3
Anchoring, Mindfulness, and Preparing for Problem Solving
Mutual-gains problem solving, a topic that's been the subject of many important and practical books, goes by various descriptions: interest-based as opposed to positional bargaining; the creation of value as opposed to the claiming of it; integrative as opposed to distributive negotiation; win-win as opposed to win-lose.1 When the idea of mutual gains is introduced, it is typically in contrast to its opposite. And that certainly makes sense in many discussions of negotiations where parties are negotiating a deal over prices of real estate, business deals, and contracts2—the capital N-negotiations we've referenced in previous chapters.3 This distinction may also make sense when discussing budgets and compensation.
But the distinction takes on a somewhat different cast when we consider it in the context of n-negotiations. Preparing for mutual-gains problem solving at work is the subject of this chapter.
Mutual-Gains Problem Solving in n-Negotiations
At work, n-negotiations often originate as problems or opportunities rather than as traditional occasions for deal making. These may start out as requests that one party assumes invite only one option: a yes-or-no choice. When Marisa was offered an opportunity she really did not want in chapter 1, she thought her only choice was to accept it. In chapter 2, we saw how Charlotte, trying to position herself for the leadership role she'd already been doing, wanted to press her boss to say yes. These are the kinds of examples to which we must compare mutual-gains problem solving. The probability of a good outcome becomes even more likely when we take both parties' interests and concerns into account.
Mutual-gains negotiation in organizations is a way of thinking about choices as more than saying yes to something or rejecting it outright. We discussed in the previous chapter how people tend to overlook opportunities to negotiate because they think their choices are to do something or not do it, This chapter covers the ways you can prepare to open up the conversation and consider more options. To do that, we begin with some basic tenets of problem-solving negotiation preparation and elaborate the ways they play out in n-negotiations.
To push the ideas further and come up with creative options requires a deeper understanding of each party's context. Preparing to negotiate in a problem-solving way means also preparing yourself to be open, to be mindful—to listen in a manner that helps you jointly create options.
These two forms of preparation can create a tension—one that we address later in the chapter. For now, let's look at the three possible resolutions to conflict put forth by a 1920s pioneer.
Domination, Compromise, Integration: It All Started with a Woman
Much has been written about the process of problem-solving negotiation, including Getting to Yes, probably the most influential book on the topic in decades.4 In it, negotiators are advised to do two things in order to create options for mutual gains: separate the person from the problem and focus on interests, not positions. In the book's first edition, the authors credit some of its central ideas to Mary Parker Follett, a management consultant who worked with industry and labor in the 1920s. In “Constructive Conflict,” a 1925 paper she delivered to the Bureau of Personnel Administration, Follett explains three ways of dealing with conflict: domination, compromise, and integration. The first two of these, she suggested, end with less than satisfactory results.
Follett defined domination as the victory of one side over another. Although it's often the easiest way to deal with conflict, at least in the short term, domination seldom ends successfully. Writing in the mid-1920s, she cited fallout from World War I as a contemporary example that was clearly shaping up to be less than satisfactory for all parties.
Follett described the second option, compromise, as the most typical resolution to a conflict: each side gives a little in order to get back as quickly as possible to the activity that caused the conflict. She used contemporary trade union negotiations as an example. The trouble with compromise, she asserted, was that each side starts by asking for more than they think they can get, and in the end no one understands what the other really wanted in the first place. The longer-term problem with compromise, she said, is that the conflict solved through this method is likely to arise again and again.
Compared to domination and compromise, Follett recognized a better method:
The third way is integration…When two desires are integrated, that means that a solution has been found in which both desires have found a place that neither has had to sacrifice anything…In the Harvard Library one day, in one of the smaller rooms, someone wanted the window open, I wanted it shut. We opened the window in the next room, where no one was sitting. This was not a compromise because there was no curtailing of desire; we both got what we really wanted. For I did not want a closed room, I simply did not want the north wind to blow directly on me; likewise the other occupant did not want that particular window open, he merely wanted more air in the room.5
Integrating Interests: Yours and the Other Person's
From this perspective, problem solving refers to integrating divergent interests. Preparing to problem-solve means becoming clear about your own interests, as well as setting the priority among them. It also means gauging the other party's interests and priorities as well as you can, a planning exercise that can yield creative options for both people involved. While this approach is typically described in the context of more formal N-negotiations, it has some interesting applications when we look at what happens in organizational n-negotiations. Preparation involves working to understand these different interests before you begin a negotiation.
