Conflict resolution in difficult conversations requires firm but clear messages. Elinor Whitmore shows how to confront a difficult person with an issue they have been ignoring.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
Here’s the video link of the transcript below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlmu8edO89s
{Transcript}
So confronting would be when you need to speak with somebody—maybe for the third or fourth time—about something that they’ve done, and you need to up the ante because you’ve already talked with them about it a couple of times and it continues to be an issue. Or the thing that they’ve done, right out of the gate, is so unacceptable that you’re not going to have one, two, three conversations in the hope that they change it. You need to confront them right away and say, “It’s not okay.”
In those situations, you insert a step after naming your contribution, which is to identify what’s at stake if they don’t change their behavior. We’re even encouraged to use that language: “what’s at stake.” So let me give you an example.
I had a friend who called me up one day—her son had taken the family car without her permission. When I was speaking with her, she was all up in arms about it. She said, “He’s taken the car,” and she was really upset. She said, “I’m going to confront him,” and she knew about these steps. So we’re walking through the steps, and I’m trying to be mindful of her emotional tenor. We get to the part about what’s at stake, so I asked, “What’s at stake here? What’s the consequence if he does this again?” And she said, “If he does this again, I will be so mad.” I said, “Okay, let’s take a look at this situation,” because I knew he’d already done it a couple of times.
I said, “When he did it the other times, were you mad then?” She said, “Yeah, but I’ll be really mad now.” The thing about what’s at stake is that it has to matter to the person you’re speaking to. I think we could see that her son had already done a cost-benefit analysis: “I could be out with my friends in my mom’s car, having a fun time with a mad mother at home, or I could be at home with my boring little sister watching television while all my friends are out—and have a happy mom. Which one do I choose?” Well, we’ve seen which one he chose—he’s busily driving downtown in her car.
So her being mad isn’t enough at stake for him. I reminded her that what’s at stake needs to matter to the person you’re speaking with. Then she said, “The only thing he seems to care about is girls. Maybe if I said to him, ‘If you take the car again, you will never have a girlfriend,’ that would get his attention.” Again, I tried to be careful because I understood she was upset, and I said, “I’m sure it would get his attention—but is it something that’s within your power?”
Of course, what’s at stake needs to be something you have control over—a consequence you’re going to impose. So, him not having a girlfriend isn’t a consequence she can realistically impose.
What she said in the end was, “I need to speak with you about the use of the family car. You took it last night without my permission, and I’m very angry. I may have contributed to the situation by not letting you know the last time that this could never happen again. What’s at stake for you here is: if you do this again, you will never be allowed to use the family car under any circumstances. I’d like to try to resolve this with you—do you have anything you need to say?”
I think the last part came out a little sharp; she may have been a bit pinched by the end. But you can see how you name what’s at stake—and we can certainly do that in workplace contexts as well.
It just has to be something that’s within your control—a consequence you’re prepared to impose. Whether it’s that you’re going to speak to the person’s manager or, if you are the manager, you’re going to put a letter in their file—there has to be some consequence if they repeat the action. And then you leave it to them to decide how they want to behave.
Negotiate and communicate without damaging the relationship and creating pushback. Paul Godin shows how to put the opposing negotiator in the right frame of mind.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
Yes – Able Frame of Mind
Here’s the video link of the transcript below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYIAQZEo78k
{Transcript}
In a negotiation, it helps to think about the relationship you have with the person you’re negotiating with. One of the things we sometimes do is focus too much on the issue—the substance—and we forget about the human being on the other side of the table. One of the things we want to do in a negotiation is put that person in a “yes-able” frame of mind.
If I use an example—one that I commonly face—it’s going to an airline ticket counter when there’s been a flight delay. If what I do is pound the desk, curse them for making me delayed, and say, “You’re irresponsible, you’re breaching your contract,”—if I attack the person behind the desk, who had nothing to do with that plane being late—then they’re not going to want to spend any more time with me than they have to.
If, on the other hand, I treat that person with courtesy and respect, over the years what I’ve found is that they’re far more likely to give me time, work with me on solving the problem, and help me find an answer that gets me to my destination on time.
So remember, always—when you’re dealing with a human being—ask yourself: What can I do to put them in a yes-able frame of mind and avoid putting them in a frame of mind where they want to say no to me?
As a negotiator, remember that you’re not negotiating with a company, a country, or a government. You’re negotiating with a human being who has to say yes. Anything you do that makes them want to say no to you—as a person, as an individual—is going to get in the way of getting your result in the negotiation.
