I think of these people as “facilitative leaders”—men and women who help teams and networks of employees and partners set ambitious but workable agendas, solve problems in creative ways, and support each other and the organization as a whole in the face of unexpected opportunities and obstacles. Facilitative leaders foster the kind of empowerment that makes winning at win-win negotiation a reality. That is, your organization’s leadership has to trust you to determine what it will take to get into the trading zone and win at win-win negotiation. They have to allow you the room to maneuver that you need in order to improvise. They have to support the choices you make along the way (with appropriate consultation). If you are the leader of an organization, you have to build the negotiating capacity of your organization, work to improve it, trust your negotiators, and reward those who succeed in winning at win-win negotiation.
From what we have learned in the consensus building and organizational development fields, I see three behaviors, or moves, that define facilitative leadership. First, a facilitative leader consults with the people she is leading in order to define the process by which the group will do its work or make decisions. Second, she finds ways to enhance the capacity of the individuals and groups involved so they have both the information and the confidence they need to make informed decisions or recommendations. It is not enough to invite people to have a say. A facilitative leader must give those being consulted access to the technical information or independent professional advice they need to develop their suggestions in meaningful ways. People being consulted also need to hear that their informal (local) knowledge is important and will be incorporated into whatever decisions are made. And third, she commits to decision making by consensus. That is, a facilitative leader won’t impose a decision or settle for a majority vote; rather, she will keep working until the group comes as close as possible to unanimity about how to proceed.
A lot of leaders (including many of those who operate in a top-down fashion) claim that they want to consult or involve others in choices that must be made. But they don’t mean it. What they really want is confirmation for what they have already decided or a veneer of democratic decision making. A facilitative leader, on the other hand, makes explicit what the process will be by which the input of all relevant parties will be tapped, presents that process for review and revision by the people who will be involved, and makes sure that the process is followed. Even facilitative leaders may have to impose time constraints or other limitations. But when they do, they make these constraints explicit along with their reasons for imposing them.
A commitment to consensus building often means involving a professional neutral to provide facilitation or mediation services, as I have described in earlier chapters. A facilitative leader knows that it is not a sign of weakness to ask for such help—especially when the leader wants to have a say on particular issues being discussed and thus isn’t in a position to be entirely disinterested when engaging others in collaborative decision making. Consensus building also requires putting the right kinds of questions to the group—for example, asking for proposals that will solve a problem in a way that meets the interests of everyone involved rather than asking for each person’s favorite solution. It also means insisting that the group shouldn’t seek compromise but instead aim to maximize the creation of value—coming as close as possible to meeting the concerns of everyone involved.
FACILITATIVE LEADERS:
• Consult with the people they are leading to design an effective decision-making process
• Build the group’s decision-making capacity
• Are committed to decision making by consensus
It’s hard to be a facilitative leader. It is certainly more of a challenge than being a traditional visionary leader who is supposed to figure out what’s best and knock heads until everyone does what they are told. Here are some of the challenges of being a facilitative leader: You can’t be present during every negotiation your organization has to complete. You have to empower your negotiators to improvise, at least as far as developing proposed packages or deals are concerned. And you need to build sufficient organizational negotiating capability so you can trust your individual negotiators to make good decisions on your organization’s behalf.
We can see how a facilitative approach to leadership can be effective in the following situation, where framing crisis communication as a negotiation rather than as damage control may make it easier to win at win-win negotiation.
WHEN AN ANGRY PUBLIC WANTS TO BE HEARD
WHEN NEGOTIATORS GET ALONG WELL, creative problem solving is easy. When they become upset, however, they seem to forget everything they know about finding joint gains—they may even give up tangible wins simply to inflict losses on others. This is especially true in high-profile negotiations that turn nasty. Confronted with negative publicity, executives become so focused on controlling public relations and managing the crisis that they lose sight of the fact that they are in a negotiation.
Along with my colleague Patrick Field, I have looked at how corporate leaders and government agency directors react when confronted by consumers angry about an organization’s past actions, future plans, or—worst of all—the values or objectives it represents. Examining real-life crises such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill, animal rights controversies, and the shutdown of Three Mile Island, we found that even the most experienced executives are prone to skip entirely the value-creating step in negotiations. In an effort to defend themselves or to lash out at those who are attacking them, many people in leadership positions fail to look out for their own best interests.
Some public relations experts argue that negotiations have no place in a crisis, to the relief of executives who dread the thought of having to confront those who are angry with them. Communication specialists have traditionally advised companies in such situations to focus on message control. Reveal as little as possible, they say. Deny liability. Avoid all forums that could legitimize your adversaries’ views. Further, try to win the battle for public sympathy by denouncing your attackers’ claims and hire experts or public figures to release favorable messages. When all else fails, prepare to buy off your opponents.
This advice ignores the fact that what an angry public wants most is to be heard. Experts in conflict management point out that if the only communication that occurs consists of both sides asserting their positions and demanding that the other side take certain actions, little progress will be made. Instead, try construing exchanges with angry parties as negotiations in which the primary goal is to search for tradeoffs that will lead to mutually beneficial outcomes. Even when agreement seems impossible, parties often can work together to create value. From our studies of past practices in industry and government, we have identified six prescriptions that we believe can help any organization facing an angry public win at win-win negotiation.
Acknowledge the Concerns of the Other Side
THIS CAN BE DIFFICULT TO DO, especially when lawyers worried about liability are involved. But organizations that take the time to acknowledge the concerns of others will often be able to avoid making large concessions. For instance, a company that wants to build a controversial factory, like Anaconda in chapter 1, might meet with angry abutters to acknowledge their concerns about possible adverse impacts. The company might also commit to ensuring that all relevant federal, state, and local regulations will be met if the factory is built.
Those who have been hurt by a corporation in the past (by an oil spill, for example) might begin their public campaign by demanding an apology. In many parts of the world, indigenous people involved in current disputes about the use of their land have opened negotiations by demanding apologies for hardship endured for generations. Typically, corporate executives and governmental officials react by denying personal responsibility for past events. A better strategy might be to express sympathy for the group’s past struggles via a public statement that stops short of an apology. It is often possible to acknowledge the
public’s concerns without accepting responsibility and generating exposure to liability. This is another element of facilitative leadership.
Encourage Joint Fact-Finding
GENERATING MUTUAL GAINS in an emotionally heated situation often depends on developing a shared analysis or forecast. Without a common framework for analysis, it is too easy to fall into a test of wills. Unfortunately, embattled executives tend to seek expert or technical advice that will support their arguments and discredit their opponents. In such situations, as I described in earlier chapters, expert advisers tend to cancel each other out.
In disputes concerning human health and safety, it’s important to bring reliable and unbiased data to the negotiating table. In the debate over genetically engineered foods, for example, scientists and environmentalists alike have presented self-serving arguments to the public about potential benefits and risks.
A better strategy would be for the groups to engage in joint fact-finding. You will remember that this process, as described in chapter 1, works as follows:
• Jointly choose a set of respected experts with different views and disciplinary backgrounds.
• Work with these experts to enumerate the scientific questions to be addressed.
• Allow the experts to articulate areas of consensus as well as disagreement.
• Question the experts on their analyses with the help of a neutral party.
• Ask the experts to interpret their findings in light of follow-up questions from the stakeholders.
This process does not turn decisions over to scientists or technicians, but it does ensure that the valuable information they have will be factored into the negotiation.
Offer Contingent Commitments
NO MATTER WHAT ANALYSIS the experts produce, a degree of uncertainty will always surround forecasts that lie at the heart of many controversies. Companies will argue that their plan will not have the ill effects that their adversaries predict, and their opponents will argue the opposite. After joint fact-finding has narrowed and grounded the dispute, the next step is to develop contingent commitments, as described in chapters 3 and 5, that will satisfy both sides. Contingent commitments are promises that will come into effect only if particular deadlines are missed or if performance standards are exceeded. If proponents believe that their plans truly are benign, they ought to be willing to commit to correcting any of the adverse consequences that their opponents fear.
In debates over land development, for example, abutters, like those living near the proposed plant in the Anaconda case, often fear that a project will decrease their property values. Developers might try to reassure residents by referring to commissioned studies. If the developers believe their own forecasts, they ought to be willing to offer the residents some equivalent of property value insurance. Once such a promise is in place, it no longer matters whose forecast is correct. Contingent commitments allow negotiations to move forward in the face of conflicting predictions about the future.
Accept Responsibility, Admit Mistakes, and Share Power
IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, only an admission of responsibility for past harm will clear the way for new agreements. One hospital in Florida, for example, faced an instance of medical malpractice over the death of a child. The child’s heartsick family wanted to ensure that a similar tragedy would not befall anyone else. The changes they proposed could occur only if the hospital accepted responsibility for its errors and agreed to work with the child’s parents and with other consumers to make procedural adjustments. After accepting responsibility in the case, the hospital leadership discovered that its overall liability decreased.
In our litigious society, legal advisers caution their clients against making any admission of error. Yet in many controversies, that is exactly what an angry public craves most of all. Injured parties need to feel that their plight has been acknowledged and that past mistakes will not be repeated. Only very strong leaders are willing to admit errors and take responsibility for mistakes.
Act in a Trustworthy Manner at All Times
THIS PIECE OF ADVICE may sound obvious, but when we look closely at what is involved in building trust, it is easy to see why it may be hard to follow. There are two fundamental rules for building trust: say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Of course acting in a trustworthy (though not necessarily trusting) fashion at all times becomes difficult when you’re facing hostile adversaries. Lawyers and company spokespeople may press executives to try to put the best face on the situation. When trying to win over the other side, it can be tempting to sugarcoat bad news or make statements you’re not sure are correct. But when others find out later that you exaggerated, shaded the truth, or dissembled, trust may never be repaired. Sometimes it’s only after trust has been lost that executives at the center of a controversy realize what they’ve done wrong.
Focus on Building Long-Term Relationships
WHEN WE NEGOTIATE with the people closest to us, most of us try to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. We look for agreements that leave everyone better off, simply because we’re concerned about the future of the relationship. By contrast, in our work lives, we have a greater tendency to view confrontations through the lens of a one-time situation. Most often, this focus is too narrow.
The fact is, most negotiations require parties to maintain decent working relationships, if only to ensure implementation of whatever agreements or understandings they reach. Problems are sure to crop up after agreements have been signed, and if the parties burned bridges during a negotiation, it may be difficult to fix them. In addition, a current negotiation may very well affect your reputation within the industry, or that of your company.
Thus, it makes sense to always negotiate as if the relationship matters. This may be difficult when there is bad blood between parties, but thinking ahead about the need to ensure that parties live up to their commitments is in everyone’s self-interest.
Those six prescriptions for negotiating with an angry public rest on the premise that winning at win-win negotiation, even when the parties are seriously at odds, requires an effort to create value. Facilitative leaders understand this. After all, the larger the pie, the larger the pieces likely to be available to each stakeholder.
HELPING DECENTRALIZED ORGANIZATIONS NEGOTIATE MORE EFFECTIVELY
SUPPOSE YOU ARE THE MANAGER of a geographically dispersed organization with business units or key people spread out all over the world or across a large region. You might be part of a multinational corporation with offices in five or six countries; or part of the U.S. military with outposts in every corner of Afghanistan; or part of an international environmental NGO with branches in various parts of the globe. For the people in your organization to be able to negotiate effectively, they must be able to put their hands on information in a timely way, get reactions from other parts of the organization to proposals raised during negotiations, and find out all that they can about how your organization has handled similar negotiations in the past. These are all crucial to having the information and support required to propose winning packages, good for the other side and great for your side.
Networked communication is important to successful negotiation for at least three reasons. First, the experience of one node can be of great help to another node, especially if the lessons learned by one can be quickly and accurately shared with the others. Second, some negotiations undertaken by one node might hinge on the direct involvement of the other nodes. The sales staff in Europe, for example, might be negotiating a contract that they need the sales staff in Asia to be part of. Or the soldiers in a northern outpost, negotiating with a group they haven’t interacted with before, may want to hear from other outposts that have negotiated with the same group elsewhere in the country. Or the African branch of a global NGO might be meeting with the subsidiary of a multinational that its European counterparts have dealt with before. Effective organizational negotiation depends on being able to tap past experience, build
on lessons learned, and keep relevant organizational deadlines, goals, and protocols in mind. Third, possible deals often emerge during negotiation that were not considered beforehand. This means that permissions, or at least reactions, must be sought from other parts of the organization before a final commitment can be made.
Even with the recent accumulation of online tools, particularly those offered by social media sites, few if any organizations have networked negotiation support systems in place. There are, to be sure, software packages that individual negotiators can use to remind themselves how they should prepare for a negotiation or how to evaluate proposals that emerge during the give-and-take of an ongoing negotiation. But these are intended as instructional aids to help individuals negotiate more effectively; they are not designed to help decentralized organizations pull together everyone and everything that needs to be integrated.
Efforts are under way in many quarters to design specifications for an online negotiation support system to help decentralized organizations shore up their negotiating capabilities. Your organization should be thinking about its own online negotiation support system. Such a system should be really easy to use—as easy as Facebook. This means that once the system is in place, no one has to do any programming, although your users will undoubtedly want to customize the look and feel of the network. The system must be secure. When military leaders are using online negotiation support systems, they must be certain that no one is eavesdropping. So I am not talking about a traditional website, but rather something known as a “walled garden.” Networked participants will probably need incentives (and clear instructions) from the top of your organization to encourage them to keep track of what’s going on in important negotiations. And they’ll need uncomplicated templates to use for their reporting—something as simple as a thumbs-up or thumbs-down icon applied to past negotiation practices would be nice. The results of past negotiations will have to be stored, tagged, and easily accessible to multiple users in your organization. I’m talking about a learning system that can adapt and generate new insights automatically as additional patterns emerge or as users think of new questions they want answered. The same system could support real-time coaching (more on this later in this chapter) as well as hot lines for anyone who needs emergency negotiation advice. Users will probably want quick access to a library of what your organization thinks of as best practices.
Good for You, Great for Me Page 14