Category: Entrepreneurship

The Art of Negotiation and the Art of Leadership are closely connected. We often assume that both are innate traits – you’re either born with it or not. Not true. In fact, both arts are learned and can be acquired and elevated through intentional practice. Added to that, much of our impact and ability to get what we want in our negotiations and as leaders is based on how we show up. Women often self-sabotage in this key area. In a recent interview with Dr. Michele Williams, a professor at the Tippie College of Business, this point became even more clear. Stay tuned for some insights and tips that will help you in terms of how you show up to lead as a woman.

Our starting point was the recognition that women tend to be more likely to shy away from negotiations for a host of reasons, many tied to social conditioning (and even more so in advocating for themselves). It’s not just that they don’t ask, it’s that in the corporate structure they learned not to ask. They’ve been getting backlash and told they’re too pushy, or too greedy, or too selfish … so, they learn not to ask. And they’re disadvantaged by that.

How do you redress that? As women, we just need to draw on our innate strength and ability to ask. When you look at our advocacy and negotiation skills on behalf of others (for our children, our family, our community) we’re tough negotiators. So why not set those high aspirations and expectations in the workplace and realize there are ways to ask and negotiation strategies that can really help you be effective.

One of Dr. Williams’ favorite strategies (from Amy Cuddy’s work on presence) is using strong non-verbals. Women tend to get more pushback for their language than for their non-verbals. So when you come confidently into the room, speak calmly, pay attention to your tone of voice, pacing, body language and presence, that show of assertiveness can be very powerful.

Take up space. If you watch powerful men walk into a room, they walk in big. They sit down, they spread their legs wide. They spread their stuff all over the table. That’s one of the things that women can do with our bodies. Make sure you’re not crunching down, and you don’t look like you’re just there to take notes. You’re there to contribute.

Another thing in terms of space is your voice and how you frame your contributions. Women often preface everything with, “It’s just my opinion, but …”, or we lower our voice and say, “I just might think …”. These can be VPs and high-end women execs saying really important things, and yet they’ll still start that way. Instead, come out and say, “I think this is what we should do. This is the next plan. Our strategy is not working.” Say it with confidence. The cadence of your voice is going to make a difference. Be careful not to ask everything as a question. “Maybe we could …” or “Maybe we could try …” as opposed to “I think we should try this.” That combination of using your voice differently, and physically taking up space and owning that space will be a great asset in getting more of what you deserve.

According to some studies, another thing to be aware of is that when women progress in their career, they’re treated with less interpersonal sensitivity, but as men progress in their career, they’re treated with more. All the work on power says more powerful people are treated with more sensitivity, and yet the opposite held true for women. Being aware that the context is different is the first step to addressing the issue. It may not always feel comfortable as you move through the ranks in the corporate world. Because of this, women … (and especially women of colour) tend to shrink back. They come quietly in the room. They try to keep their head down, and just do really good work. They wait for other people to recognize them.

That strategy is not effective because nobody’s paying enough attention to know what good work you’re doing. If you’re not advocating for yourself, it just falls through to the wayside, and you likely won’t be seen as leadership material because you’re quiet and not getting into those difficult and challenging conversations.

Part of the solution is reframing our mindset. In the US and Canada and Western Europe we tend to view the workplace as a meritocracy. If you do a good job you will be rewarded. We’re not sure how or by whom, but hold the belief it will just come. We’ll just be rewarded. The idea that there are actual social networks in place, or that people have sponsors speaking up for them in the organization isn’t considered.

According to Dr. Williams, once we think about the process as not fully a meritocracy but having a social element, it behooves us to actually let people know what our accomplishments are. These are just facts, and they come up in naturally in conversation. Women tend to hold back because they don’t want to be seen as bragging. They don’t want to be the tall poppy for fear of being cut down.

The narrative we start to tell about ourselves and our work is important. Another piece of that, If we don’t tell our own story, other people will tell it for us. And the story other people tell for women is, “Oh, they’re so nice. They’re so good with people. Isn’t that fabulous. I’m so glad to have her on my team. Oh, she’s so passionate.” Passionate, good with people, and nice does not get you promoted. They are often not seen as having anything to do with leadership.

But when you talk about it in different language i.e. being nice really means you are able to motivate your team. You’re a good mentor to more junior people. You’re able to help departments resolve conflicts. When you start putting different language to those behaviors – i.e. you’re able to motivate everyone – that language is language recognized as leadership skills. It’s our responsibility to tell our story in a way that lets others know we’re leadership material so they’re not using just vague, nondescript language to describe all the good work we’re doing.

