Nolan Martin :
So I’m excited for today’s episode. One because it’s another question from one of our listeners and that always pumps me up. That one, someone’s actually listening to our podcast, so that’s awesome. But then two, that we’re actually providing some value, which is the whole point of this podcast.
And it’s a former student of yours, so another one of, one of me and my peers. So it’s awesome. So they reached out to you recently, is that right?
Aram Donigian :
Yeah, that’s correct. One of the best things about teaching negotiations that I often hear back from students because it’s something they’re all involved in. So I get to hear about the great things they’re doing. I get to hear about the new challenges that they’re facing. So in this case, it’s one of my former students, now on her way through a successful career, heard the podcast and had a question for us.
NM :
Yeah. So I think in, kind of, how you decided that we are gonna try and handle this one is actually to get into the other party’s shoes during the negotiations. So typically we look at negotiations from one perspective, but to answer this question, we’re gonna look at it from the other person’s perspective. Is that right?
Why Understanding The Other Side’s Perspective Is the Key to Breaking Resistance [00:59]
AD :
Yeah, correct again, Nolan. I hear from a lot of clients as well as students, but clients in any number of industries that getting into the other party’s shoes, getting their perspective is really difficult to do. Now they know it’s important. They know they need to ’cause they know to understand interest. To understand perception, they gotta do it, but it’s just really hard to do. So today we’re gonna talk a little bit about how we do that.
NM :
Your student earned her MBA about a year ago and immediately got hired into their current company. A major focus for her has been operations redesign project to increase the employee productivity. So it sounds like a pretty great opportunity, especially for a new hire, and it’s gonna be something innovative and also have a pretty profound impact for the organization.
AD :
Exactly, yeah the project redesign was focused on some database formulas and features the mechanics that if we revised, would yield some increased performance metrics so they could report to management, the help management with decisions they’re making. Unfortunately, the role has stalled a little bit, and that’s primarily because of some resistance that my student’s supervisor is putting up around reviewing the proposal, but also considering how best to implement it.
NM :
What should she do if, you know, she’s meeting this resistance?
AD :
I think that the general advice is gonna be pretty obvious to most of our listeners, right? In most instances like this, I would encourage somebody to really step into the other person’s shoes and really consider, both how the other party is maybe preparing or thinking about this upcoming negotiation, but also like how am I going to engage?
I think it’s impossible to change someone else’s mind unless I first understand where they are at.
NM :
Now that’s gotta be more difficult to do than say, because I know that I definitely struggle with this. It’s always especially with Type A personality, I just wanna convince them to see how I see it. So how can we be effective and getting into the other person’s shoes and seeing it, how they see it?
Understanding the Real Reasons Behind a No [02:52]
AD :
Yeah. So the first thing I like to do is to make myself pause and just ask why? Why is this person saying no? And I find that rather than assuming that they’re evil, crazy, or stupid for saying no to this brilliant idea that I have, it’s more beneficial if I can start from a point of assumption where they’re acting in their own best interest.
Even if that does not make sense to me or it’s not what I would do. One funny thing too is that when we set the assumption that the other person is crazy, evil or stupid, it’s never that we are, it’s always they’ve gotta be for not seeing the things the way we do. Yeah. The problem here is that most of us spend the majority of our time preparing to influence someone by putting together our case and if we’re good, right?
If we’re prepare well, we’re gonna put together our case really well. We’re gonna think about all the reasons that they should say yes, and we’re gonna discount why they’re saying no. So in contrast to this, I find it really helpful to consider what they actually hear me saying? What’s the question that they hear me asking them?
And how might saying yes to that actually have a real or perceived negative impact? And that explains why a no in their mind may be maybe beneficial.
NM :
Why is the supervisor being hesitant? What do you think they’re hearing if she’s, what she’s saying in her proposal?
AD :
So I’d like to frame the question that I think the other person is hearing in the worst possible light to really try to understand why a no makes sense. So maybe in this case it’s something along the lines of, should I agree to something that is unnecessary, will create more work and possibly make me look incredibly foolish?
NM :
Yeah, it seems like a change from how we often approach these types of situations, at least, like I said, for me it’s a definite shift.
AD :
That’s right. Yeah. While a no might have perceived benefits such as continuing to place personnel energy and team efforts on things that have immediate importance, clearly remaining the team leader not rewarding a junior person for possibly stepping over their authority and so on. All those are benefits of saying no.
NM :
Yeah, so in this kind of example that we’re running through to help out your former student, like what is her supervisor hearing as she runs through this proposal?
AD :
Yeah, I think that’s a good word choice on your part, Nolan, because it’s possible, right? It’s my best understanding. It’s just a guess of what they’re thinking. It may not be accurate. I may not fully understand how they’re seeing their situation, but I’m very likely closer to having an idea of what they’re thinking now that I’ve at least paused and tried to consider their view. So now that I have an idea, what’s the question you’re hearing about the perceived costs of saying yes.
Perceived benefits of saying no. That’s what you and I were just chatting about a little bit. I go back and I try to find ways to make the proposal satisfy their concerns so that we can shift how they are hearing the question. I really want to come back and address that question. Are there ways I can reduce the concerns around time or resources needed?
Maybe keep a focus on my supervisor’s key concerns and priorities. Ensure that accountability for implementing the ideas doesn’t create more headaches or work for my supervisor.
NM :
I imagine it’s pretty eye-opening and you get a really critical perspective, especially when you’re like seeing it from a completely different side of the coin there. So I can only imagine
AD :
That’s really true. That’s a very fair wager on your part.
NM :
What you find that is helpful for when you’re at the table as you prepare, before you get to the table.
How Inquiry and Acknowledgement Build Trust in Negotiations [06:09]
AD :
I think it’s a very natural response for us. In fact, many people get into selling and debating approaches in these sort of conversations and selling debating are perfectly fine in, in the appropriate context.
I don’t find them particularly helpful in trying to understand someone else’s perspective. Same thing with advocacy. Advocacy is great. We need to be able to advocate really well for our perspective.
NM :
Yeah. Thanks. I just don’t know that. It could take a lot for me personally, to not prioritize, my own perspective and to actually slow down, ask the good questions, really listen, and then be able to articulate what I heard and then to really let the other person know that they’ve been heard so that I can then test that and show them that they’ve been heard.
AD :
So in the example we’ve been talking about, I would encourage my former student to come up with some really good questions to ask their supervisor and then use both the power of inquiry and acknowledgement to demonstrate a willingness and a desire to comprehend their view.
NM :
I know we’ve talked about this in the past, Aram, I’m not sure if it’s something you wanna bring up here, but the latter of inference, is that something that applies here?
Turning Debates Into Dialogue Through the Ladder of Inference [07:15]
AD :
It really does. So the ladder of inference, I wish I could claim some credit for this. It’s not at all my work. It’s the work of Chris Argyris and then built upon by Vantage over the years. Very simply put the ladder of inference is a model for how we think, how we observe something and observe data and then infer or give it meaning.
And so we look at the situation, we look at some pool of information, we select out certain pieces of information that are more relevant to us than other pieces of information. Then we make sense that information through some lens, some interpretive lens of experience, beliefs, our values, our culture, our position, past experiences, all those things are gonna impact, interpret information. And then at the very top of the information is where we come to a conclusion. So it’s how we infer, it’s how we give meaning to some set of data.
NM :
So how do we find this model? Like how is the ladder of inference helpful?
AD :
One it’s an helpful illustration for me to look at something, a situation, and understand how I’m thinking. And the other person that I’m dealing with also has a ladder. And easy for the two of us in difficult conversations stuck at the top rung of those at the conclusion level and just debate it, and that tends to be very ineffective going back and forth, arguing over two different conclusions.
What we find is that it tends to be a lot more productive toward down each other’s ladders, understanding each other’s interpretations and the basis for those interpretations. Maybe looking at what information we both are selecting or have available to us and so on. So it just becomes a more productive conversation to walk down the ladders.
NM :
Yeah. I think this kind of goes back to earlier we were talking about how it’s difficult for a lot of people to hit those other two parts from advocacy, and that’s acknowledgement and inquiry.
AD :
To move beneath someone’s conclusions, to their interpretations or to the information they have available or looking at, I’m gonna have to inquire and inquire.
The best negotiators are those who tend to ask the best questions and then those who can really listen well, that’s a, those skills asking good questions and really listening for both what is being said and what isn’t being said tend to be really helpful. So I have to really check that I understand their ladder too, and that’s the acknowledgement piece, doing those things kind of buys me the ability to then move up my ladder through effective advocacy.
Here’s the information I’m looking at. Here’s how I’m interpreting it. Here’s the conclusion I’m reaching. What am I missing?
NM :
Appreciate it. That is it for us on today’s podcast, and we will see you in the next episode.