Understand the Different Interests, But Beware of the Trap.
While this kind of preparation is certainly important, it does present a potential trap: sometimes it can lock us into our way of thinking, causing us to adhere to our ways of understanding interests and think only of the options that we invented prior to the meetings. In so doing, we can fail to hear other ideas.
The Circular Response and the Linear Response.
In her 1924 book, Creative Experience, Follett takes a different approach. In it she developed the idea of the circular response and contrasted it with a linear response, where people's interests are more or less fixed. The challenge with a linear response comes in figuring out ways to integrate the interests as in the library example. In a circular response, our interests are refined in interactions with the other party: “I never react to you but to you-plus-me; or to be more accurate, it is I-plus-you reacting to you-plus-me.”6 Follett suggests that a person cannot really assess his own interests apart from the interaction with the other: “We do not stop to examine a desire until another is disputing the right of way with it.”7
Charlotte's negotiation with the CEO for a promotion to vice president, a role she was already doing (chapter 2), provides a good example of how considering our own issues in isolation is insufficient. When her negotiation starts, she believes the CEO will share her interest in enlarging the client base and find it compelling that she has brought in a new client. However, he tells Charlotte she was merely closing a deal the former VP already had in the pipeline; it was not her accomplishment. Charlotte then realizes he has a misconception of what she has accomplished and that one of the reasons he has not made her acting role official is that he undervalues her contribution. This gives Charlotte a new understanding of the issues. Now she needs to revise her justification for the promotion and use the negotiation to alter his misperceptions. Before hearing the CEO's response, she had thought that merely acting in the role was sufficient.
Follett's observations suggest that there are two steps to preparing to solve the problem. The first is figuring out your own interests and the trade-off you might be willing to make, then trying to gauge how the other person is likely to see and hear these ideas. Of course, the second part is more complex: it means thinking in a more expansive way about another's motivations. And to do that, you need to prepare yourself to be open and listen to the other person in mindful ways.
These two ideas—planning for linear problem solving and planning for the circular response—are the focus of this chapter.
Creative Options and the Anchoring Effect
We typically apply the concept of anchoring to the effects of opening offers in distributive or win/lose negotiations. In situations of uncertainty, an initial offer tends to serve as an anchor around which subsequent offers revolve. In other words, our minds tend to fix on initial impressions and data, which influence our subsequent judgment and decisions.8 If you make an opening offer, assuming you have the right information to do so, that offer becomes a reference point, an anchor, that shapes the negotiations.9
The Anchoring Function at Work
Anchoring functions somewhat differently in the kinds of workplace negotiations we are interested in here. Raising a second-generation issue brings up a problem that likely hasn't been recognized as such. This approach runs the risk that the other party will anchor on that problem, and likely link you to that problem in his mind. In his mind, you become the problem. That's why it's important to frame n-negotiations with options and solutions. By offering options from the beginning, the negotiation becomes anchored on solutions and problem solving.
Anchoring in the Context of Our Cases.
Let's think about how anchoring applies to the cases we've discussed so far. In the Introduction, Alicia puts Bob in a difficult position by stepping forward for a role for which she was not being considered. After all, if he has somebody else in mind, why open up the conversation? But if she has ideas about how to deal with the situation—options to propose—she can shift the focus from problem to solution. Likewise, Marisa (chapter 1) has many concerns about the role, but presenting them as problems without solutions could make the managing partner rethink the offer. If Claudia (chapter 1) just rejects the client list she is offered, she becomes a problem even before she has started in the new job. In contrast, if Charlotte (chapter 2) has ideas for how to transition to the vice president role, including some suggestions for who might take over her director responsibilities, she is more likely to have the CEO start a negotiation with her rather than just see her ask for the promotion as a problem.
