Author: Cindy Watson

Strange title, I know. No doubt it struck you as morbid. I’m sure it hit a few triggers. Indulge me if you will. I’ve been in California this week and we had two back to back earthquakes over two days. I’m not talking the little tremors you sometimes feel when in earthquake territory. I’m talking about the kind that rocks buildings and cracks walls. The kind where you’re directed to hide under desks and hold table legs … and when the shaking didn’t stop, finally got directed to evacuate the building … immediately. It was exciting and a little nerve-wracking, but the point of this article is this: I confess while cowering under the desk, I didn’t exactly have a ‘life-flash- before-my-eyes’ moment, but I definitely had a ‘have-I-lived-fully, loved-deeply, and made-a-difference’ moment. The people I love flashed through my mind and I scrambled to remember our last exchange. Did I tell them I loved them? Did I let them know they mattered? Did I empower them to live large and to be the best version of themselves? Did I (please no) make them feel smaller without intending to. You get the idea. So, I pose the question to you.

If today was your last day, are you ready?

Are you living each day fully on purpose and with purpose?

If not, why not? What are you waiting for? If today was your last day, would you leave this earth with regrets? If so, what can you do – now – to redress that? What steps can you take – today – to start to ensure that when your time comes, you go knowing you left nothing on the table. You did everything in your power to be your best self, to make a difference in the world and for those in your orbit, to love those around you and let them know without reservation that they’re loved. I’m asking you to consider what you would want to ensure you’d done … or said … and then go do it. Or at least figure out how to do it and make a plan to get it done. I’m asking you to do that now … as if there may not be a tomorrow.

We tend to be a death phobic society in North America.

This causes us to push away thoughts of our demise. Which in turn means that we don’t prepare properly, nor do we prepare those around us. I invite you to consider that this approach may be a big mistake. In fact, it may inhibit us from living the fullest version of our lives. Ironically, our fear of death may stop us from living. At the very least it typically stops us from discussing issues around death with our families and in so avoiding the issue we invariably leave a mess behind. Yvonne Heath addresses this debilitating pattern in her book, Love Your Life To Death. As a long-time nurse, working emergency to hospice over the course of her career, she saw first-hand the devastating effects of death phobia as it left behind unprepared grieving loved ones who were ill-equipped to handle death, or worse, who were left to fight about details which hadn’t been arranged in life. Death is part of the natural cycle of life. Heath posits that dealing with the ‘death discussion’ and preparing for it while we’re in our prime is a much healthier alternative with better results both in life and death and with better acceptance and adjustment for those left behind. Isn’t that a much more civilized and proactive way to deal with this inevitable issue? I loved the book when I read it a couple years ago, but my recent earthquake experience gave deeper resonance to the ideas. I’m going to reread it as soon as I get home (and suggest you do the same).

In the meantime, I encourage you to negotiate with yourself about your death. Know yourself. Be ruthlessly honest.

Ask yourself the following questions:

• How do I want to live my life?
• Who do I want to spend my valuable time with?
• How can I maximize my time to do the things I love most?
• What is my purpose?
• Am I living on purpose?
• If not, what can I do – now – to start?
• Where am I wasting valuable time and energy and what can I do to stop that pattern?
• Am I investing sufficiently in myself to be the best that I can be?
• Am I making a difference in this world?
• If not, what can I do – now – to start to do so?
• Do I let the people I care about know that every day?
• Who do I want to manage my estate when I die?
• Have I made arrangements for the disposition of my estate when I die, paying attention to the personal items that I may want distributed in a particular way (including to people in my life who I may not otherwise think to include in my will)?
• How do I want to die? Would I want life support, or would I want a ‘do not resuscitate’ and if it depends, then on what? Would I want the plug pulled and if so, in what circumstances?
• Do I want to be buried, cremated or otherwise?
• Do I want my body or organs to be donated? If so, are there limitations on that?
• Do the people in my life who would make these decisions know my wishes?
• Is there some message I’d want to leave behind for those I care about? If so, have I prepared it? If not, do so now.

You get the idea. This is but a tiny sampling of the kinds of questions we so often ignore in our avoidance of death and anything connected to it. Answering these questions is the first step to living your fullest, most purposeful and impactful life. It empowers you not just in death, but in inspiring you to live large in the present – to appreciate and maximize every moment of your now. Consider these things deeply, meaningfully and honestly. Negotiate with yourself about how to best live your life now and every day, but also how to have some control over your exit from this life. Talk about these things with the people you care about. Negotiate with them to ensure your wishes are known and will be respected. Make this subject natural and approach it with love and compassion. In so doing, your negotiations will pay off now, and when your time comes, and going forward for the people you most care about in this world. This may be one of the most important, productive and (ironically) life-changing negotiations you’ll ever have.

Unconscious bias seems to be the new buzz phrase. As with many trendy new concepts, it runs the risk of being trivialized. I invite you to refrain from dismissing the power of unconscious bias. It’s worth digging deeper to uncover and bring to the light the potentially profound undermining impact it can have on our lives as women.  We often hear about gender bias and usually assume it means bias imposed by men against women. But what about women’s own internal biases? It’s these insidious biases against our own gender that perhaps do the most damage.

Why would I address this issue in an article about negotiation? Well, most women tend to shy away from negotiation, believing they’re not effective, or alternatively overcompensate, believing they need to bring masculine energy to succeed. Neither are true. In developing my Art of Feminine Negotiation programs I was determined to delve into the why for this phenomenon. Turned out these unconscious biases were one of the key things holding women back. They undercut our performance, affect the choices we make, and limit our opportunities. So, isn’t it time we address the monster under the bed head on and take its power away? At the very least, it’s worth taking a look at.

