Asaf Shani's Blog

How would you define a compromise?

I believe most people will define it as “not getting what I’ve planed of getting in the first place”. The main problem with this definition is that it immediately raises the question whether I’ve defined the end of the negotiation in such a way that I couldn’t not have compromised. How would you know if you’ve compromised for nothing? Was your compromise the best solution under the given circumstances or was it the result of a poor goal setting or even, God forbids, a lack of negotiation skill?

Let’s say I’m to sell my old pair of Rollerblades – there in a very good condition yet after collecting an inch of dust I came to realize that the chance that I’ll be using them in the near future – let’s say the next 10 years – is slim to none. A new pair cost 200$ and so I’ve decided to ask for 180$ for my pair. After all, they are my old pair of Rollerblades. Few people came along and I eventually sold them for 80$. Did I compromise here? I got less than what I’ve wanted to get in the first place but is that a result of a compromise or a poor definition – an overshoot definition of my desired price. What made me get 80$ rather than 180$ my initial expectation that was far fetched to such a degree I got 100$ less than what I’ve wanted or lack of skill in conducting the negotiation or, good God, a compromising character? .Would such a case will be considered a compromise or should it fall into another category – a ‘totally disconnected from reality’ result?

This question is what turnes, to my opinion, negotiations and conflicts to a fascinating environment – it creates a practical discussion about where is the border line between the internal external world – between where we have the responsibility and hence the ability to affect the result – such as our skill – to where things are given – such as demand to the item where negotiating on. When we don’t get what we want, is it because of us – for any reason which is in our control – or, is it becuae of the serounding einvirment – forces which are, at least in the short term, beyond our power?

The obvious conclusion would be: “in order to limit the number of compromises in your life, you have to define your desired end result in a realistic way”. You don’t need to read this post in order to know that…

Let’s get back to my Rollerblades. I’ve asked for 180$ for a 10 years old pair. Your reaction can rightfully be: “Did you really think you’d get that price…?” How would you answer change if: 1) The Rollerblades belonged to Kurt Kobain or 2) There aren’t any spare parts to this model. I believe that 180$ in the first option might be considered a bargain and in the second you would not have even consider paying 20$.

Again, The obvious conclusion here that in order to decrease the number of compromises in one’s life, we need to learn the subject we’re negotiating on to such a degree we’ll be able to set a reasonable result. The more important and at the same time the more elusive point here is that in the process of defining our desired result, we tend to skip a stage – the stage of defining our goals – and on top of that stage can we proceed to the stage of defining the solution we’d like to achieve.

Let’s get back to my Rollerblades. Before setting my desired price, I ask myself a goal oriented question – what would I like the solution I’m negotiating for the answer? In my case the answer will be; getting a fair price & spending as little time as possible on the selling process – in other words to maximize the ‘$ – t’ ratio. By first defining my goal (as apposed to plunging into the numbers too quickly) I’m enabling myself to ponder the term ‘fair’. Does ‘fair’ represents the level of emotional attachment I feel towards my Blades, is it associated with the way the market value my property or, a third option, is it a combination of them both? Whatever the answer might be to this question, by first defining my goals I limit the chances the price I’ll be asking will be detached from anything objective hence, causing me to feel I’ve compromised when I’ve actually haven’t.

When was the last time you’ve felt the burning feeling of jealousy? And please don’t answer: “me, jealous? Na, I’m above these kind of feelings”, Ya right and I’m Arnold Schwarzenegger. I think that jealousy is one of the most hard to admit feelings. it has been around from the cradle of humanity making people behave terribly – take Cain and his brother Abel in the first documented jealousy murder.

There is a reason that explains why we can’t avoid being, at least every once in a while, jealous at someone and why it’s a feeling we have such a problem admitting to be having.

Human beings are, among other things, relative creatures who exist in a relative world. ‘Big’, ‘cheap’, ‘hot’, ‘fast’, ‘dark’ etc are all relative terms which have a meaning only because there is a term with an opposite meaning. The fact that we are relative creatures compels us to a never ending process of comparison. When someone tells us something the bias of relativism is automatically kicks in making us compare our situation to the specific situation of the person we’re currently communicating with. He tell us about his professional success, wait! What does it mean about our career? She tells me how much money she earns, Gosh that’s more than me! Our self perception is constantly ‘under attack’ because it is constantly being compared with our surrounding environment with the question ‘How am I in comparison to’. Quite tiring isn’t it? Sure is and at the same time humanly unavoidable.