Be the Person Who Brings the Solutions.
Developing and bringing forth ideas about how to deal with each of the issues in advance can lead to more productive negotiations. I've learned over the years of teaching leaders that they often assume the other person will have ideas about these complex issues. But that's usually an unrealistic expectation. You raise an issue; they focus on the problem. If you are the one with ideas, you can frame the negotiations in ways that will help make the negotiations more productive.
Beyond the Zero Sum
Since 1980 or so, the field of negotiation has grown exponentially. Consequently, our thinking about how to create value in negotiations has become increasingly more sophisticated. But a basic premise still holds: if you negotiate over a single issue, you are by definition in a distributive, or win-lose, situation. This means that the outcome of this one issue—whether it's the price you will pay or the hours you will work—will be some form of compromise between the two positions of the parties. In other words, the size of the pie is fixed. This holds true no matter how nice you are. Converting a distributive or win-lose game to one where you can create value means acting with two simple principles: one is to focus on interests (what each party wants); the other is to enlarge the conversation so that more issues become the ingredients for an agreement.
Expanding the Range of Trades.
Noted negotiation researcher Dean Pruitt outlines several ways to expand the range of issues to make possible trade-offs—simple trades, trading time now for time later, payment in other “currencies,” making contingent agreements, and trying to find bridging solutions.10
Trading on Time.
Trades can be made based on time: agreeing to do something in the current time period in exchange for something later. You find that you cannot reach agreement on funding for a project: you want more; your boss thinks it should be done for less. You can reach agreement to start the program this year and phase the rest in later over the course of the year. In chapter 1 Marisa agreed to take a role in the southeast region and negotiated, among other things, support for another career move at the end of three years in the new role.
Paying in Another Currency.
You can also make trades by paying in a “currency” other than the one initially being negotiated. When you can't reach agreement on the issue under discussion, you include another issue that might have very little to do with the initial issue but enables you to make a trade. The classic example of this is adding vacation days and bonus structure to discussions of compensation rather than focusing solely on salary. When we can't reach an agreement on compensation, paying in another currency might mean a move to a better office, a new development opportunity, a better title, or an extra staff member. The principle in these examples is that you transform what could be a stalemate into an opportunity to come to an agreement through trades. Think back to Alicia's case in the Introduction: to address the CEO's concern that Alicia was too green, she might suggest that she would attend a leadership development program to help her prepare for a future role.
Contingent Agreements.
Another ingredient for shifting a negotiation from a single issue is to include contingent agreements, that is, basing the agreement on something happening (or not happening) in the future.11 Let's say you think your project will exceed goals set for it, but your boss is unsure. The contingent agreement could be that you carry out the project. If you are correct, your budget for the next year increases; if not, it might decrease. You are willing to make the deal because you're convinced that you're right. Your boss is willing because if your project produces according to your estimates, there will likely be more revenue to share.
Charlotte from chapter 2 can use a contingent agreement in her negotiations with the CEO. She believes she's ready for the vice president's role, since she's done the work for the past few months. The CEO is unsure. Charlotte could propose that she be appointed acting vice president for three months, with clear metrics to assess her performance. In this way, Charlotte attains her aim to be appointed vice president, and the CEO commits to the permanency of the role only when Charlotte has clearly proven herself.
Bridging Solutions.
A strategy to avoid negotiating on a single issue can be to bring in other parties in the form of bridging agreements. Let's revisit the example of trading on time: you find that you cannot reach agreement on funding for a project. You want more time; your boss thinks it should be done for less. An alternative to trading on time would be to look for funding partners. Perhaps other departments would benefit from the project and could use their budgets to help. In chapter 1, Claudia used a bridging solution when negotiating with Giles James about support staff. This was an issue that was important to her, but rather than push for her staff, she proposed sharing support staff with other directors. Bridging solutions shift the negotiation from being about a single issue—will we or won't we support this project—to thinking creatively about multiple issues.