I           Undercutting Our Own Performance

When we’re primed based on our gender we perform worse. What do I mean by that? In a study of a group of young women taking SAT tests, where half the control group were asked to identify their gender – just identify whether they’re male or female – that half performed worse than the half who didn’t have to identify gender. In fact, in a Harvard study of Asian-American students, the young women performed better when asked to identify their ethnicity but worse when they had to identify their gender. Similarly, a U.S. study of AP calculus students showed that young women asked to identify their gender before the test performed worse than those asked the question after. This result held true even when the priming was subconscious. In another Harvard study, when ‘feminine’ words (like lipstick, pink or doll), were subliminally flashed unbeknownst to the participants, those primed with the feminine words performed worse than those primed with neutral words.

Let’s think about that for a moment. If the mere idea of identifying as a woman somehow makes us under-perform and not achieve our actual potential or capabilities, what does that say about the limiting beliefs girls have internalized about our gender? Consider the destructive power of these beliefs.

II          Undercutting Our Own Sense of What We Think We Want

It goes even further. Not only is our performance negatively impacted, but some studies support that our very ideas about what we’re interested in can be manipulated by gender priming. For example, in a joint Toronto and Boston psychology study, female undergraduate students who were subliminally flashed images of women not visible to the naked eye, expressed a preference for arts over math whereas those who had been primed with male images did not.

III         Undercutting Our Opportunities

These unconscious biases also limit our opportunities in the world. Nowhere is that more prevalent than in the workforce. It was long believed that women did not secure certain positions or advance due to lesser skills. Allegations of bias were met with resistance and denial (from both men and women). Now, however, studies routinely confirm that not only do unconscious gender biases exist, but they’ve played a significant role in holding women back for many years.

In one study, for example, participants were asked to choose the most qualified candidate for a position as police chief. Unbeknownst to them, however, they were given two resumes identical in every respect but for name. One bore a man’s name, the other a woman’s. In significant numbers, participants (both men and women) consistently chose the male for the position notwithstanding identical resumes to choose from.

Likewise, for many years, most major symphonies were overwhelmingly comprised of male musicians. Suggestions of gender bias in the selection process, were rebuffed with arguments about judging by professionals based on objective, identifiable criteria. And yet, when blind auditions were finally run (i.e. the judges could not see the candidates auditioning, but could only hear them) more women were selected.

Surprised? It’s not really surprising that these unconscious biases exist and have had profound impact on women throughout the years and continue to do so. Let’s face it. It wasn’t that long ago that women didn’t have the right to vote, or own property. Heck, in some jurisdictions it’s recent history that we were even recognized as persons in the eyes of the law. And if we go back further, in the scheme of things, it’s not so long ago that powerful women were burned as witches at the stake. So perhaps it’s no wonder that you may have been conditioned to hesitate to step into the fullness of your power. The message that you will be cut down if you do has perhaps been passed down generation to generation through whispered warnings absorbed through osmosis as they travelled along our mother’s umbilical cord, tying us to our mother and all the mothers before her.

Again, don’t panic. Awareness is the key. Each layer we peel back gets you one step closer to stepping into your power as a feminine negotiator. It’s important that we face it though. Don’t turn away or pretend it doesn’t exist. Look the monster in the face and name it. Hold up a mirror and face it in yourself. Stare it down. Consider this a primary negotiation exercise. Negotiate with yourself to deal with your unconscious bias. Acknowledge the power it’s held. Commit to yourself to fight against it, to identify it when it creeps in and to stomp it down – both as it impacts on you and your decisions vis-à-vis yourself and as against other women.

It starts with self-reflection and awareness. Given that both men and women suffer from these unconscious biases, it stands to reason that we’ve under performed at some points in our lives, that we’ve made decisions that were informed by internal biases we weren’t even aware were at play, that we’ve judged other women more harshly based on these same biases. When I thought about these studies, it made me wonder, how many times have I held myself back or pursued a path that may not have been my heart’s desire without being aware of it.

How about you? Can you think of times when maybe you under performed and you weren’t sure why, or maybe you stopped yourself from asking for more money, or you let a man take your idea, or held your tongue until you thought it might bleed, or maybe just doubted yourself and held back from going for something big? What if today, you made a commitment to face down the monster of unconscious gender bias, to release those conditioned inhibitions and let your inner goddess and natural negotiator shine bright.

Negotiating by email is an unavoidable fact of life in today’s world. Whether you see the world as expanding or shrinking in the current global climate, one thing is certain. Face to face negotiations will not always be possible. In fact, technological interactions without traditional human connection seem to be on the rise. Some actually consider email to be the dominant form of communication in business today. As a result, I thought I’d be remiss not to address the issue. There are pros and cons to this mode of negotiation, both worth noting. Let’s take a look at the good, the bad and the ugly in the world of email negotiation (with some do’s and don’ts thrown in for good measure). Knowledge is power and can help counter the potential negative impacts through simple strategies you can adopt to enhance the email bargaining experience.

At the outset, it’s important to recognize that negotiating by email is not the same as face-to-face (or even telephone) negotiation. Ignore this simple fact at your peril. There are several pitfalls to be aware of. But first let’s consider the benefits of this mode of bargaining. Email tends to give the illusion of insulation, allowing people to ask questions that may be more difficult face-to-face. Note that I’ve listed this under advantages although some would consider this a drawback. A less controversial benefit is that email negotiation can clearly save time and money as it avoids unnecessary travel required with face to face meetings. It reduces stress for many people as it allows for delayed response time with the corresponding ability to contemplate and measure your reaction/response. The immediate reaction time typically required in both face-to-face and telephone negotiations can be stressful and anxiety-inducing for many and so email can be a welcome relief from that pressure. Tied to that, the additional response time can avoid the risk of explosive outbursts or ill-considered quick deals.

