by Roger Fisher
This way of expressing appreciation also convinced the petitioner’s lawyers that they had been heard and that their arguments had merit. At the end of the day, counsel for petitioner came across the courtroom to Roger, shook his hand, and thanked him for treating their arguments so seriously.
TABLE 5
WHERE TO FIND MERIT
Find Merit in
What Another Person: Illustrative Statement
Thinks
Logic and reasoning “I find your arguments persuasive.”
Points of view “Even though I disagree with your conclusion, I see value in your point of view.”
Feels
Emotions “I admire the pride you put into your work.”
Core concerns “I think it makes sense that you don’t want to be excluded from tomorrow’s meeting.”
Does
Actions “I value what you do around here.”
Effort “I appreciate your putting together this first draft.”
Finding merit in another’s reasoning requires that you actually do see merit in it. Sincerity is crucial. It is your honest valuing of another’s perspective that makes them feel appreciated. You want to express that you understand the basis for why they feel, think, or act the way they do. While you may struggle to find value in what they say or do, look hard and imagine what their emotional experience is like, considering what concerns may be motivating their emotions.
When you strongly disagree with others, try acting like a mediator. The hardest time to find merit in another’s point of view is when you are arguing about an issue that may be personally important. Listening for merit in another’s point of view can transform the way you listen.
To do this, try acting like an impartial mediator. A mediator works to understand each disputant’s perspective and to look for the value in it. In this role, you refrain from judging whose side is right or wrong. Instead, you try to see the merit in each side’s perspective.
To take on the perspective of a mediator, start by discovering why the other person’s view on an issue may be personally important and persuasive to them. What beliefs and reasoning underlie their view? You may not agree with their stance on the issue, but you can still find merit in the reasoning and beliefs that brought them to that conclusion. Once you find merit, you will be able to say:
I understand [your point of view], and I appreciate [your reasoning or beliefs].
Consider the example of a pro-choice leader searching for merit in a pro-life leader’s point of view. She probably won’t find value in the leader’s stance that abortion should be illegal. But she might be able to see merit in some of the reasons and beliefs underlying that stance. She might say:
I understand that you believe that life begins at conception. [She demonstrates understanding.]
And with this as a core belief, I can see the value in your wanting to protect what you see as an innocent child. [She shows that she sees merit in the other person’s reasoning.]
Appreciation is not something to be bargained over. In fact, it loses much of its value if my expressing appreciation of your point of view is made conditional on your expressing appreciation of mine. If the pro-life leader were to go through the same process—finding and expressing some merit in the pro-choice leader’s reasoning—then each side would feel appreciated. And neither person changes her basic beliefs about abortion. In fact, each leader may become clearer and firmer in her own views. Thus, by seeing merit in the other side’s reasoning, the leaders can simultaneously disagree and work together. They might, for example, decide to initiate a joint project aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies.
There may be persuasive reasons for your being unwilling to see some merit in the views of another. We have found two. The first is that to do so appears to be contrary to your religious beliefs. The second is that to express such merit could easily be misunderstood by your friends, family, or constituents. They might think that your seeing merit demonstrates that you agree with views with which you, in fact, disagree.
Communicate Your Understanding
The third element of expressing appreciation is to demonstrate your understanding of the merit you have found. Once you understand their perspective and find merit, let them know. Your remarks should be apt; fitting; to the point; appropriate to the circumstances; and, above all, honest. There is no need for flowery language. What is important is that the person’s thoughts, feelings, or actions are recognized and acknowledged. Plain and simple.
It sounds like you feel worried that if you sell your shares of stock, your relationships with other members of the board would be damaged. [You demonstrate your understanding.]
I can appreciate your concern, especially given that you want to keep working in this industry. [You show that you see merit in the other person’s reasoning.]
To ensure that the other person does not become defensive, express your message in an affirming tone. This is easier if you already have found merit in their perspective. Rather than saying in a sarcastic voice, “Yes, I understand the reason why you think you deserve a pay raise,” you can affirm their perspective:
I think you have good reason to feel you deserve a pay raise. You have invested significant time in this company. You’ve worked hard. You have successfully managed projects involving two of our biggest clients.
Both the sarcastic statement and the affirmative one indicate that you understand what the other person is saying. Yet only the second statement demonstrates that you see merit in the other person’s point of view. And validating their perspective does not mean that you are giving in.
Reflect back what you hear. It is rarely enough simply to understand another or even to say, “Yes. I understand.” Others are likely to feel unheard unless you demonstrate to them that you do in fact understand what it is that they believe is important. This is a lesson learned by two leaders with whom Dan worked. As he recalls:
I was in Lake Ohrid, Macedonia, facilitating a week-long negotiation workshop for social and political leaders. Participants included ethnic Albanians and Macedonians. At the time of the workshop, violence had erupted between these groups. The war in Kosovo had triggered an influx of thousands of Albanians into Macedonia. Some Macedonians feared a loss of political and cultural influence.