The possibilities for bridging and contingent agreements, as well as other ingredients for making trades, make mutual-gains agreements more likely even around some thorny issues. Consider the case of Cheryl, a senior leader who felt trapped between the job she'd coveted and the family she was committed to.
Preparing to Negotiate: Focusing on Concerns
Figure Out Your Own Concerns
The basic principle behind a focus on concerns is the need to step back and ask yourself not only what you want, but also why you want it. Let's say you're seeking an 8 percent increase in salary. You could negotiate back and forth with your boss and come up with the compromise that Mary Parker Follett spoke about, in which each side gives a little but neither side leaves very satisfied. Or you could ask yourself why you're even looking for this in the first place. Do you think your performance merits it? Are there inequities between you and your peers? Have your child-care expenses increased? By focusing on the reasons behind what you want, you increase the possibilities for creative agreements. In other words, there are many ways to get compensated for performance—bonus payments, enhanced responsibilities (with perhaps an attendant increase in salary), or more support for the work you do. Inequities in compensation may signal a broader organizational issue, and you might receive more support for child care indirectly through a company benefits plan.
Cheryl's interests are clear: she wants to keep her job but do so in a way that enables her to live with her family in their hometown. At the same time, she has worked hard to get to this position, and she wants neither the negotiation process nor the agreement they reach to detract from perceptions about her performance and future potential.
Anticipate the Other Person's Concerns
Cheryl has outlined José's potential concerns. She expects some resistance on the central issue itself: her request, after all, would be a departure from the norm no matter what form it took. Because José prefers to avoid risk, he is not a leader who embraces departures from company policy. His major concern would be whether Cheryl could continue to perform her job in ways consistent with the results of the existing structure.
Cheryl's primary goal in preparing to negotiate is to propose options that clearly demonstrate that her performance would remain consistent and that there would be some criteria to evaluate the plan. Concerned about efficiencies, José would also want to contain the costs of any agreement. At the same time, Cheryl knew that her relationships to the field operations had made her crucial to his success. This would give him some incentive to negotiate with her if it meant that she would stay in the role. That insight was crucial as she prepared to negotiate with her boss.
Locate the Other Person's Incentive to Negotiate
At the beginning of her preparations, Cheryl could not see how she'd be able to convince José to agree to a flexible work arrangement outside the corporate office. And she knew that she would be raising an issue that he would rather avoid. However, once she recognized how crucial her field relationships were to his success, the two had the makings of a beneficial trade. She could propose some form of flexible work arrangement that worked for her and provide assurances to José that his relationships with the field would remain intact. Each of their BATNAs included the possibility that she would leave the company. While that was not a desirable alternative for Cheryl, her leaving was not a great BATNA for José either, since he would lose his connection to the field entirely. Thus, Cheryl realized, José did have some inducement to negotiate.
Generate Multiple Ideas, Based on Multiple Trades
Cheryl put together a proposal composed of multiple facets. First, rather than suggest telecommuting, she decided that framing the idea as a kind of tri-office arrangement would meet José's concern that she would not be located at corporate headquarters. Second, given his interest in controlling costs, she developed a clear plan for the incremental costs of the arrangement and how they would fit within her budget. Third, Cheryl developed an explicit plan for keeping José connected to the field. This was a form of “other compensation.” In return for his agreeing to the tri-office arrangement, she would work with him to create more occasions for him to interact with leaders from the field. Finally, Cheryl developed a contingent agreement option. She proposed that the tri-office arrangement be a pilot for six months with benchmarks so that they could assess how it was working after that period.
Anchor on Solutions
The fact that Cheryl had options to propose that appeared to meet both her and José's concerns was critical and increased the likelihood that he would say yes. Cheryl knew that her desire for a flexible work arrangement was going to create problems for her boss. If he saw her request as a problem—just something else he had to deal with—he would be inclined to say no. With options to propose, Cheryl critically anchored the negotiation around solutions that would meet both their needs. Her anchoring on options shifted the focus from a problem to a discussion about how to make the different structure work.