And yet, it’s estimated that email negotiations end in impasse half the time and studies suggest less satisfaction in the process. Why is that? Potential for miscommunication is an obvious culprit. While words are a fundamental means of communicating, so too are body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, and touch. All of these modes are necessary for effective communication and yet all of the latter communication modes are missing in email negotiations. Added to that is the absence of context. In other words, there is no information other than the words on the screen. There’s no ability to gauge reaction which can be a significant handicap (both in understanding the other party and in being understood yourself).

As a means of communication, email tends to elicit concise exchanges. People are less likely to engage in small talk or other personal exchanges, but rather, get straight to business. Absent potential softening that comes with in person exchanges, this style can often come across as terse, rude or confrontational. There tends to be higher likelihood of misreading tone and taking the message the wrong way. You’ve no doubt been at the giving or receiving end of this conundrum at some point.

In addition to the inadvertent communication mishaps, some suggest that there is a greater tendency to bluff and outright lie in email communications versus face to face encounters. The suggestion is that the screen offers a buffer that reduces accountability, empathy and concern about the bargaining counterpart’s reaction (much like cyber-bullying). Arguably, with this comes less focus on mutual interests and more focus on positional bargaining. It’s easier to say ‘no’ to a computer screen than a person. On this theory, decreased accountability also results in agreements that don’t last as parties may be more likely to back away from commitments made via email. This result may also arise as there is a tendency to prepare less for email negotiations. When not properly prepared, people are more likely to get caught with their pants down and end up making commitments that they later regret and try to back away from.

Privacy concerns also raise their ugly heads in email negotiations. Controlling access to emails can be challenging so you can never be sure who is reading the communications. Tied to that, emails constitute a permanent history of the exchange so you’re never sure who is being included in the communications. With blind copies and forwarding this holds true both during the discussions and after. Not surprisingly, this can inhibit open communications.

It also makes it harder to build rapport and trust (two key elements of the ARE FIT system). Needless to say, with inhibited trust or rapport comes decreased understanding and a corresponding increase in conflict. This can be the kiss of death to effective negotiations. A corollary to that is decreased opportunity for brainstorming and creativity.

So how do we offset these risks posed by email bargaining? t’s important to make a conscious effort to find ways to establish connection. Here’s a few quick tips to help in that regard:

1. If possible, try to meet in person before starting email negotiations. This allows the opportunity to get to know each other, observe non-verbal cues, gauge reactions to each other and in so doing, build rapport.
2. In the same vein, try to build in some phone calls and/or in person meetings at some point during protracted email negotiations if at all possible.
3. Make a conscious effort to personalize the communications and add human feeling and emotion where you can. Give the other party a sense of you personally and try to elicit the same from them. Seek out common ground where you can.
4. Don’t be afraid to express empathy, concern, doubt, etc. while still projecting optimism about the prospects of reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution.
5. Share personal stories or anecdotes and be sure to ask about their personal circumstances where appropriate. In other words, make small talk via email. Make the exchanges mimic ‘real life’ as much as possible.
6. Consider supplementing your email communications with other media.
7. At a minimum, make sure to have personalized greetings and sign-offs rather than being ‘all business’ right out of the gate.
8. Avoid ambiguities by making sure to ask questions early and as often as required. Also use this tactic to draw the other party into problem-solving mode.
9. Remember that email may seem rude when not intended so be intentional about not over-reacting and not responding ‘in kind’. Take a breath. Consider calling rather than emailing in response and/or to clarify. This allows you to try to keep the atmosphere positive.
10. As with any negotiation, be sure to properly prepare. Know your resistance point and BATNA going in.  Consider your strategy and what tactics you may use. Prepare for your concession strategy.

Email is not going away as a means of negotiation anytime soon, notwithstanding its drawbacks, so it’s important to neutralize those potential pitfalls where possible and maximize your opportunity for success. Fear not. All is not lost. Words alone can obviously be a powerful means of communication as is evidenced by the many classic books that make us feel deeply and move us in profound ways. Much like those classics, however, as the authors can attest, it just takes more care and more work. But if mastering this skill can give you an edge, it’s worth it, right?

What if your fears were really fear of your power? What if at their root, your fears were you shrinking away from the full force of that power? As Marianne Williamson said (even though her brilliant quote is often mis-credited to Martin Luther King):

“Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate but that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that brightens us. We ask ourselves ‘who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, handsome, talented and fabulous?’ Actually who are you not to be? … Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you.”

I’ve talked about the fact that all of life is a negotiation and so learning the art of negotiation may be the most important skill you ever master. I’ve talked about the fact that you first need to master the ability to negotiate with yourself. An integral element of that negotiation process is recognizing your fear for what it is. Knowing that you will not get rid of fear, or overcome it per se, but rather that you can learn to act in the face of your fear and use it as fuel to propel you to your next level.

What if you reframed your fear and used it as a source of empowerment? Let me use my recent pole climb as an example and metaphor for how you can negotiate past your fears. In Fiji this week, I was challenged to climb a (seemingly) never-ending pole that burst up into sky above our heads, as we craned our necks, contemplated the sheer madness of the venture. It didn’t help that the winds were howling, and the pole visibly swayed side to side under the force.

I consider myself the adventurous type and don’t usually like to admit to fear, but I confess I was anxious. The queasiness in my gut attested to that. It wasn’t a fear of heights or even a fear of falling. For me, the greater fear (I thought) was fear of failure. Fear of embarrassment. What if I couldn’t pull myself up when I got to the top? What if I was the only one who couldn’t do it? What if I froze in front of everyone as they cheered me on and I couldn’t deliver? I started to invoke visualization techniques – to picture myself scaling up the spikes and staples with ease and standing strong and proud at the top of the pole. But then I thought, what if I made my desired outcome or purpose to climb without worrying about whether I’d succeed or not. To climb for the satisfaction in trying. To define success as the simple act of doing it, whether I made it to the top or not. And then I had an even more radical thought. What if my believed fear of failing wasn’t that at all, but something deeper. What if at some level I was afraid of my own strength and power?

