When we’re angry with other people, enemies, we are giving them power over us: power over our sleep, our appetites, our blood pressure, our health, and our happiness. Our enemies would dance with joy if only they knew how they were worrying us, lacerating us, and getting even with us! Our anger hurts them not at all, but it turns our own days and nights into turmoil.
—Dale Carnegie
Here in the final chapter of the book we’ll conclude our discussion of assertive conflict resolution. We’ll see how this really connects with some other topics that are extremely important, not only for your career success but for your life as a whole.
Every day, you’re involved in many situations of potential conflict. You constantly find yourself in settings in which your wants and needs are not the same as some other person’s. In fact, since no two people are exactly alike, virtually every circumstance of your life falls into this category of experience. In all these situations where your desires differ from someone else’s, there are three possible outcomes.
First, you might emerge as the “winner.” You might get everything you want, while the other person gets nothing. However, the reverse might take place as well. You could be the “loser.” The other person’s objectives are met and yours aren’t.
In the real world, a complete win for either party is rare. Usually the result falls somewhere in between. There’s give-and-take, and some form of compromise is reached. The situation is resolved, and the means by which this happens is negotiation. In a negotiated situation, there are conflicts of interests. Often what one person wants isn’t exactly what the other wants. Usually both sides prefer to search for solutions, rather than giving in, walking away, or simply getting furiously angry at one another.
Negotiation, therefore, is the name we give to conflict resolution by means other than mere interpersonal warfare. Let’s look at strategies and tactics of effective negotiation, which is, after all, the medium through which conflict resolution takes place.
Few people actually enjoy being in conflict with other human beings. Conflicts with supervisors, subordinates, or coworkers are not pleasant experiences, especially if the conflict becomes hostile. Negotiating a solution to conflict can be mentally exhausting and emotionally draining. The process can be made easier, however, by keeping your eye on the potential benefits. An effective negotiation can be a highly positive experience both personally and professionally. The key from the outset is to identify the conflict and manage it rather than letting it spin out of control. In that way, the path can be made clear for a negotiated solution. When a conflict of interests exists, don’t deny it, but don’t escalate it either. Commit to and hold a positive attitude about negotiating it. In itself, your commitment is an assertive people skill, and it should be the strong foundation of your approach to conflict resolution.
If you’re like many people, you may seek to avoid conflict when it arises, or deny it. A better alternative is using conflict as a setting for your creative and assertive people skills. The modern corporation is becoming less based on titles and official power. There are fewer clear boundaries of responsibility and authority. As a result, conflict or potential conflict will be an even greater presence in the workplace of the future. Negotiation skills, therefore, can be a huge element in your career success. Moreover, there are some very specific and very powerful techniques that can quickly make you an effective negotiator, starting today.
Skilled negotiators begin with a key concept in mind. They know that it’s important to satisfy their own needs, but they also see the value in satisfying the other party. The goal is for you to feel that the conflict has been successfully resolved, and for the other person to feel that way also. In short, you need to aim for an all-win outcome. The magic of a good negotiation is creating a “win-win” situation even if it looks like a “win-lose.” The truth is, almost all negotiations have at least some elements of win-win. The trick is to find them.
To help you do that, let’s look at three fundamental strategic principles.
First, make a commitment to an all-win approach.
Second, clarify what you want and why you want it.
And finally, have a focused picture of your “Plan B,” or walkaway position. That is, the circumstances in which you’ll need to end the negotiation without a resolution. Although this may seem like a worst-case scenario, assertive people skills will keep it from being no worse than it has to be.
As a leader, try to refrain from viewing negotiation as a competitive endeavor in which you have to make a killing in order to emerge the “winner.” Even a so-called failed negotiation can be a stepping-stone to forming relationships that can have long-term benefits for you and your company. In this sense, negotiation never really ends. One piece of failed negotiation can often be the start of the next phase.
Each of these principles is essential to resolving conflict in a business setting, and now we’ll look at them in detail.
Your Mind-set Is Key
As you begin the negotiation process, the mind-set you bring to the experience is critically important. You must begin with the assumption that a win-win solution exists and that your task is to reveal it. Even if you have serious doubts about this deep in your heart, you must convince yourself that it’s true. In other words, you must place the responsibility for a positive outcome on your own shoulders, rather than on external circumstances or on the other party. This may seem like a tall order, but seeing yourself as the controlling factor is actually far preferable to putting your fate in someone else’s hands. So make your mind-set positive, and make self-determination the basis of that mind-set. You’re in control, and you’re going to assert that control in a way that will be good for everyone.