The Other Person: Use What You Know
Cheryl was also prepared to use what she knew about José. As we discussed in chapter 1, this knowledge helps you frame any ask in a way that the other is more likely to hear. Cheryl knows José avoids risk and is attached to the way things had always been done. If your role as CFO of a division necessitated that you be present at headquarters, then that is what it had to be. She also expected that José could lose his temper if he felt backed into a corner. Cheryl used these insights about her boss to frame what she was asking for as an overture for him to work with her on figuring out the tri-office arrangement.
Put “Yes, and…” to Work
In this case, Cheryl is the one raising the issue. But as we have observed in other situations, such as Marisa's (chapter 1), sometimes the other person is raising the issue and doing the asking. The ask in Marisa's case was an interesting opportunity yet not without costs, so she negotiated for support and other perquisites that would make the role and the move it entailed more appealing. Marisa did so by using the “Yes, and…” strategy for proposing creative options. For Cheryl, having creative options to propose and options that she saw as being responsive to José's likely concerns would, she hoped, forestall a no. She wanted to make it easy for him to say yes—because she was prepared to give him the “ands.”
Let's turn to the case of Elena, whose CEO has asked her to lead a new initiative. While the problem the initiative is meant to solve is important within the firm and to Elena personally, it isn't the sort of project that typically moves people up into the top leadership roles.
Use “Yes, and…” to Turn an Ask into a Negotiation
People are often asked to take on extra assignments or projects—what we call invisible work—that compounds their workload. Sometimes they are asked to move into roles that, like Elena's, offer some benefits but considerable downsides. When responding to “requests” you are expected to accept—such as becoming an acting director, a chief of staff, or other roles that you might be ambivalent about—the “Yes, and…” tactic can be incredibly useful. Showing your willingness and interest is the yes part; the and part is figuring out how it will work for you. Akin to Cheryl's situation, where raising an issue can make you the problem if you say no when somebody expects a yes, you yourself can be seen as a problem. Like Cheryl's anchoring with options, “Yes, and…” is another way to use creative options.
Still, having these options to propose was only one part of Cheryl's and Elena's preparation.
Preparing to Negotiate: Being Mindful
Sometimes it is easy to get stuck when preparing to propose options. One may suffer from what Ellen Langer in her work on mindfulness calls premature cognitive commitment.13 This occurs when we jump to conclusions based on our perceptions of the problem, our analysis of the other's interests, or our ideas about what options might work, any of which might differ from the other party's assessment. Furthermore, we often come to believe that the other parties' interests are more or less fixed as we prepare—that they will not, as Mary Parker Follett described, be influenced by the process of negotiation.14 In many of the decision analytic treatments of integrative negotiations, preparation involves deciphering trades among fixed preferences that the parties have.15 Indeed, when my colleagues and I teach negotiation using scorable games, figuring out trades becomes the main focus.
Tensions in the Circular Response
Preparation requires another dimension if we are to adopt Follett's concept of the circular response: believing that new understandings, hence better outcomes, can arise during the negotiation process. As we prepare, we need to hold a bit of a tension between three facets of preparation: preparing creative options and solutions, considering our counterpart's concerns, but also being prepared to learn and hear more. Advance preparation is most helpful when we make a concerted effort not to let it set our expectations in stone.16 Acting mindfully allows us to be more open to solutions both in the process of preparation and during the negotiation itself.
Appreciate the Process, Not the Outcome.
To be mindful requires us to be situated in the moment and aware of the emotional context of what is happening.17 Mindfulness is an enriched appreciation for the details of the situation—for the process rather than a preoccupation with the outcome. This can be particularly helpful for women, who are at risk of triggering a double bind if they come across as overly focused on outcomes over process. Women who act mindfully are more likely to be perceived as genuine and authentic, making them less prone to experiencing backlash when they act assertively by negotiating for themselves.18 The challenge lies in preparing to be mindful.