Those reframes took the angst away. Losing the stories empowered me to trust in my infinite potential. Giving in to our fear paralyzes us from taking action. Confronting those fears head on and immediately is an important first step. Get in touch with them – raise your awareness. Name them. Then get curious – dig deeper to find your real source of fear, the root of the purported fear. Reframe it. Then move toward the fear, step into it, embrace it. Know your goal. Know your why. Breathe deeply. Get centered on the now. Find gratitude for whatever opportunity you’re offered and facing. Then just do it. Take action. Release control of the outcome and surrender to whatever will be. Focus on the next step as you move toward your goals. As soon as you do, the fears start to lose power. The reality doesn’t match your worst case scenario imaginings.

For my climb, I knew my goal (as crazy it may be) – to climb that pole and somehow pull myself up to balance on top of that dinner-plate-sized shaky circle. I named my fear – fear of failure and embarrassment. Then I raised my awareness, got curious and dug deeper to uncover the real root of my fears, which allowed me to reframe it. That reframe empowered me to take action. And then I climbed, spike by spike, and staple by staple, planting my foot, pulling myself up, just focusing on the next step. And then the next. Taking a breath will each hoist.

When I got to the top, perched awkwardly like a gangly stork on the top pegs, uncertain how to maneuver from that aerial squatting position to somehow getting a foot on top of the small circle and pressing up to stand to full height, I drew on the strength of the sisters below, shouting encouragement, reminding me of my strength, telling me I was unstoppable. Again, reframing (or maybe just recognizing) that the audience I so feared was in fact a source of power, took me to the top, where I stood on strong legs with arms outspread, taking in the bird’s eye view from on high. So here’s to you employing these simple tactics when you face your next fear. Enjoy the view from wherever that may be for you!

Last week we talked about how to effectively use concessions in bargaining. I realized from questions and comments I received that I may have put the cart before the horse. Because while the art of concession is undoubtedly an important part of the process, it’s important first to know your BATNA before going into any negotiation. And no, that’s not a typo for the shoe museum. BATNA is the acronym for Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. In other words, before you start to bargain, try to have a clear sense of what your options are if you don’t get a deal in that particular negotiation.

What do I mean by that? Let’s take the example of making a purchase (whether it’s for a car, major appliance, house or pair of shoes that you’ve fallen in love with). If you see an identical pair of shoes at two different stores and the price is lower at one, then, assuming they both have your size in stock, your BATNA is the store with the lower price. In other words, if you know store A has the shoes for $50 cheaper and store B won’t budge on price, you can walk away because you have a better option – a strong BATNA. But if store A didn’t have your size in stock, you can still use the price at store A as a BATNA when bargaining for a better price at store B but you may or may not want to walk away if you know you can’t actually get the shoes that day from store A. Or, what if store A was across town and it was an hour drive to get there, or $50 taxi ride to get there, or it was your last day in town and you didn’t have time to get back to store A? You get the idea. Store A may not actually be a better BATNA, so you may not want to walk away even if you can’t get the price dropped at store B. Make sense?

When you’re making a purchase, you’ll typically be looking at a number of factors. Price is the obvious usual suspect. So, if the item you’re looking to purchase has an offered price that’s above the price you know you can get elsewhere, then you have a strong BATNA (best alternative potentially available). I say potentially because there are other factors to consider in most cases (as demonstrated in the example above). People often get stuck on comparing only price and end up walking away when in fact their BATNA is not as strong as they initially thought.

Purchase of a car is an obvious example but it’s been overdone in the literature on this issue, so let’s consider another option to further explore this concept. If you’re bargaining for a washing machine (and yes, shopping for a car or washing machine is – or should be – a negotiation) you may find a machine for a price that looks attractive. For easy numbers (to show the concept) let’s say you saw machine A for $1000. You’re now looking at another machine (B) at a competitor for $1200. On its face, it looks like machine A is a better deal. Most articles talking about BATNA advise that if you’re negotiating for machine B, you know that machine A is your BATNA so if you can’t get the price for B below $1000 then you would walk away because your best alternative is better. This is helpful at its basic level to demonstrate the concept of BATNA but it does a disservice in terms of making you a better, more effective negotiator.

Focusing only on price is too narrow a view and will almost certainly bite you at some point. In fact, one of the problems in our society today is that we’ve all become so conditioned to look for best price above all else that production quality is dropping and it’s becoming more challenging to find long-lasting quality items at all (as manufacturers/suppliers/retailers who maintain quality get squeezed out, unable to compete with what I call the ‘Walmart’ mentality). But that’s a rant for another day.

On the issue of the BATNA for our current washing machine saga, however, price likely shouldn’t be your only consideration in determining your BATNA. Machine A may be $200 cheaper and seem like the better deal on its face, but machine B may have a better warranty, be a better, longer-lasting supplier, or have a special delicate cycle that’s missing in machine A which means you won’t have to hand-wash your intimates ever again. Surely that’s worth $200! And there’s the point. For me, not hand-washing my delicates would be worth $200, but for you maybe not.

BATNA is often personal. What constitutes a best alternative for you will depend on how you weigh the various factors at play. There’s no one right or wrong answer. Having said that, be sure to do your homework. What may seem like a great glittering BATNA at first glance may not be gold when you dig. Insurance is a great example of this. How many times have people been lured away from their current insurance provider on the promise of better premiums (BATNA) only to find that the quote they got was subject to a whack of conditions and the premium ends up being the same or worse at the end of day. Or maybe it turns out that the key coverage you need isn’t actually covered under the so-called better alternative.