If this perspective has been useful for you, check out the full podcast interview WITH DR. MICHELE WILLIAMS

If all of life is a negotiation, why are we taught so little about it? And of the little we’re taught, why is so much of it based on myths? These are important questions as the myths we buy into can hold us back from becoming our most powerful negotiator. They stop us from getting the better outcomes, buy-in, and relationships we deserve.

Let’s explore the top 10 myths, consider why they’re so dangerous and debunk them so you can step up to negotiate a better life for yourself.

Myth #1: Personal Relationships Are Not Negotiations

How we’ve been conditioned to see negotiations is a good starting point in examining myths that hold us back. When you hear the word ‘negotiation’ I’d wager you first picture a boardroom full of suits. We recognize business dealings as negotiations but not our personal dealings. This misconception stops you from bringing the necessary level of intention to your interactions.

Recognizing that all of life is a negotiation – whether it’s with your kids, intimate partner, co-workers, service providers or business tycoons – is the first step on the path to negotiating better relationships and outcomes.

Myth #2: Negotiation Is a Competition

We’ve also been conditioned to see negotiation as a competition, with winners and losers. This is one of the reasons so many people resist seeing negotiation as a skill to use in personal relationships. This zero-sum approach to negotiations leaves little room for creative solutions that meet the highest good of all. Instead, when you take a collaborative approach, truly seeking to understand and meet the needs of the other party, you’ll elevate your influence and persuasive abilities to get even better outcomes than anticipated.

Myth #3: Toughness Carries the Day

Tied to myth #2 is the belief that toughness carries the day in negotiations, that the person talking the longest and loudest is ‘winning’. In fact, the opposite is true. Successful negotiators are effective listeners who bring empathy to the table. The more you understand about the other party’s needs, the better deals you’ll be able to broker.

Myth #4: Women Aren’t Good Negotiators

The misconceptions set out above lead to the mistaken belief that women aren’t effective negotiators. Many women shy away from negotiating their best lives because they buy into the myth that negotiations are about toughness and competition.

Interestingly, 5 out of 6 of the key skillsets that make and mark effective negotiators are traits considered by most to be ‘feminine’ or soft skills. My A.R.E. F.I.T. model is based on elevating our appreciation and intentional adoption of these skills. Assertiveness, Rapport-building, Empathy, Flexibility, Intuition and Trust are the top 6 skills most often identified as essential to superior negotiation. Studies suggest that aside from assertiveness, the other 5 skills are considered ‘feminine’ traits by most. Yet, ironically, we still cling to the misguided belief that women are likely to be less effective.

Myth #5: Nice people finish last in negotiations 

The same misconceptions that lead people to believe women aren’t effective negotiators are also responsible for the mistaken belief that nice people finish last in negotiations. When we see negotiations as win-lose propositions where it’s all about the bark and bite, it’s no wonder you might buy into the myth. Added to that, ‘nice’ has gotten a bad rap in recent years and is under-valued.

To all the nice people out there, be glad in the knowledge that you may well be better equipped as a negotiator because bringing empathy, true trustworthiness and rapport-building to the table will elevate your outcomes.

Myth #6: You either have the natural ability as a negotiator or you don’t 

Many people believe that negotiation skills are fixed traits – you either have them or you don’t. They believe negotiation prowess is innate – some are born with it, others not. This mindset inhibits people from stepping up to try out their negotiation chops. That’s a shame because the belief is based on a myth.

Negotiation is a learned skill. It takes practice. Making a point of learning more about the art of negotiation and applying those skills with intention will improve your abilities as a negotiator and result in better solutions and outcomes. Every new building block will set a stronger foundation upon which to grow.

Myth #7: Negotiations are like poker –  hold your cards close to your chest

As is no doubt becoming clear, the myth that negotiation is a win-lose competition spawns many more destructive myths. One such spin-off is the idea that negotiations are like poker and you need to hold your cards close to your chest. In my experience this is typically counter-productive. It’s challenging if not impossible to come to real, meaningful resolutions that represent the highest good for all if everyone is busy protecting and refusing to share their actual desired outcomes.

It’s only through sharing your real needs and discussing those of the other party that opportunities arise to find creative solutions to meet those needs – often in unexpected ways. A guarded, defensive posture in negotiations triggers a similar response in kind. This is rarely, if ever, a strong place from which to bargain for best outcomes.

Myth #8: Never make the first move

Another spin-off myth from the competition model is that you should never make the first move in a negotiation and/or that concessions are a sign of weakness. I’d like to debunk both these myths. There are many potential advantages to making the first move.

Anchoring your expectations at the outset can be a strong move in a negotiation. Set high aspiration levels and anchor expectations by sharing them early. You can set the tone for the negotiation and set the discussion on track from the outset.

