The Naked Negotiator

Have you ever noticed that when you talked to a committed Republican or Democrat, how equally convinced they are that the evidence or facts on the issue overwhelmingly supports their position?

Have you noticed how each side dismisses contradictory evidence, or if they do acknowledge it, tend to reinterpret it so it confirms their existing beliefs?

Cognitive scientists and psychologists have identified a number of psychological biases that cause us to distort evidence so it fits in with our existing preconceived beliefs.

Psychologist Michael Shermer, in his book The Believing Brain argues that the mother of all biases is the “Confirmation Bias”.

Shermer defines Confirmation Bias as “the tendency to seek and find confirming evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirming evidence.”

Prior to the 2004 presidential election, Drew Westen at Emory University was able to test the confirmation bias brainscanning thirty men - half “strong” Republicans and half “strong” Democrats. The fMRI scan showed what parts of the brain lit up when the participants heard contradictory statements from George W. Bush and John Kerry.

The part of the brain associated with reasoning remained remarkably quiet. The part of the brain associated with the processing of emotions and conflict resolution were much more active.

Once subjects arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable, they rationalised away the parts that did not fit in with their preconceived beliefs. When we do this, our brains reward us with a neurochemical hit, probably dopamine.

If our brains are wired to convince us that we are always right, then does this mean you can’t change minds? No, it doesn’t. If humans didn’t also have neural mechanisms to recognise and adopt new ideas we would never have become an IPAD-infested world.

In future blogs, I will discuss how gifted persuaders take advantage of the neural mechanism to change hearts and minds.

Popularity: 13% [?]

In their book Partisan Hearts and Minds, political scientists Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist and Eric Schickler show most voters don’t select a political party because it reflects their views. Instead, voters first identify with a political position, usually inherited from their parents or peers. Once they have decided on a political position, they choose the appropriate party.

These findings don’t surprise psychologist Michael Shermer who has spent 30 years of research thinking about how humans form beliefs about the world.

In his brilliant book The Believing Brain, Michael Shermer argues the brain is a belief engine: “Beliefs come first, explanations follow.” The power of these beliefs, Shermer says, shows up in the tribal nature of politics and the stereotypes of what liberals think of conservatives.

Watch the political advertisements in the ongoing battle for the US presidency between the Republicans and Obama’s Democrats.

Here is Shermer’s stereotypes of what liberals think of conservatives:

“Conservatives are a bunch of Hummer-driving, meat-eating, gun-toting, small-government-promoting, tax-decreasing, hard-drinking, Bible-thumping, black-and-white-thinking, fist-pounding, shoe-stomping, morally dogmatic blowhards.”

And what conservatives think of liberals?

“Liberals are a bunch of hybrid-driving, tofu-eating, tree-hugging, whale-saving, sandal-wearing, big-government-promoting, tax-increasing, bottled-water-drinking, flip-flopping, wishy washy, namby-pamby bedwetters.”

If we accept Shermer’s argument that “beliefs come first, explanations follow,” how do you negotiate or settle a dispute between two groups such as mining companies and environmentalists who start with hardened, negative polarised stereotypes of each other?

That’s the challenge I live with constantly, and that’s the challenge I will address in a number of future blog articles.

It’s an urgent and challenging issue. As a world, we can’t afford the cost of intractable disputes caused by partisan disputes.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Great trial lawyers love using questions to entrap witnesses. Questions however can backfire as this amusing story involving an aggressive lawyer shows.

Lawyer: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

Witness: No.

Lawyer: Did you check for blood pressure?

Witness: No.

Lawyer: Did you check for breathing?

Witness: No.

Lawyer: So, then, is it possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?

Witness: No.

Lawyer: How can you so sure, doctor?

Witness: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar

Lawyer: But could the patient have been alive nevertheless?

Witness: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

The moral, of course, is before you start trying to entrap people with smart questions, you need to anticipate the answers.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Having written 3 books on negotiation it’s not often I find a book that reframes the way we should look at negotiation.
In Getting More: How You Can Negotiate To Succeed In Work and Life, leading negotiator Stuart Diamond outlines 12 strategies that I combined amount to a fresh way of looking at negotiation.

Here are Diamond’s 12 strategies.

1. Goals Are Paramount: Goals are what you want at the end of the negotiation that you don’t have at the beginning. Many, if not most, people take actions contrary to their goals because they are focused on something else.

