Transcript Using influence in partnerships

Difficult Work,
Difficult Conversations
Based on work by the Harvard Negotiation Project and by
David Armstrong
The basics of working together as a
Board
• The task
– do we have any sense of
shared purpose -and can
we articulate it ?
– What's are the practical
things we can/need to do
together ?
– can we agree :
• what to do
• how to do it ?
• The relationship
– do we like (or at least
respect) each other ?
– do we have sufficiently
similar assumptions/culture?
– can we keep the relationship
good when we don’t agree?
Group working needs to be based on
common interest..
Our
interests
Your
Interests
… but not identical interests - Non-executives and Executives
have very different roles.
The critical thing is to determine the overlap and how to work
on it together.
Difficult work, difficult conversations
• In any working group, whether a team or a Board, there will be some
conversations which feel much more difficult than others, even when
the basics of common purpose and good relationships are in place.
• These are the conversations we try to avoid, or, at best, the ones we go
and have in private, in corridors or pubs
• There are three types of conversation that we typically find hard to deal
with in groups at work:
– the contested conversation (there are strongly held opposing views about
a matter of principle or planned future action)
– the upset conversation (one party or group has done something - or
continually does something - which has angered or saddened the other)
– the bargaining conversation (one party or group wants something that the
other is reluctant to give).
When things get difficult, we often focus on the
wrong things
• I look at what is DIFFERENT between us - what is exclusively yours or
mine
• I don’t take time to define the interests we have in common (and it takes
time)
• I make assumptions about how you see the world - and assume it’s the
same way as me!
• Or, if you are not like me, I stereotype you into a corner.
So how can we avoid getting stuck in our difficult conversations ?
The crucial thing is to learn to shift your perceptual
position
Perceptual positions
Position 3
‘Observer’s position’
What is happening in
our relationship at this
moment ?
Position 1
‘My position’
What do I want/need
from this situation ?
The more positions
we can view a
conversation from,
the more likely we
are to spot stuck
patterns
Position 2
‘Your position’
What do you want/
need from this
situation ?
Appendix A
The ‘contested’ conversation
For when opinions have become
polarised around a critical issue
Dilemmas are the root of all
contested conversations
• Leaders continually face dilemmas in the course of leading their
organisation:
– should our main focus be quality or cost-cutting ?
– should we try to expand our own services or link with others ?
– should we give more freedom and authority to our staff or do we need to
control them more tightly ?
• In a group or Board, these dilemmas often polarise, with one group
holding one position and another holding the opposite pole
• This polarisation can be between obvious grouping (e.g. Execs vs. Nonexecs) or be much more subtle
People then get into ‘who is right, who is wrong’ rather than understanding it
is all a matter of taking POSITIONS
The effect of an unrecognised polarity
• Once a polarisation has formed, it can feel more like ‘conflict’ - i.e.
we think that the stuckness is due to personalities rather than differing
points of view :
– ‘they’ are wrong-headed, misguided, unethical, etc etc
– ‘they’ need educating, more data, more persuasion, more bribes
– everyone else (of course) thinks like me !
• Rather than taking the time to examine the contest in sufficient detail, we
just refer to it obliquely over and over again every time we meet (which
causes upset) :
– ‘well, of course, the Execs would back that idea, they are concerned about
their jobs’
– ‘well, of course, the Non-Execs would say that, they are trying to keep in with
the SHA’.
Working through the contest (1)
First, work together define your polarity, with both ends
described in positive, specific language - what is the
value that defines each end of the dilemma :
Excellence in
personalised
care
Providing
superb value for
money to the
tax payer
rather than :
High quality
Cost cutting
Working through the contest (2)
Then, get together as a whole group, and ask people
to place themselves on the spectrum
Excellence in
personalised
care
Providing
superb value for
money to the
tax payer
Have each person describe, in detail, what makes
them take that position and what it means to them.
Working through the contest (3)
Thirdly, ask if anyone wants to change their position most people will do so if they have listened carefully
enough to others’ positions
Excellence in
personalised
care
Providing
superb value for
money to the
tax payer
Some people will notice that they want to hold both
ends of the dilemma and start to speculate how that
might be done.
Working through the contest (4)
If the conversation has been effective, a new way of
looking at the dilemma will show up - usually a more
specific issue which can be investigated using data
rather than beliefs :
Provide one-toone case
workers
Have an efficient,
multi-provider
process
Or people will realise that they have been arguing
over a false polarity, both ‘ends’ are valid and some
choices need to be made on a case-by-case basis.