You have a much better chance of a win-win if you approach the negotiation with this sense of self-empowerment. From that perspective, it will be much easier to show your interest in the other side’s concerns, and your determination to find a win-win resolution. You can do this by trying to create alternatives that have high value to the other person, by phrasing options in ways that align with the other person’s interests, or even by allowing your opponent to declare victory.
Generally speaking, there are two personality types among leaders, and their different characteristics determine their negotiating style. Autocratic leaders hold the view that they should get what they want when they interact with team members. Why? Simply because of their title and the hierarchy of the organization. Their routine response might be “Because I’m the boss.” They may think they’re negotiating, but what they’re really interested in doing is giving orders.
In the process of handing out orders, autocratic leaders don’t realize the extent to which they may be antagonizing others. Even when the tasks they assign are completed, they may be carried out improperly or inefficiently. This is the phenomenon known as “malicious obedience,” in which an order is technically fulfilled but subtly undermined at the same time. For instance, imagine an autocratic leader who sends his assistant out to get him a sandwich for lunch. The assistant comes back with a ham sandwich, and the manager yells: “You call this a lunch? Get me something decent to eat!” So the assistant goes to a five-star restaurant and gets a take-out lunch for five hundred dollars. Technically, he’s followed the order, but he’s also used his obedience to aggress against the authority. Like “buyer’s remorse” in the world of sales, malicious obedience is a frequent occurrence in negotiations with an autocratic personality.
The Accommodating Personality
A second negotiating type is the accommodating personality, which may be either a leader or a subordinate. Regardless of their status in the organization, they’re more concerned with what others want than with their own needs. Sometimes in order to avoid conflict, they don’t negotiate at all and end up sabotaging their own interests. Since negotiation implies conflict, it’s critical for these people to force a certain amount of compromise. This is the only way they can become effective participants in a business enterprise.
Suppose you were going into a negotiation with either of the two personalities we’ve just described. What mind-set would you want to adopt? Would it be positive or negative? Collaborative or confrontational? If you were dealing with an autocratic individual, would you let her set the stage for malicious obedience on your part? Would your hidden agenda be to win a guerrilla war against the big bully, by letting him at first think he’s won? Or, if you were facing an extremely accommodating person, would you want to take advantage of that person’s perceived weakness for your own benefit? In the short term, there might be a certain satisfaction in these hostile intentions on your part, but they would not really be assertive in the sense that we’ve been using the term. You might have asserted yourself against your adversary, but you have not asserted yourself against your own negative impulses. You have not entered the negotiation with a positive mind-set. A positive mind-set means seeing what is positive in the other person and in the situation as a whole, and maximizing that positive element. True, it may not be easy to deal with some of the extreme personalities we’ve just described. Assertive people skills often aren’t easy, at least in the short term. But, in the long run, using them well makes life much easier for everyone.
It is critical to understand that negotiating cannot be learned by following a prepackaged set of behaviors and applying them to all situations. That might work if everyone could be counted on to behave rationally and predictably. But they can’t, because people are often emotional and irrational. To negotiate well, you must prepare to use a variety of approaches depending on who’s on the other side of the table. The key word here is prepare. You need to prepare by knowing what you want and what the other person wants. Prepare for the other person’s potentially abrasive or submissive behavior. And prepare to take responsibility for turning those elements into a win-win resolution.
Most important, be clear about your real goals and real issues, and try honestly to identify the other person’s real needs. Many negotiations fail because people are primarily worried about being taken advantage of. They lose sight of the authentic issues. They’re more concerned about whether the other side won or might have taken even a step in the direction of winning. This is a fundamentally weak approach, although it may try to portray itself as strength.
This is our second strategic principle. After first committing yourself to a win-win outcome, be clear about what you want and why you want it. And make a distinction between your real wants and needs and those that are just serving some superficial intention. Don’t focus on the size or shape of the table, because that’s not what the negotiation is really about.
Third, be clear about the circumstances in which you would have to walk away from the negotiation. Or, to put it another way, are there any situations in which you would walk away?
If there aren’t, there should be, because in any serious negotiation you must be prepared to break off if you see that your real needs can’t be met. If you have $200,000 with which to buy a house, and the seller wants $400,000, you can certainly begin an assertive negotiation. You can find many side issues to discuss and perhaps concessions will be made on either side. If the seller continues to demand twice as much money as you’ve got, however, you must be prepared to walk away.
On the other hand, if you really and truly don’t have a walkaway situation, and the other party is a determined negotiator, you can save everyone time by simply giving in at the outset.
