is still data on the subject that they haven’t considered and rather than rush to a conclusion, we can continue on recognizing that there is a likely outcome, but that it is not certain. Please search this blog for “THE SCORE” for more about this.

When we have committed to position and find that we need to reverse field, we need to understand that it is a good thing; the information we had put us on one path that seemed correct at the time. Now, we have better or more complete information and are on a better path. In many circles, this is called “learning” and it is seldom looked down upon.

That is also how you can help another person change their current committed opinion. You can explain to them that, based on the data they had when the opinion was formed, they had made the best possible call. Now that new information is available (and you tell them what it is and how it effects the decision), it is clear that changing their opinion is appropriate and reasonable. Note that the “new” information doesn’t need to be “new”; it may have been known when the opinion was formed. The thing that is new about it might be that now we understand the weight or significance of it, or that we now know that some of the beliefs underlying the opinion were believed to be true at the time, but now are known to be untrue (“flat earth”).
More Next Time


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Listen (4 of 5)

We’ve been talking about the fine art of listening for the last few newsletters because of its critical importance to being a good communicator, and we have progressed to talking about how to sense problems in our communication. It is important to be keenly aware of when a problem in a given communication starts, because they seldom get better with more talking. In fact,they can often escalate very quickly.

As you talk to your counterpart, you pretty much stay on the subject. If, for instance, you are talking about a project at work, then the discussion stays on a factual exchange about things related to the project – due date, deliverables, requirements, budget, resources – things like that. That is the kind of discussion we are hoping for, and many times we get it. But sometimes we hear things that don’t fit exactly when, say, we are proposing an idea ….like these:

1.       Our counterpart responds sarcastically, saying “Oh SURE, why don’t I just do that TOO?”

2.       Our counterpart starts avoiding giving direct responses, instead favoring language that doesn’t help us make decisions. They are RESPONDING, but not ANSWERING.

3.       Our counterpart starts “building suggestions” into questions, like saying “Well, you aren’t going to let them get away with that, are you?” In other words, telling you but NOT telling you.

4.       Our counterpart makes a statement and we become annoyed or uncomfortable and no longer feel safe to answer as we would like, so we stay silent.

As I teach in my classes, these changes are due to the meaning that the LISTENER attaches to whatever the SPEAKER has said. The LISTENER interprets the SPEAKER’S words and reacts. The LISTENER, then, has the power to determine if they will continue to move towards the desired outcome, or divert the conversation.  In the first three examples above, our counterpart is reacting to us in an unexpected way and we can see that they have “shifted away” the mutually beneficial, fact-based discussion we had been enjoying and towards a more guarded or cautious mode. In the fourth example, WE are the ones doing the shifting.

It is important to be observant for these kinds of shifts as we talk. In the next newsletter, we will talk about THE SCORE, which is a method to reduce the likelihood of our counterpart shifting away from us. When we see our counterpart shifting away from “responsible adult communication” it is important to try to remedy the situation. We will learn to re-engage them by asking some specific questions about their reaction. This is an activity called “Name the Game” and we will talk about it in the next newsletter. It is easy, non-confrontational, and has a good success rate for putting things back on course.

When we feel ourselves shifting, however, it is critical that we address ourselves right away. Our counterpart is not skilled in trying to prevent our shifting, and may unwittingly press our hot buttons. When they hit one and feel ourselves moving out of the “safe zone” and into either fear or anger, we need to be able to re-center ourselves quickly. So we have certain stories we will tell ourselves about what the counterpart just said in order to allow us to change the way we feel about it.

Next time will talk about the following four things to close on the topic of listening for now:

1)      How to reduce the likelihood of our counterpart “shifting away” by knowing THE SCORE.

2)      How to remedy things if they DO shift away.

3)      How to reduce the likelihood of shifting away from our counterpart by using active inquiry.

4)      How to re-center ourselves after we have inadvertently shifted away from our counterpart.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

When Your Collaborator Can't

The other day, I was having a critical discussion about something at work with an indirect superior (a big boss, but not MY big boss). We disagreed on some details regarding how to do something we were doing together. We had gone back and forth a few times and finally he conceded and said "Ok...whatever. We'll do it however you need".

And I knew that I had failed.

By his tone and body language, I knew that he was not committing to the SUCCESS of the project, but to its COMPLETION. I had not gained willing assent, but reluctant surrender. While this may be highly-prized by some, it is NOT what one wants in a collaborative environment.

The objective of critical discussion is to attain agreement, willing assent, and commitment FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHEIVING A DESIRED RESULT. We don’t keep score by how many times someone agrees with us; we keep score by the results the team gets. I know that, if I accept his "surrender" now, that when it comes time to honor our commitment we will disagree about it and re-do it. That is rework, and rework is waste of resource.

His remark (“Ok… whatever”) was a withdrawal from the conversation, and I know it is a manifestation of unexpressed feelings. I believe he was distracted with work and non-work events of higher priority and would have said “We’ll have to come back to this – I can’t give it the attention it deserves right now” if he had felt ok to do so.

I asked (and received) his permission to work with one of his trusted people on it until we can create a recommendation that fulfills what we BOTH need. This trusted person thinks very much like him, and has the bandwidth to collaborate with me on the project. This will make sure his perspective (or one like it) is represented making it very likely to develop something he can support.

Instead of accepting surrender, I empathized with his frustration concerning the demands on him. I know he wants to do what's best, and I will support him in this by using a surrogate. The important thing is that what ever we commit to is worth it.





Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Persuasive Words – Phrasing and Credibility

This is the last article for this series on Persuasion. Even though I could write lots more on this subject, there are other subjects that are just as important and I want to get what you feel you need. After this installment, I am going to move into another topic. If you have something in particular you would like to cover regarding face-to-face communication in business, email me. This blog is about learning skills to help you influence your company to get better results, so let me know if there is something specific you are grappling with.

Checkout the Pathfinder Communicatotrs LinkedIn group (http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1958793) to see great NEWS articles from HarvardBusiness.org. Also, come see me at the September 22nd meeting of the Society for Software Quality. Go to (http://www.ssq.org/sd/) for meeting details.

Now on to the newsletter....

When engaged in persuasion, you can tell the winners from the losers pretty quickly. The losers are insincere, make claims they can’t back up, shade the truth to make their stories sound better, and generally lead the organization down a path. If you enter into a persuasion and someone is doing this to you, you need to ask them questions – the important questions – which we have covered in the last few weeks on this series. What evidence do they have? How do they know? Isn’t there a downside?

Listen for these words when others speak: free, proven, guaranteed, easy, or risk-free. These are very persuasive when they are true. If others are using them, ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN THE REASONING behind their use. If these words go unquestioned, and they are accepted by the listeners, you will have a HARD time changing their minds. Sometimes, we want to believe that one or more of those words apply to the software package being recommended by a colleague. If we wait to question them, even just to wait until we can ask them in private, the decision makers in the room can be swayed and could make decisions that will be hard for them to take back without losing face. It is important to plant seeds of doubt in the group if doubt is appropriate. And remember, if you question the magic words and the speaker has the right information prepared to prove their point, it goes a long way towards cementing the decision. So use these words yourself AND BE PREPARED TO DEFEND THEM with sound logic and easy-to-understand reasoning.

Persuasive language is always more persuasive when it is simple to understand. Persuasion is often telling a story in which the listener can imagine themselves involved as a character. You lead them from point to point, and by the time you reach the end, you share the same perspective – they are persuaded. It is often just explaining something in a way that is easily understood and credible. Simplicity extends to numbers as well; that is it is usually unnecessary to say that “sales were up 9.815% this year” when you could say “sales were up nearly 10%”.

Wordy sentences make listeners feel uneasy, as if you are trying to carefully craft a partial truth. Those of you that have attended classes or have read this newsletter for very long will remember that the “S” in THE SCORE is about simplicity and sincerity. They are important independently, and together have a dramatic impact on your perceived credibility. If you say “At various points throughout the fiscal reporting period, production figures were unpredictable and at other times quite steady, ending in a negative position versus forecast overall” you may sound like you are trying to avoid saying that “Production was down last year”. This can even be embarrassing when someone a listener asks “Did all of that you just said add up to production was down?” and you have to answer “Yes”. Even though you weren’t trying to hide anything, it feels as if you MIGHT have been, or that you felt you could fool the audience, or that you didn’t think anyone would notice – and that attacks your credibility.

Finally speak in a way that is positive, confident, cooperative, and credible. Be careful not to wander into arrogance or insincerity. Instead of saying “If we accept this proposal”, say “When we accept this proposal”; instead of “I guess we will need a consultant during phase 2 of the project”, say “I believe we will need a consultant during phase 2 of the project”; instead of “Your idea won’t work”, say “Let’s talk though your idea so that I understand it better”.

Give me your ideas for the next series. Otherwise, next week I will be left to my own devices.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Speaking June 16 in San Diego

See you on Wednesday June 16 here. APICS in San Diego to talk a bit about THE SCORE.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Listening (part 5 of 5)

Happy August, everyone! I had to excuse myself from the Pathfinder Newsletter in order to take care of a few situations that required my immediate and full time attention, but now am back and am closing on the article about listening.

In this installment on the subject, I will cover the four things that a skilled communicator needs to know in order to keep a difficult conversation on track. They are:

1) Reduce the likelihood of our counterpart “shifting away” from constructive to defensive conversation.

2) Remedy things if they DO shift away.

3) Reduce the likelihood of shifting away from our counterpart ourselves.

4) Re-center ourselves if we have inadvertently shifted away from our counterpart.

Your counterpart can shift into a defensive mindset for a lot of reasons, and there are some over which you have influence. By using the skills described in THE SCORE, you will be able to exert the most influence in keeping them engaged in a constructive conversation. More on this subject is here.

 In order to keep our counterpart from shifting into a defensive mode, we use the knowledge that the feeling we experience are not so much about what we see or hear, but what we tell ourselves about what we see or hear. In some of my presentations, I tell a story that leads the listeners into reacting based on a generalization (sharks are dangerous, for instance) and then reveal some specifics that, had they known them, their reaction would have been different and more rational.

 Applying this well-known mechanism to an exchange with a counterpart requires us to detect their defensiveness. Defensiveness is not always expressed with anger or silence. Sometimes it is expressed with:

·         Sarcasm (“oh, that’s a GREAT idea” doesn’t always mean that your counterpart thinks you are a genius!)

·         Control (“were you going to wear THAT tonight?”)

·         Withdrawal for the conversation (“whatever”, silence)

 and other responses that aren’t clear communications – they are ways people indicate what they would LIKE to say, but won’t say because they don’t feel safe in saying it. Your primary job as a communicator is to ensure that the other person feels safe in talking to you. The techniques we cover in these newsletters are used by professionals like hostage negotiators and crisis managers for that very reason – to make people feel comfortable to talk even in highly charged situations. More information is available here.