Working through the contest (5)
• At the very least, people will have :
– new data
– new understanding of each other’s perspectives
– possibly, some surprises about who sits where
(especially for the more silent types)
– realisation that not everyone thinks in the same way that
they do…
• … all of which will strengthen the overall sense of :
– positive relationships
– mutual respect
– the useful diversity of view in the group
Appendix B
The ‘upset’ conversation
For when something has gone
wrong between you
Three chapters to the conversation
• The ‘What Happened’ Conversation
– Stop arguing about who is right : Explore each other’s
stories
– Don’t assume they meant what you think : Disentangle
intent from impact
– Abandon Blame : Map the contribution system
• The Feelings Conversation
– Have your feelings (or they will have you)
• The Identity Conversation
– Ground your Identity : Ask yourself what is at stake
The ‘What Happened’ Conversation
• What’s my story ? Be as factual as possible, avoid
interpretation
• What’s your story ? Be interested, interview for detail,
contain any trigger moments
• What did I intend ? What was your impact on me ?
• What did you intend ? What was my impact on you ?
• What did I contribute to the situation going wrong ?
• What do you think you contributed ?
The Feelings Conversation
• What are the feelings that underlie my attributions and
judgements about you in relation to this situation?
• Name all the feelings the situation has triggered in you positive and negative - don’t vent, describe
• Unexpressed feelings
– leak or burst into the conversation
– make it difficult to listen
– take a toll on self esteem and on our relationships
• Listen to and fully acknowledge their feelings - even those
that seem unreasonable to you ! Allow them space to
think/speak, contain your reactions
The Identity Conversation
• How does what happened threaten my identity ?
– Usually the most difficult to get clear on
– Difficult conversations threaten our identity (usually one
of : am I competent, a good person, worthy of love ?)
– When our identities are threatened, we can fall into
denial and/or exaggeration
– It takes practice to regain your balance within the
conversation - the more difficult conversations you have,
the better you will get !
Steps to a positive conversation
• Prepare by exploring the three conversations
• Decide on your purpose in raising the conversation - is it
legitimate or are you just trying to be ‘right’ ?
• Frame the conversation
– state your purpose
– describe the problem as the difference between your stories
– invite them to join you in sorting this out
• Explore their story and yours - from the three angles
• Go on together :
– invent options that meet both sides concerns
– set standards from now on
– talk about how to keep communication open
Appendix C
The ‘bargaining’ conversation
For when they won’t do something
you want them to
5 principles of negotiation
Separate the
PERSON from
the problem
Focus on
INTERESTS
not positions
Know your
BATNA
Invent OPTIONS
for mutual gain
Insist on
objective
CRITERIA
The first rule of negotiation :
Focus on the problem not the people
IT !
If the problem IS the
relationship, tackle
that separately (using
the ‘upset’ technology)
Focus on interests not positions
• Why ?
– Positions get entrenched
(and often personal)
– Interests can be compatible
even when positions seem
opposed
– Asking about interests
makes the other party feel
listened to
• How ?
– Ask what they really want
to get out of this
– Tell them your needs make them come alive
– Recognise interests are
often pretty simple
(security, belonging, sense
of control etc)
– Ask ‘How can we BOTH
get our interests met ?’
Objective criteria for starting the
negotiation
Fair standards
Fair processes
• There are a number of ways of
deciding what is ‘fair’
– precedent
– best value
– split the difference
– what a court would decide
– reciprocity
• If the process feels fair, the
other party is much more likely
to engage with it
– how do others do this ?
– who needs a say - ?vote,
?consensus
– let a third party decide
– take it in turns
Invent NEW options - together
• If you are getting stuck, you need some new options and it’s best to create them together
• New options do not include ‘the position you came in
with but reworded’ !
• Be creative - base possibilities on interests not positions
• Don’t assume one party has to lose - there could be a
win-win-win
• Make it easy for them to choose
• Remember, it’s up to you to help them save face
Know your BATNA
• The BATNA
– Always know your best alternative to a negotiated
solution - i.e. what will you do if you can’t reach
agreement
– This is especially important if the person is more
powerful than you
– Examples :
• do it alone or with someone else,
• remove yourself from this relationship,
• appeal to a higher authority
What if they use dirty tactics ?
• 3 types
– stonewall (flat ‘no’ with no alternative, delay tactics, escalating
demands)
– attack (personal attack, threats, good guy/bad guy)
– manipulation (phoney facts, ambiguous authority, partial
disclosure)
•
•
•
•
Pause, don’t react
Name the game - use humour if possible, be firm if not
Try to go focus back on the problem
Use your BATNA
Resources
Armstrong, D. Taking Positions in the Organisation
Heen, S., Patton, B. & Stone, D. (2000) Difficult Conversations. Penguin.
Fisher, R., Patton, B. & Ury, W. (1991) Getting to Yes. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Ury, W. (1991) Getting past No. Bantam.