Extend Your Understanding of Concerns Beyond Substantive Interests.
There are two major steps to mindful preparation. The first is to expand and extend our understanding of concerns. Typically, when we think about the other party's concerns, we focus on those directly related to the issues under discussion—their substantive interests. So in a negotiation over compensation, we assume our boss's direct concerns involve costs and possibly equity. However, other dimensions of interests often come into play, such as organizational concerns: how they look to important constituencies, for example, or how any agreements made might affect their group, their function, and the broader organization. We care about how important constituencies will judge the agreements we make and whether we can justify them. Our boss would have to validate her agreement of increased compensation to her boss and perhaps to human resources—and she would need the ammunition to do so, which can come from you.
Another way to increase mindfulness is to consider the set of “good reasons” the other party would have to say no to you.
Appreciate the Interest of Face.
Image is a major concern for all of us during negotiations. How we look to ourselves and others who matter to us often counts as much as the particulars of the deals we make; in fact, these are seldom separate. Face, a concept popularized in the West by sociologist Erving Goffman, captures what we value about ourselves and the qualities we want others to see in us.19 Negotiators go to great lengths to preserve their face. They stick to their guns against poor odds simply to avoid losing face with those who are counting on them.
We Also Have Relational Interests.
As buyers and sellers, we may not see the other party again in transactional negotiations; however, negotiations in the workplace are different because we want and need to maintain our relationships. Therefore, it's critical to ensure that the other party feels good enough about the agreement that it doesn't jeopardize our working relationship. At the same time, we also do not want to unilaterally sacrifice our interests for the good of the relationship. We need some reciprocity.
What Cheryl's Case Teaches Us
Putting the Circular Response to Work.
As Cheryl prepares for her negotiation, she has to be mindful of the need to think in a more complex way about José's concerns. He clearly would be concerned about how the organization would judge any action he took. Because he was still new to his role, it was asking a lot to make such a major change in company policies. She needs to think about how his colleagues would react to this kind of change and be ready to discuss this with José to see how they might frame whatever agreement they reached so he looks good to his senior leadership. Precedent might also be an issue for him: How would they portray the arrangement? She knew her boss well enough to understand that bringing up any change would elicit an almost instinctive resistance. It was never easy to introduce an idea that contradicted his usual way of doing things. And when stressed, he tended to get angry. Therefore, Cheryl has to think about how she could introduce her proposal in a way that would get him to listen and not react negatively. At the same time, Cheryl recognizes that José has a strong interest in keeping a good relationship with her because of her well-developed relationships with people in the field.
The Other Party: More than a Mere Monolith.
In addition to delving more deeply into another's concerns, you also need a more complex and nuanced appreciation for the other party's context. This is a key tenet of mindfulness as well—openness not just to new information but to multiple perspectives.20
We tried to capture this idea in Everyday Negotiation by using the metaphor of stories. Each of us has different stories we tell ourselves about what is occurring. Once into the negotiation, it is inevitable that we process whatever happens through that filter. A certain sense of mindlessness can set in that leads us to become fixed in our preconceptions rather than staying in the moment and reacting to what is happening. It puts you at a distinct advantage to approach a negotiation as a compilation of stories, since stories alert us to the challenge we face in hearing the other person. Each story is told from a specific point of view and never includes every detail. We need to prepare to listen to and hear these stories.21
Consider the Other Person's Good Reasons for Saying No.
I've found a particularly effective exercise to prepare to hear the other side's perspective, his story: to delineate what would be his good reasons for saying no to the options you propose. To do this, it is important to recognize that his good reasons are those told from his perspective. Let's go back to Charlotte (chapter 2), who may think that the CEO just wants to avoid making a decision or hopes she will continue performing both roles because it saves the company money. But those reasons stem from Charlotte's story about what is happening. The CEO likely has his own story, one that compels him to see what he is doing as rational and reasonable. He may believe that she has not proven herself in the role, that she only closed a deal that was already done. Or he may believe that he needs a vice president with more experience.
