Beyond Reason

by Roger Fisher

  As a first step, Elizabeth can use autonomy to slow things down in her own mind. Before saying or doing anything else, she can pause and take a deep breath. She might consider excusing herself for a moment to go to the restroom, where she can spend a few minutes figuring out how to get this negotiation back on track.

  Running down a checklist of core concerns, it will quickly become apparent that Elizabeth has impinged upon John’s autonomy. She surprised him with her two associates, her dinner plans, and her draft of a final agreement. None of these decisions is “wrong,” but Elizabeth seems to have stepped into decision-making areas that John feels are at least partially within the scope of his autonomy.

  Elizabeth might consider apologizing for her role in the confusion and let John know that her intentions were good and that she recognizes the emotional impact of her impinging upon his autonomy:

  I’m sorry for any misunderstanding my actions have created. I was trying to be as helpful as I could. Still, I certainly should have communicated the fact that I was bringing my two associates and we had gone ahead with a preliminary draft agreement.

  To move the negotiation forward, Elizabeth might ask: “How do you suggest we spend the rest of the day?”

  She would be wise to listen carefully and to appreciate his ideas, communicating merit she finds in them. If he conveys no ideas, she might offer a possible agenda that respects his autonomy and hers:

  I’m not planning on signing any agreement today. I’m more interested in exploring possible options that might satisfy your interests and ours. So what if you read through this draft agreement and spot issues for us to talk about? We can add or subtract issues as you like. Then when we talk, we might invite my associates and yours if you want. By early afternoon, we can block out where to go from here. How does that sound?

  She expands John’s autonomy by suggesting that he can add or subtract issues as he likes. Rather than seeing the proposal as a final set of commitments, he can provide input into the shaping of an agreement. John’s autonomy expands further as she suggests that he might invite some of his associates to the meeting. And by asking him “How does that sound?” she acknowledges that she wants to negotiate jointly the process of their interaction from this point forward.

  In Hindsight

  Now we come to the much easier question: With the luxury of hindsight, what might she do differently to enlist positive emotions from the very start of her interaction with John?

  Much of the confusion could have been alleviated by simply consulting John before flying to Chicago with two assistants. And it could have been wise to talk to him before preparing a draft agreement. A few days before traveling, Elizabeth might have called John and said:

  As you know, I’m only going to be in Chicago for one day. I’m trying to figure out how to make our time together most efficient. Although none of us, I believe, is thinking of committing to an agreement on this trip, I thought that a rough draft of a possible agreement might help us get focused on key issues. I could ask two of my associates to prepare such a rough draft and send it to you. Or would you prefer to prepare such a first draft and get it to us?

  Either way, before we meet we might better understand important issues that we would like to discuss.

  Do you have associates working with you on this business deal? Might it be useful for us to involve one or two associates on each side at this first meeting?

  In terms of the day, I was thinking we probably need all the time we can squeeze in. I’ll be at the airport by 9:30 and can work as late as you want, though I wouldn’t mind seeing some personal friends for dinner. What would work well for you?

  Notice that by inviting John to put together the first draft, trust is likely to build between the two of them. He now has little reason to believe that Elizabeth has manipulative purposes for volunteering to shape a first draft. Whether or not he revises the draft agreement, it is clear that each of them will contribute to it.

  Then there is the issue of her associates. John understandably felt surprised when she showed up with two associates. Here he stands alone to greet Elizabeth, and he discovers she has brought along a small entourage. He probably felt disempowered, and perhaps even manipulated, as though she were trying to intimidate him through a show of superior strength. It is true that Elizabeth has a right to bring along her associates. And it may even be true that they can advise her well during the negotiation. Yet prior to meeting John, she almost certainly should inform him of her plan to have them accompany her. In this way, Elizabeth preserves her own autonomy to bring associates and respects John’s autonomy to prepare for her team’s arrival. He might decide to bring one or two associates of his.

  Whether or not John feels overpowered by the imbalance of team members, there are also practical issues at stake for him. If he is picking Elizabeth up in his sports car, there might not be room for two extra associates. Dinner reservations might need to be revised to include two additional people. All the other little details that he might have arranged to make the day comfortable and productive would now have to be revised. Simply informing him beforehand could save a lot of emotional trouble and enlist a lot of helpful emotions.

  SUMMARY

  We all want an appropriate degree of autonomy. When someone impinges upon it—whether intentionally or not—we tend to experience negative emotions. When it is respected, we tend to feel engaged. As you negotiate, take the initiative:

  • Expand your autonomy. Whatever your authority, you can always make a recommendation or suggest inventing options before deciding. Joint brainstorming is a practical process for you to invent options for mutual benefit.

  • Avoid impinging upon the other person’s autonomy. You can consult before deciding, whether with a colleague or with invisible stakeholders. To clarify decision-making authority, you might work with colleagues to implement the I-C-N bucket system: On which issues should you decide alone? Consult before deciding? Negotiate? By respecting people’s core concern for autonomy, you can stimulate positive emotions in them and in yourself.

  CHAPTER 6

  Acknowledge Status

  Recognize High Standing

  Wherever Deserved

  A middle-aged man was admitted to the hospital. He complained of chest pains. The doctor determined that he was at only mild risk for a heart attack. He was placed on a basic care floor with heart monitor attached to him. A nurse kept an eye on the monitor throughout the night.

  In the morning, a young doctor walked into the room, glanced over the patient’s medical history, and talked with him for a few minutes. The nurse said to the doctor, “I noticed some unusual heart rhythms around midnight. You might consider sending him to the intensive care unit.”

  “The patient reports he feels better this morning,” the doctor responded. “And I have no reason to send him down there over a few unusual rhythms.”

  “But doctor, it would take time for . . .”

  “How many patients with heart problems have you treated?” snapped the doctor. “I’ve examined the patient. I’ve made my diagnosis. And I’ve decided on the treatment plan. Now get the forms completed.”

  The nurse quieted. She felt foolish for offering information that appeared to be of little use, and she felt angry at the doctor for demeaning her suggestion. As the doctor walked away, she recalled the patient’s more severe chest pain that radiated up his arm in the middle of the night, but decided that there was no use in telling the doctor. He already had made up his mind.

  Ultimately, the doctor stuck to his judgment. The nurse said no more. Hours later, the patient experienced a massive cardiac arrest. It took ten minutes for the appropriate resuscitation team to arrive in the ward. The patient survived but became dependent on life support.

  How did this brief interaction result in such a poor outcome? The core concern of status has a lot to do with it. Status refers
to our standing in comparison to the standing of others. If our status is demeaned, we may feel embarrassed, ashamed, or frustrated, and we may act unwisely. In the hospital example, the nurse withheld additional information, and the doctor failed to inquire further about the nurse’s observations. The result: The patient nearly died of a heart attack.

  STATUS CAN ENHANCE OUR ESTEEM AND INFLUENCE

  It is no wonder that people want status. As the hospital story illustrates, there are valuable consequences to having it. Status elevates both our self-esteem and the esteem with which others view us. Everyone wants to feel like “someone”—a force to be reckoned with, a voice worth heeding, a person to know. Whether it is because of our training, accomplishments, family background, job, or position in the organization, we are likely to enjoy having a lofty status that is recognized by others and by ourselves.

  High status also adds weight to our words and deeds. We can use our high status to influence others. An employee is more likely to be amenable to working over the weekend if that request comes not from a midlevel manager but at the personal request of the chief executive officer. As expressed by the motto of a former brokerage firm: “When E. F. Hutton talks, people listen.”

  THERE IS NO NEED TO COMPETE OVER STATUS

  Negotiators often compete for higher status as though there were one single dimension of status. If one person is high in status, then the other is assumed to be lower. We may see ourselves as superior to a colleague in terms of importance, rank, or approval. Yet that colleague may disagree, thinking that he or she outranks us.

  Negotiators may even use tricks to obtain higher status. They may invite you to meet in their office, have you wait ten minutes for them while they finish up with another “important” client, and then welcome you into their office where you sit on a low chair looking up at them.

  Competing for status tends to induce negative emotions. People who feel put down become resentful and less cooperative. Treating others as inferior tends to make them less able to think creatively or work collaboratively.

  This chapter provides you with an alternative to competing over status. The first section reminds you to pay attention to people’s social status in order to gauge the extent of courtesy that they expect of you. The second section suggests that whether or not others have higher social status, each of you has some area of higher particular status based upon expertise or experience. You can refer to that particular status to raise someone else’s self-esteem and to influence your own. The third section offers suggestions on how you can raise your status—and how it can be lowered by you or others.

  SOCIAL STATUS: TREAT EVERY NEGOTIATOR WITH RESPECT

  The level to which we are regarded as someone important or famous is our social status. This is a single, all-purpose measure of standing for everyone within a geographic area, such as within a neighborhood, an organization, a city, a country, or the world. The lofty social status of a rock singer may stretch across the globe, whereas the high social status of a sheriff may stop at the county line.

  At a global level, society “tells” us who is important and who is not. At the top of the social order are VIPs—very important people—of all kinds: royalty, presidents, movie stars, prime ministers, and people of great wealth, achievement, or fame. At the bottom of the social order are the disenfranchised: the poor, the unemployed, and the homeless. The rest of us fall somewhere in between.

  At an organizational level, co-workers tend to treat one another differently depending upon where each is situated on the corporate ladder. Employees may treat their chief executive officer like a movie star, while those low on the rung may struggle for basic recognition.

  Even in one-on-one negotiations, people are often sensitive to their social status. Negotiators tend to evaluate where they stand socially in comparison to their counterparts, sometimes jockeying for higher social standing. They might mention the university from which they graduated, an important event they attended last week, or the major promotion they received. They may try to outdo one another in terms of their relative social importance or treat the issue as unimportant.

  Become Aware of Social Status

  Throughout a negotiation, people may share specific information about how they view their social status in order to indicate how they expect to be treated. Those who are high in social status—such as the president of an organization or an ambassador—may expect to be treated with particular deference. This is not always true, but it is helpful to be alert for signs of such expectations. With a little bit of preparation and some careful listening, you can learn a lot about where people think they stand in terms of their social status.

  Listen closely to the way they describe themselves. Does a negotiator refer to her course at Yale? Does she talk about the important people she had dinner with last week? Does she hint at her senior position in a high-powered firm?

  Language often provides the clearest clue as to how people rank themselves and others. Pay attention to what level of formality makes people feel appreciated and comfortable. Some want to be addressed by their first name and some by title, such as Doctor, Lieutenant, or Professor.

  In virtually all cultures, the words we use can express our views of a person’s social status. For example, a speaker can demonstrate greater respect by referring to “you” in French as vous rather than more informally as tu. In some cultures it can be offensive for a low-level negotiator to address a high-level official by his or her first name. (If in doubt, it is usually safer to start with a formal address and let the other invite you to be more casual.)

  You may set an informal tone by introducing yourself by your first name and asking how another prefers to be addressed. Professors often request that their graduate students address them using their professorial title and last name. One student reported the elation he felt on the day that his mentor said to him, “Please, don’t call me Professor Smith. Call me John.” This shift in formality signaled a shift in the type of relationship between them. In the eyes of the professor, the student’s status had been raised through hard work and good relations.

  If you have a higher social status than another, there is a chance that he or she will have an interest in vicariously acquiring some social status by working with you. Any such desire for personal association would tend to encourage a deepening emotional commitment to have the negotiation succeed so that a more lasting relationship could be forged. Working with a skilled negotiator or a famous person can give somebody a boost in social status.

  Your social status often depends upon the values within your team, organization, or group. In some Internet companies, for example, seniority is not as socially valued as youthfulness. An executive with fifty years of corporate business experience may not be as highly valued in such a rapidly evolving field as an enthusiastic twenty-three-year-old right out of college, bursting with creativity and knowledge of the latest computer innovations.

  Be Courteous to Everyone

  In general, when we think about other people’s status, we first focus on social status. If the other is a VIP, we may automatically treat them with courtesy. And, to maximize the benefits of positive emotions, we recommend treating every negotiator with courtesy—whatever his or her social status. Every negotiator holds high status as a human being worthy of dignity and respect.

  A little courtesy can go a long way. While consulting for a Fortune 500 company, Dan learned that an administrative assistant to the chief executive officer of the organization was being treated poorly by two or three of the employees. They ignored her, treated her with little respect, and did not invite her to some work-related parties at their homes. A few years into her job, the administrative assistant married the CEO. All of a sudden, everyone was coming to her house for parties. Now that she had full access to the key decision maker in the organization, everyone wanted to be her “best friend.” Not surprisingly, she gave partiality to those employees wh
o had respected her all along.

  Courtesy is more than just saying please or thank you. It involves honest respect for the person with whom you are interacting. The administrative assistant to the CEO told Dan that though many people now treated her with courtesy, she easily could sense who sincerely respected her and who was simply trying to use her.

  PARTICULAR STATUS: ACKNOWLEDGE EACH PERSON’S HIGH STANDING WHEREVER DESERVED

  Your relative standing is based not only on the perceptions of society but also on how you are rated—by yourself or others—within some narrowly defined substantive field. Whether or not you have a high social status, you may have high standing in terms of your particular expertise, experience, or education. We call your standing in each field particular status. You may have skills in auto mechanics, home repair, or business networking. You may have the ability to play a musical instrument beautifully, write persuasively, or analyze ethical issues wisely. You may be knowledgeable in a variety of fields pertinent to the subject of a negotiation.

  Fortunately, there are hundreds of different fields in which your status can be measured. Everyone has a comparatively high status in some particular field—and a comparatively low status in others. An unemployed carpenter may know a great deal about a well-constructed home. A skilled doctor may know little about maintaining administrative records. There are an infinite number of particular fields in which a person can hold a high status. And there is at least one particular area in which your status outranks that of many others. By the same token, another negotiator is almost certain to have at least one particular status that exceeds yours.