Similarly, make sure your BATNA is real. If you have a job offer in hand and you’re trying to decide whether to accept it, or whether to negotiate for something more, you should ensure you’ve done your homework in advance where possible so you’re making decisions based on concrete, real alternatives – not vague hopes, dreams or expectations. Be careful not to give up a firm deal in hand for a potential BATNA in the proverbial bush.

BATNA’s can provide significant bargaining power when used effectively. Knowing you have alternatives available if the negotiation falls through gives leverage. It can help determine your reservation price (your bottom line). Because BATNA’s mean power in bargaining make sure you know (or at least consider and factor in) the other side’s BATNA as well.

How do you determine what your BATNA is? Ideally before any negotiation, contemplate, explore, and list all the alternatives available to you if the negotiation failed. Evaluate these options – consider and weigh the value of each to you. Pick the best of those options i.e. the one that would provide the best overall value to you. This is your best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). Now you can meaningfully set your bottom line. The more complicated the issue(s) you’re bargaining, the more layered your BATNA may become, but don’t panic as the principle stays the same.

Many a large, successful corporation has gone belly up because they over-estimated the strength of their BATNA and/or under-estimated the strength of the other side’s BATNA. Forewarned is forearmed. Now you’re forewarned.  Make sure this doesn’t happen to you.

We’ve talked a lot about social conditioning that holds women back from stepping into their power as negotiators. We’ve talked, too, about the importance of preparing for negotiations. Some people have been asking, “So what do I do when I’m in the negotiation? Give me some practical strategies for that, Cindy.” So, ever responsive to your needs, the next few blog posts will be a series dealing with hands-on skills and tools you’ll need when you’re in the thick of it. Because let’s face it – you can’t get to the end of the negotiation and get the results you want without first going through the negotiation.

First up on deck is the misunderstood art of concessions. Contrary to popular belief, concessions do not necessarily indicate weakness. While it’s true that concession is the act of yielding, skilled negotiators strategically plan for concessions in negotiations. I’m going to encourage you to adopt this practice. As with most things in negotiation, the key is to be intentional. Don’t let yourself get caught off guard, or be reactive, or get caught up in the moment and yield things you ought not to yield. Instead, be proactive. Plan in advance. Determine what concessions you’re willing to make and when. In other words, plan the when and what of concessions.

Be strategic. Negotiation is a dynamic process. Effective negotiations (especially those for long-term relationships) involve give and take. There will likely be trade-offs on both sides. Consider your priorities and the other party’s likely priorities. Similarly, consider your why (see my earlier post about the 5W’s) and the other side’s deeper why. Brainstorm to come up with concessions that you can afford to give without losing your needs, or better yet, that will help you get what you really need (by meeting the other side’s why without sacrificing your own). Be clear in your own mind about the boundaries or limits of what concessions you can afford to offer so you don’t slip past your own line in the sand. Be open to entertaining new possibilities while you’re knee-deep in the negotiation but be cautious not to let emotion (whether enthusiasm or fear) outweigh your judgement. Reflect on the pros and cons and consequences before you offer up new unanticipated or unplanned concessions mid-negotiation.

Also be strategic about the timing of your concessions. Many negotiation instructors will tell you to always make the other side give the first concession. I don’t agree. So long as you’ve done your work in advance, and planned for your concessions mindfully, you can use timing to your advantage with purpose. Depending on who you’re dealing with, it may be more effective to offer the first concession and then capitalize on that. Much like my response to those negotiators who advise to always be on higher ground than your ‘opponent’, it’s my view that if I’m strong in my position and my preparation, then nobody is going to move me off my mark unless I want to be moved. It won’t matter if they’re standing above me, below me or on their head. These tactics lose their power once they’re recognized and identified. So, feel free to play with the timing of your concessions – how and when you dole them out.

Having said that, be careful to manage expectations. If you offer too big a concession too early, you may signal to the other side that you don’t believe your own initial demands are realistic and/or signal that there’s more there. Avoid giving all your concessions too early. Pace yourself, so you have concessions in your back pocket to produce as a trade-off for something important that may come up during the negotiation. Studies suggest that people react more favorably to concessions which are doled out in increments rather than all at once. It’s like enjoying family holiday gifts leisurely over the course of the day rather than a mad feeding frenzy where nobody gets time to appreciate each item and moment. Pacing typically increases gratitude.

Before making a concession, consider: Is this still an issue? What’s the value of this concession to each side at this stage of the negotiation? Am I giving it all when something less would do? Has the other side ‘earned’ this concession or is there immediate value for me in giving it now? And I getting something in return? Don’t expect that your actions will speak for themselves and be appreciated on their own merits. Human nature often has people resist acknowledging the good deeds of others as a way to resist the reciprocity obligation. For some this is unconscious, for others intentional oblivion. Don’t be shy to name your concession. Depending on the relationship, you may want to make sure you identify your concession when you offer it up – both its cost to you and the benefit to the other party.

Tied to that, always be mindful to make sure there is reciprocity. In other words, make sure the other side is giving concessions to match your offers. Don’t fall into the trap of bargaining against yourself. Unless you have a good tactical reason to do so, avoid giving back to back concessions without anything in return. It’s okay to ask for reciprocity. In fact, I encourage it if the other side isn’t volunteering. Don’t make the mistake we often make as women, where we expect that our partners, kids or otherwise will know what we want and need. Ask for what you want. Identify your concession and suggest, specifically, what you think might be an appropriate reciprocal concession. This makes sure they don’t wiggle off the hook and try to take advantage, and it also increases the likelihood that you’ll get what you actually want rather than wasting a concession that’s of little value to you.

Know that it’s okay to offer contingent concessions. In other words, if you’re uncertain about the likelihood of reciprocity from your bargaining partner, then signal that you’re prepared to give x if they’re prepared to give or do y. While you don’t want every concession to come with strings tied to pre-conditions, it can be an effective way to move forward when reciprocity is not forthcoming. Ultimately, it’s about building trust and credibility.