2. It’s About Them: You can’t persuade people of anything unless you know the pictures in their heads: their perceptions, sensibilities, needs, how they make commitments, whether they are trustworthy.

3. Make Emotional Payments: The world is irrational. And the mroe important a negotiation is to an individual, the more irrational he or she often becomes.

4. Every Situation Is Different: In a negotiation, there is no one-size-fits-all. Even having the same people on different days in the same negotiation can be a different situation. You must analyze every situation on its own.

5. Incremental Is Best: People often fail because they ask for too much all at once. They take steps that are too big.

6. Trade Things You Value Unequally: All people value things unequally. First find out what each party cares and doesn’t care about, big and small, tangible and intangible, in teh deal or outside the deal, rational and emotional.

7. Find Their Standards: What are their policies, exceptions to policies, precendents, past statements, ways they make decisions? Use these to get more.

8. Be Transparent and Constructive, Not Manipulative: This is one of the biggest differences between Getting More and the conventional wisdom. Don’t decieve people.

9. Always Communicate, State the Obvious, Frame the Vision: Most failed negotiations are cause by bad communication, or none at all.

10. Find the Real Problem and Make It an Opportunity: Few people find or fix the real, underlying problem in negotiations. Ask, “What is really preventing me from meeting my goals?”

11. Embrace Difference: Most people think different is worse, risky, annoying, uncomfortable. But different is actually demonstrably better: more profitable, more creative.

12. Prepare - Make a List and Practice with It: The List is like a pantry, from which you choose items for every meal.

This list however doesn’t do Diamond justice. Read this book then read it again. Highly recommended

Popularity: 17% [?]

Negotiators can be divided into three groups: foxes, bloodhounds and donkeys.

Foxes

Foxes are at heart devious. Ruthlessly competitive, they exploit negotiation opportunities to deceive and manipulate others. Life for a true fox is a contest; they win, you lose.

When foxes manipulate, they focus on the short term. If they are selling, they focus on the current sale. They don’t care about how their behaviour might damage their long term reputation so long as they close the deal in front of them.

Bloodhounds

Bloodhounds are detectives of influence. They recognise the negotiation opportunities inherent in any situation and legitimately take advantage of them. Influence opportunities are not good or bad in themselves - they are opportunities to build mutual gain.

Bloodhounds are win-win motivated. They use influence opportunities to create synergy - where one and one equals three. They also think about the long term implications of anything they do. They appreciate that a reputation built over years can evaporate in minutes with the wrong tactics.

Beware: Some bloodhounds are closet foxes.

Donkeys

Because they are stubborn, unwilling to learn and inflexible, donkeys botch most of their influence opportunities. Typically they fumble their way through meetings, presentations and negotiations.

Meetings derail in confusion and argument. Presentations fail to convince. Negotiations that have the potential to be win-win turn into lose-win or lose-lose.

Donkeys usually lack the skill to recognise the influence opportunities inherent in any situation. They also lack the techniques to skilfully manage an influence opportunity through to its best conclusion.

Turning donkeys into bloodhounds

Can you turn a donkey into a bloodhound? Yes, you can. Most donkeys simply don’t know how to analyse or manage an influence opportunity. Donkeys who belong to this group lack knowledge and need training.

A second group of donkeys has a natural distaste for using influence. They see influencing and persuading as unethical manipulation. Donkeys of this type can usually be won over with education and training. Most become enthusiastic bloodhounds when they learn that if you truly believe in the merits of your proposal, you are letting your customers or co-workers down when you fail to persuade.

The last group of donkeys is much harder to change. If someone is truly inflexible and cannot see the world through any other person’s eyes. He is doomed to remain a donkey.

Turning foxes into bloodhounds

Foxes fall into two groups. The first type of fox has become a fox because of an overriding ambition to succeed. Such people would like to be able to look themselves in the mirror in the morning and play win-win, but in a dog-eat-dog world they believe good guys finish last.

Most people in this group have a limited repertoire of skills. In negotiations they lack the skills to turn a win-lose haggle into win-win agreement. This group can be converted but the often need intensive training or managing.

The second group of foxes may be irredeemable. These foxes are genuine Machiavellians. They lack trust; they don’t care about other people’s needs and they delight in contests where they win and you lose. Training will do little for this group. What they need is a character transplant. Deal with them at your peril. If you can, avoid them.

Popularity: 49% [?]