Chapter 4
Negotiate for Your Life
(To Keep Those Missiles at Bay)
In 1962, the world stood perilously close to Armageddon. The Soviets had dispatched a shipment of nuclear missiles to Cuba. These were approaching the island country where they would be trained upon the US. President Kennedy couldn’t allow this to happen. He had three options: let the missiles arrive in Cuba and just accept the threat to the US mainland, retaliate by bombing Cuba and launching an invasion, or start seriously negotiating. Sensibly, he chose not to ignore the threat. Thankfully, he chose not to launch an invasion since, unbeknownst to him, the Soviets had 40,000 troops in Cuba, and the Cubans had 250,000 well-trained troops ready too. Instead, he chose to talk. Through skillful negotiations on both sides, a nuclear war was narrowly averted.
We all have a choice as we face shipload after shipload of missiles, all pointing at us. We can, as most of us have been doing, accept the busyness. Alternatively, we could retaliate: we could hand in our notice or say “to hell with this.” Or we could start talking. People are often remarkably resistant to talking and negotiating. They worry that they might lose out in the process, or that somehow starting to talk about an alternative response to busyness is revealing their dark secret: that they care about life beyond work. They worry that talking might place them in opposition to the needs of the business. But they pay a high price to avoid talking: they put up with way too much.
This applies at home too. How do you agree with those you love on the best balance of your time and energies? Is it better to put a few extra hours of work in, do homework with your son, go to your daughter’s soccer game, or go to the gym? Other members of your family can’t fully understand your burdens, nor will you ever fully understand their perspectives. Many of the conversations resulting from a more imaginative response to a world of “too much” will be difficult.
However, at some point, if you want to find a way forward that doesn’t involve the ineffectual drudgery of busyness, or doing something drastic, you’re going to have to start talking. When you get to that point, the rest of this chapter will help.
Negotiate Beyond Busy
An immortal Monty Python sketch from The Life of Brian involves a desperate Brian trying to escape from a group of Roman soldiers who are chasing him. He goes to a market stall where he selects, and tries to pay for, a false beard as a disguise. The market trader can’t understand Brian’s behavior and says, “Wait a minute, we’re supposed to haggle.” When a gourd gets thrown into the bargain, the market trader asks for another ten shekels. When Brian agrees to the price, the trader says, “No, no, no, no. It’s not worth ten. You’re supposed to argue! Ten for that, you must be mad!”
The sketch, funny and weird as it is, does point to two standard beliefs about negotiation: you’re supposed to haggle and you’re supposed to argue. Roger Fisher and William Ury, founders of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School, would disagree (in a nonargumentative fashion, obviously!).1
Imagine a business executive returning from a business trip. She has attended a “Life Balance” seminar and, inspired, has decided she wants to improve her health and fitness. She walks into the house and announces to her husband that she’s off for a long run. Her nearest and dearest—who has been single-handedly managing the home and children in her absence—reacts to this, expressing (in no uncertain terms) his desire for a break, immediately; he is off to meet his friends. Since that would leave no one to mind the children, both of them can’t get what they want. The most common thing to do here is to haggle (or argue like cats and dogs).
In their book Getting to Yes, Fisher and Ury suggest an approach that results in two winners from the negotiation process. I find that this is the best approach for the tricky lifestyle negotiations that are needed to move beyond busy. Their approach is called principle-based negotiation and is built upon two foundations: focusing on underlying needs and seeking agreements.
Focus on Underlying Needs
In any negotiation, we have certain needs or principles we want met, and, in approaching a negotiation, we will identify ways to fulfill these needs. These are called our “positions.” The negotiation, then, becomes a debate and trade-off between our respective positions. In the case of the business executive coming home from the seminar, her position is to go for a long run—right away. Her husband’s position is that he needs a break—immediately. Clearly both positions cannot be maintained. There will be a winner and a loser, or a compromise (two losers).
Principle-based negotiations are based on building agreements founded on underlying needs. For example, if the business executive, instead of focusing on wanting to run immediately, talked instead about her desire to improve her work-life balance, her husband would almost certainly agree with that desire and be supportive. At the same time, if her husband talked about how he had been run ragged by the children and had felt caged in the house for the last few days, she would recognize those feelings and understand his need to get out of the house for some adult company.
Once an agreement is reached around underlying needs, the magic can happen. The wife and husband are no longer competing, pushing for their positions to be met. They are working together to find solutions to needs they both agree with. In the end, the couple above might agree to go out to the park together, with the children; they take a soccer ball, and have a game (exercise need fulfilled). In the evening, they get a babysitter, and go out for dinner together (break need fulfilled). The fact is that most needs can be satisfied in multiple ways. If we start our discussion from the need, we can get creative, together, to identify solutions that fully meet both parties (instead of only partially meeting both).
Seek Agreements
Have you ever played devil’s advocate? When we play devil’s advocate in normal conversations, we argue a case just for the sake of the debate. Let’s say, for example, someone is arguing that Babe Ruth was the greatest-ever baseball player. You may be relatively neutral on the subject but, for the sake of a conversation, you argue the case for Barry Bonds. What happens next is interesting: the longer, and the more strongly, you argue for Bonds, the more you begin to convince yourself that the famous left fielder for the Giants really was the greatest baseball player ever to play the game. This isn’t because of your brilliant arguments either; in fact, your opponent is becoming more convinced than ever that Babe Ruth was the best. This is because of cognitive dissonance: when we argue forcefully for something, our beliefs start to come into line with our argument. We’re more likely to persuade ourselves than our opposition!
When you apply this to a negotiation, the risk is that the very act of arguing or “negotiating” based on different opinions, can actually drive both opponents further apart, thereby reducing the chances of reaching a workable agreement. Instead you should seek to find agreement in your negotiations to give you a better chance of finding a solution that will work for both people involved.
Let’s say that you are about to renegotiate your boundaries. You want to spend more quality time with your friends and family. It’s not that you want to do less work, it’s just that the hours you work, the journey you make and the constant emails through the evening and weekend mean you are barely present at home anymore. You could storm in and ask for a finishing time of 4:30 p.m. (a position), given you have a long journey. Your manager will then have two options: yes or no. If she says “yes,” then you’re okay; you’re better off, providing your manager didn’t feel backed into a corner and irritated by your request. If she said “no,” where can you go? “I want to finish at four thirty… [no]… But I have such a long journey… [no]… I’m hardly seeing my children… [no]… Don’t you care about children?” It’s a road to nowhere. You start off disagreeing, and get further apart as the argument gets more and more heated.
On the other hand, if the conversation is framed in much broader terms, in terms of needs, you can build on agreements. “My work and my family are both important to me… [agree]… I want to find the right balance… [agree]… Will you help me find a solution that works for you and me?… [agree]…”
So, in order to negotiate your boundaries in a positive, productive manner, you need to do the following:
• Make sure you are really clear in your mind about your underlying needs and how they differ from any positions you currently have in mind.
• Start by describing your needs. Don’t forget to use the magic word “because” (as mentioned in the opening of the book).
• Seek to understand their needs.
• Look for agreement before trying to find a solution.
• Once agreement is established, get creative. Together, generate solutions to meet both of your needs.
When Compromise Can Help
Williams-Sonoma is a cookware company that makes high-quality cooking utensils. After having the same bread machine on the market for a while, they decided it was time to make an improved version. They released the new and improved bread maker at a premium price to reflect its higher quality and additional features. What happened next was unexpected: almost immediately, sales of the original bread maker doubled.
Researcher Itamar Simonson explains that this happens because consumers tend to prefer “compromise choices.”2 The new bread maker attracts your attention; it would be wonderful but is too expensive. You then recognize that the original model still makes good bread, and appears cheap compared to the new one; it suddenly becomes an attractive option. It makes you feel that you are making a sensible choice.
