Beyond Winning

by Robert H Mnookin

  THE PROBLEM: UNPRODUCTIVE TENDENCIES

  In our experience few people actually employ both empathy and assertiveness well in their negotiations. When faced with conflict, we tend to either advocate forcefully—often too forcefully—our own view or focus on the other side’s view, rather than moving nimbly from one skill to the other. We each assert our own story and listen to the other side only for the purpose of constructing a “Yes, but” response. We cycle through argument and counter-argument, never demonstrating understanding or really communicating very effectively.

  Most people experience empathy and assertiveness as being in tension with one another. Either I can listen and try to understand your point of view, or I can assert my own. If I empathize, it will be harder for me to assert later. Once I understand your view—and show you I understand—holding on to my own perspective will become too difficult. After all, if I agreed with your view I wouldn’t have mine! Conversely, if I try to assert myself in this negotiation, it’s going to be tough to demonstrate an understanding of how you see things. Our views are just fundamentally different. If I advocate for mine, I can’t also advocate for yours. It’s one or the other, not both.

  Three Common Negotiation Modes

  Instead of both empathizing and asserting, people often deal with conflict in one of three suboptimal ways—they compete, accommodate, or avoid.11 Consider this example: A student comes into a professor’s office asking for an extension on a lengthy written assignment. The professor knows that granting the extension will create all sorts of administrative hassles for himself. He plans to grade the papers during a short window of free time that he’s set aside immediately after the due date. He knows that if he starts granting extensions now—even for students with good reasons—he will be inundated with extension requests. So he would rather not grant the extension.

  A stereotypical response in each of the three modes might be:

  COMPETITOR: No, I’m sorry, you can’t have an extension. I’ve said no extensions, and I meant it. It’s really not open to discussion.

  ACCOMMODATOR: Well, let’s see what we can do. I suppose if it’s no more than a week late, I can get the grades in on time.

  AVOIDER: I’m really busy right now—you’ll have to come back another time.

  What’s going on in each of these responses?

  COMPETING

  Competing is a label for doing lots of asserting but very little empathizing. A competitor wants to experience winning and enjoys feeling purposeful and in control. Competitive negotiators exude eagerness, enthusiasm, and impatience. They enjoy being partisans. Competitive negotiators typically seek to control the agenda and frame the issues. They stake out an ambitious position and stick to it, and they fight back in the face of bullying or intimidation in order to get the biggest slice of any pie.

  This style may have advantages vis-à-vis the distributive aspects of bargaining, but it also risks escalation or stalemate. A conspicuous disadvantage is that competitors tend to be hard on themselves, and they feel responsible when negotiations turn out poorly. Their competitive buttons often get pushed, and they may later regret or feel embarrassed by their loss of self-control. Although it may not be their intention, competitors may damage relationships if people on the other side resent their conduct.

  ACCOMMODATING

  Accommodating consists of substantial empathy but little assertion. An accommodator prizes good relationships and wants to feel liked. Accommodators exude concern, compassion, and understanding. Worried that conflict will disrupt relationships, they negotiate in smoothing ways to resolve differences quickly. Accommodators typically listen well and may be too quick to give up on their own interests when they fear the relationship may be disrupted.

  This style has straightforward advantages. On balance, accommodators probably do have better relationships, or at least fewer relationships marked by open conflict. Because they listen well, others may see them as trustworthy. Similarly, they are adept at creating a less stressful atmosphere for negotiation.

  One disadvantage is that this tendency can be exploited. Hard bargainers may extract concessions by implicitly or explicitly threatening to disrupt or terminate the relationship—in other words, by holding the relationship hostage. Another disadvantage: accommodators who are unduly concerned with maintaining a relationship may not spend enough energy grappling with the actual problem. They may pay insufficient attention to both distributive issues and value-creating opportunities. As a result, accommodators may feel frustrated in dealing with both substantive and interpersonal issues.

  AVOIDING

  Avoiding means displaying little empathy or assertiveness. Avoiders believe that conflict is unproductive, and they feel uncomfortable with explicit, especially emotional, disagreement. When faced with conflict, avoiders don’t compete or accommodate: they disengage. They tend not to seek control of the agenda or to frame the issues. Rather, they deflect efforts to focus on solutions, appearing detached, unenthusiastic, or uninterested.

  At times, avoidance can have substantial advantages. Some disputes are successfully avoided; if ignored, they eventually just go away. In other cases, avoiders may create a chasing dynamic in which the other side does all the work (arranging the negotiation, establishing the agenda, making proposals). Because they appear aloof, avoiders can have more persuasive impact when they do finally speak up. In addition, their reserve and cool-headedness makes it difficult for others to know their true interests and intentions, and this can have strategic advantages.

  The greatest disadvantage of avoidance is that opportunities to use conflict to solve problems are missed. Avoiders often disengage without knowing whether obscured interests might make joint gains possible. They rarely have the experience of walking away from an apparent conflict feeling better off. Even when they do negotiate, they may arrive at suboptimal solutions because they refrain from asserting their own interests or flushing out the other side’s.