During a coffee break, I sat at a table with two participants, “Ivan,” a Macedonian, and “Bamir,” an ethnic Albanian. They immediately started to argue.
“Do you realize that thousands and thousands of Albanian refugees have come here from Kosovo?” said Ivan. “How are we supposed to take care of that many people?”
“What’s the choice?” Bamir responded. “You don’t know what it feels like to be in a hopeless situation like ours.”
“Look,” said Ivan, “if we don’t help those refugees, the world will think we’re ruthless. But our country’s too small. What are we supposed to do?”
“You don’t understand the situation,” says Bamir. “You don’t know what it feels like to be rejected by your own country!”
Back and forth the two men argued. Their voices got louder. They talked over one another. I had initially listened to learn their perspectives, but now things were getting out of hand.
I cut in and said, “Hold on a minute. This is getting nowhere.”
They stopped for a moment and looked at me. I said, “You both seem frustrated. Let’s try to figure things out.”
“He just doesn’t get my situation!” interrupted Bamir.
“He’s the one who doesn’t understand!” snapped Ivan.
I paused for a moment. We all calmed down. “Ivan,” I said, “What did you learn from listening to Bamir?”
He began, “Bamir thinks that
Macedonians reject ethnic Albanians. And we don’t.”
“That’s not what I said at all!”
I asked Bamir, “What did you hear Ivan saying?”
“It’s obvious that he only wants to take care of his people.”
Ivan jumped in and said, “That’s not what I said at all!”
The two men stared blankly at one another. They had listened, but they had not heard one another. Neither knew what the other one was saying nor responded to it. They were having two separate conversations, each responding to his own assumptions and emotions.
There was silence. Then Ivan laughed. He realized what had happened, and the realization startled him. He said, “Nobody gets anywhere if we close our ears.”
And he is right. All too often, people fail to listen because they want their turn to speak and express themselves. Listening is not passive, but active. It takes concentration. During the rest of the workshop, I watched as Bamir and Ivan tried to listen—to really listen—to one another. On more than one occasion, their emotions still overrode their ability to listen. But they were now trying to find merit in each other’s perspective—and to let one another know.
If you find that you have stopped listening to the other person, ask yourself, “Am I done or are they done?” In other words, have you prematurely stopped listening to the other person—perhaps because you are tired of listening to them or are uncomfortable with the emotions they are expressing?
Reflective listening motivates you to listen carefully. You paraphrase either the factual information or the feelings the other person is expressing. Dan demonstrated reflective listening when he said to the men, “You both seem frustrated.” This allowed Ivan and Bamir to feel heard.
Suggest how upset you might be if it happened to you. We are often unable to assess accurately the emotions that are affecting another person. If we try, we may misread the other person’s emotions and offend him or her.
This happened to a tenant who wanted to negotiate the rent for her apartment. The landlord was a lawyer who lived in the apartment below her. The tenant decided to begin the negotiation by trying to build rapport. She said, “I heard you just switched to a new law firm. That must be tough.”
The landlord’s face turned pale, and he snapped, “No. That’s not the case. Now tell me why you want to meet with me.” As he said these words, a different set of ideas cluttered his head. He worried, “Is she implying that I’m not strong enough to handle a job change? How weak does she think I am?” Despite the tenant’s good intentions, the landlord felt criticized and offended.
A nonintrusive approach would be to assume only how we would feel if the situation happened to us. This is best done after asking the other how they are feeling. The tenant could say, “I heard about your job switch. What’s it been like? If I had to switch jobs, I know I’d find it tough.” Such a vicarious suggestion tends to open the way for better communication. In this less presumptuous approach, she remains open to learning, and the landlord no longer feels that an emotional experience is being imposed upon him.
TO APPRECIATE DOES NOT MEAN TO GIVE IN
Many people fear that appreciating someone’s point of view is equivalent to agreeing with them. Wrong. Whether or not you agree with someone, you can find merit in their reasoning and let them know. You give up none of your authority to decide; you can still say yes or no to proposals and increase the likelihood that the two of you will be able to work effectively together.
It is possible for you to understand a person’s ideas or opinions that you think are foolish or patently wrong. It is also possible to understand, for example, arguments that you believe are weighty, important, and deserving of attention even if you happen to disagree with them or feel that they are outweighed by other factors. Communicating that you understand is quite different from saying, “I agree with you” or “I will do what you suggest.”
For example, a lawyer can interview a client and demonstrate understanding of the client’s emotional difficulties. This does not mean, however, that the lawyer agrees with every action or opinion of the client. But he or she can appreciate the underlying beliefs and reasoning. To prevent misunderstanding, the lawyer might preface the conversation by saying, “I want to understand, to really understand, more about your experience so that I can best represent you. I may not agree with everything you say or have done, but I want you to be confident that I do see merit in your point of view.”
In business, too, it can be helpful to appreciate another person while, at the same time, not giving in to them. Consider the case of “Mark,” a talented manager at an automobile manufacturing company, who was struck with Parkinson’s disease. As the disease progressed, he lost his ability to speak clearly and to keep his balance. He had fallen several times at work, but fortunately had not hurt himself.
Mark was friendly with the leadership of the organization, especially “Sam,” the regional president, whose family had joined Mark’s family for the past four years’ summer vacations. Mark suspected that the leadership wanted him to take early retirement due to his impaired ability to communicate with employees. Mark wanted to semiretire. He loved his job, but wanted to spend winters with his wife at a home near the beach. He certainly did not want senior management to dictate unilaterally the terms of his departure. Rather than making demands of the senior management and risk turning the situation into an adversarial battle, Mark used the power of appreciation. He set up a private meeting with the CEO and said:
Sam, thanks for taking the time to meet. I’ve been thinking about how to manage my work life now that this disease is starting to make communication more of a challenge. We’ve been good friends for a long time, and I’m sure this is hard for you to see the disease affect me as it has. I know you want to look out for my best interest and to make sure that I don’t put too much stress on myself. I also assume that, as regional president, you need to look out for the company’s best interests. You want people to satisfy their daily responsibilities efficiently. So I’d imagine that this situation is hard for you. I wanted to sit down with you and, without committing to anything, just think through some options we have.
Through these statements, Mark demonstrates an understanding of Sam’s point of view without conceding anything. Rather, he recognizes that Sam cares about him and that Sam also has professional responsibilities to uphold. These statements promote a positive tone to their conversation and increase the likelihood that an outcome will satisfy the interests of Mark, Sam, and the company.
PREPARE TO APPRECIATE OTHERS
Now that you know how to appreciate others, you can get ready to do it. Although you cannot read a negotiator’s mind, you can do a lot to get a better sense of how things look and feel from their perspective.
Decide Who You Want to Appreciate
Your first step is to decide who you want to appreciate. Regardless of a person’s age, wealth, or authority, every person values appreciation. It is a core concern that is shared by people from the top to the bottom. We often assume that the person above us in rank or command does not need appreciation. Appreciation is supposed to be one way—from the top down, right? No. Subordinates need appreciation, and so do superiors. You can appreciate your boss, your subordinates, your peers, and even those with whom you are negotiating. In fact, in situations where you feel disempowered, your appreciation of others can level the playing field. When another person feels truly heard, you have valued not only the person’s message but also the person as an individual.
Roger recalls an experience when he learned about the power of appreciating those higher and lower in the chain of command. In 1949, he was working in Paris for the Marshall Plan, the postwar economic recovery program for Europe. “Barry,” the finance officer in Paris and Roger’s good friend, had been working for weeks on a plan to deal with a potential financial crisis in Austria.
One Monday morning, the
Paris Herald Tribune reported that there was indeed a financial crisis. All banks in Austria were closed, and Ambassador Averell Harriman, head of the Marshall Plan for Europe, had flown to Vienna to deal with the crisis. Because Harriman left quickly for Austria, he had no chance to talk first with Barry about the situation.
By the end of the week, Harriman resolved the crisis (brilliantly, Barry reported).
Yet Barry felt unappreciated and unneeded. Harriman apparently had resolved the crisis without getting Barry’s input. Barry had spent weeks preparing ideas, but they were of no use. He told Roger he was thinking of quitting his job.
The following week, Roger was working with Harriman on another matter when Harriman asked him to sit down and tell him about morale among the younger staff.
Roger said, “Sometimes people don’t feel valued. Barry told me how well you had done in Austria without him. He’s now thinking of looking for another job.”
“Barry?” the Ambassador said. “That guy’s a genius. When the call from Vienna came in on Saturday afternoon, I phoned Barry, but he wasn’t home. With the help of security, we searched his office, and in his safe we found a forty-page draft memorandum about what to do if there was a financial crisis in Austria. I had a copy of the memo made, which I took with me. It was my ‘bible’ all week. I simply followed his advice, and it worked.”
“Have you told Barry?”
“No. He was just doing his job. I’m not here to thank people for doing what they are paid to do. You can tell him if you like.”
Roger called Harriman’s secretary into the inner office and, in front of Harriman, said, “Would you please find ten or fifteen minutes on the Ambassador’s schedule so the finance officer can hear from the Ambassador what he just told me.”