So let’s imagine you have a burdensome report to do each week, which you feel takes more time to do than it warrants. You might put a proposal to your manager, offering three options: the first is to keep producing the same report, the second is to produce a substantial but significantly scaled-down version, and the third is to take a bare-bones approach. Positioned this way, your boss is more likely to choose the middle option, which will still meet their needs but save you a huge amount of time. This approach is likely to reduce your burden, while simultaneously satisfying your manager; after all, it was your manager who chose that you should do less.
A Foot in the Door
Would being asked if you are likely to vote actually make you more likely to vote? The answer, according to social scientist Anthony Greenwald, is yes. He asked this very question on the eve of an election. Those asked to make a prediction of their behavior were 25 percent more likely to vote than those not asked (86.7 percent versus 61.5 percent).3 This effect occurs because we’re motivated to behave consistently over time. So, if we act in a particular way, or agree to something small, we become much more likely to act consistently with that action later.
If you want to make a change in your behavior at work, and you want your boss to agree to it, start by making really, really small requests that would be difficult to disagree with. If these are accepted, your boss will be much more likely to agree with your real, and bigger request. If you do want to work from home one day a week, you might simply start by asking to work from home on a single, one-off instance. That will pave the way for a larger request.
Time to Say “No”
Would you kill someone with a lethal electric shock if a man in a white lab coat asked you to? Or would you say “no”? In one of the most chilling psychological experiments ever, social psychologist Stanley Milgram began studying the effect of authority on people’s actions back in 1961 (soon after the beginning of Adolf Eichmann’s war crimes trial began in Jerusalem).4 The subjects were told that they would be “teachers,” and they should administer small electric shocks to the “learner” if they got answers wrong. Each time the learner gave the incorrect answer, the voltage was increased by 15 volts (so the subjects were told—though no actual shocks were administered). The subjects were told not to worry; they were not responsible for any consequences. Despite hearing increasing screams and requests for the experiment to stop, 65 percent of all subjects continued to do as they were told, up to the maximum shock: a massive 450 volts! They never said “no.”
Work provides us with authority figures in abundance, all of who can dictate our actions. Authority can reduce our need to take responsibility for our actions: being told to do something removes our need to decide. Additionally, saying “no” to anyone, let alone someone more senior, is really hard. At some point though, you’ll need to use that two-letter word if you want to set boundaries and avoid the drudgery of the perpetual “yes.”
The Power to Say “No”
Before we look at what to say, let’s look at how you feel. In one of the most popular TED talks ever, Amy Cuddy described her research about the effect of our body posture on our confidence. She had students “stand powerfully” for just two minutes, which increased their levels of testosterone by 10 percent (associated with confidence) and decreased their cortisol (the stress hormone) by 25 percent. When offered the chance to place a bet, those who had adopted a high-power pose were about 50 percent more likely to gamble than those in the low-power posture. All this in just two minutes!5
So what is a high-power pose? Just make yourself big. Open your arms and legs, shoulders wide and head up. My favorite is the “Wonder Woman” pose. Remember how she stood: tall, feet shoulder-width apart, both hands on her hips. You may feel completely ridiculous doing this, but that’s no bad thing if it lightens your seriousness before saying “no.” Find a private place to go and “stand big” for a couple of minutes, then go and say “no,” powerfully.
The Truthful “No”
In 1901, Harry Houdini was handcuffed and locked inside an oversized milk can filled with water. Trapped, he had only a limited time before he ran out of breath and drowned. After much wriggling, he emerged triumphant to cheers from the crowd. This became one of his most iconic escapes. There’s something about saying “no” that brings out the escapologist in all of us. Being requested to do something puts us on the spot. After much wriggling and squirming, hopefully, we find our escape.
Let’s imagine you’ve just been asked to attend an important business conference over the following weekend. What do you do? Do you tell your boss “no” because you want to spend time with your family, or do you get creative? Our desire to escape can be so strong that we entirely fabricate a convincing-sounding story to demonstrate that we certainly cannot say “yes”: “My long-lost school friend, who was with me in ’Nam, is visiting with his three-legged Chihuahua, who has canine leukemia, so it might be my last chance to see her.” We can feel an almost irresistible urge to create excuses to get out of things. Our primary goal is to escape. This can help us escape from an awkward situation, but leaves us open to similar future conversations: “Will you stay late to help me with my report tonight?” “Oh, I’d really love to [lie], but [excuse coming… ] I’m taking my budgie to the vet.” “Ahh, that’s a shame; how about tomorrow?”
