Cat or No Cat?

I had introduced the group to the Harvard model of negotiating (as outlined in Getting to Yes) and they had discussed some of their negotiations in small groups. In the discussion following, one woman said: My issue is about a cat. My husband wants one, and I don't. There's really not much room for negotiating.

I mentioned that in the Harvard model, rather than focusing on the positions (I want a cat! versus I don't!) we would look at the underlying interests. What was it that her husband wanted from having a cat?  What was it about having a cat that was so objectionable to her?

But, of course, they had done that work in the group, in the hope of inventing a new option that both would be happy with: and various other pet options had been suggested, ranging from squirrels to rabbits (and including, of course Schrödinger's cat...), and indeed occasional cat-sitting for a neighbour; but none of these possible solutions were suitable. So it really did look like a zero sum game. 

But I continued to think about this conundrum afterwards, and realised with hindsight that I had missed a valuable teaching moment. For another aspect of the Harvard model is to insist on objective criteria.  The intention here is to remove coercion from the discussion, so that neither party bullies, or feels bullied by, the other; and in a matrimonial relationship that strikes me as particularly important.

Clearly, when deciding whether or not to have a cat as a pet, objective criteria are hard to find. But the second-level aspect of this insight is fair process - and that is something I could have explored with my group. 

When teaching this in a longer context (eg a day's workshop on negotiating) I often talk about voting and democracy. I make the point that we don't vote because we believe the majority is always right (we have plenty of evidence from history that such is not the case) but rather because it stops us from killing each other. It removes coercion from the system, by offering a transparently fair process (at least, in theory - I don't want to get into a discussion of the current aberrations of democracy in this post...).

Clearly, in a matrimonial disagreement, voting doesn't apply, as you will get a 1:1 hung vote. But the principle could be applied. For example, both parties could agree to toss a coin, and be bound by the result. And if that feels too much like setting up one person to win, and the other to lose, one could add a further element to the agreement: that whoever gets their wish on this issue, must agree in advance to cede the right to decide the next contested decision to the other person. That would be interesting...

I wish I'd thought to raise this and explore it with the group the other day: I am sure that they would have had some interesting insights. Instead, I'll email them a link to this blog post, and pick it up with them next time we meet. 

--

With thanks to  Alvan Nee, Elliott Stallion and  André François McKenzie for sharing their photos on Unsplash

Building Learning Networks Online

 Some while ago, when describing how I was a convert to online workshops, even including skills development, I wrote:  I was clear that some of the key skills I see myself bringing to that process, such as the creation of a safe but rigorously challenging atmosphere, rely on physical presence; likewise, some of the benefits of the workshops I run, such as building connections and networks (and to some extent, I stand by that).

And now, perhaps, I am standing a little back from that.

We had a review session this week, following the first of the online version of my Negotiating Skills Workshop.  It was an opportunity for participants to get together again, to compare notes on what they had done and learned since the workshop, by trying the learning out in the workplace, and to re-commit to continuing to learn.

It was heartening to hear how enthusiastic people were about the learning, but what really impressed me was that they concluded the review by committing to keep working together as a learning community. So they are all going to read Getting to Yes, and get back together to talk about their learning (and how they have further applied it) in a month's time.  And then decide what next to read (I have given them a few suggestions) and so on.

That strikes me as very significant, not least as the feedback from many programmes that we have evaluated over the longer term is that the building of networks has proved to be one of the most valuable aspects.  Indeed, quite by chance, I heard from someone who had left the University where she did a leadership programme, but still continues to meet with her cohort regularly - ten years on!

It is not just chance that this happens. The Thinking Environment approach to facilitation (follow the tag if you want to know more) will reliably engage people in ways that create high levels of trust and therefore the likelihood of a continuing relationship.  But what is interesting to me, and what I had not expected, is that this works even online.

--

With thanks to  Chris Montgomery and Nicolas Picard for sharing their photos on Unsplash

From grumpy to enthusiastic...

It's always entertaining when we ourselves go through precisely the journey we discuss with our clients, with regard to change.

There are, of course, many such journeys; but not an infinite number. So one can discuss probable pathways for different people, and this is certainly one typical one...

At the start of lockdown, I was fairly clear in my own head that the one-to-one work I do could easily continue online.  Indeed, I have been doing telephone coaching for many years, and zoom/skype (other brands are available) coaching for quite a few.

But the group facilitation, and in particular skills training, was not really possible in that way. Indeed, I was clear that some of the key skills I see myself bringing to that process, such as the creation of a safe but rigorously challenging atmosphere, rely on physical presence; likewise, some of the benefits of the workshops I run, such as building connections and networks (and to some extent, I stand by that).

So it was with (well-disguised, I hope) ill grace that I agreed to run some online sessions for one of my clients; to continue at least to some extent, a programme that had started pre-lockdown, and to honour, as best we could, the commitment of the participants.

The first sessions were largely idea- and feeling-sharing; and were very well received.  And due to participants' enthusiasm, and because some of the topics we had on the agenda for later meetings were about behavioural skills, such as influencing, I decided to see what we could do in terms of skills practice in that environment.