As negotiators, we all see ourselves as operating based on good strategic reasons. Yet it's often difficult to give the same benefit to the other party. I describe how we see ourselves when I teach—as strategic, collaborative, and flexible—as opposed to how we see the other party: opportunistic, uncooperative, and rigid. Nobody looks in the mirror and sees these negative things about themselves; rather, we all see ourselves as operating from good and legitimate intentions. But mindfully preparing to problem-solve means trying to capture how others might see the situation. Thinking about their five good reasons for saying no to your proposal helps you prepare to hear them.
Analyzing “Good Reasons” in Our Previous Cases.
Marisa from chapter 1 may assume that Alice, the managing partner, might be very concerned about the precedent she's setting if she concedes to Marisa the commuting arrangement—and that it might become the norm in future negotiations. Similarly, if Claudia's boss in London agrees to her request for support staff, he can quite reasonably assume that others in the group will ask for similar treatment. These are good reasons from the other person's perspective.
In Charlotte's case, the CEO likely has some good strategic reasons to reject her proposal to become the vice president. He may think she is not ready; he may already have started a hiring process and have somebody else in mind; or he may be worried about who would fill Charlotte's shoes as director. Understanding these “good reasons” does not mean that she should abandon her proposal to become vice president; it just means that she'll be prepared to hear his objections and refine her proposal to account for these issues. It helps her think conditionally about how she will handle his objections to her ideas. The “good reasons” for saying no are what we have called the hidden agenda of the negotiation. They are the reasons you can expect a no to what you propose. We discuss in detail in chapter 5 how to put these “good reasons” to work.
Analyzing the “Face” We Present.
Finally, we want others to see the face we present to the world as fair and evenhanded. One of the negotiators we most admire tells a story about how taking that stance helped her get what she wanted and at the same time give the president of her division a way to save face. She had recently been promoted to a senior role in her bank and learned that her compensation was not comparable to that of her peers. Rather than start a negotiation about it, she told him what she had discovered. And then she said, “I have just discovered that my salary is less than what my peers earn. I know now that you are aware, and that you will do the fair thing.” She left it at that—and he did.
We gave this advice to a young woman who had just been promoted from a director in her company to vice president. She wanted to know what she should do about the salary. To her, the most important thing was to have the resources to hire a director to replace her. We asked whether she had any knowledge that the compensation package her boss was offering was out of line with that of other executives at her level. She wasn't sure but did not think so. So we advised her to start by saying that she was sure he was making her a fair offer. She did so and then went on to discuss the issue that was really important to her.
People like to think that they are fair and do the fair thing. By suggesting to them that you assume the same, you protect their face and have confidence that you think they will correct a problem if one exists.
Cheryl's Case: Assessing the Other Person's Good Reasons.
Cheryl knew she had to think more deeply about her boss's context and his good reasons for saying no to her, especially since her relationship with José was still developing. Although she saw his strengths as a leader, she also had some rather negative perceptions about him—his aversion to risk, rigidity in approaching work practices, and expectations about work commitment. All of these led Cheryl to consider José not very approachable and someone who tended to overreact when stressed. Still, she knew that her boss did not see himself in these terms.
With options to propose about the tri-office, Cheryl also went through an exercise of delineating José's good reasons for saying no to her. As part of her preparation, she recognized how her boss's lack of field exposure made her instrumental to his success. So in thinking about his good reasons for saying no—in addition to the analysis she did of his organizational, individual, and relational interests—she focused on this other dimension. What would be his good reasons for saying no if he feared that what she proposed would not work?
Cheryl's Case: Five Good Reasons Her Boss Could Say No.
Cheryl considered what she thought were José's five good reasons for saying no to her. The first was that with all the commuting, her performance would suffer. Second, the proposal was too costly—he had already paid for her move to Texas. Third, if she was not located in the Texas office, he would lose the informal interactions they had, which could jeopardize his connection to the field. Fourth, this would violate a precedent and in her experience, Jose was not one to champion any change. Finally, he could be worried that Cheryl would tire of the commute and leave.