Likewise, planning for and making the first concession can set a collaborative tone and trigger reciprocity. It’s always been my belief that people afraid to do so lack confidence in the strength of their position and/or negotiating abilities.

Myth #9: Emotion has no place in negotiations 

You’ve no doubt been told that emotion has no place in negotiations. It’s often one of the unfounded criticisms levied against women – that they’re too emotional to be good negotiators. There is a difference though between being emotional and bringing emotion to the table. In other words, while you don’t want to be emotionally reactive and lose the clarity required to move towards desired outcomes, bringing the emotional resonance of your deep ‘why’ can be a powerful motivator in a negotiation.

At the very least, understanding emotion and how it shows up – for you and the other party – is a significant advantage in any negotiation.

Myth #10: If both sides go away unhappy it’s been a successful negotiation

This myth is a particular pet peeve of mine. I’ve often heard even experienced mediators suggest they know they’ve done their job if both sides go away unhappy. I come down with a resounding ‘NO’ on that theory. Splitting the difference as a go-to remedy is a similar pet peeve. Successful negotiators seek the highest and best results for all. It shouldn’t be about everyone giving up items of importance. It should be about finding how to get even better results than everyone expected coming to the table.

Hopefully this article has given you some insights on how to bust through negotiation myths that hampered your ability to get your best outcomes. By raising your awareness about stories you’ve been telling yourself about negotiations, you’re halfway to elevating your ability to persuade and influence.

We’re all biased and we carry these biases (whether conscious or not) into all our interactions. These biases can sabotage your ability to get better outcomes in negotiating your life. They interfere with your perspective-taking ability and cloud your judgment. It’s important to elevate your awareness about the inherent biases you bring to the table so you can negotiate with greater clarity and increase your influence and persuasive abilities. Last week we explored the range of Personal Biases. Now let’s turn to other types of bias that are likely showing up in your life.

Information Bias

How we receive information can impact our perception and beliefs. Two primary information biases that show up are (i) Information Presentation Bias and (ii) Information Availability Bias. You can use these biases to your advantage. Beware, however, that you are not falling victim to the power of these information biases being used against you.

            Information Presentation

How information is presented to us can profoundly impact on our receptivity to the information. The advertising industry is a multi-billion-dollar industry for this reason. How we see things affects our actions (from decisions, to purchasing power, to voting and beyond). This is why large organizations or governments trying to push through a particular agenda will use fancy, glossy, high-end materials with specific language triggers etc. Be careful to ensure that your decisions are based on actual meaningful content as opposed to slick presentation tactics.

Having said that, at the other end, it will serve you to get intentional about how you’re presenting information to the other party in your negotiations. Consider whether someone is a visual, auditory or kinesthetic learner and cater to their style(s) in presenting information that you want to ensure they consider.

            Information Availability

Likewise, beware that you are getting access to all relevant information in any negotiation. It is easy to skew perceptions through strategic use of statistical or other data presented. What is omitted is often as (or more) important than what is presented. Consider and question the availability of all potentially significant information before making decisions. Pay attention to what the other party is making available and what may be conspicuously absent.

Tied to information availability is Misinformation. Some negotiators will disseminate misinformation to skew the balance in their favour. In my view, this is never appropriate. Trust is a cornerstone of effective negotiations. Breaking that trust can be irreparable. It is easier to lose trust than to build it. Ultimately our integrity needs to be our trademark. Using misinformation is out of alignment with bargaining in integrity.

Anchoring

Anchoring is when we set the expectations for a particular negotiation by starting with a strong position at the extreme edge of the range of possibility. If we’re a purchaser, for example, it serves to anchor the negotiation with a low starting price to lower the other party’s expectations about what is reasonable or achievable. If we’re the vendor, we’d want to anchor high out of the gate if possible. While it seems inauthentic to proceed in this way, studies continue to affirm that anchoring can change the other party’s beliefs about the nature of an appropriate agreement and so is effective in many negotiations.

Fixed-pie Bias

While some consider this to be a belief system rather than a bias, to some extent our beliefs are our biases. Our predisposed views of the world affect our perceptions and perspectives and so become biases that impact our negotiations. Many people suffer from fixed-pie bias. They see the world and each negotiation as a fixed pie of availability where they need to ensure they get their fair ‘slice of the pie’. This is to be contrasted with an abundance perspective where one believes there are potentially infinite possibilities available as solutions to any issue and seek to find the highest good for all.