Some people see concessions as the lifeblood of negotiations. Think about an upcoming negotiation (whether personal or professional) and brainstorm about your ‘asks’ and what possible concessions you could plan for (and how). Hopefully these few tips will give you the foundation to start practicing how to use concessions to your advantage to get what you want from the boardroom to the bedroom!

There’s debate about whether Polar caps are melting, whether polar bears are at risk, and whether a Polar Express really picks up kids in the middle of the night on Christmas eve to take them to the North Pole. But the more concerning debate right now is whether men and women are getting increasingly polarized and at risk of reaching a fatal tipping point in the balance of power from which the sexes can’t recover. Fake news or real world problems? What do you think?

We often hear about gender bias and usually assume it means bias imposed by men against women. But what about women’s own internal biases? Study after study has shown that when women are primed based on their gender they perform worse. What do I mean by that? In a study of a group of young women taking a math test, where half the control group were asked to identify their gender – just identify whether they’re male or female – that half performed worse than the half who didn’t have to identify their gender. In fact, in a Harvard study of Asian-American students, the young women performed better when they had to identify their ethnicity but worse when they had to identify their gender. Similarly, a national U.S study of students taking AP calculus showed that the young women who were asked to identify their gender before the test performed worse than those asked the question after. This result held true even in studies when the priming was subconscious. In other words, in another Harvard study, even when ‘feminine’ words (like lipstick, pink or doll), were subliminally flashed unbeknownst to the participants, those primed with the feminine words performed worse than those primed with neutral words.

Let’s think about that for a moment. If the mere idea of identifying as a woman somehow makes us under-perform and not achieve our actual potential or capabilities, what does that say about the limiting beliefs girls and women have internalized about their gender? Think of the destructive power of these beliefs.

It goes even further. Not only do studies confirm that our performance is negatively impacted, but some studies support that our very ideas about what we’re even interested in can be manipulated by gender priming. For example, in a joint Toronto and Boston psychology study, female undergraduate students who were subliminally flashed with images of women not visible to the naked eye in advance of answering a questionnaire, ended up expressing a preference for arts over math whereas those who had been primed with male images did not.

When I thought about these studies, it made me wonder, how many times have I held myself back or pursued a path that may not have been my heart’s desire without being aware of it. Can you think of a time or times when maybe you underperformed even though you knew your stuff cold and you weren’t sure why, or maybe you stopped yourself from asking for more money, or you let a man take your idea, or held your tongue til you thought it might bleed, or maybe just doubted yourself and held back from going for something big?

Why does this happen? Where does this come from? And how does it affect the workplace, relationships, and your ability to negotiate your life?

Consider that gender biases and priming work both ways. Women, it seems, are primed to feel ‘less than’. But men are primed too. Studies suggest that still today, even elementary school-aged young boys are already primed about what it means to be ‘a man’. If a box is drawn on the blackboard and described as the ‘man box’, and the young boys are asked to describe the kinds of attributes that should go inside this box – in other words, that make a ‘man’ – invariably they lay out a host of old-school stereotypical characterizations of men. Like stud, strong, doesn’t cry, loves sports, takes charge. In other words, an image of hyper-masculinity.

How many of the men in your life do you think have felt pressure to act a particular way or ‘show up’ a certain way that may not have reflected how they felt at that moment, or maybe at all. Have you ever noticed that forced posturing in your father, partner, sons or other men in your life?

‘So what?’ some women may say. ‘Boo hoo – poor men made to feel like dominant over-performers.’ How does that compare to a lifetime of being made to feel like a submissive ‘not enough’?

Maybe we need to rethink how we look at this. Maybe it’s time to start reframing the problem – or at least broadening the lens. Clearly it’s problematic and unacceptable that women are (and have been) systematically conditioned not to reach their full potential. We’re faced with a host of limiting beliefs imposed upon us before our first tooth breaks through our tender gums. But isn’t imposing an expectation of hyper-masculinity on boys before they lose their toothless grins just another form of limiting beliefs?

The tide is changing now. People can feel it. We have the MeToo! movement, the Women Rising movement, the Times Up! movement. We see men getting roasted at the Oscars. With it, we’re seeing a lot of finger-pointing and blaming on both sides. And the very fact that I’ve described it as ‘sides’ is telling. We’re, perhaps not surprisingly, seeing a lot of push-back – an ‘us and them’ polarization building in some quarters. But what if we consider that it doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game? What if it doesn’t have to be a win-loss? What if one group rising doesn’t need to be at the expense of the other group?

Maybe, in fact, the only way to break the destructive pattern of the damaging gender stereotypes and free women from these shackles they’ve borne, passed down generation after generation, is to recognize and similarly free men from the parallel shackles they’ve borne from their own damaging gender stereotypes.

Women – are you ready to bust through your limiting beliefs, have a voice and rise up? Are you also open to the possibility that to do that, we need to be sensitive to also reversing the stereotypes and conditioning we carry around the men in our life?

I suspect there will be a host of mixed reactions to this suggestion. From acknowledgement to curiosity to doubt to confusion to anger. That’s okay. It’s important to at least start the dialogue if we have any hope of making change – and hopefully making progress.

What if I suggested that women are instinctively and intuitively better negotiators than men? Would you balk? Reject the idea? At a minimum, I’m sure you’d ask, “So why do women still make less money than men? Why do they ask for less than men? Why do they hesitate in speaking up?” All good questions.

Years ago, the question of male versus female negotiating styles would have seemed moot, if not absurd. Women simply weren’t in the business world in any significant sense, so their negotiation methods seemed an unnecessary consideration. Today, however, women are in boardrooms all across the world and are making constant strides forward on the entrepreneurial landscape. Further, there’s an increased awareness that much in life is a negotiation and those who don’t learn the art lose out. Sadly, women tend to be less likely to learn these fundamental skills, whether for the boardroom, the bedroom, or all the spaces in between. And so I believe that a consideration of women’s negotiating styles, and whether they differ from styles employed by males, is both relevant and critical.