The reason we find it hard to admit feeling joules is because when we’re jealous at someone else we’re actually admitting that we think that in this specific issue this person is better than us. Denial is one of the most common defense mechanisms which usually go hand in hand with devaluation – “Sure she’s pretty but do you know how dumb she is…?”

The nice thing about understanding the mechanism which sits at the bottom of jealousy is that you start developing compassion both towards yourself and others. Today after over a decade since I’ve first started learning about the human characteristics that makes us conflict prone creatures, I’ve discovered that when I feel the sting of jealousy – I mean not that I feel that, when I imagine myself feeling it….  – I know I can’t do anything about it – it’s part of being human and to that matter being under the spell of the bias of relativism. The same happens when I encounter jealousy from other people towards me – the understanding of the bias of relativism helps me see beyond their behavior to the very essence of their humanity.

Because of this understanding I feel that I live better with both myself and my surroundings.

Before you indulge yourself in feast of jealousy, I have one more thing to say that might ruin the jealousy party for you: There is a distinction between allowing yourself to feel things to the way you allow yourself to express those feelings. It’s o.k. to feel anger; it’s NOT o.k. to smack someone in the face because you do. It’s o.k. to feel the sting of jealousy inside when you see someone doing better than you, yet to be nasty, devaluating our a complete shmok about other people’s success is to be a looser.

We have the right, not to say the duty, to choose how to express our feelings – self-aware individuals are expected to be able to manage their human characteristics, in a matter of fact they are spiritually developed to the degree they can manage their those characteristics. At the same time we can choose not to let the bias of relativism kick us in the stomach – in the form of jealousy – but rather experience it as a kick in the butt – in the form of being proactive, assigning control and changing the very thing we would like to be/do/have as well the other person does.

The 4 levels of knowledge

I’ll bet you know about these 4 levels of knowing:

–        Knowing that you know

–        Knowing that you don’t know

–        Not knowing that you know

–        Not knowing that you don’t know

Of these four, the last one has the potential to cause you the most damage.

For example, think about the horrifying possibility that you don’t know that your car brakes are gone. Not knowing that you don’t know might be more than unpleasant…

A human tendency that can fool us

The reason we tend to miss not knowing that we don’t know something is because not knowing tends to disguise itself as knowing. We fool ourselves. We think that we know that we know.

Human beings hate blank spots; we hate not knowing. For that reason nature has equipped us with the mechanism of speculation. We are creatures with very efficient abilities in calculation, deduction and assumption. The problem is that we’re so hooked on it that we’re unaware of doing it.

What my client “knew” about his business

I was sitting with one of my clients the other day. He could feel clouds gathering over collaborations with a business partner. He asked for my help in analyzing the situation and for a consultation on how to handle the situation.

“I’m positive he wants to increase his margins!” he told me as soon as I asked him to tell me his side of the story. “Really?” I asked “How do you know that?”

Without hesitating for a second he described his partner’s behavior, things he overheard, and the recent changes in the market that brought him to the conclusion that his partner must be “cooking something up.”

“So,” I began, mirroring what he just told me. “You interpret his behavior, combine things you’ve heard, and conclude from your analysis of the market that he’s ‘cooking something up.’”

“That’s right!” he exclaimed.

“So, you think you know,” I continued.

After pausing for a second or two, he nodded, and I could see he got the point.

What happens when we admit we don’t know

My client was about to embark on a move that might have jeopardized the partnership, based on what he thought he knew. He wasn’t aware that he doesn’t REALLY know that he doesn’t know what might be the problem with his partner.

He called me a day later to tell me he had initiated a conversation with his partner. He said he had the feeling something was bugging him and asked his partner to share his point of view.

The partner revealed he had cash flow problems and did not want to break up the partnership. In fact, as soon as my client helped his partner with his cash flow problem, the partner suggested expanding the collaboration.

Our brains are wired to acquire certainty

The reason we tend to fall into the “I know” trap has to do with the way our memory works.