What are the key characteristics that define a good deal for us? Peter Dreyer examines how we can define a good deal in a negotiation, or dispute.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
How to Get a Good Deal in a Negotiation
Here’s the video link of the transcript below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRJ1JSfrTrI
{Transcript}
People are negotiating. We always want a good result—we want a fair result. Everybody wants a good result when they’re negotiating, and that’s quite understandable. So how can we enhance our chances of getting a good result?
Before we go down that path, I want to talk about what a good result actually is. What is a good deal in a negotiation? There are a number of characteristics of a typically good deal. One is that it’s going to meet your interests—or as many of your interests as possible. It’s rather pointless going into a negotiation or walking away from one without having any of your interests met. That would not be a good deal—certainly a path you don’t want to go down.
Another good characteristic of a good deal is that it’s doable, that it’s workable, and that it will stand the test of time. We don’t want to walk away from a negotiation and, five minutes later, scratch our heads and say, “I’m not sure this is actually workable in my organization.” That type of question is one you want to address before you get to the settlement stage.
Another characteristic is that both parties feel there was a degree of openness in communication—that there was trust and respectfulness. These play an important part. After all, you are trying to build or at least maintain a relationship. In a good deal, both parties should leave the table feeling that the relationship is intact—and that they wouldn’t mind negotiating with this person again in the future.
Another key characteristic is that the deal is better than your BATNA—your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. I can guarantee that in any negotiation you enter, there will be alternatives you can pursue if it doesn’t work out. What I can’t guarantee is that those alternatives will be good for you. They may not be workable. They may not meet your interests. It’s up to you—as the negotiator—to prepare for that negotiation by identifying and selecting which alternatives are in fact good for you. The best one is your BATNA.
So at the end of the negotiation, you can measure the tentative agreement against your BATNA. If your BATNA is better, you take your BATNA. In a good deal, the negotiated agreement will certainly be better than your BATNA.
So what makes a good deal? Interests are met, the relationship is maintained, no one feels they’ve lost, and the result is better than your BATNA—because remember, if it’s not, you won’t take the negotiated deal.
Going back to the question: how can we enhance our chances of getting a good deal? In answering that, I return to the elements of something called Principled Negotiation. Principled negotiation is a style of negotiation that originated at Harvard University. It’s intended to be a powerful form of negotiating—powerful in the sense of getting your interests met, not powerful in the sense of destroying the other party.
The first element I want to talk about is interests. We are there to get our interests met. Some people go into negotiations with demands or positions. What we want to do is figure out what needs are underlying those positions. We want to discover people’s interests, ensure they understand what our interests are, and—critically—we must understand their interests too.
People often ask, “I’m negotiating to get my interests met, so is it really important to understand the interests of the other party?” And any principled negotiator would say: yes, absolutely. It’s imperative that you understand the interests of the other party. Why? Because when you’re starting to create options, you’re doing so to meet interests. And if you don’t know what their interests are, you won’t get very far in the negotiation.
Understanding interests is extremely important. Also, think about this—it’s a good way to build rapport, relationships, and trust. People appreciate it when you show interest in what matters to them. If you ignore their interests, that’s reflected in how they’ll likely respond to you. It’s important that you listen to what’s important to them—their needs—and that you reflect that attentiveness in your body language and tone. After all, maintaining a relationship is a key trait of a good deal.
So, how do you address interests? How do you get them met? That brings us to the second element of principled negotiation: creating options. In my mind, it’s one of the most exciting parts of a negotiation.
How can you create options? You can brainstorm—invite people to open up, to throw out ideas. It doesn’t matter if the idea is crazy or brilliant. It doesn’t matter if it’s one you personally like. The point is to get ideas out there. You’re not evaluating these ideas yet. You can’t accept them—they’re not offers, they’re options. One of the best ways to enhance a deal is by being creative—creative in forming options. That’s why brainstorming is such an effective tool.
Eventually, of course, you’ll need to evaluate the options. You get as many as you can—but at some point, you’ll need to assess them. That brings us to the third element: legitimacy. Legitimacy is how we put value behind those options. We look at objective criteria or standards. What gives an option value? We measure it through legitimacy—by using criteria that both parties can accept as objective.
Legitimacy is also important for persuasion. Remember, any negotiation is an attempt to change someone’s mind. And to do that, we need to know where their mind is. We need to listen, ask questions, engage, and observe their body language.
Now, here’s another tip: at the end of the negotiation, when you think you’ve got an initial deal—don’t stop. Go back and see if you can negotiate and build on your deal. Can you get more? Can you be more creative? Can you enhance the deal using different options? This is a concept called Pareto Optimality—maximizing what you get out of the negotiation. Make sure you revisit your interests to see if they’ve actually been addressed. Go back and look at whether the scope of the deal can be broadened through additional options.
Once you’ve done that—once you’ve refined and expanded the deal—hopefully you’ll have a good deal. Or at least, a deal that’s better than your BATNA.
Elinor Whitmore examines how our values, traits, identity, and self-image can be major triggers of defensive reactions, turning us and others into difficult people.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
What Triggers People in a Difficult Conversation
Here’s the video link of the transcript below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od-ocr3Fr_w
{Transcript]
Intro
We’re going to be talking about things that can trigger us in a difficult conversation. I don’t know if you’ve ever had the experience where somebody tells you something about you—and they think you know this about yourself—and you don’t know this about yourself. That happened to me recently. I bought a new computer, and along with the computer, you could buy some tutorials. The tutorials were going to help you set it all up, make it run perfectly, and all of these things. So I did all that.
Then that evening, I had a friend over, and I was telling her about the computer and the tutorials. She said, “Oh my gosh, that’s so great! You’re not going to be a computer loser anymore.” And I looked at her and I said, “Am I a computer loser?” And she said, “No, no, not a loser! It’s just that from now on you’re going to be a computer winner.”
So I use that as an example of a situation where I was perfectly fine in that conversation because I’m not attached to being a computer winner. In fact, I think I know—deep inside me—I am a computer loser. So when she said that, it didn’t trigger me. But if I’d been attached to, if I’d thought that I was really good with computers and suddenly I’m being called a computer loser—that could trigger me.
Now, I think we all know that if somebody says something that feels like a personal attack—and being called a loser, for some, might constitute a personal attack—that could potentially trigger us. What I think is less clear for many of us is that there are other things that can trigger us which don’t come out quite that way—not so much like a personal attack.
Exercise
What I’d like to do is ask you to think about: What are some things that you’re good at? Some of your best qualities. It may be that you’re very creative, or very compassionate, or spontaneous, or well-organized—whatever it is. So just start thinking about some of the things you’re good at.
You can also start thinking about: What are some of your values? What are some of the things that are important to you? Some people really value honesty. Some people place high value on hard work or on giving back to the community. So these are certain values. You may also have certain needs you can think about.
When you pull those things together, it gives you a sense of yourself. And we all have a sense of self. So I’ll use myself as an example: I might like to see myself as being competent, caring, and respectful. I’m attached to those things—those things about myself—as you are attached to the things about yourself.
And chances are, by this age and stage, we’ve got a pretty clear sense of what we’re good at and what our values are—because we’ve been out in the world doing all these things for some time. The beauty of this exercise is—even if we’re hopelessly delusional about what we’re good at, even if we’re completely wrongheaded—it still works.
And it works like this: I asked you to think about what are some of your best qualities, what are some values for you. Then we could take the heading “My Five Best Qualities” and cross it out, replacing it with “My Five Key Triggers.”
Triggers
By that, I mean: If I like to think of myself as being competent, caring, and respectful—and somebody gives me feedback or says something to me that suggests I’ve been incompetent or uncaring or disrespectful—that’s going to be triggering for me. Because it’s going to conflict with my sense of myself.
In that situation, when I’ve been triggered, I’m going to do what many people do. I might resist the information. I might say, “You know, that’s not true. I wasn’t incompetent.” Or I might attack back: “I’m not incompetent—you’re incompetent! You’re the person who gave me the bad research,” or whatever it is.
So I’ve been triggered, and now I’m either defending or attacking. And neither of those things are going to help us in a difficult conversation.
Identifying Triggers
Identifying what might be some of our own triggers requires recognizing that people’s sense of themselves varies dramatically. As I said at the beginning, this exercise works even if you’re hopelessly delusional. For example, I might think I’m the world’s best ballerina—and as I’m sure is clear to you, I’m not—but the idea is, if I believe it about myself, even if it’s objectively untrue to everyone else, a comment suggesting otherwise could trigger me. That’s because, internally, it feels true, and the comment conflicts with my self-concept. So even if it’s not accurate objectively, it’s accurate internally, and the comments are going to hurt my feelings or trigger me in some way. We need to be mindful of that.