Framing bias

How something is framed can significantly impact on how it is received. Being mindful of your framing can increase your ability to influence and persuade. For example, framing something as a win versus loss will invariably be better received. If someone is earning $100,000 and sought an increase to $150,000, framing a $120,000 counter-offer as an increase of $20,000 will be better received than presenting it as $30,000 less than they’d asked for. The power of framing should not be under-estimated.

Sunk Cost bias (aka Irrational Escalation of Commitment)

When we’ve sunk money into a particular project, person, investment, etc., studies show that we’re less likely to walk away, but instead are more likely to continue to throw more money on the table as we don’t want to see the money spent to date as a loss. The same holds true with sunk time costs. The more time we’ve invested, the less likely we are to walk away. This can cause us to bargain long after it makes sense to do so. Raising your awareness about this bias and its potentially dangerous impact can be a powerful game-changer.

Loss Aversion Bias (aka Prospect theory)

For the same reasons that we don’t like to acknowledge our lost investments (noted above under ‘Sunk Cost Bias’), studies show that we tend to have higher aversion to losses. In other words, we fear loss and avoid losses more than we try to make profits. For example, most people would rather avoid losing $2,000 than potentially making $3,000. As a result, how we frame offers can create a bias (either pro or con) depending on whether it’s framed as a loss avoidance or gain.

Halo & Horn effect

 

Let’s face it … we tend to make snap judgments in our society. Beware though that these first impressions on meeting someone can have dangerous side-effects. The halo effect is when a positive first impression of someone leads us to view them more favourably and cast their entire character in a more favourable light, ignoring or discounting negative attributes. By contrast, the horn effect is when a negative first impression causes us to view them more negatively, failing to see the positive attributes. This bias is particularly problematic in a society where we over-value ‘attractive’ people and ascribe competence and other success traits to them that may not be warranted and conversely we under-value so-called ‘unattractive’ people and their skills and potential contributions.

Narrative Fallacy

 

We naturally like stories. Humans have a long history of storytelling. As a result, we find them easier to relate to and make sense of. Pay attention though to getting sucked in to less desirable outcomes simply because they came packaged with a better story. At the other end, however, it’s valuable to remember that presenting your position with a good story will get better buy-in.

 

Hindsight Bias

Hindsight bias is the tendency to look back on events and believe we accurately predicted (or could have predicted) the outcome. This sounds innocuous, but the danger lies in our corresponding belief that our judgement is better than it is. As a result, we’re less critical of our decisions going forward, which can cause poor decision-making.

Contrast Effect

 

When presented with contrasting options, most people will be inclined to choose the more attractive offer. In other words, rather than simply offering $30,000 in a deal, if presented as either $30K now of $10K/year spread over 3 years, the lump sum will likely seem more attractive than it would have on its own. Presenting a contrast offer that makes your desired outcome look more attractive can create a powerful bias in your favour.

False Conflict (aka Illusory conflict)

False conflict arises where one perceives a conflict that doesn’t actually exist. If we expect or anticipate a conflict or push-back, it can skew our perception so we believe we’re in a conflict situation, when we’re not. This will adversely impact how we show up and our ability to achieve positive outcomes.

Winners’ Curse

Winners’ curse rears its head when we settle quickly and feel uncomfortable because it seemed to come too easily. We don’t trust easy and have been conditioned to believe good things have to be hard-earned. Ironically, we end up feeling disappointed and resentful about great deals sometimes if our perception is that it came too easily.

Reactive Devaluation

Similar to Winner’s curse, Reactive Devaluation is when we devalue concessions given by other party simply because they were given.

Herd Mentality

Not to be confused with herd immunity, Herd Mentality is when we blindly copy what others are doing. This shows up with desires to follow famous people. It also shows up when people are drawn to follow perceived popular opinion rather than making informed individual choices. These biases can have a strong pull and can skew independent judgment and clarity of thought.

 

And so we come to the end of our review of popular or common biases that may be holding you back from your best outcomes. Did you identify your bias poisons? If so, congratulations! You’re well on your way to overcoming their adverse impact in your negotiations.

Do you consider yourself to be a biased person?

If you answered ‘no’, you’d be mistaken. We all carry biases – some conscious, many not. You bring these biases to everything you do in life. And so, they affect most human interactions. As all of life is a negotiation, it’s important to be aware of them. Otherwise, you’ll drag your biases into every negotiation, sabotaging your chances of best outcomes.

Before you enter any negotiation, it’s prudent to consider both your biases and the likely biases of the other party. To help you in that process, let’s explore the types of bias, how they show up and how you can overcome them.

At the outset I’d note that there are countless academic articles written on bias and various methods of categorizing types of bias. The reality, however, is that many of the categories and types overlap and can’t always be neatly compartmentalized. No worries though. It’s not the labelling that’s important. It’s simply raising your awareness so you can recognize when bias is showing up and affecting how you process information.

Whether you call a bias cognitive, motivational, informational, selection, heuristic, linguistic, or any of the other many categories assigned to the various biases is less important than recognizing that bias is at play and getting intentional about diffusing the bias.

In this two-part series, I hope to provide a handy checklist of the most common biases. In this part (Part I) we explore various ‘personal’ biases and how they show up.

I invite you to identify your go-to bias ‘poisons’. Explore this list with an open mind and heart with a view to recognizing your guilty bias traps.

Self-serving bias

 

Self-serving bias shows up in a number of ways. It skews perception when we seek to perceive ourselves in an overly favourable light to maintain or enhance our self-esteem. It rears its head when we attribute our successes and positive outcomes to our skill yet blame our negative outcomes on bad luck. i.e. when we see our successful projects as the result of our brilliance and hard work but see our failures as the result of the team (or someone else) dropping the ball or not properly supporting the initiative.

It also influences our perceptions of fairness. We see our positions as imminently fair and reasonable while projecting our negative attributes onto the other party.

 

Egocentrism

Some see egocentrism as a subset of self-serving bias, while others see it as a stand-alone category. At its core, egocentrism shows up as tunnel vision or self-focus. This bias prevents us from truly appreciating the position of the other party as our focus is too narrowly on our own goals, outcomes, positions, etc.

Inattentional blindness

 

Again, some consider inattentional blindness to be the same as (or at least a subset of egocentrism and/or self-serving bias, whereas others believe the distinction warrants its own category. Inattentional bias is when we see, hear and experience only what we’re focused on. When we only focus on our own needs we inevitably miss out on valuable information and insights; important cues, signals or signs; and also on opportunities.

There are variations of a powerful study that exemplifies this bias and its impact. A video is shown of a group passing a basketball, half wearing white shirts and half black. Participants are asked to count how many times the white ‘team’ passes the ball to each other. Incredibly the majority of participants fail to notice a large gorilla jumping into the fray midway through the play. When the focus in on counting the number of passes, other glaring and obvious sensory input is missed altogether.

Overconfidence bias

 

A sister to self-serving bias is overconfidence bias. This comes from a false sense of your own skill or talent. It can manifest as having an unjustified illusion of control in your negotiations. It can also show up as what’s sometimes called the ‘desirability effect’ i.e. what I want to happen will happen because I want it to.

Endowment bias

 

Endowment bias is arguably a sister to overconfidence bias but applies to how we value what we own or what we bring to the table. i.e. when we over-value something we own or contribute.

We see examples of this in real estate deals where vendors over-value their properties (based on sweat equity or emotional attachment, etc) and find it hard to accept market valuations. We also often see this in bartering situations where one party believes their end of the barter is considerably more valuable than what the other party brings to the table. For the same reason, many partnerships flounder as one party over-values their contribution to the relationship vis-à-vis the other party’s.

Confirmation bias

 

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for and interpret information in way that confirms our preconceptions. Henry Thoreau is credited with observing that “We only see the world we look for.”

The world is rife with this problem today. Social media exacerbates this bias as ‘news feeds’ we receive give us more of what we already believe. Everyone becomes even more entrenched in their belief about the rightness of their position. You are better served when you’re able to show up with an open mind to truly listen to perspectives and positions of the other party and to seek out information contrary to your already held beliefs (i.e. be willing to challenge your preconceptions).

Expectation bias

Tied to confirmation bias (but arguably a separate category) is what I call expectation bias. We tend to attract what we expect. If we expect the other party to show up as unreasonable and overly aggressive, our perception of the encounter will meet and reinforce our expectation. If we expect the worst, we’re likely to get (or at least see) the worst, and by contrast, if we expect the best we’re more likely to get (or see) the best.

Affinity Bias

 

Affinity bias relates to the predisposition we all have to favour people who remind us of ourselves. We see this as early as elementary school yards where kids gravitate and judge more favourably those like them and tend to shun those who are different. This bias causes us to discount potential valuable input, perspectives and input from those unlike us. While this is problematic in any negotiation, it is particularly problematic in cross-cultural negotiations.

Did any of these bias types resonate with you? Raising your awareness about your personal biases is a great starting point to overcoming the adverse impact of bias in your negotiations. Stay tuned next week for Part II where we’ll dig deeper, exploring biases beyond the personal.