  Like competitors, avoiders may have a difficult time sustaining strong working relationships. Others see them as apathetic or indifferent or even passive-aggressive. Avoiders may well have a rich internal life, but because they do not express and share their feelings, they can feel misunderstood or overlooked. Some avoiders feel stress from internalizing conflict and concealing their emotions.

  Interactions among Negotiating Styles

  In our experience, these styles interact with one another in fairly predictable patterns.

  Competitor–Competitor: Two competitors will produce an energetic negotiation—making offers and counteroffers, arguments and counterarguments, relishing the strategic dance of bargaining for the sheer fun of it. However, because both are primarily focused on winning, they are likely to reach a stalemate—or an outright blow-up—because neither negotiator is listening to the other. The challenge for the two competitors, therefore, is to find ways of trading control and framing compromises in terms digestible to the other side.

  Competitor–Avoider: When a competitor meets an avoider, a different problem arises. Avoiders have a knack for driving competitors crazy. By refusing to engage, they exploit the competitor’s need to control. Frustrated competitors may offer concessions to induce avoiders to come to the table. Alternatively, competitors might alienate avoiders by coming on too strong. Thus, the challenge for competitors is to manage their need for control and their taste for open conflict in a way that makes it safe for avoiders to engage. The challenge for avoiders is to improve their assertiveness skills and learn to engage with competitors without feeling bullied or intimidated.

  Competitor–Accommodator: For the accommodator, negotiating with a competitor can be a nightmare. Savvy competitors can exploit the accommodator’s desire to preserve the relationship and to minimize disagreements. Because accommodators often make substantive concessions to resolve conflicts quickly, they can improve their performance in such situations by developing assertiveness skills to match their refined sense of empathy.


  Accommodator–Accommodator: When two accommodators negotiate, they will be exquisitely attuned to each other’s relationship needs. But they may fail to assert their interests adequately. They may avoid distributive issues and overlook value-creating opportunities. The challenge for accommodators is to learn to tolerate more open conflict in relationships and not to reach agreement too quickly in the interest of keeping the peace.

  Accommodator–Avoider: When an accommodator meets an avoider, the negotiation often goes nowhere fast. If the accommodator accommodates the avoider, both will end up avoiding the problem. The negotiation may flourish, however, if the accommodator can keep the emotional temperature of the interaction low enough to coax the avoider out of his shell.

  Avoider–Avoider: Two avoiders never face up to the conflict in the first place!

  By recognizing these patterns, a savvy problem-solver can use this framework during a negotiation to diagnose what’s going wrong and often to figure out what to do about it.

  Figure 3

  THE APPROACH: MANAGING THE TENSION

  Many negotiators feel stuck because they assume that they must choose a single point on an empathy-assertiveness spectrum (Figure 3, top). This often leads to confusion and frustration as people try to decide what relative priority to attach to these two desirable sets of skills. We suggest that empathy and assertiveness are not opposites but are instead two independent dimensions of negotiation behavior (Figure 3, bottom). A negotiator need not make trade-offs between them but can exhibit high levels of both.

  The challenge is to build your repertoire so that in conflict situations such flexibility becomes possible. The goal is to pay attention to three things:

  • Understanding your own conflict tendencies and hot buttons—the way you are likely to react in different sorts of conflict situations—and learning to expand your repertoire of skills

  • Being able to diagnose others’ conflict tendencies and inviting them to empathize or assert as needed

  • Being able to understand the interactions you’re having with the other person and how your interactions may be unproductive

  Moreover, you must learn to monitor these dynamics while a negotiation is in progress, which can help you recognize when to change the game if you get stuck.

  But changing ingrained habits can be difficult, particularly if you fear jeopardizing the benefits of your particular negotiating style. You may also exaggerate the risks of exercising new skills. For example, a competitive negotiator may worry that any display of empathy will be perceived as weakness. He may also fear that if he really understands the other side he might no longer be able to assert his own interests forcefully. An accommodating negotiator may worry that if he acts more assertively, he may damage a valued relationship—particularly if he associates assertiveness with rude and distastefully aggressive behavior.

  What specific steps can you take in your negotiations to increase the likelihood that at least you—and preferably the other party as well—will both empathize and assert? To introduce the fundamentals of a problem-solving approach to empathy and assertiveness, we again divide our advice into two parts: those things you can do in preparation for a negotiation, and those things you can do at the table.

  To Prepare

  Once again, good preparation is key. It requires introspection, curiosity, and a willingness to share your own perspective.

  KNOW THYSELF

  What are your conflict tendencies and hot buttons?12 How might they be triggered in this negotiation? If you enter a negotiation without understanding how your defenses tend to get triggered, you will be easily pushed off balance by the other side.

  Are you a conflict-avoider? Do you walk the long way around the hallways just to avoid the office of someone you’ve recently had an upsetting conversation with at the fax machine? Do you screen calls on your answering machine so that you won’t have to talk to your mother about the fight you had last weekend? At different times and in different contexts, all of us avoid conflict. There’s nothing wrong with that. In preparing for a negotiation, however, you should consider whether the upcoming interaction is likely to activate your “avoid” reaction. Who will you be negotiating with? What will you be talking about? What implications—for your career, your life, your self-image—does the negotiation have? Are any of these factors likely to make you want to leave the table entirely?

  Are you an accommodator? Do you tend to seek out the person in the office that you recently had a disagreement with, for the purpose of apologizing and repairing the relationship? Do you stay up nights crafting the perfect thing to say that will help them understand and make everything better? When your mother calls, do you do everything in your power to keep her from being upset? Again, these tendencies are natural—we all experience them. Sometimes it is wise and fair to put another person’s interests first—to accommodate their needs instead of our own. If accommodating is a conscious choice and not a habitual reaction to being confronted with another’s distress, it can be an important part of building and maintaining relationships. But in preparing for a negotiation, you want to consider whether your accommodating tendencies are likely to be triggered and whether they’ll serve you well. Who are you about to negotiate with? What does this relationship mean to you? Will you find it difficult to assert your own interests and perspective with this person? Will certain topics be off limits?

  Or are you a competitor? Are negotiations like a game in which you try to win as much as you can, regardless of how you affect others? Do you enjoy conflict situations because of the adrenaline rush you experience when you come out ahead? Are you likely to seek out an office-mate so that you can continue your argument and convince him that you were right all along? There’s nothing wrong with wanting to win, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to do as well as you can for yourself. Asserting your own needs and interests is fundamental to negotiating effectively. At the same time, in preparing for a negotiation you should consider to what extent a competitive style may backfire. Is this a situation in which acknowledging the other person’s perspective, interests, and needs is particularly important? If your competitive and assertive tendencies get triggered here, how are you likely to behave and what effect will that have on the other side—and your relationship?

  Most people are complicated amalgams of these three styles. They shift from one to the other depending on the situation and whom they’re negotiating with. Sometimes they compete. Sometimes they avoid. Sometimes they’ll do anything to preserve a relationship. As we have said, each style has advantages and disadvantages. As part of your preparation, you should think about what your tendencies are likely to be in this particular context.

  BE CURIOUS ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE

  In thinking through the first tension—between creating and distributing value—you will have already begun the process of putting yourself in the other negotiator’s shoes. You will have drafted a list of your counterpart’s interests and alternatives. This list will make empathy at the table easier by preparing you to be open to his story about the negotiation.

  Now ask yourself: What is the other side’s story, anyway? What is he telling his colleagues or friends about you and your situation? We all tell ourselves stories all the time, and the other side will undoubtedly have one about your negotiation. As you prepare, if you can’t imagine how the situation makes sense from his point of view, that means you still need to acquire more information from him. Consider the best way to elicit this information. What questions can you ask? How can you frame these questions so that you sound genuinely interested and not accusatory?

  Don’t assume you know the other side’s story. If you think you do, you’re probably wrong. Even if you turn out to be substantially right, you will still be more effective if you begin with an attitude of curiosity about how the other side sees the world.

  In thinking about the upcoming negotiation, recognize that it can be challenging to demonstrate understanding of things yo
u don’t want to hear. Maybe you have a pretty good idea of what the other side will say, and just thinking about hearing him say it makes your blood boil. Maybe you have negotiated with this person before. Maybe he made you so angry that you lost control, and you worry about that happening again. Maybe you fear that the other side could say things that would be so hurtful to you that it’s not even worth having the negotiation. Whatever you imagine, now is the time to draw off some of the poison—while you’re still in the preparation phase. Suppose you expect the other side to attack, as Susan attacked Martin in our example. How can you prepare to demonstrate understanding of what, to you, is outrageous nonsense and unjustified criticism?

  Your preparation consists in large part of not doing what you might normally do, namely, building an arsenal of counter-punches. That will only make you tense and angry before you even get to the table. With that kind of build-up, you’ll explode before the other side ever gets a word out. Remember that the other side might not say or do any of the horrible things you are expecting.

  Next, ask yourself: What is the worst thing the other side could say about you? What’s going to be the hardest thing for you to hear? Make a list, either mental or written, of these trigger points. If the negotiation centers on a deep-seated or long-standing conflict, you may need to enlist a close friend to act as a coach and sounding-board. In our experience, it can be enormously helpful to hear the imagined criticisms—the ones that are really going to send you over the top—spoken out loud in a neutral setting. It’s good to hear them coming out of your own mouth, as you explain them to your coach, and it’s even better to hear them spoken by your coach as he talks out the problem with you. These attacking comments will begin to lose their sting as you become increasingly used to hearing them.