Another thing we need to be mindful of is how a person’s sense of themselves can vary dramatically from one person to another. I’ve said that I’m attached to being competent, caring, and respectful, but I am completely unattached to my ability to cook a decent meal. Despite years of effort, I cannot produce a consistently decent meal. So if I invite friends over for dinner and serve what one of my friends calls a “suboptimal” meal, I might feel badly. I might pour more wine and try to order new food—I’ll take action—but my sense of self won’t feel under attack because I’m not attached to being good at cooking. Someone else, say a world-class chef, would feel very differently about the same experience because they have a different identity.
What This Tells Us
So what does this tell us about difficult conversations? First, it teaches us to pay attention not only to obvious triggers like being personally attacked, but also to key elements of our identity—our core values. These things may leave us vulnerable to being triggered if someone gives us feedback suggesting we haven’t honored those values or lived up to our self-perception.
We also want to be aware of places within ourselves and others where aspects of our identity may come into conflict. A classic example is someone who sees themselves as a good parent who’s available and present at special events for their child, and also as a good employee or team player who stays late when needed. On a day when a school event and a workplace crisis conflict, those two aspects may clash. They’ve made arrangements to be at the school but are expected to stay at work. That clash creates identity conflict.
A Balanced Sense of Self
We also need to try to develop a balanced sense of self. A balanced sense of self says: “I’m a competent person, and sometimes competent people make mistakes,” or “Caring people sometimes hurt others,” or “Good parents sometimes miss events at school,” or “Good team players sometimes leave for personal reasons.” Developing a balanced sense of self allows us to accept feedback that may feel triggering without losing our footing. You can say, “Okay, I made a mistake,” but that doesn’t mean you’re incompetent.
With that balance, you’re not defending or attacking—you’re using the information constructively. You can apologize, make corrections, learn from it, and move forward without falling into identity crisis.
In terms of other people’s identity, this means being attentive in conversation to avoid triggering someone else’s sense of self. Don’t make personal attacks, and avoid saying things that might feel personal to them. If they lose their balance—often evident when they start taking things personally—you can clarify: “I’m not saying this is about you as a whole person. I’m addressing this specific behavior as problematic.”
So, we want to be mindful: everyone has an identity. Know what yours is, because it may make you vulnerable to being triggered. Be attentive to other people’s identity issues. Try not to trigger them. And if either person does get triggered, work to regain balance by developing a balanced sense of self.
I hope those ideas will be helpful for you, and I hope you enjoy your future conversations—and that they’re not too difficult.
Paul Godin provides a negotiation preparation tip, using an example to show us how to consider and use the full relationship network relevant to an issue.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
Who are the Influencers in a Negotiation?
Here’s the video link of the transcript below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Fn1s4JKRw
{Transcript}
One of the things you want to think about when preparing for negotiation is not just what the relationship is with the person at the table, but who the other people not at the table are—those who might have influence or decision-making power with respect to the deal or issue you’re working on.
We sometimes focus solely on the person on the other side of the table, forgetting that they may answer to somebody else—maybe it’s a corporate president, maybe a board of directors—or they may want approval from someone else in the organization to make sure they’re heading down the right path. So we want to be aware of all of the people, not just those at the table, but those away from the table who have influence on the issues and the people involved.
A good example of that: one of my clients a few years ago was having a challenge with a family member who was suffering from addiction issues and would not listen to her. My client had multiple discussions with her brother about how to deal with the issues, and found that none of those discussions bore fruit.
When we talked together about how to approach the issue differently, one of the things we explored was whether there was anybody else with a relationship that might make the delivery of the message more effective. As we talked about why her brother was not responding well to her, we recognized that part of the problem was that he didn’t see her as someone with the background or experience to respect on this issue. She was the golden child—had never had any problems—and came from a very different background and experience, one that didn’t align with the lived experience of addiction. As a result, she felt it was quite possible that he couldn’t listen to her with respect on those issues.
When we looked at who the other relationships were that might have more credibility with her brother, she realized that there was another family member—an older uncle—who had suffered from addiction, fought through it, recovered, and was now doing well. That person, she felt, might be someone her brother would listen to and respect.
So she went off with a plan to speak with her uncle and see if that person would be able to have the same conversation she had been trying to have. Several months later, I heard that they had done exactly that. For the first time, her brother had listened to someone. The uncle had been effective in delivering the message, and her brother was now approaching his life differently. There had been movement that she had never seen before.
Paul Godin of the Stitt Feld Handy Group provides tips on identifying your primary goals in a negotiation without being distracted by disruptive secondary motivations.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
What are Your Goals in a Negotiation?
Here’s the video link of the transcript below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Fn1s4JKRw&t=1s
{Transcript}
One of the things to consider when you’re preparing for negotiation is not just the relationship with the person at the table, but also who the other people not at the table might be—those who may have influence or decision-making power with respect to the deal or the issue you’re working on. We sometimes focus solely on the person across from us, forgetting that they may answer to somebody else. Maybe it’s a corporate president, maybe it’s a board of directors, or perhaps they want approval from someone else in their organization to ensure they’re heading down the right path.
So, we want to be aware of all the people—not just those at the table—but also those behind the scenes who influence the issues and the individuals present. A good example of this: one of my clients a few years ago was having a challenge with a family member who was suffering from addiction issues and would not listen to her. My client had multiple discussions with her brother about how to deal with the issues and found that none of those conversations bore fruit.
When we talked together about how to approach the issue differently, one of the things we explored was whether there was anybody else with a relationship that might make the delivery of the message more effective. When we talked about it, and why her brother wasn’t responding well to her, we recognized that part of the problem was that the brother didn’t see her as someone with enough background or experience to respect on this issue. She was the golden child—had never had any problems—and came from a very different background and perspective, one that didn’t align with the experience of addiction. As a result, she felt it was quite possible that he wasn’t able to listen to her with respect on those issues.
When we looked at other relationships involved that might have more credibility with her brother, she realized there was another family member—an older relative—who had suffered from addiction, fought through it, recovered, and was now doing well. That person, she believed, might be someone her brother would listen to and respect.
She went off with a plan to talk to her uncle and see if that person would be willing to have the same conversation she’d been trying to have. Several months later, I heard that they had done so, and that, for the first time, her brother had listened. The uncle had been effective in delivering the message, her brother was now approaching life differently, and there had been movement she had never seen before.
So, remember the power not just of dealing with the person at the table, but also of thinking about all the other relationships that might impact you.
Elinor Whitmore illustrates the true costs of preventable conflicts in the workplace. Most have interpersonal roots. What are the impacts on productivity, decision-making, and morale?
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
The Cost Associated with Workplace Conflict
Below is the transcript of this video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMWVBdzUm6I
{Transcript}
[Music] I think most people understand that conflict within an organization can be problematic and costly. What we don’t always understand is exactly how problematic it is, the ways in which it can be problematic, and how costly it can be. I was thinking about this recently because I read an article that stated poorly managed conflict within the workplace—or preventable conflict—may be the single largest reducible cost that an organization has. It went on to say that up to 65% of performance issues relate to conflicts between employees or between an employee and a manager, and not to the employee lacking skills or motivation.
There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that organizational conflict is a significant issue. If we asked most people, they would recognize that conflict creates distractions—people chat about it, it impacts morale, performance, causes stress and health problems, and increases absenteeism. We even see this more often now in claims of bullying or references to a toxic workplace, which demonstrate that people recognize the impact of conflict. Yet, most organizations still don’t try to figure out how the fact that two people aren’t getting along actually impacts the team—their productivity, or how they interact with clients.
I don’t think most organizations take the time to assess how they deal with conflict internally. They might try to resolve a specific issue, but they don’t look at their overall culture or approach to conflict. There are costs of conflict most people wouldn’t even know to include. For example, in my view, conflict can negatively impact decision-making—a cost often overlooked.
Let’s say the heads of two departments have had a lingering conflict. Whether it’s personality-based or about past resource allocation disputes, the lack of resolution may trickle down to the rest of their departments. Will teams interact the way they otherwise would? Will they share information? Will one department head think to give the other a heads-up or collaborate? Will they share data accurately and constructively? Can they innovate or co-create solutions? So, not only does conflict impact morale and productivity, it also affects decision-making. This is all the more reason organizations need to ask: “How are we going to respond to conflict internally?” They must determine how much time and attention they are willing to commit and ensure people have the skills to avoid preventable conflict and resolve issues appropriately. That’s how we minimize the costs of conflict within organizations
Paul Godin walks through how we can move people in a negotiation or conflict by identifying their primary drivers, the two sides to the Interests coin.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
Oliver Martin points out how role plays in negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution training cement our learning. How can you get great practical benefits from role plays?
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
Benefits of Role Playing
Below is the transcript of this video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xO7v2cT-RY
{Transcript}
One of the best ways to learn how to negotiate, mediate, or deal with difficult people is through role play. Many people enjoy role play; however, some people are a bit anxious at first. Regardless of how they feel going into the role play, what we’ve seen in our workshops is that participants consistently leave feeling that the role play helped to cement their learning and was very effective.
