Negotiating with a liar

---

Leslie K. John has an essay in the July-August 2016 Harvard Business Review entitled "How to negotiate with a liar"

Among other things, he notes that most of us can only identify a lie about one time in two; and, further: studies show most people tell some sort of a lie about once or twice a day.

 Good grief. With those statistics, it's a wonder we ever know if we're getting the straight stuff.

So, now what if you're in the midst of a negotiation with a colleague, contractor, supervisor, sponsor, or whomever? Do you assume a truthful discussion?

Frankly, it depends on what is at stake. It shouldn't be that way, but it is, so we've invented various non-real time tools when the stakes are high:

• Sworn affidavits
• Authentication systems, notaries and the such for documents
• Corroborating sources
• Testimony under oath
• Contracts with damages for untruthful assertions

But, if you're sitting down in a negotiation in real-time, other techniques are needed. According to essayist John we all have these weaknesses, more or less, which are a threat to our position in a real-time negotiation:

Humans are particularly inept at recognizing lies that are cloaked in flattery: your boss’s promise that a promotion is coming any day now; the supplier’s assurance that your order is his top priority. We’re wired to readily accept information that conforms to our preexisting assumptions or hopes.

Leslie John has some ideas to counter that weakness and to help out with discovery. Here is some of what he recommends:

1. Encourage Reciprocity
Humans have a strong inclination to reciprocate disclosure: When someone shares sensitive information with us, our instinct is to match their transparency. In fact, simply telling people that others—even strangers—have divulged secrets encourages reciprocation.

2. Ask the Right Questions
... many negotiators guard sensitive information that could undermine their competitive position. In other words, they lie by omission, failing to volunteer pertinent facts.

3. Watch for Dodging
Savvy counterparts often get around direct questions by answering not what they were asked but what they wish they’d been asked. And, unfortunately, we are not naturally gifted at detecting this sort of evasiveness.

---

Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!

Read my contribution to the Flashblog

Negotiating: Are you at the table?

---

I'll bet most of us have sat down to negotiate and have come away with war stories of the experience, perhaps feeling smug we got a good deal, but more likely feeling we did OK and got enough to walk away with head high.

Good show!

Ooops! Now we start hearing from the back bench or the the ankle biters about how they could have done so much better than you (snickering heard in the background)

Shimon Peres, the former Israeli leader, had something to say on this:

Those away from the table seem to think they are a better negotiator than those at the table

Hey! Don't blame me.
Another way to look at this is that those without the responsibility can always find what's wrong with what you did; those who are responsbility-free can wax on about "you should do this, or you shouldn't do that" without concern for burden of being actually being accountable for strategic and tactical consequences. It's easier when you not actually in charge.

Getting to the table
Of course, if you're not at the table and you feel the need to criticize, come with a solution or an alternative that's actually practical. Indeed, you might find that such insight might be your ticket to the table!

---

Bookmark this on Delicious

Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!

Read my contribution to the Flashblog

5 things never say while negotiating

For many of us, negotiating never gets too much beyond getting a good price on an automobile. But project managers often find themselves in some kind of negotiation with sponsors, and if there's a contract involved, then for sure the project manager is going to be involved.

 There are a lot of roles to play, from technician to answer detailed technical questions, to the legal guys, to the 'decider' that accepts responsibility for the deal.

No matter your role, what you say, your words will be felt. So, what's a good protocol for participation?

Mike Hoffman has a few words of advice on his post: "5 Things You Should Never Say While Negotiating"

• The word "between"
• "I think we're close"
• "Why don't you throw out a number"
• "I'm the final decision maker"
• "Screw you!"

"Between" always reveals your bottom line, so that's an obvious no-no. "I think we're close" reveals fatigue and willingness to accept something that will end the 'ordeal'. Throwing out a number sets an anchor. If you say this, be prepared for the other guy to use your anchor for the discussion. "I'm the final decision maker" limits your ability to obtain room to reflect and consider before actually deciding. And, the last one is simple: don't make it personal.

 Bookmark this on Delicious  

Are you on LinkedIn?    Share this article with your network by clicking on the link.

Metaphorical arguments

At Eight to Late, there's an interesting post on metaphors that show up in arguments. And, from the metaphors come the action verbs. Here are a few examples, in the form of metaphor category followed by action verb:

• War: win, counter, defend, attack
• Art: craft, perceive, express
• Cooperation: contribute, share, complement, achieve
• Journey: step-by-step, go and going
• Quest: explore, look, examine

Of course, the word 'argument' often carries a bit of baggage.  Argument could be as benign as stating a propositon, as in debating: one makes the argument for a point of view.  But I don't think that was the context for the posting at Eight to Late. If war is the metaphor, then argument is about disagreement.

 Instead of argument, how about 'discussion'?  'Discussion' seems to lighten the load; discussion generally carries the context of extended conversation, perhaps even reinforcing and informative.  Certainly that's the case for the 'art' metaphor, perhaps even the journey.  And so perhaps we argue like warriors, but otherwise have discussions like diplomats.

And, what about 'negotiation'?  Maybe 'negotiation' is a part of cooperation.  Is getting to 'yes' a discussion, argument, or negotiation?  Does it matter? 

It matters in tone and it may matter in outcome.  My experience is that most things start well enough as discussions, may evolve to a negotiation if there is something to be decided, and degrade to argument [war] as failure in the original context, but perhaps as an extension in another.  After all, von Clausiwitz said ".... war is just the continuation of policy by other means."

Does von C's view mean argument is just discussion and negotiation by other means?  Perhaps.  But, I don't recall a successful negotiation achieved by war-like argument.  So, perhaps the metaphor breaks down, as most metaphors do.

The bottom line to this, if there is a bottom line, is be conscious of the action verbs.  You'll know when things are moving toward war.

 Bookmark this on Delicious  

Are you on LinkedIn?    Share this article with your network by clicking on the link.