Trust is a cornerstone of effective negotiations. From trusting yourself (and your intuition), to building trust with the other party or parties, the bottom line is that trust gets better long-term outcomes, relationships, and buy-in. Yet we typically don’t include intentional trust-building as an element of our preparation work for negotiations. That failure adversely impacts your ability to influence and persuade – in other words your effectiveness as a negotiator.

For a long time, experts couldn’t agree on how to define trust let alone how to actively build it. There were widely divergent opinions, across multiple disciplines, on the causes of trust, its nature, and its impact. Everyone seemed to agree it was important, but nobody could agree on why or how.

A 1995 journal article, An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, spoke to the issue and is often cited for its breakdown of the factors of ‘trustworthiness’.

They suggested that we decide whether we find someone to be trustworthy based on our assessment of the following three factors:

• Ability: Do I believe the person has the ability to deliver on their promises?
• Benevolence: Is the person inclined or motivated to do right by me?
• Integrity: Does the person share values and principles that are acceptable to me?

Over a decade later, drawing on the ABI model, Stephen Covey spoke to the question of trust, breaking it down to two component parts: (i) character and (ii) competence. Character reflected integrity and intent. Competence drew on capabilities and results.

Would you pass the ‘trust’ test based on these qualities? It’s worth asking ourselves this question periodically … and in advance of every negotiation.

In our fast-paced world decisions get made quickly. These speed-date decisions are often based on knee-jerk check-ins about whether we trust the other party or not. Those reflex reactions are typically based on past experiences, reputation, cues (verbal and non-verbal), etc.

What are some hot, practical, tips on how to build trust in your negotiations?

• Trust Yourself

Our first and most important negotiation is always negotiating our own mindset.

It’s difficult to build trust with others if you don’t trust yourself. Do the inner work necessary to bring the confidence that comes from self-love to the table. You need to respect yourself to attract the respect of others. Explore the limiting beliefs that have held you back, challenge your inner critic, seek internal validation (versus external), be honest with yourself and celebrate your value.

• Maintain your reputation.

Losing trust is easier than building it. If you’ve lost someone’s trust, it can take considerable investment to regain it. Managing your reputation is key. Being known as someone who is untrustworthy can be the kiss of death in negotiations. So always guard your reputation.

•  Give Respect

Respect and trust are closely connected. Respect breeds respect. Always treat people with dignity and respect if you expect the same. Doing so builds trust.

• Bring Empathy to the Table

Be sure to practice active listening. Seek to truly understand the position and needs of the other party. This serves to lower defenses and increase the trust factor.

• Speak Clearly

By that, I don’t mean avoid mumbling. I’m talking about being clear about your meaning – say what you mean and mean what you say. Be transparent and open where possible.

Tied to that, speak the ‘language’ of the other party. I’m not talking about learning the mother tongue of the other party, but rather, use the lingo and terminology that speaks to them.

As an attorney, I quickly learned to brush up on the technical or specialized lingo of my clients in order to build the requisite trust that I was able to properly represent their interests. It made clients in the trucking industry nervous if their counsel didn’t know the difference between a truck tractor and a flatbed.

• Make & Label Your Concessions

Be prepared to make concessions as a steppingstone to trust-building. I’m not suggesting you give the house away or randomly offering up items in dispute. Be intentional. Plan a concession strategy in advance where possible so you can offer up a concession that will be of value to the other side but is an easy give for you.

Be sure to name your concessions as you do so. Don’t just expect the other party to recognize the concession you’ve made or its value.

• Be Clear About Your Expectations and Explain Them

When identifying your ‘needs’ in a negotiation (which comes after listening to theirs as noted above), don’t be vague or ambiguous or clever. Be clear. And be prepared to explain your needs. It’s surprising how often we misperceive and attribute false motivations to the other party. You can avoid that problem by offering up your explanations in advance to assist in their understanding of your perspective. Communication builds trust.

• Seek to Find Mutual Gains

Approach negotiations with a view to finding the highest good for all wherever possible. Don’t just seek to have your needs met, but actively look for creative options to find mutually better solutions and outcomes.

Trust is one of the core elements of my A.R.E. F.I.T. model. Once we master trusting ourselves, trust involves a willingness to rely on someone else. There’s a vulnerability inherent in the giving of it. Our past hurts often make this challenging. Exploring how to give trust allows us to live into being more trustworthy. It takes intentional practice … and it’s worth it.

A while back, I challenged you to do an ‘apology fast’, pointing out the perils of over-apologizing and inviting you to raise your awareness about how often you unnecessarily apologize.  At the risk of sounding inconsistent, today I want to talk about the importance of knowing when and how to apologize. The issue arose recently when my daughter called me early one morning to let me know she was misinformed before entering into a negotiation, and found herself on the wrong side of the negotiation. She was asking for advice on how to proceed. That incident got me thinking about how this happens from time to time and that perhaps a follow up to my Apology Fast post would be in order to cover off the other side.

