Simple, yes; Easy? No way!
THE BACKGROUND
Earlier this year, I was given the opportunity to participate in an innovative networking event put on by the Club Canadien here in Toronto. I would join two other speakers, sharing insights on “problem solving” for attendees who would rotate among each of the sessions. My challenge was to engage a couple of dozen professionals in a 20-minute session on “Negotiating,” and (cue the Mission Impossible theme) this was all taking place in French.
From years of skill development, personal involvement and Business school teaching on the topic, I have a good breadth of experience to pull on. Rather than making me a savvy negotiator (I am OK), this has given me a deep understanding of the discipline. I think I am borrowing from the intro of one of the many texts that I have read (and taught) on the topic, by summarizing the main points of Negotiation as:
Gaining a deep understanding of your own interests (e.g. what you want out of the interaction or series of interactions);
Gleaning the interests of the other party, to the best of your ability; and
Navigating the myriad of psychological biases that impede or diminish the quality of an eventual agreement.
Borrowing from the adage, “if you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough,” this may provide a good starting point to discuss Negotiating (and, yes, I covered all of them in the allotted time). That said, I think that participants may have left with more questions than answers.
Although straightforward as topic areas, each of these offers multiple rabbit holes to descend.
In the first part of my session, we explored situations where people did not get what they wanted. One example was not receiving a desired raise.
Q: So did you quit?
A: No.(Somewhat perplexed)
Q: So the conversation was about more that just the raise, yes? (Somewhat rhetorical)
Of course the conversation was about more than money! Money is a very convenient—yet incomplete—stand-in for many underlying interests.
How badly do you need the job?
What else about it do you enjoy/find valuable/creates potential future opportunities?
Often a teaching point in this area involves creating a BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement). If your “best” is not good enough, you can work on bettering it so that you can actually say, “No” when you don’t get what you want.
With this degree of murkiness in figuring out our own interests (plus, understanding those of others “on my side” and managing their expectations), how do we figure out what “the other side” wants? We can build trust so that they tell us, but what if they are not clear? And, what if they are simply telling us stuff to increase their chances of serving their best interests?
Note: One of the many rabbit holes here is clearly labelled, “GAME THEORY - Descend at your own risk!”
The early reference to “Managing Expectations” will fit more cleanly in the “psychological biases” silo, but the walls between these can be permeable, but overall, that is the simple explanation.
THE NOW WHAT (How and When)
There is a philosophical subset of “Negotiation” called, “Collaboration.” This term is, however, used in a wide range of different settings that may sit between two extremes:
Not collaborating, but (maybe?) thinking you are (i.e. “I asked them what they thought and everyone agreed with me!”), at one end, to
Continual consultation such that no decisions arise, at the other.
Like many things, systematic constraints can override simple intent, so the Collaboration in focus here is between Boards and Executive Leaders in the not-for-profit space. The systematic constraints are that usually the Executive Leader has a better grasp of operational realties, but the Board is tasked with providing direction… and maybe testing the boundaries of possibility.
Mirroring our description of Negotiations (in much less than 20 minutes AND in English), here is the simple description of what this kind of Collaboration requires:
Shared idea of the overall direction;
Shared means of gauging progress toward that direction; and
Shared understanding of the behaviours required to maintain both inclusivity and decisiveness.
As with the above context, each of these is deep and murky.
With a new program, we deal with each of them in the vein of stimulating thought and questions, rather than providing actions and solutions. The thinking is that with a better appreciate of the context (i.e. what makes it simple), we can better work with others in the far-from-easy task of making interactions more productive, impactful, satisfying, etc.
Look for program details (soon), including pricing and schedules, on our webpage: