Women in Negotiation

“Ty Gitou?”

A young woman stood in the doorway of Tyler’s office. Tyler came out from behind his desk to greet her.

“Yes, hello. I am Tyler Gitou. How can I help you?”

“My name is Janice Lumere. My friend Kevin Delclinchy is in sales with the company. He said you were the Deal Whisperer and you might be able to give me some advice on how to become a better negotiator.”

“I’d be delighted to speak with you,” Tyler said. “Please sit down. What are the issues you are dealing with?”

Janice sat in one of two chairs in front of Tyler’s desk. Tyler sat in the one next to her.

“Well, nothing just yet. I just got a job in the sales group and wondered if you had any advice on how to talk with potential clients. Most of the people I am working with are older and usually they are…”

“Male.” Tyler said. He smiled. “Let me compliment you on two points. First, your ability to recognize the fact that there is a difference between men and women in how they sell and negotiate. As much as we try to convince ourselves that we are all equal, women truly do have more hurdles to overcome when negotiating with men and other women. Second, your desire to address and overcome the problem. For someone so early in her career you are showing great maturity in taking action to resolve issues that might limit your success. Many young professionals believe that when they ask for help it is a sign of weakness. In fact, it is a sign of strength when you leverage others’ skills and knowledge to make an organization more successful.”

“Thank you,” Janice said. “Kevin spoke highly of you and I can already see why. So what are the differences and what can I do to address them?”

“There are many and we can’t cover them all in one conversation. But let me give you a start. First, when I say the word ‘negotiation’ what adjectives pop into your head?”

Janice thought a moment. “Difficult; confrontational; demanding…”

“And why do you have that perception when you think about negotiation?”

“Because I need to win and the other side wants to win and I have to overcome some overly aggressive male in order to succeed.”

“And what if you can’t overcome this challenging man?”

“I guess I have to hold my ground as long as I can and then in the end give in for the relationship.”

Tyler laughed. “That’s perfect. You have articulated a universal perception many young women and men have about negotiation. The difference is in what women and men typically view as the ideal outcome of that ‘competition’. The studies I have read on this topic say that women are challenged by a cultural barrier that causes them to believe that negotiation is confrontational. Because women generally focus more on relationship they often won’t counter an offer or ask for more because it might create a negative perception of them as ‘difficult” or ‘pushy’ thereby hurting the relationship. Their negotiation style then often runs from ‘compete’ to ‘accommodate’. Make a demand to get some movement but stop and concede before it might hurt the relationship.”

“That all resonates with me. I feel like I have been through that scenario. So what do I do about it?”

“Come see me next week and we will discuss two elements a Deal Whisperer uses to build a collaborative sales and negotiation environment: legitimacy and perceptions. If we focus on those two first, you will soon find yourself a more confident salesperson and negotiator.”

(See "Women in Negotiation Part 2.")
 http://dealwhisperers.blogspot.com/2011/11/women-in-negotiation-part-2.html

Admit It, You're Wrong!

Nobody likes being wrong. In fact, some people have so much trouble admitting they are wrong that they will perform acrobatic feats of rationalization to avoid accepting blame. Think for a moment about arguments you have had with your significant other. How often do the excuses start with, “Well, if you hadn’t…” and continue with a tenuous chain of cause and effect that ends with “…so it’s not my fault!”

Disciplined negotiators not only admit when they are wrong, they use mistakes as opportunities to build trust. Because people rarely admit their errors, when we deal with people who do, it is refreshing and puts them in a different light than run of the mill “blame dodgers.” Over a period of time, having a reputation for admitting mistakes can pay dividends when a problem arises that really isn’t your fault. The other party has every reason to believe you because you’ve shown your practice is to admit when it is your fault. They trust you.

A greater challenge is what to do when the other party refuses to admit that they have made a mistake. Trying to resolve a dispute, for example, becomes difficult if the other side won't acknowledge their contributions to the problem. (In one memorable exchange, Party A admitted they had made mistakes, but said it was still Party B’s fault because Party B failed to stop Party A from making mistakes!)