While I’m all for creativity, when it comes to saying “no,” the truth is best. Escaping can help us to get out of awkward situations and is often an attempt not to damage the relationship, but it can lead us down a dead end. The truth may feel more challenging to say, but it can help to set boundaries and clarify your priorities.
Oh, and by the way, don’t say “I’m busy” as your excuse. It may be true, but it’s not sufficiently explicit; it just sounds like a rude brush-off.
The Thoughtful “No”
One of the things that can prompt us to either say “yes” when we want to say “no,” or to make up excuses, is the feeling that the spotlight is on us. When we get an unwanted request, a request to which we might want to say “no,” we can often say “yes” simply because we can’t think it through quickly enough. When the pressure is on, we default to the safest option and say “yes.” It might be that we need time to think through our response based on all our other commitments. It might be that we already know we want to say “no,” but just want time to think through our delivery. Either way, get out of the spotlight. Say “let me think about it” or “give me five minutes.” Then go and reflect in a cool, rational manner on your response. Assertiveness is not the same thing as quick thinking. Take your time, make the right choice, then have the conversation.
The Positive “No”
The starting point for saying “no” effectively is saying “yes.” The “yes” is the big reason behind your “no.” Having an important “yes” makes saying “no” a whole lot easier because it provides you with your reason for saying “no.” It also provides you with the motivation to say “no.” When you say “no” to busyness it’s not because you want to stop being busy, it’s because you want to become more immersed, more effective, more energized and more connected. Find your big “yes” and you’ll find your “no.”
In his book, The Power of a Positive No, William Ury suggests thinking of your “no” as a tree.6 The origins and the strength of the “no” come from your big “yes,” the roots. This is where you start in preparation and in articulating your “no.” This is followed by the trunk, where you say “no” clearly, simply and unemotionally. Finally, the tree branches out. The final part of the “positive no” is to reach out to see if there is a solution, to try to make a positive proposal.
To be clear, this isn’t a proposal to soften your “no.” Your delivery should be consistent with your big “yes” and your clear “no.” It shouldn’t offer false hope either. Your “no” can often be presented in the form of a third option. Let’s say you’re being asked to develop a staff survey to assess training needs. Your role has nothing to do with training, but you do have some expertise in surveys. The reason you want to say “no” to the project is that you are working on a major project launch (your big “yes”) and don’t want to be distracted by survey development. After explaining your big “yes” and stating your “no” clearly, you want to close with a “yes,” a third option. You could say, “Look, I’d be happy to act as an informal advisor on this. If you put your objectives and ideas together, come and see me and I’ll give you my perspective. Would that help?”
The Project Management “No”
In project management, they have something called the Triple Constraint Triangle. There are three fundamental constraints on any project; change one of these and it will immediately affect the other two. The model is shown below.
Imagine you’re building a new sports stadium for the next Olympic Games. If the scope or quality is increased, e.g., someone decides “Let’s put a removable roof on the stadium,” it will have an impact on either the budget required or on the overall build time—or both. Given that there is a fixed delivery date for the Olympics, any changes to either scope or quality will have an instant impact on the resources needed (e.g., “We’ll need to get a lot more people on the job, quickly”) or vice versa.
In the context of busyness, we might often be saying “no” due to the overall press of work. You are saying “no” to unrealistic expectations due to the other challenges you are facing. The “project management no” involves explaining the implications of a “yes.” It means saying “no” to the demand as it was positioned, but leaving open a conditional “yes” if the other person agrees to adjustments to the other constraints. For example, say you have been asked to prepare a presentation on your department’s marketing spend in the last fiscal year by Friday. You may realize that this is not possible. However, you might say that you would be able to do the presentation if the scope were scaled down, the presentation were a week from Friday instead of this week, or if you get support to help you with this (or with your other work). This allows the “no” to return back into a rational negotiation.