My daughter was worried that if she admitted she was mistaken, it would affect her credibility and impact her future negotiations. At the same time, she didn’t want to go forward with the negotiation knowing she was on the wrong side of the argument. These are typical concerns in this situation.

When we come into a negotiation we always want to assume we’re in the right. That our side is the ‘just’ side. To use a television show metaphor, that you’re wearing Olivia Pope’s white hat [Scandal]. But what happens when you come to the realization that you are on the wrong side in a negotiation?

Here are some tips I gave my daughter that day.

1.) Do your research and preparation

Preparation accounts for ~45% of success in a negotiation. Some experts put that number even higher. Suffice it to say, doing the preparation work in advance of a negotiation is critical. If you’re considering the 5 W’s [check out my ebook on this issue if you’re not familiar with that model] as I advocate, you should be fully exploring the ‘what’ – the substantive matter at issue. Always consider both (or all as the case may be) sides of the issue, knowing both your supporting facts and those that challenge your assertions. This is important so as to allow you to understand the other party’s perspective(s), to overcome objections where appropriate, and, of course, to ensure the validity of your own position.

In doing that prep work, you will typically uncover any weaknesses in your position and/or if the lay of the land is not as you initially thought. This allows you to modify your stance in advance of the negotiation.

Doing research was actually the way my daughter found out she was in the wrong, albeit a little late in the game. Had she done the requisite prep in advance, she likely wouldn’t have found herself in a compromised situation in the negotiation.

Having said that, even with the best research practices, things sometimes fall between the cracks and/or surprises arise, or perceptions may impact how we view an issue and require a perspective shift.

Regardless of how you end up in the position of being on the ‘wrong’ side of an issue or argument, how do you handle it when it happens?

2.) Acknowledge and Apologize.

When you find out you’re wrong, the best strategy is usually not to go silent, or ignore the other party, or focus on trying to figure out how to spin it, or continue to try to defend a position you no longer believe and continue the negotiation.

Most people assume that acknowledging an error or acknowledging we don’t know something will adversely impact on your credibility. In fact, the opposite is usually true. Owning up to errors and acknowledging when we don’t know (and undertaking to find out information) both build trust in relationships and increase your credibility.

So, if you find that you’re on the wrong side of an ‘argument’, acknowledge that fact. Give credit to the other party for raising your awareness on that particular issue. Be prepared to offer a simple and sincere apology.

And that’s it. Don’t try to defend your past position. Don’t draw out the acknowledgement or apology, making it awkward and making it a bigger deal than it needs to be. This simple strategy will serve to build better relationships and with it better outcomes.

My daughter’s acknowledgment and apology email response was sent as soon as she got off the call with me and took only 3 sentences. She received a response back immediately, saying: “Thank you, Jade. I really appreciate your honesty.” She built trust, rapport, mutual respect and in so doing paved the way for better negotiated solutions going forward.

3.) Don’t beat yourself up

You made a mistake. So what? Everyone does. Most likely, going in, you didn’t realize you were in the wrong. Yes you can, and should, learn from your mistake. But leave the guilt of your mistake in the past where it belongs.

If you got value from this article and you’d like to go deeper to find out how you can up level your negotiation skills to negotiate your best life, let’s connect

Imagine you’re waiting at a coffee shop for someone. You check the time and they’re already an hour late. How do you deal with it? Would your answer be different for a business associate versus a first date versus a grandparent?

If you’re like most people, how you respond will differ depending on who you’re dealing with. The same holds true in negotiations. One’s anticipated outcomes in terms of both relationship and the substantive matter need to be considered.

This is also true in considering whether you ought to get your negotiated deals in writing or not. Most people advise ‘always get the deal in writing’. Movie producer, Sam Goldwyn is attributed with the famous quip “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”. Lawyers in particular typically advocate to get written contracts. Many people believe a contract is only valid or enforceable if it’s in writing. Let me bust that myth. Contracts can be written, verbal or inferred by conduct (with limited statutory exceptions). The question is which best serves you in any given situation.

Today I aim to demystify this issue. And don’t worry, I won’t throw a lot of legalese at you. In fact, as a longtime attorney myself I’m embarrassed to admit that many contracts fall apart once lawyers get involved. With all the best intentions, lawyers’ natural inclination to protect the client at all costs typically leads to a lot of crossing t’s and dotting i’s for potential eventualities that are unlikely to ever come to pass. It’s the required cynicism of the profession to consider all possible negative consequences that may arise so as to protect against them for the client. This can often lead to heightened anxiety of the negotiating parties and raise fear of the unknown which can cause deals to fall apart over issues that weren’t necessarily on the table.