Research has shown that the starting salaries of male graduates are often higher than those of female graduates in the same field. How to explain this? Is it the result of unscrupulous employers deeming female labour to be less valuable than the labour of their male counterparts? That’s a tempting solution, as it simplifies matters and immediately creates a ‘bad guy’ to fight against. The reason, however, is not so simple. What I’m getting at is this: while devaluation of women undoubtedly played some part in the historic and continuing endemic lower salaries for women (and sadly that includes devaluation by both women and men), bargaining effectiveness may also play a significant role in explaining the different starting salaries.

In a study on the subject, men and women were offered comparable initial offers . However, in the aggregate, men made more money. Why? The reason could come down to negotiation practices. Men were found, in close to 60% of cases, to ask for more money when they got job offers. Only about 7% of women asked for more money. How simple is that? Men asked for more and as a result they got more. Well that might go some way toward explaining the difference, but it doesn’t answer the obvious question: why did men feel confident in negotiating their starting salaries while women did not?

Some scholars posit that the reason for this comes down to social expectations, arguing that boys are taught to ask for things, while girls are taught to focus on the needs of others, rather than their own. The social expectation is that men will be bold while women are expected to be modest. Even when women in that rarified 7% do negotiate their initial terms of employment, they don’t get salaries as attractive as the men who negotiate. Again, we have to ask why? Are women negotiating differently, and less effectively?

Well, studies suggest that women negotiate differently and even the women who do negotiate typically ask for less and have lower personal expectations. Some believe that gender differences result from power differences and that women who face social inequalities may unconsciously self-categorize themselves into a lower status when engaging with other people. Naturally, this would be detrimental to negotiation success for women.

When scholar, Linda Babcock, wrote her PhD she delved into the reluctance of women to both negotiate and/or to ask for as much as their male colleagues. Her work found that women are 45% more likely not to think they can change their circumstances and women were less likely to believe they could exercise control over their own circumstances. Think about that for a moment. Think about going into a negotiation already doubting that you can change your circumstance or even exercise control over your own circumstances. Needless to say, this would have profound negative impact on women’s sense of empowerment and their corresponding likelihood to negotiate for more vis-à-vis men who come from a starting point of innate belief that they can control their circumstances.

Scholars attribute the more beneficial results men achieve in bargaining to “negotiator aspiration levels” in the sense that men pursue higher bargaining goals than women. Men are more apt to accept the risk that their expectations may lead to a failure to negotiate a settlement while women tend to be more risk-adverse and to avoid situations where the negotiations may fail. Is it any wonder given the limiting beliefs that plague many women, passed on from generation to generation?

So, yes, it seems that perhaps women and men do negotiate differently, or with different concerns and expectations. These differences could come down to social expectations. Boys are expected to be competitive while girls are supposed to value cooperation and to avoid conflict. It’s worth noting that these expectations are not just imposed by males on females, but rather, many of these expectations are imposed by females on other females. In fact, these expectations appear early in life, with studies showing that girls in kindergarten already socialize each other to be self-effacing, with significant perceived adverse consequences (from the other girls) if they brag or seek status. By contrast, kindergarten boys are rewarded for this behaviour.

So perhaps it is not surprising that research states that women tend to approach negotiation differently than men and that women typically reach less favourable agreements than men. A controlled field study on male and female car buyers, found that women were given higher purchase prices than men and that they ended with higher care prices than men. It seems clear that gender played a role in the expectations of the car salespeople. Social role theory would suggest that beliefs and behaviours are based on what is expected of a person based on traits like gender i.e. the fact that the salespeople expected women to know less about car prices and to be less likely to negotiate impacted on those negotiations to the detriment of the women.

Light at the End of the Tunnel

However, it’s not all doom and gloom for women on the negotiation front. Social psychologists have argued that for women, bargaining assertively is construed as consistent with female gender roles in some contexts yet inconsistent in other contexts. This expectation of gender roles seems to hold both internally and externally. And so, women adjust their bargaining behaviour to manage social impressions. A key area where we see this is advocacy—whether a woman is bargaining on her own behalf or on another’s behalf. In self-advocacy contexts, women anticipate that being assertive will evoke negative attributions (i.e. she’s a ‘bitch’) and backlash (i.e. exclusion). As a result, women rein in their assertiveness, shy away from competing tactics and obtain lower outcomes. However, when women advocate for someone else, they typically achieve better outcomes as they don’t expect backlash and so don’t hedge.

This shows us that women are not less capable bargainers and are actually able to adjust their bargaining styles depending on the supposed needs of a given situation. This is a great strength that women can use to their advantage in negotiations. Professor Deborah Kolb argues that “the degree to which a negotiator takes up a gendered role and how that role is expressed is likely to be fluid and fragmented.” In other words, negotiators are multifaceted and women can decide which aspect of the many roles we play to bring forward in any given negotiation i.e. as mother, wife/partner, lawyer, daughter, grandmother, etc.

Additionally, according to research, bargaining and negotiation skills stem from emotional intelligence factors, or the ability to have and utilize interpersonal skills (including empathy and intuition). While this is undoubtedly a reasonable conclusion, it leaves the question of why men achieve better negotiation results, given that girls are typically raised to be more focused on inter-personal relationships than boys.

Still further, studies have found women to be more endowed with is a superior ability to read nonverbal cues than men. With studies finding more than 50% of bargaining language to be nonverbal, women should have a definite advantage to their male counterparts.