The reason why people don’t admit mistakes is very simple: they fear the consequences of being held accountable. Like a teenager claiming the dent in the car was “not my fault,” they don’t want to get “in trouble”. Those consequences might be institutional (they expose their business to liability) or personal (they or their colleagues will hurt their careers or reputations). In some cases, the fear may be purely egotistical: some people like to believe they are always right.

If you can eliminate their fear of the consequences you will start to change the other party’s behavior. Two ways of eliminating the fear are:

· Build affiliation by acknowledging your own mistakes or by sharing examples where other business partners made mistakes and how things worked out. Create an environment where everyone appreciates the issues are complex, fast-moving and mistakes will be made. Just don’t make the same mistakes twice! “Hey, we’re trying to launch a whole new business process here under tight timelines. We’re all doing our best but we know something will get messed up. The key is to learn from it, fix it, and move on.”

· When discussing what went wrong, also discuss the outcomes. If the other party can see over the horizon, they may be more willing to concede what happened. Demonstrate your intent is to help remedy the problem and to make them as successful as you in achieving the goal. “We know you are short of material for now. I can get some from another supplier and keep working on the product until you can get the rest of what we need from your factory. The cost for the delay will be minimal. What else can we do to help you?”

These same methods apply even to teenagers! Before asking “what happened”, let them know the consequences. Tell them the truth will produce one outcome, and not telling the truth produces a harsher outcome. Model the behavior you seek and slowly you will see change.

Don't Put Emotion in Motion

Difficult negotiators often bring a lot of emotion to the table: bluster; frustration; accusations. Such behavior can make discussions inefficient and challenging (though sometimes quite entertaining). The last thing we want is for our behavior to produce more negative emotional activity.

But we often unwittingly do exactly that by not considering how our actions might impact the five core emotional concerns that drive building relationships with the other party: Affiliation, Appreciation, Autonomy, Status and Role. For example, when we act in a way that causes the other party to feel as though his/her Role or Authority has been challenged, we should be prepared for the emotional ramifications.

Suppose the other party assigns a new person, Tom, to be our sole channel of communication on all issues related to the negotiation. “What?” says Lou, the senior member of our team. “That doesn’t make any sense. I have worked directly with Kathleen for 15 years. I’m going to tell Kathleen how this will slow us down and cause us to miss the deadline.”

What are the potential outcomes if Lou goes to Kathleen to circumvent the process? One of two things will happen: Kathleen will either intervene on Lou’s behalf, or she won’t.

• If she does intervene, we will have leveraged our relationship and taken ourselves outside of the process. We also will have severely damaged our relationship with Tom by challenging his Authority and Role in the process.

• If she does not intervene, we are still in the process and we now must work with Tom in a potentially negative environment that we created.

So before we make a tactical decision to go over Tom’s head, and have Tom perceive we have no regard for his Authority and Role, we need to do some analysis about the process and the parties:

1. Who owns the process? Who set it up in the first place and how will he/she react to us challenging their Autonomy? What is the goal of having the process? Is that goal legitimate? If so, why are we challenging the process?

2. Who is Tom? What is his role in the process? Is he a decision-maker? A recommender? Or merely a facilitator? What is his Status at the company? How will our actions impact that Status if we, in effect, successfully neutralize him? Will we have to work with him again?

3. What are Kathleen’s interests in the process? If she owns the process and assigned Tom, how likely is she to remove him, or us, from the process? How good is our relationship with Kathleen? Is this the type of request that will improve our relationship with her? Or by being disruptive will we damage our Affiliation and Appreciation with Kathleen after 15 years of working together?

We can see that one tactical decision, made for what Lou believes are legitimate reasons, has many potential impacts on the five emotional concerns. A Deal Whisperer is always mindful of the potential emotional ramifications of words and actions and makes decisions that will improve the emotional health of the environment, not set the other side’s emotions in motion.

For more information on this topic, I recommend reading Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate by Roger Fisher and Daniel Shapiro (2005).