Like most people since March of 2020, I confess I’ve periodically binged on Netflix, including a lot of shows with courtroom scenes. In those scenes you often see the quintessential “as per section abc of [Document] it is the [Plaintiff/Respondent] position that xyz”. Usually these written documents/contracts helped the judge/jury decide the outcome in a given case.

Maybe you thought that was just entertainment, but as a lawyer for over 30 years I know the importance of these scenarios, not just in the courtroom but in everyday business.

Let me share a recent personal example where we didn’t get the negotiated deal in writing and it backfired. While in Mexico for a business conference, I realized that because my roommate booked the room (and was leaving a night early) I didn’t have a room for my last night. I called my assistant to book me the extra night under the preferred conference rate. And (as often happens in dealing with business in Mexico) after much haggling (that no rooms were available, that my current room wasn’t available, that the preferred rate wasn’t available … you get the idea) she finally secured the room at the preferred rate, assuring it was a simple extension of one night and I’d be able to stay in the same room without any hassle.

Sounds great, right? Wrong. Because my assistant didn’t get her conversation in writing, they locked me out of my room a day early and I had to expend considerable time and energy sorting the issue out (going through the same arguments: that the room wasn’t available, the preferred rate wasn’t available, etc). While I negotiated a better deal, in the meantime I couldn’t access my clothes or materials for the conference. Needless to say, it was inconvenient.

The lesson that can be learned from that example is that if you negotiate preferred terms or conditions or perks or benefits (whether with a service provider, supplier, or otherwise) it’s a good idea to get them in writing so there’s no ambiguity or wiggle room for the other side to back away from honoring the commitment. I’m sure you can think of a few examples where promises or representations were made by a salesperson or provider that weren’t honored. At a minimum, it’s good practice to take notes yourself of assurances you receive, including the name of the person, the date, time and substance of the promise(s) made.

While verbal agreements are legally binding, there is the issue of proof. A written agreement (if done properly) reflects the commitments of both parties. With verbal agreements, the problem of ‘he said/she said’ can arise and the matter may turn on credibility.

Other risks to verbal agreements include the fact that:

• people’s memories are imperfect;
• misunderstandings can occur where there’s not a shared understanding about the agreement;
• one (or more) party may be dishonest; and/or
• the person with whom the deal was struck may leave the organization and someone else is left to implement the deal.

There is a difference between a formal contract and other written agreements or acknowledgements. Again, both can be enforceable, but a formal contract should typically have the following elements:

• Identify the parties to the agreement
• Identify the subject matter
• Identify the terms and conditions
• Set out the consideration (what is being given in exchange for whatever is being received/offered)
• Signature of the parties

Having said that, sometimes a simple expression of intention in writing can suffice. i.e. going back to my example, a simple one-liner email from the hotel to my assistant stating ‘This confirms the one night extension of the room for Cindy Watson from [Date] departing [Date] at the rate of [agreed upon price].’

Here are a few additional tips for looking at your written agreement or contract:

• Make sure it is clear.
• If there is anything you don’t understand go back to the other party and ask for a clarification. This won’t make you look dimwitted but could potentially help clear up a misunderstanding.
• Watch the language of the contract. In negotiations, words matter, especially when they are on paper. You don’t want to get a negotiation in writing only to find it goes against what you were originally trying to argue.

Now let’s consider when it may not make sense or be necessary to get agreements in writing. As noted at the outset, you’ll need to consider both the substantive outcome you seek and also the relationship outcome you seek. Sometimes taking someone at their word can build trust in a relationship and strengthen bonds. Insisting on getting assurances in writing may cause offence and not be worth the cost in terms of relationship.

Further, sometimes people or providers are able to exercise discretion and latitude in offering outside or beyond the formal parameters. However, insisting on getting those commitments in writing might dampen the enthusiasm or ability to do so.

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room … those tricky negotiations dealing with family and friends. You would think these would be easier negotiations to navigate because you already have a pre-existing relationship with them. But negotiations with those closest to you are often the hardest because of the past and ongoing relationship. Asking for an agreement in writing could cause a rift in what may be a strong dynamic. And yet, in many family dynamics, getting compliance from a family member may be infinitely harder than from arm’s length business partners.

As always, being intentional about your decision whether to get an agreement in writing or not is key. There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer in any given situation. So long as you consider the elements discussed here, including the pros and cons of each approach, you’ll be ahead of the pack. Most people act (or not) out of habit or reflex without bringing intention to the decision-making process.