1. Expand the “emotional pie.” In Negotiation, we often encourage our readers
to address the emotions at stake in a negotiation before tackling substantive
issues. If your business partner threatens to leave the company and take her
clients with her, for example, you’d be wise to question her about her feelings
before beginning to discuss a possible dissolution.
Similarly, research suggests that the majority of hostage situations are driven
by emotions or relationships. Hostage takers may claim they want money, a plane
ticket, or some other instrumental reward, but these demands typically mask a
greater underlying emotional concern, such as a desire for respect or attention.
This is why Lieutenant Jack J. Cambria, commanding officer of the NYPD’s
hostage-negotiation team, stresses the importance of listening carefully to the
hostage taker’s demands with the goal of identifying his primary underlying
problem or motivation. Rather than engaging the hostage taker in a rational
debate about his feelings (“But you have your whole life ahead of you!”), police
negotiators seek to manage the hostage taker’s anxieties. They demonstrate
concern through active-listening techniques—for example, self-disclosure,
paraphrasing, and supportive remarks, such as “It sounds like you feel very
lonely.”
The lesson for business negotiators? Time spent exploring the emotions
behind a counterpart’s stated positions is never time wasted.
2. Build a relationship. When a police negotiator says, “We’re in this together”
to a hostage taker, he’s not just paying lip service, insists retired NYPD police
commander Robert J. Louden. Rather, the negotiator is trying to create the kind
of bond that psychologists develop with their patients—a bond that will allow
them to find a solution to the crisis together.
Negotiate productively with an angry public
When negotiators get along well, creative problem solving is easy. When they
become upset, however, they seem to forget everything they know about finding
joint gain, to the point of giving up tangible wins simply to inflict losses on the
other party. This is especially true in high-profile negotiations that turn nasty.
Confronted with negative publicity, executives become so focused on controlling
public relations and managing the crisis that they lose sight of the fact that that
they are even in a negotiation.
Many public relations experts would argue that negotiations have no place in a
crisis. Reveal as little as possible, they say, deny liability, and avoid all forums that
could legitimize your adversaries’ views. This advice ignores the fact that what an
angry public wants most is to be heard.
Experts in conflict management point out that if the only communication
that does occur consists of both sides asserting their positions and demanding
that the other side take certain actions, little progress will be made. Instead, try
construing exchanges with angry parties as negotiations in which the primary
goal is to search for tradeoffs that will lead to a mutually beneficial agreement.
Even when agreement seems impossible, parties often can work together to
create value.
Acknowledging the other side’s concerns can be difficult, especially when
lawyers worried about liability are involved. But organizations that take the time
to acknowledge the concerns of others will often be able to avoid making large
concessions. For instance, a company that wants to build a controversial factory
might meet with angry residents to acknowledge their concerns about possible
adverse impacts. The company might also commit to ensuring that all relevant
federal, state, and local regulations will be met if the factory is built.
Those who have been hurt by a corporation in the past (by an environmental
disaster, for example) might begin their public campaign by demanding an
apology. In many parts of the world, indigenous people involved in current
disputes about the use of their land have opened negotiations by demanding
apologies for generations of hardship. Typically, corporate executives and
governmental officials react by denying personal responsibility for past events.
A better strategy might be to express empathy for the group’s past struggles
via a public statement that stops short of an apology. It is often possible to
acknowledge the public’s concerns without accepting responsibility and
generating exposure to liability.
Improved communication. Lack of communication and a public war of
words deepened tensions and distrust between the WGA and the producers.
Negotiations finally got serious after company executives reached out to the
WGA. Under cover of a media blackout, the two sides met in small groups and
got to know each other. The talks “started off cautious but gradually warmed up
and became very productive,” WGA lawyer Alan Wertheimer told Variety.
The most important take-away from the costly strike? It might have been
avoided if parties had gathered regularly between contracts to discuss their
concerns and plan for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment