Nolan Martin :
Hello, welcome to the NEGOTIATEx Podcast. My name is Nolan Martin. With me joining is Aram Donigian. Aram, do you wanna kick it off for today?
Aram Donigian :
I will, Nolan, thanks. And have we got a great surprise for our listeners, someone who really does work with mid-level managers? Who wants to elevate their influence in a variety of ways. So today’s program is right on topic. Folks, today we’re joined by Fred Jandt, a professional negotiator, mediator, and educator, author of over 30 books to include Win-Win Negotiating, published in 1985 and translated into seven different languages.
Fred has conducted hundreds of seminars in conflict resolution for businesses, government and public service organizations, as well as individuals wanting to become mediators. Major clients include the California Department of Transportation, the American Medical Association, the Social Security Administration, GT Sylvania, and the US Postal Service.
Fred’s focus is on how mid-level managers can more effectively use negotiation skills in their interactions with other agencies and the public. Now, Fred’s other area of expertise is intercultural communication. He is the author of the highly successful college text: Intercultural Communication. He and psychologist Paul Peterson led the Asia Foundation Conference in Malaysia that resulted in the book: Constructive Conflict Management: Asia Pacific Cases.
Fred was a professor at several major universities and before retiring, he served as the dean of the Palm Desert Campus of California State University. Fred maintains an active blog focusing on dispute resolution and mediation at mediatorfred.com, as well as on LinkedIn and Facebook.
Fred, thanks so much for joining us today.
Fred Jandt :
Thank you!
AD :
So perhaps we could start by hearing a bit more about your journey in the field of negotiation and conflict management, Fred. Did you set out for a career doing this sort of work or did it somehow find you, I guess we’re just curious about the kind of key milestones and people who influenced your path.
Tracing The Roots: Fred’s Early Influences & Milestones In Negotiation & Mediation [02:04]
FJ :
I think the steps started with an association with the Cornell School of Industrial Labor Relations, and that was my first real introduction to negotiation and mediation in labor management. And from there I had wonderful experience with the professional mediators at Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
They are wonderfully trained individuals to do tremendous work in labor management. And have had much influence in how we do mediation today in the US. And then I had the privilege of understanding and learning from the early community mediation programs, particularly the Rochester, New York Community Mediation, the Dispute Service Project, and the San Francisco Community Board programs.
And one thing that struck me out of both of those early community mediation programs was that people really didn’t understand negotiation and really needed negotiation skills when they were in conflict, and even some people who were very talented managers when they were faced with the reality of tough conflict, sort of forgot those skills and it really came clear to me that to be successful in dispute resolution, people needed negotiation skills.
NM :
Absolutely. Before we kind of dive into your books, I’d like to set the stage by asking you to share your views on conflict and how it is or isn’t managed well within organizations, between companies and with individuals as we sit here in 2025. What’s changed or remains the same since you wrote the win-win negotiation 40 years ago?
Unseen & Unresolved: The Hidden Cost Of Workplace Conflict [03:42]
FJ :
Well, what has not changed is that conflict is inevitable. As much as people might like to believe that we don’t need conflict, we need conflict as much as people might want to suppress conflict. It can’t be suppressed. Conflict is inevitable. So it’s more a question of managing it productively for individuals and for organizations.
But I’d like to share with you a study done by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which is a European based human resource organization of human resource professionals from over 120 countries. 2024 report of over 5,000 workers. These are some major conclusions. Top management tends to think of conflict management in terms of formal resolution procedures, and they tend to believe they’re effective. All right? But in reality, very few employees actually escalate conflict to the formal resolution processes.
So there’s a great deal of conflict that’s simply not addressed. Top management isn’t aware of it. In fact, the most common response to conflict by almost more than half to two thirds of respondents was just to let it go, to do nothing. So that doesn’t mean that the conflicts had no consequences.
In fact, those people were much less satisfied with their job, were less productive, had negative mental and physical health consequences, and were more likely to leave. So the conclusion was top management believes conflict management is dealt with by formal processes in place, but in reality, mid-level people don’t use them, and they just let the conflicts simmer and be non-productive.
Then there was a study 16 years ago by CPP across many Western European and US North American countries. It was on what employees believe managers should do with conflicts fewer than 10% felt that management should do nothing, and more than 40% believe that managers should actively be mediators to help employees deal with conflicts.
So I hope you see the picture. The picture is top management doesn’t believe it’s there. Employees have it, don’t do anything with it productively, and it has negative consequences for employees and the organization. And employees want managers and supervisors to help ’em deal with conflicts. So that’s what’s changed.
AD :
Wow. Those are pretty staggering numbers and the mindset behind those numbers, both from top managers who either don’t see it or don’t have the skills, and then employees who need them to step up. Pretty powerful stuff there, Fred.
As you got into your book negotiation and mediation, there’s this focus on common assumptions, and I think specifically when it comes to conflict resolution, I think it relates to what you’re talking about underlying this, whether it is on the manager side or the employee side. You know, we know there would be some benefits to when mid-level managers commit to improving their skills in this area.
What is it that gets in the way? What biases, mindset, thinking, assumptions we make. What prevents us from improving our skills? Even though what you just painted is we need to.
Beyond Myths: Rethinking Communication, Avoidance & Compromise In Conflict [06:57]
FJ :
Good questions. Let me just list three that I think are major blocks and the first one is one that we hear all the time, and that’s people who say, well, conflicts are just a problem in communication. It’s just a communication problem. Well, it’s just simply not true. The truth of the matter is sometimes if people communicated more clearly, they would discover that those conflicts are very real and very deep. So, it’s not a communication problem.
The second assumption is that we should avoid conflict because conflict destroys relationships just simply not true at all either. There’s some basic facts to consider here. First of all, conflict is a product of relationships. Conflicts are inevitable in relationships, and in fact, the more meaningful the relationship, the more likelihood that the conflicts will be intense. So what we need to do is productively deal with conflict, and that can in fact strengthen relationships. There’s no benefit to avoiding conflicts.
And the third, which is the one that I emphasize all the time, is the assumption that we tend to make, which is prevalent in the US, is that the best way to deal with conflicts is simply compromise. And this one really is a problem for me because compromise is certainly one way to deal with conflicts.
In many ways it is a good way, but there are better ways to deal with conflicts and it goes back, if I could to a misunderstood and long neglected management professional, Mary Parker Follett, she was active in the twenties, actually, the first woman to address the London School Economics. She was an advisor to President Theodore Roosevelt on the management of nonprofit organizations. But her emphasis was, of course, that collaboration, which is simply a way of finding solutions that benefit both parties, is much stronger, not only in outcome, but in strengthening the relationship than compromise is.
So yes, compromise works. But they’re better ways.
AD :
I love all three of those points. I just wrote, Nolan, right? I mean those are on target. And Fred, the way you laid those three things out, I agree. I think most people see conflict as a communication problem, not true. Conflict avoidance actually can hurt relationships more. Yeah. And, compromise, you know, has its time and place and it has some limitations. So, yeah. Nicely laid out. Thank you.
NM :
Fred, we’ve interviewed a number of authors on this topic over the past several years, but you are the first to discuss how ancient cultures and various religions, traditions inform and impact how we engage with and perhaps naturally respond to conflict in our lives today.
Could you share with our listeners a little about what you see as the carryover from the past to how we negotiate with the influence of others today?
Defining Peace: From Absence Of War To Presence Of Harmony [09:39]
FJ :
That’s a really interesting question. I’ve given that some thought as to how to give a good answer to that, and one way I think we can approach it is to look at how we define the word “peace.”
It’s interesting that in most Western cultures, we define peace in a negative way. It is the absence of war, and of course that’s a completely legitimate definition, but we can look at how other cultures define peace, and we look and we find a slightly different perspective. Rather than looking at it as the absence of war, it’s more likely to be defined more in terms of harmony, and that’s an interesting subtle distinction.
So in Confucian China, the emphasis on harmony over rights of the individual is predominant in Chinese culture. And you might find it interesting that there are 4 million mediators in China today. Which is far more than the number of judges and lawyers in China. So, I think what we see here is the emphasis on harmony leads to ways in the institutions to promote harmony. And it’s done through mediation rather than lawyers and judges.
AD :
Fascinating number again, and I love the focus on different definitions. We’re gonna get into some intercultural dynamics a little later and kind of harness more of your expertise there.
You know, you spend quite a bit of time in your text discussing ethical aspects of negotiation to include how does one manage information ethically as well as being aware of, you know, ethically questionable tactics maybe that we use or someone else uses. In your mind, why should today’s modern negotiator even be concerned with these things?
Rethinking Ethics In The Age Of Transactional Negotiation [11:23]
FJ :
Another good question. If you looked at most negotiating text today and theorists in negotiation. Generally the consensus is that when people enter into negotiation, they expect bluffing and deception, for example, and because we enter into it with that expectation, bluffing and deception are not unethical.
What makes them acceptable is that we expect them to be there. Okay? And I completely understand that. No problem with that at all. As long as people enter into it with the understanding, that might happen, okay? But the interesting thing today to me is the new emphasis on transactional negotiation. The term came to mean that each party gives and gets, and on the surface that seems fine, but there are three other considerations.
I think one is that transactional relationships are solely based on reciprocity, that there is no consideration of ethics, morals, or principles. Purely reciprocity. Second, there’s no emotional component or personal investment in transactional relationships. And third, they are definitely limited by time.
In other words, when the benefit to either a both party is over with, the relationship is gone, it’s history. So I have some questions about looking at transactional negotiation as ethical. I think there are some difficulties when parties are into it without knowing what it means.
AD :
I think we would agree, right? It’s a powerful framing because I think transactional negotiation is so familiar or rampant today. I think a lot of folks would probably just step into it without even considering those three things.