My prejudice against doing this kind of work online was reinforced by some of the online CPD I was doing, which was presented in dull and unimaginative ways, and included little skills practice of any value.

However, that set me thinking about what I would do differently, to make online learning more engaging, and to what extent practice in the virtual environment is, in fact, possible.

So I have been experimenting with giving more information (about theories or models) in advance, of an online workshop, and with getting people to participate in small groups without me there to supervise or hold their hand - and that has gone really well.

So I am now, enthusiastically, working up a full negotiating skills programme, which will consist of: several short modules of learning, which can be either read as short handouts with some reflective questions at the end, watched as a series of short videos (and again with reference to the reflective questions at the end of each module), or listened to, as a podcast in short chapters (and ditto re questions). That will be followed by some demonstration negotiations: one that goes well, one that is tough but gets to a resolution, and one where there is no final agreement due to one party's intransigence - all with some commentary. 

Alongside that, we will have an a-synchronous online discussion, in which participants can discuss various questions posed by me, and also anything else arising from their study, reflection or experience. Finally, there will be a live online workshop, where participants can  ask questions about the work done so far, and then practice the skills in small groups with other participants.

I am fortunate enough to have a client who is equally excited about this approach, and we are looking to go live in September. If it works well, I will be making it available to other clients, and also developing a number of other workshops on the same basis.

So I have done a complete u-turn on this. I can see several benefits to this approach (as well as some disadvantages). People can engage at times that work for them, which can be as short as a few minutes, or more extended if they want. They can re-visit any parts they want to, or go back after the demo negotiations to deepen their theoretical understanding after seeing the process in practice, and so on.  It won't be the same as a live workshop, and it won't draw on the same skills from me; but it does rely on other skills I have acquired over the years, and perhaps take for granted.

And the meta-lesson is that this is so often how people progress through change - and one of the elements that most change models under-emphasise, in my view, is the effect of time. People need time to assimilate the new reality, to re-orientate themselves, and to make new understandings of their role and contribution. We need to be careful not to reinforce their initial grumpiness in our haste to make progress, or we can sabotage that natural process.

--


With thanks to Brooke Cagle, Christine Donaldson and Fabian Qunitero for sharing their photography via Unsplash.

The Power of the BATNA

Recently I have been working with a few people preparing for forthcoming negotiations. As always, I lean heavily on the wisdom of the Harvard Negotiating Project, as captured in the seminal book, Getting To Yes. 

Once again, I have been struck by the simplicity, power and simple rightness of the approach. In particular, the power of the BATNA.

The BATNA is the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. It provides the final criterion to judge whether or not you should accept a potential agreement. If the agreement is better than your BATNA, then you would be wise to accept it; if your BATNA is preferable, then refuse the agreement, and implement your BATNA.

It sounds simple, and it is; yet people rarely negotiate like that. Too often, people have a 'bottom line' approach to evaluating an agreement. But that is fraught with problems, particularly in a situation which is changing in live-time, or where there are many factors to consider.

But the other thing about the BATNA is that it tells you where the power lies in the negotiation. It is easy to believe that the power lies with the party with most wealth, resource, influence etc. Yet that is not the case. The power actually lies with the party who can walk away from the negotiation most easily; that is, the person with the best BATNA.

From that it follows that there are two key things to do before negotiating, if you can. One is to develop the most attractive BATNA you can for yourself: not because you necessarily want to adopt it, but because you will negotiate with more power if you have it available to you. It is like going to a job interview with another attractive job offer already made: it affects your performance. The second thing to do is to understand the other party's BATNA. If it is unattractive, then you have more power; if it is very attractive, you have less. Knowing that is very valuable.

For more on this, the book, Getting to Yes is highly recommended. And I also comment on it in relation to my book Shifting Stories, over on the Shifting Stories website.

Negotiating Skills In Practice

It is always heartening to demonstrate (to myself) that the skills I train others to use do actually work in practice.

Last week, three of my children and I went to France to walk from Paris to Chartres (and that's another story). Jane (née Plasom) had booked the flights, and I realised a few days beforehand that she had booked them all in the name of Plasom-Scott. For reasons with which I won't bore you, my driving licence, and the kids' passports, are all in Plasom-Scott, but my passport is still in Scott. Realising that this might cause problems at the airport, I phoned the airline to explain the situation.

They said I would indeed have to change my ticket so that the name on it matched the name on my passport, and that they would do that: for an £11 admin fee, and a £40 something-else fee - ie £51 in total.

That struck me as excessive, but I went ahead as I wanted first and foremost to ensure that I could get on the flight with the children.

However, the more I thought about it, the more I felt ripped off, so I got back to them, using the approaches that I cover in my negotiating skills workshop - based on Harvard's model of Principled Negotiation.

That involved being very clear about my concerns, and asking them to explain by what criteria they had reached the conclusion that £51 was a suitable fee for a small administrative change that must have taken them all of two minutes.

