Six teams of eight students each had a day and a half to analyze the problems an American company was having in China and come up with a turn-around solution to present to the company’s executive board. As part of the assignment, they were told their presentations needed to include seven elements. Some of the teams immediately chose a leader, assigned a section to each member of the group, then separated to do individual research. Others spent much longer working as a whole team, breaking up into substantive areas (finance, marketing, etc.) with two or three members working on each, then recombining as a whole periodically. Even when they were doing small group work, they remained seated around a single table so that they were always communicating back and forth with one another.

The latter approach was certainly more time-consuming. But at the end of the day the two winning teams were those who had spent the most time working cooperatively. Their solutions came together as an integrated whole, not as an assemblage of parts or of issues raised and then dropped. In their presentations there were no contradictions between the speakers. The strategies were unified. Even their body language seemed more powerful.

It was a vivid demonstration of the power we gain from working collaboratively–understanding that the goal of  each individual in the group is to have the strongest team solution, bringing different viewpoints into the open, listening seriously to other’s perspectives, agreeing on the best way forward for all, then moving on cooperatively. It may take more time, but it yields a great return on investment!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Her resentment led me to think about fairness. Why did this event so alter her perception of the professor? Not because she was depending on the favor–for example, a ride home on a snowy day. Nor because she had asked and been denied; in fact it had never entered her mind until the professor raised the subject. He had spontaneously offered to introduce her to a visiting speaker, a well-known business leader who he said could help her get into the field she was hoping to pursue.  She was certainly excited about the prospect, but it didn’t cause her to change plans, invest money, or go to any effort. So why was she so annoyed that the offer was only hot air?

It’s about reciprocity–a key principle not just in negotiation but in all human relationships going back to earliest societies. A caveman who had killed more meat than he could eat would have been more willing to share it with his neighbor if he believed that she would reciprocate by giving him some of her surplus food or blankets when he needed them. In the same way today, if I invite you to dinner, you will feel the need to reciprocate by, for example, bringing me a bottle of wine. If I offer you a concession in a negotiation, you will normally respond by a return concession. Doing someone a favor creates an obligation to repay it in some way. That’s a basic element in our sense of fairness.

One way we reciprocate is through showing appreciation. When the professor offered to make the introduction, the student not only thanked him enthusiastically on the spot, but she sent a follow-up email thanking him, she sang his praises to her fellow students, and she spent time thinking nice thoughts about his generosity. So when the favor never materialized, her appreciation no longer felt like reciprocity–it became a gift she had given him for nothing in return. Now she felt unreciprocated and that upset the balance of fairness that we all carry in our heads. So, to right the balance, she began telling everyone what an insincere lout her former hero was.

The point of this all is that negotiations and relationships are founded on sincerity. If you can’t carry out a promise, you’re better off not making it–because the principle of reciprocity can either work for or against you.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Morning Cindy—Since you are the “go-to gal,” I’m hoping you can advise me on hotel bookings. I will be conducting a series of trainings in your company’s European offices next month. Could you send me your list of approved hotels in London, Milan, Barcelona and Frankfurt? Thanks—Melanie  

 Hi Melanie—With regards to your query about approved hotels: for London, you can organise bookings through ABC agency and the contact there is Violetta [phone]. With respect to Milan, Barcelona & Frankfurt the best contact is Gail [email]. Kind regards—Cindy Potter

 [I call Violetta, who says she only books conference rooms and that I need to talk to Ian for hotel bookings.]

 Hi Ian—I will be coming to London this December to conduct a series of trainings for one of your client companies. I just spoke to Violetta who told me that you are the person in charge of hotel bookings. Could you please book a non-smoking room at one of your approved hotels on the following dates? Do let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you—Melanie

 Hi Melanie—Thanks for your mail. I am sorry that I am unable to help on this occasion as we only look after blocks of 10 or more rooms.  I have passed on your request to our transient booker, XYZ Travel, who will contact you directly. Many thanks.—Ian

 [No response from XYZ. Meanwhile I contact Gail to book the rooms for Milan, Barcelona, and Frankfurt.]