 When we find ourselves shifting into a defensive mode, the first opportunity is when we feel as if the other party has made an attack on our dignity or that we are not being heard. This usually happens when our counterpart says something to us and we feel angry about it. Do you recognize this as just a case of us telling ourselves a story about what the other person meant and being angry over our story? If so, you are well on your way to understanding how to correct the situation. A good method for this is to first recognize that you are responsible for your stories and its best to get clarification by asking your counterpart “ what do you mean by that” or “that’s interesting – tell me more about that” or “can you say that a different way? I need to understand just what you mean”. The purpose of this is to give yoru counterpart the benefit of the doubt and ask for more words so that you can come to understand what was meant.

Next time, we’re going to talk about the elements that go into making good decisions.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Speaking Engagement Alert

Please note that I will be speaking at the Society for Software Quality on September 22, 2009. The subject will be "THE SCORE" and a little about "Inductive Inquiry".

September Meeting Announcement Society for Software Quality

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Next Speaking Engagement

I will be speaking to Tech America at their Operations Roundtable on August 11 at 7am. the event is held at:
HME (HM Electronics)
14110 Stowe Drive
Poway, CA 92064-7147

The topic is "Productive Business Communications with THE SCORE - Building Great Working Relationships"

for more info, http://www.techamerica.org/operations-roundtable


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

What to Say in Difficult Conversations

As we develop our skills as a communicator, it is common to focus on what we will say as if “saying” was the most important part of communicating. As if crafting a message as if it were a single entity and delivering it was the act that causes the listener to understand it. The listener, however, has much to consider BESIDES the message before they can truly understand what we mean in an even moderately complex message.

We have all experienced being told something about ourselves that we didn’t want to hear – that we didn’t accept at the first mention. “Your work quality doesn’t justify a raise at this time”; “You aren’t someone with whom people like to spend time”; “You are not carrying your share as a parent”. Is there ANY WAY that someone could craft that message in a way that you would accept it at face value and say “I suppose that is true.”?

The idea here is that when you have a conversation about a topic in which the other person is going to be faced with the prospect of looking at something from a new (and potentially uncomfortable) perspective, you need to be prepared to deal with MORE than just the message. They will be looking for you to not only to justify your words with logic, but also to lead them through the difficulty of hearing the words. So we have two messages; a content message and a relationship message.

Regular readers of this newsletter (and I am SO grateful for the many of you that there are) will recall that I have described a model called the SPIRAL model that defines the four basic elements of a content message (claims, questions, evidence, and inference). I will recap that model in the next newsletter. This week, I want to talk about the relationship message.

The relationship message is built on three principles:

1) Use THE SCORE to reduce defensiveness in your counterpart(s)

2) Pay careful attention to the LISTENER, whether it is you that is listening at the moment or your counterpart. The speaker usually understands their own message; it is the LISTENER that needs extra help especially if the content is complex or “difficult to hear”.

3) It is important to demonstrate attention-to-detail regarding the relationship message AND to guide your counterpart(s) in showing the same attention to detail as you (the skilled communicator).

I have developed a matrix that describes 10 common activities that a skilled communicator will use in a conversation. Depending on the difficulty level of the conversation, you may use just one, or you may use all 10. The matrix shows an activity (for instance, Clarification) and describes the essential elements you need to convey when demonstrating clarification. The third column shows the words I might use in clarifying something (that is, demonstrating clarification. The fourth column shows words I would use to guide a counterpart into giving clarification. Many times, people don’t communicate as effectively as they could because they don’t know how or they don’t know that it is alright. So the fourth column contains what I might say if I were guiding them to do that. The matrix is here.

I stress that the third and fourth columns contain words that I would use, and they may not be the words that YOU would use. IT IS CRITICAL that you convey SINCERE emotions using words that come naturally to you. If you try to read from a script, you will sound like it. Determine the words you would use and use those – they are the BEST ones for you.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Influence, Persuasion, and Negotiation

I gave a presentation for the Program Management Institute’s San Diego chapter (component) last Friday. As always, it was a good crowd of very engaged professionals, all looking to improve their effectiveness and the effectiveness of their organizations. I felt as if I was able to pique their interest in the idea of working to improve communication skills. It seems that everyone that I know is trying to improve those skills, and this group was no exception. It is a wonderful bunch of people. I received a lot of good email and questions afterwards.

I have been doing a lot of teaching lately, in addition to speaking, and a question has been raised more than a few times so I’d like to address it in this week’s newsletter – “What is the difference between Influence, Persuasion, and Negotiation as far as the mechanics go?”

I understand where the question comes from; I mean, if you influence someone, aren’t you changing their mind? Isn’t that what you do when you persuade? Isn’t that what you do when you negotiate?

Sort of. The difference in these three concepts is the kind of problem you are trying to solve. When you influence, you are trying to cause a group to address something that isn’t currently being addressed. So you are “changing their minds” to address something that they already know about, but aren’t aware that others are seeking to address it too. When you are persuading, you are providing someone with a new perspective by either changing an old perspective or asking them to look at something they haven’t considered before. So, you are “changing their mind” by giving them reasons to adopt a new perspective. When you negotiate, you are looking at something you both have perspectives on and trying to address the differences between those perspectives to settle on a mutually beneficial way of looking at things.