Let’s return to the example of the house. Suppose you walk away from the seller who wanted $400,000, and you find a seller who wants $200,000 (exactly the amount of money you have). But now a new thought strikes you. Maybe you should buy a house for $100,000 instead of spending every penny you have.
Your conversation with the seller might go something like this: “I like the house you’re offering for two hundred thousand dollars, but I’m wondering if I can get just as good a house for one hundred thousand dollars. So I think I’ll look around for a while.”
“Well,” says the seller, “you can look around all you want, but I can assure you there are no houses like this for one hundred thousand dollars.”
Despite this, you decide to explore the market. You want a three-bedroom house with a two-car garage and a swimming pool. Those are your real needs in the situation, but as you look around, it begins to appear that the seller was right. There don’t seem to be any houses like that for $100,000. If you want to be stubborn about it, you can keep looking in a wider and wider area. You can wait and see what other houses come on the market. Maybe you could even wait for years. The truth is, if you really and truly need that three-bedroom house and there are no others available, you actually have no walkaway position and you will have to meet the seller’s price. If that’s the case, you might as well do it sooner rather than later. If you don’t, you’re not being tough. You’re just being stubborn.
A useful concept here is always having a Plan B when you go into a negotiation—that is, the course you will take if you absolutely cannot reach an agreement. If you’re negotiating over salary, for example, your alternatives might include a specific job elsewhere, a longer job search, or remaining at your current job. This is a crucial reference point because your walkaway, or Plan B, establishes a threshold for the settlement. The outcome of the negotiation needs to match or do better than your Plan B.
Determining your Plan B, or walkaway position, is not always easy. You have to establish a concrete value for various alternatives. For instance, you know the value of your current job, but would it be worthwhile to take a $5,000 salary hike that involves moving to a new city? In simple negotiations, there may be just one issue like this. Often, though, there are many variables that can make your walkaway point very elusive. What’s more, it’s almost equally important to determine the other party’s walkaway or Plan B. In fact, one goal of assertive negotiation could be to come as close to the other person’s walkaway as you can.
If and when you truly do arrive at your Plan B, here are some things you’ll need to keep in mind. In most conflict situations in a corporate setting, you’ll have a continuing relationship with the other person, so don’t leave the bargaining table with a gloomy attitude, and don’t let the other party do that either. Again, it’s not easy, but look at this as a test of your assertiveness and your people skills. By doing so, you’ll open up the possibility for a better outcome at a later date.
Here’s an example of how this can work. Kim and Gretchen are both freelance graphic designers. A small publishing company had decided to bring out a new line of cookbooks, which would be very design intensive. Kim and Gretchen were both hired to work on the new line. Although they don’t know each other, they negotiated deals for themselves that came out to just about the same amount of money. Both of them were really excited about the new project. They were also gratified to get personal calls from Paul, the editorial director of the publishing company, who told them how great it made him feel to give them this break.
That was on a Friday. On the following Monday, the phone rang again in Kim’s studio, and in Gretchen’s also. This time it wasn’t Paul. It was his assistant, who told the two designers that over the weekend Paul had thought about the new project and had decided to cancel it. He was sorry, but that was his decision, and thanks for your time.
Kim was instantly furious. First she gave Paul’s assistant an earful, and then she quickly wrote an email to Paul himself. She told him that it had been extremely unprofessional to commit to something and then to suddenly back out of it. She mentioned that she had put other work on hold in order to keep herself available for this project, and now she had probably lost that business as well. Finally, she pointed out how gutless it was of Paul to make his assistant deliver the bad news. From a purely factual point of view, Kim was correct in just about everything she said.
Gretchen was also angry when she got the call from Paul’s assistant, but she knew that moments like this are the test of a professional’s people skills. She spoke briefly but politely with the assistant, and then, like Kim, she wrote an email to Paul. She disciplined herself to express her appreciation for the opportunity, as well as her disappointment that it was not going to take place. And she closed with the hope that even though this didn’t come through, perhaps there would be another project down the road.
What was the outcome of this episode? First, within a year Paul was gone from the publishing company. His former assistant took over his job, and one of his first acts was to sign Gretchen on for some major new work. He thought of calling Kim as well, but she had seemed so angry that he was sure she wouldn’t want to work with him.