You see, you can spend several hours, days, weeks, months, even years learning all the concepts and theories behind negotiation, mediation, and dealing with difficult people. Then you can imagine what it would be like if you were in the situation—or you can take some time to learn the theories and concepts and then actually do it. Practice it.
Take a negotiation role play, for example. By actually doing it and practicing it, you get to experience it, feel it, and understand it better. There’s a proverb that says, “I listen and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand.”
I’m reminded of a participant who attended our workshop a few months ago. She came up to me immediately after a role play and said, “Oliver, wow… that felt so real.” So real that it brought up some strong emotion. I looked at her and said, “Okay, hold on to that—capture that—and think about it. Was it something that the other person did? Or perhaps it was something within you that got triggered?” Once you understand that, share it with the other parties—the other people in the role play, the coaches, and the instructors—and really analyze it, dissect it, and pull out all the learning from that.
You see, we could have told her what was going to happen in that role play through a lecture. However, my sense is that she wouldn’t have felt it as much or understood it as well until she was actually in it and got to experience it. “I listen and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand.”
Andragogy is the method and practice of how adults learn. Adults learn best through experience. Unlike children, the adults who come into our workshops bring a wealth of workplace and life experience. It’s through role play—and the debrief after the role play—that we’re able to incorporate those experiences and really explore and analyze them.
Take negotiation again, for example. By being in the negotiation role play, a participant gets to try out new techniques and concepts they’ve just learned. They get to experiment and perhaps try things they wouldn’t normally try. And here’s the important part—they get feedback from the other party. What worked? What could have been improved? What could have been tried differently?
Now, I know some people are still a bit anxious about doing a role play, but let me tell you: in my years of seeing people do role plays, the biggest challenge we have is getting them to stop. They get so involved in the role play that we have to remind them it’s not real—it’s not a real negotiation, it’s not a real mediation.
So the next time you’re involved in a role play—whether it’s at a workshop or with a colleague or friend, maybe role-playing how you’ll approach your boss for a raise or promotion—keep these things in mind:
My name is Oliver Martin, and I’m an instructor with the Stitt Feld Handy Group. Visit us at www.sfhgroup.com. Also, feel free to leave your comments below on your thoughts on role play.
You.
Paul Godin points out how to avoid unproductive emotionally-damaging debates in negotiations. Use factual measures of legitimacy to create flexibility and rationally define parameters for resolution.
To learn conflict resolution skills that you can use at work and in your personal life, please visit our Alternative Dispute Resolution Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To improve your negotiation skills and get the results you want while negotiating, please visit our Become a Powerful Negotiator Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
To gain skills to handle difficult conversations and difficult people with confidence, please visit our Dealing With Difficult People Workshop page to learn more about upcoming in-person and instructor-led online sessions.
Negotiation – Facts do the Heavy LiftingBelow is the transcript of this video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whoOSukJZsY
{Transcript}
One thing that often helps in a negotiation is to let the facts do the heavy lifting for you. We talk about a concept called objective criteria, which is the use of external standards or fair standards that are factual and objective—in the sense they don’t come from either party to the negotiation. If we get into a negotiation and start debating, we can debate our subjective views all day long and may never convince the other side. But what may move them—and help protect you at the same time—is to search for these objective criteria that apply to the situation.
For example, one of the disputes that I mediated involved a disagreement between a national sports federation and a number of athletes. The essence of the dispute was about the wording of various policies and procedures. They could have debated endlessly about the wording of the existing policies—whether it was appropriate, inappropriate, or the best way to go. Instead, I asked them to look for and bring to the table external measures of what those policies and procedures should look like.
Each side went out and found examples from other federations, other athlete organizations, and online resources—both national and international. They brought samples and precedents for those kinds of policies. Some were in current use; others had been suggested by various organizations recognized as models. This gave both sides a starting point for their discussions—a baseline—and allowed them to begin identifying the parameters of what is an appropriate range for wording these kinds of policies, such as those dealing with marketing or disciplinary procedures.
This approach kept them from getting upset with one another and falling into an aggressive debate mode. Instead, they talked about the facts that apply, and those facts helped inform what an appropriate answer should be. It led to a rational, appropriate, and productive discussion.
In any negotiation, when you find yourself getting into a debate, always ask yourself: do we have to debate, or is there an answer we can find from an external, objective source that may help us resolve the dispute—or at least minimize the range of the dispute—so we don’t end up in a fight?