A good part of Cheryl's preparation included how she would respond to these reasons. To respond to the possibility that she would tire of the commute, she outlined a calendar of her whereabouts for the year—when she would be in Pennsylvania, when in Texas, and when in the field. Second, she also planned to remind him that she had actually been in a dual-office arrangement in the six months before she moved to Texas and was prepared to propose that they agree in advance on a way to handle the problem if it arose. Finally, Cheryl anticipated that he would resist the incremental expenses associated with the tri-office. After all, she wasn't just proposing a tradition-breaking approach: he would have to justify these additional expenses. She came prepared with a spreadsheet of these expenses and was ready to negotiate about them. She also anticipated that he might balk at paying relocation expenses twice.
Because Cheryl had so thoroughly considered José's good reasons for saying no, she could enter the negotiation itself confident that she had a number of creative options to propose. But even more important, she considered his legitimate reasons for saying no. By doing this, she put herself in a mind-set to hear his concerns and to consider options that would work from both of their perspectives.
Good Positioning Sets Up for Mindfulness
In order to be mindful in a negotiation, it helps if you are well positioned to negotiate—which we described in chapter 2 as being in a state where the parties experience their interdependence. At first, Cheryl thought that she would be unable to get José to agree to any change in status because she didn't think he had any reason to do so. It was only when she began to consider the informal role her connections to the field played in José's success that she realized she could deal with his resistance, stay in the moment, and work through it with him.
Preparing to engage in mutual-gains negotiations at work involves a dual focus—creating possible options in anticipation of the negotiation yet not becoming so wedded to your approach that you close out new possibilities. Having options to propose is critical in negotiating over second-generation issues. Options focus the negotiations on solutions, which can be crucial in these potentially challenging interactions. Cheryl's negotiation requires her to challenge accepted policy and practice—not something easy to succeed at. Recognizing that, she needs to prepare herself to think deeply about how the other party will likely hear the options she proposes.
By preparing to be mindful in the negotiations, you enter them ready to hear objections and resistances—and as Cheryl did, you can come up with ways to deal with them as well. She was able to negotiate her tri-office relationship; after six months, she and José reviewed the arrangement, and both agreed that Cheryl's performance continued to be exemplary.
Nothing needed to change.
Second-Generation Issues and Small Wins
Cheryl's case provides a good example of how her negotiation translates into a potential small win. Leaders often relocate to take on ever-increasing areas of responsibility and usually are asked to undertake these relocations with scant regard for the impact on the family. Traditionally it was assumed that the family would follow along. This unexamined assumption is often cited as a reason that women do not accede to senior leadership roles at the same rate as their male colleagues. This is attributed to two reasons. First, because people frequently assume that a woman will not agree to relocate, no one bothers asking her to do so. Second, a woman will occasionally turn down the relocation if she feels it will have a negative effect on her family. Marisa faced that consideration. Cheryl's negotiation and her subsequent success with the tri-office arrangement demonstrates to the company that it may be time to reexamine its policy of having senior leaders relocate to the corporate office. This makes it a small win not just for Cheryl but for future company leaders.
It is also a small win in another way: the motivation for Cheryl's negotiation stems from her desire to have both a challenging work life and rewarding home and community life. Initially Cheryl thought she would have to choose: either the one or the other. Indeed, she did have to make those choices earlier in her career. For too many organizations, this assumption remains unexamined. The notion is widespread that senior leadership jobs require all-in commitment 24/7. That is a second-generation assumption that fits some people's lives but not all. Cheryl's negotiation demonstrates that it is possible for organizations to enable their leaders to have both: a challenging work life and a rewarding life outside work. Successfully negotiating the tri-office arrangement can inspire others to come up with similarly creative ways to integrate work and family life.
For this and other materials, visit www.deborahmkolb.com.