 Hi Gail—I will be conducting a series of training programs for your European headquarters next month. Cindy Potter gave us your name as the person to contact regarding booking hotels. Could you please let me know how to proceed?—Melanie

 as discussed–Gail

 Hello again Gail—I’m afraid I don’t understand your email. Do you mean by “as discussed” that we should book Milan and Barcelona through XYZ Travel as well? Please explain a bit further.—Melanie

 Hi Melanie—Please apologize, this email was meant to go to Cindy, not to you. We just talked and she will name you the right contact for booking a hotel in our European sites. –Gail

[Several hours later] Hi Cindy—Gail mentioned this morning that you had another contact for the European hotel list. Could you pass it along as soon as you have an opportunity? Thanks a lot—Melanie

The contact is Anna Maria Mastroianni.—Cindy

 Thanks, Cindy. Do you by any chance have an email address for Anna Maria?—Melanie

 It’s xxxxx.—Cindy

 Hi Anna Maria— I will be conducting a series of training programs for your European headquarters next month. Cindy Potter gave us me name as the person to contact regarding booking hotels. Could you please let me know how to proceed?—Melanie

Good afternoon–to be honest I don’t know Ms. Potter, as I’m working in HR, but I think the best way is to contact them yourself. Cheers–Anna Maria.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Years ago, when I wrote my first book, Decision Against War, I just sent it off ot the publisher, then waited passively to read the reviews, silently hoping they would translate into sales. Times have definitely changed. Now authors must be their chief promoters on websites, Facebook, Twitter, blogs. It’s terribly stressful having to make that sudden change from solitary author interacting primarily with your own thoughts to active social networker. However, after much moaning and groaning, I’ve come to realize that it’s both an important and good change.

The central ideas of Beyond Dealmaking are that 1) everything we do that requires another person’s cooperation is a negotiation and 2) effective negotiation shouldn’t be approached as a finite transaction (aimed at closing a deal) but rather as an effort to build a  mutually beneficial relationship to encourage that cooperation and open the door to future positive dealings.

How then could I justify clinging to my transactional notion of what an author does (I write the book and my relationship with the reader ends there)?  I couldn’t. It’s simply too disrespectful when seen in those stark terms. So from now on I will practice as an author what I preach as a negotiator. Life is a web of relationships. Let’s get started!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

This was demonstrated in an amusing way when I conducted a negotiation workshop at a leading business school-a story recounted in Beyond Dealmaking. The centerpiece of the event was a group of extemporaneous role plays. On involved a domestic negotiation between a wife who felt she was taking on too much of the burden of housework and a husband who wanted to maintain the status quo. Both parts were played by volunteers from the audience.

The negotiation started off badly and went downhill from there. The “husband” was sitting casually in a chair on stage when the “wife” walked in and immediately challenged, “Do you think the division of housework between us is fair?”

His face went quickly from shock to defensiveness. Given the choice of either admitting that he was unfair or denying it altogether, the husband said what virtually anyone put into that corner would say: “Yeah, pretty fair.”

The wife rolled her eyes visibly enough to be seen from the back rows of the auditorium. “How can you call it fair?” she charged. “I have a job that’s as demanding as yours. Yet when I come home, I am the one who cleans the house. I make dinner. I do the shopping. I help our daughter with her homework . . .” And on it went, a litany of “I, I, I,” until at the end she said, “And I want to know what YOU intend to do about it.”

The husband looked back at her with total defiance. “Why are you asking me? I’m not the one with the problem,” he replied, at which point the wife became so genuinely angry that I had to call an end to the role play. (Clearly this was hitting a real-life nerve.)

Once things calmed down enough to discuss what we had seen, a member of the audience asked the woman why she hadn’t made any effort to show the husband how it would benefit him to free her from some of the domestic burden. Still seething, the role-player glared back at the questioner, hands on hips. “I’m already doing all the housework,” she snapped. “Do I have to think for him, too?”

The answer is no, she didn’t have to think for him; but if her goal had been to persuade him to take ownership of the problem and work with her in finding a solution, she had to think about him, to show that she had his interests in mind as well as her own. And if she wanted his help in crafting a joint agreement that he would carry out willingly, she had to think with him. If the only result she was after was to get all of her resentment off her chest and to let the husband know that she thought he was a selfish jerk, her approach was fine. However, had she continued along the same me-oriented, blaming vein, it would never have led to agreement, much less to mutual gain or an enhanced relationship. When was the last time you were persuaded by someone attacking you?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post