In a walkaway situation, it is critical to address future possibilities, not current problems, and definitely not personalities. Resist the temptation to attack anyone personally. If the dialogue starts taking place on that level, people will just defend their self-esteem. Try to maintain a rational frame of mind oriented toward your long-term goals. If necessary, let the other blow off steam without your taking it personally. Make it clear that you know the conflict is about the issues, and it’s not personal. This will help to prevent the other side from feeling angry and defensive both now and when future opportunities come up.
Beside the explicit strategies we’ve discussed, there are many intangibles that can influence the negotiation of a conflict. Subtle verbal and body language can make a difference in how the resolution progresses. Spend more time listening than talking and make direct eye contact. Use the word and instead of but. Using but discounts everything that was said previously, whereas using and sends the message that you’re interested in the other party and are seeking common ground.
More specifically, be very careful about using the phone, email, and other nonvisual communication vehicles. A lack of facial expressions, vocal intonation, and other face-to-face cues can result in huge misunderstandings. Again and again, reiterate your interest in the other side’s concerns and your determination to find a mutually satisfactory resolution.
Sometimes the location where the negotiation takes place can be important. Is it happening in a space where you or the other party is uncomfortable? Are you in a location that is perhaps too comfortable? In an office environment, there’s always the sense that things have to go through official channels, and people have to live up to their reputations. If possible, go outside for a coffee or even just a walk around the block. As a general rule, anything is better than meeting in someone’s carefully constructed personal fortress.
If you have had previous experience in conflict resolution with this person, be aware of how this history might affect the present situation. If it was a positive experience, frame the new interaction in that context. If it was negative, find a way of starting fresh if that’s possible. Otherwise consider asking someone else to handle the negotiation on your behalf. Be aware that people place very different importance on elements of a conflict. For example, in negotiating for a job, you may place a high value on location and less on salary, or vice versa. Be mindful of your subjective viewpoints, and try to ascertain the other party’s also. Knowing what is really “valued” (not just quantified) is a big part of assertive conflict resolution.
Always be aware of time pressure as well. If there isn’t any, create some. In a business or corporate negotiation, every step in conflict resolution should have a “what by when” time frame attached to it. Otherwise, the principle of work expanding to fill the time available will take hold. Even if it takes forever!
Finally, here’s a thought that applies not only to conflict resolution but to all the people skills we’ve discussed in these chapters. It comes from Roger Fisher, a former professor at Harvard, and the coauthor of Getting to Yes, one of the best-selling negotiation books of all time. Roger Fisher said, “Be unconditionally constructive. Approach a conflict with this attitude: ‘I accept you as an equal negotiating partner; I respect your right to differ; I will be receptive.’ Some criticize my approach as being too soft. But negotiating by these principles are a sign of strength.”
Each day and each week, all of us engage in many interactions, but that does not mean we become better at it. To become better we need awareness of the structure and dynamics of people skills. We need to think clearly, objectively, and critically. Above all, we need to act assertively.
There is no one “best” style of assertive people skills. You’ll need to find the tools and techniques that are most effective for you. Try out the ideas we’ve explored in these chapters, and see what works best. A few ideas quoted by Dale Carnegie come as close as possible to being universal principles. Here they are.
Have unlimited patience. Never corner other people, and always assist them in saving face. In order to see through other people’s eyes, put yourself in their shoes. Avoid self-righteousness like the devil. And above all, take action. Inaction breeds doubt and fear. Action breeds confidence and courage. If you want to conquer the negative elements in your life, don’t sit at home and think about it. Go out and get busy!
ACTION STEPS
1. Having keen negotiating skills can advance you in your career. First, based on the information given, make a list of all the traits that a good negotiator would have. Then make note of all of the listed traits that you possess. Make a concerted effort to develop and practice those traits that you do not possess. Then keep a journal of the changes and results that you note in response to enhancing your skill set.
2. The three fundamental strategic principles to power negotiating are
1. Commitment to an all-win approach.
2. Clarifying what you want and why you want it.
3. Be ready with a focused picture of your Plan B, or walkaway position. Find a friend or coworker with whom you can practice these strategies. Do some mock negotiating with your partner, each taking honest notes, of the other’s strengths and opportunities for improvement. Enjoy this exercise and take note of the positive shifts that you make as you practice these techniques.
3. During a conflict, focusing your attention on finding a way to satisfy the other while still taking care of your needs puts you in a very powerful position. Getting out of the way, however, takes a great deal of discipline, consciousness, and practice. The next time you enter into a negotiation or conflict situation, consciously choose to focus on the needs of the other before engaging. Once it is resolved, be sure to write about any insights that you have gained by shifting your position from yourself to the service of someone else. Most often the results are quite extraordinary!