What does this mean for women? We have the skill set. We’re just reluctant to use it as a result of social conditioning. The good news is that once we bring awareness to the issue, we’re on our way to fixing the problem. In other words, you now have awareness that you do, in fact, possess the necessary skill and ability to negotiate effectively to get what you want and need. The only thing that may have been holding you back is your cultural programming. But since you control your thoughts and behaviour, you hold the key to consciously change the thought processes and limiting beliefs that have unnecessarily held you back. You can choose to use your natural negotiation skills and talents and start to bring them to bear in every negotiation – whether you’re advocating for someone else (where your lioness is already loose) or for yourself (where you need to remind yourself to release your lioness).

Stay tuned for more articles to come, discussing the art of feminine negotiation, why we haven’t been taking advantage of our intuitive talent in this arena, and showing/reminding you how you can tap into your natural gifts to negotiate more effectively – from the boardroom to the bedroom!

Know the Who

And so we come to the bittersweet end of our 5W journey together. You’ve now explored how to use why, when, where and what as extra tools in your negotiation toolkit. I hope you see the value in applying these lessons, with intention, to your future bargaining. If so, you will set yourself apart and better position yourself to be a more influential and effective negotiator in both your personal and professional life. In this final installment, we complete our review of these quintessential W’s (sorry – couldn’t resist the play on words) as we consider the who of your negotiations.

Who are you?

This may seem like a ridiculous question, but trust me when I say it’s definitely worth giving this question serious consideration. If your negotiation is professional, what’s your position, title, and authority? Is there a hierarchy at play, and if so, where do you fit in that hierarchy? Who will the other side see you as? Will they see you as someone to take seriously or someone they’ll try to fluff off? Think about this and be prepared. Factor it into your strategy. Find a way to use this insight to your benefit. If the buck stops with you, use that. If not, find a way to make it advance your needs. If someone is likely to underestimate you, use that against them. Turn it to your advantage.

If this is a personal negotiation, are you coming into this negotiation as a mom, daughter, sister, wife or neutral? I had an experience recently where I was dealing with my daughter and I desired a particular outcome. As a mom, I was very invested in pushing for the outcome I wanted for her best interest. The conversation did not go well. I realized (too late) that if I were coaching a client on this issue I would never have approached it the way I had. My passion in ‘mom’ mode sabotaged my effectiveness as a negotiator in my exchange. Had I been able to maintain a more ‘neutral’ and compassionate approach I would likely have gotten infinitely better results – for her and me.

Similarly, with a life partner, we’re much more likely to let emotion enter our bargaining and potentially undermine our position in ways we’d never contemplate or tolerate in a third party situation. In advance of your discussion, consider, with intention, what role you want to negotiate from to maximize your effectiveness. Even though you’re negotiating with your kid or life partner, you may or may not want to come at the negotiation in that ‘role’. Be deliberate in making this decision.

Who do you want to show up as?

You may be scratching your head, wondering what I mean by that. Relax, I’m not suggesting dress-up or role play. Every interaction, every moment of every day, you get to choose how you want to show up – who you want to show up as. Will you show up with compassion? Integrity? Presence? Generosity? Vulnerability? Or is this an exchange where you need to show up tough? Confident? Controlled? You get the idea. Making this decision consciously, in both your personal and professional life can profoundly change your relationships and your interactions. Imagine choosing who you want to show up as every evening before you step through your front door or every morning before you step across the threshold at work. Imagine the power of choosing how you show up for every exchange.

Who are you negotiating with?

Once you’ve examined yourself and decided who you’re going to show up as in any given communication, do the same for the other party. Who are they likely to show up as? Consider this in advance of the meeting or discussion. For example, do you anticipate that they’ll bring their game face with bluster and bravado and aggression, or play the victim card? Be prepared either way. Also consider if they show up differently, how would you best handle it?

Who should you be negotiating with?

Have you ever conducted a negotiation with someone only to have them claim to not have authority to give you what you need at the end of the conversation? Perhaps before you decide how to handle your bargaining counterpart’s approach, consider if they’re even the best person to address the particular issue with? If not, who should you negotiate with? Maybe it makes sense to have a preliminary discussion with the intended negotiator, but maybe you should resolve this issue right out of the gate and insist on speaking to the appropriate person from the outset for maximum efficiency and results.

Tied to that, consider who else can or should be included in the negotiations. Whether on your side or the other side, who could help give you an edge? Maybe someone on your ‘team’ has a particular viewpoint or expertise or style that would resonate deeply with your counterpart. If so, consider bringing them in. Likewise, maybe someone on the other party’s ‘team’ would be highly sympathetic to your proposal. If so, try to find a way to have them included. The opposite is also true. Who should be excluded from the discussions if at all possible? If someone has an ax to grind with you, maybe find a way to keep them away from the table. If someone has a history of taking a hard line on the issue you need, try to bypass them if possible. Or maybe, just having too many cooks stirring the broth is a problem in itself and culling the herd will yield you better results. Again, considering these angles with intention will elevate your bargaining and increase your effectiveness to get you better results.

Who will be impacted by your negotiation?

We sometimes forget about the ripple effect of our actions. Negotiations are no exception. Think about the potential impact of your bargaining on others who may not be at the table. Sometimes a shortsighted gain in the moment may have disastrous long-term impact on others. Negotiating a ‘win’ on one issue may negatively impact on other important relationships in your life. These are factors that a skilled negotiator will contemplate and incorporate in the preparation process. So should you if you want to up your game and get the best outcomes.

As with the earlier articles in this series, this piece is intended to raise a smattering sample of who questions for you to contemplate. It’s designed to open your perspective and show the benefits of a broader vision in bargaining. My hope is to get you thinking about the possibilities the 5 W’s could open up if you consider and consistently apply them to your negotiations. If you do so with forethought and intention, you can move the dial to stack the odds in your favour. Take advantage of every possible edge. You’ll have more influence, be more persuasive and get better outcomes in your negotiations. It’s simple and powerful – like most great ideas.