Their response was a positional one: that we had a contract; the terms were that alterations were charged for; the fee was comparable with their competitors' charges.

So I replied that I understood that we had a contract; but what I failed to understand was how they had arrived at the level of the charge. It seemed to me that they were simply exploiting the fact that they had the legal right to charge a fee.  However, I made it clear that I was open to their explanation justifying the level of charges. I also made it clear that if they were unable to give me a satisfactory explanation, I would continue to feel aggrieved, and would consider a variety of possible actions as a result.

I listed a range of possible actions I could envisage taking, from amusing myself at their expense online, to using them as a case study in customer care training, as well as contacting the regulator. For, as I told them, if we were unable to reach an amicable settlement, I might as well get some value, if only entertainment, for the money they had taken from me.

The result was a refund of £40.  £11 still seems a bit steep for a 2 minute alteration, but I can live with that. 

So once again, the investment in Getting to Yes (Fisher and Ury) paid off...

Moving Mountains

Today's Moving Mountains (Influencing and Negotiating Skills) programme ran very well.  Unusually, it was an entirely female group (apart form myself) - there was a question raised about gender differences in terms of influencing and negotiating...

As ever, different people found different elements of the programme useful, but overall they all found it helpful and really entered into both the practical exercises and discussions, and the conceptual frameworks we were exploring.

As well as Harvard's classic negotiating model, and the push/pull influencing skills, I can't resist introducing the Multistory ideas.

This remains one of my favourite programmes, because people demonstrably find it so valuable...

Defeated by the snow...

The closure of the A 66 meant I couldn't get across to Durham for a morning meeting, and so I also cancelled another couple in Newcastle in the afternoon, as it seemed too much to try to battle through the weather (and risk not getting home again).  But I hate that: I guess it's pride...

However, it did mean I had an unexpected day at home, and I was able to use it to develop some ideas for another bid I'm going for - including workshops on Manager as Coach, Leadership, Change Management, Presentation Skills, Negotiating and Influencing: interesting seeing how my interest in narrative approaches feeds in to all of these.

I also refreshed a lot of my materials for an outplacement support workshop on Friday - not least because I suspect there may be more of these to come in the current (economic) climate.  I think I'll travel on Thursday evening to make sure I'm there for the workshop...

Moving Mountains

Good Moving Mountains (influencing and negotiating skills) Workshop yesterday at Durham University.

Very perceptive group: really liked the stuff on narratives and how important they can be in this context!

Several went away resolved to re-author their stories about some of their more difficult working relationships and difficult colleagues.

Negotiating Skills

Gratifying to find, once again, that that stuff I teach about negotiating really works in practice.

Annie had left my bike in Pooley Bridge overnight (locked to something, of course), and returned to find it gone.  

The insurers wanted me to settle for some rubbish own-brand bike from Halfords (or £225 cash) to replace my rather nice Specialized Ridgeback.  After a bit of to and froing (using the full range of Harvard strategies), they offered a substantially upgraded bike from Halfords (RRP £550 - probably worth £450 at the most) and we eventually settled on a cash amount that replaced my bike with the current Specialized, plus the rack and other fittings, and left me with a few pennies in pocket, even allowing for the £60  excess.

I still maintain buying Getting to Yes was one of the best investments I have ever made!

Moving Mountains

Moving Mountains is what I call my Influencing and Negotiating Skills workshop. Just ended a three day programme with a great bunch of people from the Adult Education world in the North East.

Keen and committed learners, they pushed their boundaries, tried stuff out, laughed a lot, and learned a lot too.

Joined on the last day by Clare, Peter and Simon from Curved Vision who used their acting skills to help people practice putting all the skills together to address real work scenarios. People always dread this in advance, but afterwards agree that it really helps the learning process.

Certainly the feedback from this programme was very positive, which is always pleasing.

Influencing and Negotiating Skills Workshop

Great workshop yesterday - a really good group who got engaged and really interrogated the approaches, practiced the skills and saw the applications to their own particular situations.

The one day version of this programme is a bit light-weight compared to the three day programme, where we get far more chance to practice (I bring in a team of actors on day three).

But nonetheless they seemed to find it helpful.

It's a bit like buses: I've got a three-day one next week (met the actors for their briefing last night); then another one-day one the week after that - and then the next in June.

Luckily plenty of leadership programmes and coaching going on between now and then...

Negotiating the future of the post office

Spent the morning giving the Chair of a village Parish Council a crash course in negotiating, and the afternoon working with her to facilitate a negotiation between business owners about the future of the village post office.

Did not get a deal - there wasn't one there to be had - but did manage to ensure that a difficult set of issues was thoroughly explored, that nobody was bullied or abused, and that everyone is clear what the next steps are - and that felt like a win in the circumstances!

Used the Harvard Principled Negotiating approach (see Getting to Yes, Fisheer & Ury) and as ever it delivered a fair, efficient and (reasonably) amicable process, enabling us to clarify that there was no deal that was going to work in a way that avoided the parties attacking each other (again) and demonstrated that the PC had done all it could to facilitate discussions.