There are differences in the methods used to solve these three “mind-changing” but ultimately separate discussions. The methods used to influence others are many and varied. The variety of options narrow as you begin to look at maintaining long term relationships with those you are influencing, and narrower yet if you have a reciprocal relationship. I usually try to view influence as something you exercise with a group, as in influencing your workgroup to adopt a new view. This is done by open discussion of a topic, and using our Critical Discussion skills. Review the newsletters I wrote between last September and December for details. The purpose here is to make a private discussion public, remembering that it was probably private because no one felt safe in raising it, often because they are not sure of the soundness of their perspective – are they justified?. The central issue is usually “How can we be sure things are really as they seem?” The task centers on gathering and presenting compelling evidence to the group. Please review the past newsletters on Evidence to refresh yourself on the 6 different “relative weights” of evidence.

The methods used to persuade are different. The reason that the person sees something differently than you is often because they value things differently. In many cases, you may be asking a person to examine and question some of their deeply help beliefs. This is never a manipulative or coercive effort. The task centers on maintaining safety in the discussion, with you exercising great care to create safety. I tend to think of persuasion happening one-on-one. Please review my newsletters on Relationship Management and THE SCORE.

Negotiation has a special set of techniques all its own. In this case, we are actively trading with another party in order to develop a win-win proposition from which all parties benefit. It is specifically about assessing the differences in two positions and resoving them in a mutually beneficial way. There are special preparations that each side makes (such as determining the point at which you will walk away from the negotiation and creating a strategy that includes providing value to both sides) and lots of times where you actually may NOT reveal all that you know or suspect about the situation, so in that way it is very different from either Influence or Persuasion.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

'Tis the Season

Lately, I have had more than the normal amount of difficult conversations at work and home, with peers, elderly parents, and impossible children. Let's see if I can recall the more grievous mistakes I have made in them:
1) Withdrawal - I recently had a conversation in which I felt sufficiently attacked that I chose to withdraw. That is, I chose to ignore my true feelings and just agree rather than try to share my side of the story. This is a fairly significant mistake because the relationship is one that is very important to me and by choosing not to tell my side, I am choosing not to make it better.

What should I have done?

I teach in the classes that the right thing to do is to take a break; to express that the conversation is very important and the issue must be addressed, but I really can't right now. I need to sort through what I think, separate it from what I feel, and talk more later. I really wish I would have followed my own advice.

2) Assumption - I have assumed that I knew a person's side of the story when i didn't. There was a subtle shift in language and BANG! I was engaged in a full scale verbal war without warning. In the end, we agreed with each other and worked through our differences, but this is a "rookie" mistake that I should never have made.

What should I have done?

I teach that you need to be, above all things, seeking to understand the other side. I let up for just a minute (long enough for my collaborator to process more information and change their opinion) and actually lost track of their position....in SECONDS. When I sensed the change in language, I should have asked "What makes you say that?" or "Tell me more" but I didn't. They had just gotten that piece of information that changes everything and I didn’t catch it.

3) Misjudging my collaborator - I engaged with someone that has a history of pure advocacy - seldom thinks through a conversation critically, and tends to keep score as "wins" and "losses" rather than "good decisions" and "poor decisions". I felt they were going into a situation only partially prepared and was questioning their strategy. I was dealt with as if I was attacking them. In this relationship, I am expected to offer this kind of input.

What should I have done?

This one was tricky. I teach that you need to have the right "purpose, position, and clarity" formulated when you begin, and I believe I did. I actually made two mistakes: a) tried to convince them of my position in one conversation (almost never happens) and b) tried to hold a critical discussion with someone not usually open to critical thinking. I needed to preface my remarks FAR more carefully, to build safety, and to be crystal clear that I was not challenging but trying to help. I could have done all of these things better.

So there are a few lessons here. First, we all make mistakes and need to look hard to learn from them. Second, the classes teach all we need to know to have great communication BUT you have to APPLY what you learn to get the benefit. Third, if you ever think that the other party is the ONLY contributor to your communication problems, think again - we almost ALWAYS have some hand in the problem AND the solution.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Holiday Communications

 I am humbled and grateful to all of you for your consistent praise, support, interest, and requests for more. Even so, I have my own Holiday list things to do, so the next newsletter will be in the New Year. Pathfinder had a terriffic year and we are starting off January 2010 with a class starting on the 22nd (info here) and will be conducting corporate classes throughout 2010. Seems to grow faster than I can keep up. I will likely have a set of one-day workshops formulated that will be open to the public in the late spring. More on that next year. For now, I just want to express my gratitude. I am delighted that I can help so many achieve fantastic results by using these methods.

I have had the privelege of meeting many of you face-to-face over the years and am wishing ALL of you Happy Holidays. Be safe, enjoy your families, and think about a few things you'd are eager to improve in next year.


The holidays bring a number of face-to-face communication challenges for a lot of reasons. I think they are probably a little different for each of us, but still most of the people I know find them a little challenging. I’d like to think that those of you that take the time to read my articles, whether newspaper or online, have a leg up on others when it comes to better holiday communications.

I want you to think of just 2 elements of THE SCORE (our model for better relationships):

Empathy – Remember that when you are speaking to others during the holidays, that their side of the story is important. Remember that if you are going to share an understanding, YOU should start the sharing and you should start by listening to their story and taking the time and effort to understand it. Avoid jumping to conclusions, assuming facts that you really don’t know. Instead….listen and ask questions. Open questions that allow the other person to answer, not questions that lead them. Remember your purpose in this communication is to just to hear their side – that is all.

Respect – Be respectful of them. Remember that your judgments are yours whether or not you share them. It isn’t often constructive for you to try to change someone’s central belief system over a football game or dinner, no matter how well-intentioned you are.

As you show respect and empathy, you will find yourself learning things you didn’t know. Then you will know that the communication was successful.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

What to Say When Feelings are at Stake

I had several very enjoyable speaking engagements last week, and I always like to hang around afterwards to talk to anyone that has a question or would like to share an experience. I was approached by one young man who asked an excellent question and I want to share this with all of you.


He explained to me that his boss is from another culture. His boss tries very hard to understand what is said to him, but sometimes has trouble and is slow to ask for clarification, presumably for fear of appearing somehow challenged by language or cultural differences. I couldn’t help but think to myself about the scores of coworkers I have had that demonstrated the same trait without the benefit of a good reason like being from a different culture.

The young man then told me that he was concerned that he had a moderately complex issue to explain to his boss, and was concerned that there was no way to talk to him about it without things getting difficult. He couldn’t think of any way to start the conversation without it sounding like he was” dropping a bomb”, and was looking for what to do.

I want to share with you all (as I did with him) the tool of “prefacing” in these situations. That is rather than start straight into the content, preface your statement with a short and sincere statement that prepares the listener for what you are about to say.

For example, the young man I was speaking to was afraid that his boss would take his as a personal attack, so suggested he say something like:

“Boss, I need to tell you something and I don’t really know how to start without just saying it. I want you to know that I am not in any way attacking you but that I mean to be constructive. I’m willing to discuss it as long as you like until you are completely comfortable that I am saying this for our mutual benefit. Can we talk now or would it be better to do it this afternoon?”

This is not a random statement, but one that thoughtfully uses several elements of THE SCORE to make the other party feel as comfortable as possible in hearing some rough news and keep them engaged until the issue is resolved. Let’s look at it:

1) We start out tentative and humble, letting the other person know that we are doing what we think is right and have their goodwill in mind.

2) We are sincere and state the situation as simply as we can. We are respectful.

3) We address the potential for being misunderstood by using a technique called “contrasting”, meaning that, more than saying we are not attacking, we contrast the idea of attacking with what we ARE doing (which is being constructive). This is a method of “hyper-clarifying”, making it simple for our intention to register with the person that we are addressing.

4) We are engaged and committed to solving this, NOT dropping a bomb on them and willing to stay and discuss this thoroughly.

5) We close by offering a share of the control in the selection in aspects of the conversation (could be time, place, attendees – in this case, we offered control of the time). This shows respect and openness to collaboration.

When something must be said, and we don’t know how to start, admitting that and starting anyway can be the most productive and the most human thing to do.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

SO Many Differences

I am speaking on October 29th on the subject of “Working with Difficult People” and spent some time this weekend working on that presentation. If you have been to a Pathfinder class, you know that I teach that what makes people appear difficult are the differences between them, which I categorize loosely as Rules, Perceptions, Beliefs, Preferences, and Styles. It always surprises me (although it shouldn’t) at how little we believe these impact us. We acknowledge that there are differences, but feel most of them are trivial and really don’t interfere with our ability to communicate. I will say here for the first time that this is probably the single largest mistake we can make!

These differences may usually be small, but they invade our communication in such numbers that they quickly combine to overwhelm almost any serious discussion except for the most logical (for instance, discussions about math or science) and can cause us to lose sight of the facts. Here is what I mean – imagine that you and a sibling are sitting in a class with me. I ask you both to write ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a series of questions like this one:
1 – Is a sofa a piece of furniture?
2 – Is a chair a piece of furniture?
3 – Is a wooden stool a piece of furniture?
4 – Is a wooden cube a piece of furniture?
5– Is a wooden crate piece of furniture?
6 – Is a cardboard crate piece of furniture?
7 – Is a piece of cardboard a piece of furniture?

Around questions 4, 5, & 6 the concept of a piece of furniture is raised. You and a sibling may agree on this. Maybe not. Would you and all your peers at work match up? You and someone from another country?

Remember, this is a question about the concept of furniture – something we form very early; something very familiar and concrete. Are we all on the same page? How about with something a more abstract – would you expect that you and your peers agree on what comprises professional behavior? Freedom? Art? Business results? As the subject gets more abstract, the more radical the differences between people becomes. Even on fairly concrete things, we vary widely.

We also have differences in the way we think things will play out over time. If you have a general rule that "things usually work out for the best", your boss has a general rule that "what can go wrong, will", and your peer has the idea that "nothing we do is really important", do you think it might affect the way you approach projects and your impressions of each other's work?

These differences exist within nearly every concept that we hold. What I think is assertive leadership, you may feel is bullying. With so many differences it is difficult for me to see how we EVER get past them. The answer is, we usually don’t and many of us just “put up” with what goes on, believing that we are right and others wrong. The thing is, keeping score that way is pointless and counterproductive.

If you want to understand “Working with Difficult People”, recognize that they are only difficult until you understand them. I mean understand them in a way that they KNOW you understand them, which generally means you can explain their position TO THEM and have them say “Yeah….you got it!” If you do that, you have asked questions, listened carefully, let them talk, considered what they had to say, and repeated it back to them. You asked them to correct you if you had it wrong. You made their point of view important – not right or wrong, but important enough to work to understand.