NM :
Both Aram and I have spent a significant amount of time overseas involved in cross-cultural engagements. From your experience, perhaps, focused on the Asia-Pacific region, but also more generally, what are the key things negotiators need to manage when operating in a foreign culture?
Negotiating Across Cultures: The Power Of Face & Personal Connection [13:19]
FJ :
Any HRSA involved in cultural studies will give you a long list of factors that could influence as you well know from your experience. And I was thinking if I would identify one thing that is across cultures. An issue to remember in dealing with cultures. I want to actually, no, like two. And the first is to remember that individuals negotiate not cultures. So when a person from another culture is negotiating, don’t assume that they represent the stereotype of that culture.
We negotiate with individuals, not with cultures, but secondly, not withstanding, the one thing that I think makes a difference is the concept of face and face is actually important in almost all cultures, but face is more important in some cultures than in others. And I think recognition of how to deal with face can help us in most kind of intercultural communication challenges.
I’m trying to think of an example that, can I give you an example?
AD :
Please do. Yeah.
FJ :
Okay. There was a, I mentioned the number of mediators in China, and I gave you an example of that, is that there was a case of a Japanese production company that made a television series called Ultraman. And a Shanghai department store when the series were broadcast in China, began to sell little figures based on the characters in that TV show.
Well, then the Japanese production company then worked with a Chinese company to sue that department store because they had not received rights to do that sale. How would you imagine that case would be handled in US courts? Right? Pretty extensive litigation over violation of copyright, probably massive settlement, right?
How it was handled in China was that it was agreed that the department store would send a representative to Japan to apologize. To explain that they didn’t fully understand the copyright laws and offer a compensation, which in US dollars was a little under a hundred dollars. All parties were happy. And what was the important part of it was the apology saving face for that mistake. So I think saving face is that one component, which we can use across cultures that has the most power.
AD :
I would say. I mean, Nolan, I’m sure you’ve got experiences. I can think of examples from serving in Afghanistan where there was no way, anywhere in a room there’s a leader, we’re talking, but there’s others in the room.
They can’t say yes with the people in the room. But if we can step out on a balcony, the nature of the conversation can shift and we can understand what their real concerns are. And we might be able to actually engage them in problem solving in that collaboration that you were talking about earlier.
FJ :
You gave a perfect example and that you can’t back down in front of others, which is why even in the US, you know, security people remove a disruptive person from an audience, they can’t back down in front of an audience.
AD :
Right. How much of this face piece also is, I guess, flipping it a little bit on my showing face, and I guess what I mean by that is some vulnerability. One of the things, at least within the military ranks that Nolan and I would talk to simple things like a sign of respect that helps engagement is taking that helmet off, taking the sunglasses off.
Connecting, you know, a little bit more intimately with someone. Is that another way to think about this concept of face?
FJ :
Absolutely. I think it’s a general way to bring together so many of the cultural elements in the ways that makes sense.
AD :
So Fred, we’ve only had a handful of guests discuss mediation. This is an area in which you’re obviously an expert and you still do significant work. For someone who’s listening to the podcast for the first time, could you describe what is mediation as different from negotiation when it can be helpful in a situation. And what is it that a capable mediator must get correct to best ensure the chances of a successful resolution?
Mediation In Practice: Core Principles & The Case For Managerial Skill-Building [17:12]
FJ :
A mediation? Let’s define it this way, it’s gotta be a voluntary process. There’s a third party neutral who has truly impartial and has no involvement in the dispute, meets with disputing parties to help them identify the issues and explore options to reach a settlement. Okay. The important element is self-determination. That is the parties must agree to that process and must develop that solution themselves.
Many people in the US have experience with child custody and visitation mediation, and that’s a separate creature that has its own rules and regulations. And that’s different from what we find in the business and professional segment. The important things are impartiality and no conflict of interest by the mediator and self-determination by the parties.
Now, what can be in mediation today, it’s community mediation programs, court referred mediation, labor management, family couple, teen elder, peer mediation in schools, special education mediation programs. Victim offender mediation. Today, mediation is growing rapidly in our society in a wide range of disputes, from neighbor-neighbor disputes to the NFL $1 billion settlement over conductions, which was mediated.
AD :
You know, as you described that. And you talked earlier, you were talking about many managers don’t have these skills, but employees want them to step in as mediators. You talked about impartiality and so forth. Can managers do that sort of work and are they the best ones or should organizations be bringing in third party, external to the company to mediate workplace disputes?
FJ :
The distinction that I make here is I don’t recommend that managers and supervisors become mediators and hold them out and hold themselves out to be mediators. What I do recommend is that they learn how to use mediation skills and you can use the skills to deal with situations on the floor without having it appear to be a formal sit down around the table mediation.
So what I’m advocating is that managers and supervisors learn the skills of mediation.
NM :
Hey everyone, Nolan here. I have to jump in and end today’s podcast for part A of the show. Be sure to rate, review and subscribe to the NEGOTIATEx Podcast if you haven’t already. And join us next week for part B of this awesome interview.