Do you remember your kid at the age of three to six? (And if you have a kid that age right now, even better.) Do you remember one of their most common words?

Yep, it was “why?” And do you know why? It’s because when they see something for the first time, they have no point of reference to compare it to.

So they do the most logical thing. They ask.

When you tell them they shouldn’t play with matches, they take what you’ve said and search for a reason within their memory bank as to why they shouldn’t.

Their memory bank is empty regarding “playing with matches,” so they ask you “why shouldn’t I play with matches?”

What if our memory banks are filled up?

When we grow up, our memory banks are full, or at least we think they are. Combine that with the fact that we don’t like “information black holes,” and you get people who are sure they know.

Now, I don’t want you to start asking dumb questions. Assuming you’re over the age of six, I speculate (yep, I might be falling into the same trap I describe in this post…) that you know why you shouldn’t play with matches.

All I want you to do is to keep these two points in mind:

1. Question how you know what you think you know regarding conflicts and negotiation.
2. Keep counting on your hunches. Many times people can’t tell why they know something, yet they do. Quite often they are also right about it.

A necessary skill that may surprise you

We are clever creatures, and our ability to connect the dots to form an image is a desirable and important ability.

It is important, (and this is what this post is all about,) to sometimes be able to play it dumb, in the sense of asking – like an innocent six-year-old – rather than being sure – like a stuffy forty-year-old.

זוכרים את הקונפליקט האחרון שהיה לכם עם לקוח, עמית לעבודה או עם בן/בת הזוג שלכם? זוכרים איך הרגשתם במהלך הקונפליקט ולאחריו? מכירים את התחושה החמצמצה לאחר שהתפשרתם?

ומה אם היה בידכם כלי לניהול קונפליקטים אשר ניתן היה להשתמש בו לפתרון בעיות בכל מעגלי החיים, היה מאפשר לכם להשיג יותר מכפי שאתם משיגים היום ולהתפשר פחות?

בסדנא תלמדו למה מודל ה-Win-Win אינו באמת עובד בשטח ותקבלו מודל אחר טוב ממנו בהרבה, תרכשו מיומנויות שיקטינו את כמות הפשרות בחייכם ויותר מזה, יאפשרו לכם מול כל אדם (כמעט) להשיג את מה שאתם רוצים.

נשמע מדהים על גבול הבלתי אפשרי?

מנהלים ובעלי תפקידים בארגונים גלובליים ברחבי העולם כגון: I.B.M, Intel, Microsoft, HP, ECI, SanDisk, Kodak, Nokia ועוד ארגונים רבים נוספים אשר עברו את ההכשרה יעידו כי הדבר אפשרי.

הסדנא, המתקיימת בשיתוף המרכז הבינתחומי הרצליה, מיועדת לבעלי תפקידים בארגונים, עצמאים, בני זוג, הורים לילדים ולמעשה לכל אחת ואחד הנתקל מידי יום בקונפליקטים ורוצה לשנות תפישה, לרכוש מתודולוגיה חדשה ולשפר מיומנויות קיימות.

מספר המשתתפים מוגבל ל-16 וזאת בכדי לאפשר התנסות ומעורבות מכסימלית של המעורבים – מרב שעות ההכשרה מוקדשות לסימולציות, התנסויות חוויתיות ולתרגול מקרי אמת.

הסדנא בת 8 שעות – 2 מפגשים בני 4 שעות כל אחד.

תאריכי הסדנא הקרובה: 14/2 וה-21/2 בין השעות 20:30 – 16:30. הסדנא מתקיימת בקמפוס המרכז הבינתחומי בהרצליה.

אסף שני, מי שפיתח את הסדנא ומעביר אותה, מתמחה במצבי קונפרונטציה (קונפליקטים ומו”מ). הוא בעל רקע אקדמי בחשבונאות – כלכלה – משפטים – פילוסופיה. עומד בראש שני גישור – www.shani-med.com – אחת החברות הותיקות והמקצועיות בתחום.

מאז שנת 1998 הדריך אסף אלפי בעלי תפקידים – בארץ ובעולם – בנושאים אלו והיה מעורב, בין אם בקדמת הבמה ובין אם מאחורי הקלעים, בניהול מאות סכסוכים ומו”מ מורכבים.

הסדנא המוצעת היא תוצר של ידע וניסיון מצטברים אלו.