If someone did that for you, how difficult would you be?

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Understanding the Expressions of Defensiveness

Last time, we talked about the basic actions taken when one is defending oneself in a perceived attack. These actions drive us away from addressing the issue constructively, and towards escaping relevant discussion about it.


These actions are taken by us all, and our expressed in our own personal way. The graphic below shows how we express these actions on a continuum. In the middle is the “ideal” expression. Honest, adult, explicit, and empathetic so that our counterpart knows just how we feel AND that we don’t harm our relationship with them. This is sometimes difficult to do, especially if one feels fear about how the other party may take it and hasn’t developed the skill to express themselves using THE SCORE. If we fail to express ourselves (and keep others on track to express themselves) in the “ideal” zone, we will find ourselves in a conversation that is not targeted on collaboratively finding our best ideas. Instead, we are engaged in a “face-saving” activity.

The continuum ranges from very passive ways to act and react to very aggressive ways (from “silence to violence”).

For instance, depending on the severity of the threat we are feeling, we may choose to express our feelings using sarcasm. This is just to the “passive” side of ideal, a form of “masking” in which we don’t directly say what we mean but instead say the opposite of that we mean, but in a way that conveys our feeling. This is how we avoid confronting a perceived threat.

Let’s say coworker presents an idea that we feel isn’t practical. If we are timid about telling them the idea isn’t very good (for instance, we are afraid they will react badly) we may use sarcasm to avoid saying that the idea is bad. We might say “Oh …that’s a GREAT idea” in such a way that it is clear that we think it is a bad idea, but without really SAYING it. Sarcasm is a way of “masking” what we really mean, but in such a way as we are still expressing it.

Slightly more passive is “avoidance” in which we say something, but don’t even hint they we don’t agree. This often takes the form of wordplay. From the example above, instead of being sarcastic we might say “Very interesting idea…I wouldn’t have thought of it”. Here we have used ambiguity to avoid letting our coworker know our true feelings. Finally, the most passive position is “withdrawal” in which we simply don’t say anything, or we just “go along”.

Moving the other way on the continuum from ideal, we travel down increasingly more aggressive methods of defensiveness. “Controlling” is one in which we may ask a question in a loaded way (“You aren’t going to believe THAT, are you?”) in order to create uncertainty in another’s mind and encourage them to change without using reasons. This is what controlling is about.

Next stop is labeling, in which we affix labels usually emotionally charged labels, as a substitute for reason (“I can’t believe that you listen to NPR and all their socialist nonsense!” OR “I can’t believe that you listen to Fox News and all their fascist nonsense!”). The labeling is more aggressive than controlling because the labels are SUBSTITUTES for reasons; the emotional charge of the labels are intended to be enough to cause the counterpart to react as the speaker intends. Last stop is attack, in which there accusations made that do not address the topic, but perhaps the person making the suggestion. Google “ad hominem” attacks for lots of data on this.

The best way to deal with departure from the ideal is to ask questions about the topic; specificly about how your counterpart sees things, and to avoid becoming defensive yourself. Both take more skill as your counterpart moves down the continuum towards withdrawl or attack. We have recently talked about, and will talk next time about, the questions that one can askto draw the counterpart back to the ideal state in the continuum.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

What Questions are used in the Inquiry Method? (Part 1 of 2)

I had the pleasure of speaking at the International Project Management Institute Conference last week and I have to say that they are about the nicest people you could ever work with. I had a great morning there and want to thank all the many folks I worked with for making me feel so welcome.

After my talk (entitled "What Goes Wrong in Business Communication?"), a very savvy friend who shall remain nameless asked a perfect question. We had been speaking about the Inquiry method of communication, which is clearly all about asking questions. I had shown my “famous” SPIRAL model and in the interest of time did not go into any detail at all regarding the exactly how one knows what questions to ask in order to get a counterpart to substantiate a claim.

I've been trying to work out just how to explain this in the newsletter. In class it is easy; in the newsletter, we'll see.

The first part of the endeavor is to understand Claims. People make claims and, if we don't accept them, we ask questions to understand them better. We continue to ask questions until we understand them fully. That is the heart of Inquiry model. We don't make statements about claims; we ask questions. We don't say "You're wrong about that". Instead we ask "What makes you say that?” That is how we come to understand the other parties' perspective while preserving safety and trust.

For reference, let's identify the four kinds of claims: Claims of Fact, Claims of Definition, Claims of Value (or Quality), and Claims of Policy. I'll get into the details of each next time, so for now don't worry about that. Just know that there are some questions that you ask REGARDLESS of the type of claim, and some questions that are DEPENDANT on the type of claim. This week, I am focusing on the questions to ask regardless of the type of claim. There are two such questions - Relevance and Meaning.

First, before you start analyzing the data behind the claim, ask yourself if the thing being claimed is important. Is it relevant? If not - if it someone making a statement like "the red tie is prettier than the blue tie" - then don't bother. It is a temptation among my students to begin analyzing EVERYTHING once they learn how because it feels so good to get better at this new skill and I assure you that it is a quick way to become labeled as a nuisance. Don't become overly analytical just because you have started to develop the skill.

When questioning the relevance of the statement, I do so pretty directly (the method that suits me best). I remember of course to be mindful of creating safety and so I approach tentatively and humbly and say something like "I may be missing something. I am having trouble understanding how what you just said relates to the larger topic. Could you fill me in?" The risk is if the person takes it as a challenge. If they appear to, I might say something like "I don't want you to think I am challenging the relevance. I'm not. I am just trying to understand it." these methods are discussed in my blog entries containing THE SCORE. Just search the blog if you are curious about how to maintain safety in a critical discussion.

If you readily see that the statement is irrelevant, then just dismiss it as such and move on. If, however you can't dismiss a statement as irrelevant, then you need to ask the second question - what does the statement MEAN? This is not always easy, but it is always important for you and the others involved in discussing a relevant statement to share an understanding regarding its meaning.

What does the claim mean? The reason that this is so important is because MANY times, the discussion goes wrong because the listener ASSUMES that they know what the speaker means, or feels that they shouldn't question the meaning for fear of appearing either uninformed or presumptuous. Even worse, some speakers would make you feel that way specifically so you don't raise questions. Let's walk through the process for a claim of fact that may come up in a business setting. Let's say we are talking about producing a new model and someone makes the claim: "Eventually, all of our customers will switch over to our new product even if the price is a little higher."

I like to examine each key word and see if I can come to understand what the speaker means. In the sample sentence, I would ask questions like "When you say 'eventually', what kind of timeline are you suggesting? 5 years?"; "Do you think all of our customers will adopt the new product or do you mean the majority of them, as in more than half? Do you think more than 90%?"; "When you say the price will be a little higher, a little higher than what - our current price? The competition's price for an equivalent product? ; How much higher will the price be, do you think?”

I try to make sure I have a clear picture of the important aspects of their statement BEFORE I begin to analyze the underlying data. Otherwise, there is just too little to analyze. At the end of this discussion, I’d like to have a statement that is clear enough to me that I can believe we have a shared understanding. My closing question would be something like this. "So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you expect that - more than 90% of our existing customers will stop using our current product and begin using our new model within 2 years of its launch even if the price is 30% higher than the price of our current product and 20% higher than our competitor's price for an equivalent product. Is that what you are saying?"

Note that what I have done is as questions about each of the aspects of the original statement that I did not understand, and tried to "plug in" the speaker's definition for each of those terms. I am not analyzing ANYTHING yet; just trying to understand exactly what the speaker means by their statement. Patience yields BIG rewards here. Trying to question a claim before you have a shared understanding of the meaning frequently leads to hurt feelings, destruction of trust, embarrassment, and other problems that are all avoided by coming to a clear and mutual understanding of the statement. It is interesting to note that about 40% of the time when I feel I understand just what the speaker means and ask them to confirm my interpretation of their statement just the way I did above, they respond by saying something like "No. I am saying it may take up to 3 years for 90% of them to switch; but 50% of them will in the first year". This means that even when I have asked all the questions, remained open minded and curious, and am just seeking to understand, I am still often wrong and need more clarification! If you don't go through this process, you will SELDOM be on the same page with the speaker.

Now that you have asked the Relevance question and the Meaning question, ask the Relevance question one more time; "Now that I have a clear understanding of what the speaker means, is the statement relevant in arriving a good decision?” If, with your new clarified understanding, you no longer see it as relevant then move on. If it is relevant, move on to understanding if the statement disintegrates under logical analysis.

We will study the questions used to study the logic of the four specific types of claims next time.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Framing Problems (continued)

Last time we spoke about framing a problem, and this article is a continuation of some of those ideas.
1 - If you are ever on the side of an argument in which you are promoting a position favoring material things (wealth, land, money) you will likely be shut down if the other side starts presenting their perspective as one based on values (security, dignity, control of one’s own destiny, etc.). If the other side is framing the conflict as one that is based on values, you need to make your position about rights.
Example - It is nearly impossible to gain full support with a statement like “corporate profit is more important than the environment”, but you may find there is more room for agreement with a position that says that “a person has a right to earn a living, and that right must be balanced against any effects that might be felt in the environment”.

2 – In many businesses, there sometimes exists an unspoken rule that ANY conflict is unhealthy, or abnormal. The single most important rule in an interdependent society (like the functions that make up a business) is the rule that we will speak up when things don’t seem right, and will be answered with a thoughtfully prepared response. This is the basic give-and-take that allows for improvement in organizations. It is important to know how to frame the questions so they elicit the kind of thoughtful response to which I refer. To know more about this, search this site for articles on THE SCORE, my method for conducting one’s self in those kinds of discussions.

Scoping errors are closely related to framing errors. Scoping errors are errors regarding who should be involved, what they think, and the context of the discussion. Take time up front to consider and seek input from any parties that are likely to have salient input AND those that will be affected by the outcome. This effort starts with identifying all of the things at issue in the discussion and the understanding that, as new issues are discovered in the course of discussion, one must re-examine the parties involved to assure that the right ones are added based on the new issues.

Keep a careful watch to make sure that all viable options are kept open. It is human nature to “mentally exclude” options that are not best for themselves. In doing this, you may exclude options that may be almost as good for you AND enable a plan that works for all the other participants as well. Hold off on excluding options until near the end of the solution selection process.

More on that next time.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Practicing Advocacy

I have said many times on these pages that there are TWO types of conflict to handle during a critical discussion; Affective conflict (i.e. personality clashes or cultural conflict) and Cognitive conflict (disagreement about a topic). For example, let’s say you are involved in a discussion with someone about which sport is superior – baseball or football. You go back and forth, explaining your position on YOUR favorite sport and the other person does the same.