פרטים נוספים/הרשמה:

03-5608986/7

info@shani-med.com

Let me ask you a personal question: when it comes to negotiations, how reasonable do you think you are? If you had to choose between two sentences: “I am convinced by logical arguments,” and, “I am convinced by non-logical arguments,” which would you say describes you better?

For those interested in the art of negotiation, the 1978 study by Ellen Langer of Harvard University, with Benzion Chanowitz and Arthur Blank of the Graduate Center, City University of New York, may be of interest. They conducted the following experiment [1]:

Students who were waiting in line to use the photocopying machine at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York were approached by the researchers. As they were placing the material to be copied on the machine or just before they deposited the money necessary to begin copying, the researcher arrived and requested to be allowed to cut in line.

The researchers used 3 versions of requests:

• “Excuse me, I have some pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I’m in a rush?” This version yielded 94% compliance.
• “Excuse me, I have some pages. May I use the Xerox machine?” This version yielded 60% compliance.
• “Excuse me, I have some pages. May I use the Xerox machine, because I have to make copies?” This version yielded… 93%! (Yes, ninety-three percent) compliance.

What?! you may rightfully exclaim; how come a circular argument yielded a level of compliance as high as the one with a logical reason?

The reason, as concluded by the researchers, is that in specific situations people give more weight to form than to substance; in a negotiation, the way we speak is sometimes more important than what we actually say.

The second conclusion that can be drawn is that sentences constructed with a reason are more likely to generate a positive response in a negotiation than sentences without a reason – 60% compliance to a request and over 90% compliance to the request with a real or placebic[2] reason.

Why? Well, I believe it is because we need a reason for every decision we make. We need to be able to explain what we do both to ourselves and to the people around us. As long as we have a reason, we feel at ease, because we can claim to be conducting a rational negotiation.

For that reason all of you answered “yes” to the question at the beginning of this post. We all need to believe that we are rational creatures, because being rational means being predictable, which means a greater chance of survival.

Before you run to your boss and, with a glittering look, begin your salary negotiation with, “I would like to get a 40% raise and work 10 hours less per week, because I want more money and need more spare time,” hold on! Your boss is likely to show you door.

Why, you’ll ask? How come it worked for the researchers and won’t work for my negotiations? There are a few answers to that:

• The researchers used what they called a “context of a compliance paradigm” – a situation that invites consent. The negotiation of a raise would be a “context of a refusal paradigm.”
• In the same experiment, when researchers asked for a favor that was perceived by subjects as a big one – making 20 copies rather than just 5 – compliance with the placebic requests dropped to 24% and was equal to the compliance levels in the no-reason version. A raise is a “big” negotiation.
• The experiment involved complete strangers, so the subjects had no way to anticipate the researcher’s behavior and without a history to rely upon proceeded rather automatically.

So, in difficult negotiations, you can’t rely on a placebic reason to get what you want. It is important to have real information behind your reasons. When asked for a big favor, the researchers that used real information (because I’m in a rush) got almost double the compliance of the researchers that used a request only. Placebic information didn’t fool the students. Yet, having a reason attached to the request generated much more cooperation even when the request was “big”.

How to use the following conclusions in your next negotiation or persuasive conversation:

1. Remember, people need to have an answer to the internal questions that are bugging them: “Why should I agree to what he or she is asking of from me in this negotiation? What is the reason for my consent?” So give them a reason.
2. If you can’t find a good “because”, don’t make up a silly one up. In serious matters, placebic information doesn’t work! Remember, it’s better to be rejected in a negotiation than to be rejected and be considered a fool.
3. Remember to have a reason behind your request, because reason is very much needed.

If I got you with no. 3, then you might like to reconsider your answer to the questions I raised at the beginning of this post…

[1] Langer, Blank & Chanowits, ‘The Mindlessness of Ostensibly Thoughtful Action: The Role of “placebic” information in interpersonal Interaction’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, Vol. 36, No. 6, 635-642

[2] Placebo Effect – the term was coined after patients that were secretly given “dummy” medicine – sugar pills – showed improvement in their illness because they believed the medicine was real.  Placebic information is “dummy” information. It doesn’t add any new information, yet it may affect recipients as if it did contain additional information.