IF you find yourself disagreeing based on the EVIDENCE that is presented, then you are likely engaged in a COGNITIVE disagreement – that is, you are unpersuaded by the facts under discussion. If, however, you are in one of those situations in which can’t be persuaded by ANYTHING the other side says because you don’t like or can’t trust them, you are experiencing an AFFECTIVE disagreement. Your inability to accept the other point of view is based on the PRESENTER and not the facts.

You will certainly find yourself dealing with both kinds of conflict, and mastering them both is important to being a good communicator. I have dedicated many of the articles I have written to dealing with AFFECTIVE conflict, and have developed and published the model that I call THE SCORE in order to help you deal with it. There are TWO models for COGNITIVE conflict. One is a collaborative model that I call Inductive Inquiry (or “SPIRAL” model). One that I have NOT shared is a model for conducting ADVOCACY.

I have spent a lot of time writing about Advocacy vs. Collaboration, and have said that Advocacy is the model with which we are most familiar. That is one reason that I have concentrated on teaching the COLLABORATIVE model – the fact that it isn’t generally understood. The other reason is that, between the two models, the COLLABORATIVE model is generally the most appropriate in business. It is the best one for developing solutions and getting answers when the information to base good decisions on are hard to find or not well vetted.

There ARE good times to use an Advocacy model, though, and I am going to dedicate the next few newsletters to discussing them.

Advocacy means just what you think it does. You ADVOCATE a given perspective over any competing perspectives. This means you are ready to persuade people to adopt this perspective over other perspectives, and defend it from competing perspectives. It also means you will publically demonstrate that competing perspectives to be inferior in some important characteristics. This CAN be done collaboratively, but it generally is not – it is generally done as contest to see what idea gets adopted.

When would we use such a model?

- In a command and control situation when we must all conform to a given course of action and “buy-in” isn’t a big consideration.

- When there is one “expert” on the topic and other opinions are not really competitive because they are not credible (they lack expertise).

-In an emergency when something must be done immediately and there is a single person in charge.

Like I said, these situations indicate suboptimal business conditions, but I know for a fact that the Advocacy model is used frequently. Fortunately, once you are trained a little, you will be far better equipped to participate in these discussions than many who feel that Advocacy is the best model to use. In fact, students that become competent in Advocacy generally find that others are very willing to begin collaborating with them rather than just get shut down!

Over the next few weeks, I will cover all of the elements of the Advocacy model. For this week, I will describe them.

1) Presenting a perspective
     - Developing a strong perspective
     - Getting others on your side
     - Presenting facts
     - Presenting a Strong Conclusion

2) Attacking a competing perspective
     - Gauging the opinions of others in order to create a productive attack
     - Attacking the evidence
     - Attacking the conclusion

3) Defending your perspective
     - Defending evidence
     - Defending your conclusion
     - Going in for the kill
     - Saving face

As we move through the elements above over the next few weeks, you will learn how to make your perspective look like the only logical choice and expose weaknesses in any opposition. In the event that you are attacked, you learn to defend. In the case that you are overcome by a competing perspective, you will learn to save face.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Negotiation – Last Installment

The last few weeks have (hopefully) been instructive regarding negotiations. We have talked about the two different kinds of negotiations, the appropriate planning measures to take, common problems encountered during negotiations, and some other ideas that I hope you found valuable.

For this last installment, I want to talk about a few more things that can plague an otherwise peaceful pursuit. The difficulties that arise when there appears to be personality differences in play.

1) Escalation – Either you or your counterpart is getting caught up in the heat of the moment. One of you feels like you are losing and become difficult to deal with or you find yourself in some kind of a bidding war with another individual.

• The best thing to do is refer back to your BATNA and your walk awayprice. Were they set fairly? Did your team all agree with them? Can a good case be made for changing them? If not, STICK WITH IT! Walk away if things are not working out in a fair manner. These were set when things were clear JUST for this reason.

2) Bias – It seems that the other side is not being reasonable in their interpretation of the situation. They are looking at things narrowly and do not seem interested in your point of view.

• Concentrate on understanding THEIR point of view. Try your best to understand it as thoroughly as they do. It may be that they are right OR it may be that once you understand it you can point out an error in their thinking, but they will be FAR more likely to listen to you if they know that you are listening to THEM! And when they do start listening, be careful to be respectful, factual, and authentic in explaining your side. Explain WHY you feel your perspective is reasonable. If you explain, for instance, that NO new widget has ever met the sales prediction in its first year of production, then your sales department might understand that an extra warehouse may not be needed.


• Engage a third party for their opinion. It can be a colleague (so long as they don’t know what side you are on) or an independent third party.


• Make sure that you are being realistic in your expectations.

3) Safety - I can’t over-emphasize the role that creating safety plays in a negotiation. Be humble (not arrogant) and respectful throughout. Do not offer things that YOU wouldn’t take. Don’t take it personal or make it personal. It may even BE personal, but if you act like it is, then you are on a road to nowhere.

• If things get to be too much, suggest a break. If a break is impractical, suggest a moderator.

As far as last minute thoughts go:

1. Make sure your goals for the negotiation are aligned to the organization’s goals.


2. Make sure you understand your BATNA and walk away price.


3. Do your best to estimate what the other side has at stake.


4. Create safety using THE SCORE.


5. Conduct your negotiations in a way that ADDS to your reputation and credibility

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication