There’s an interesting post on the Harvard blog entitled, “Why a Great Individual Is Better Than a Good Team.” Jeff Stibel (*1) argues that, ‘great individuals are not only more valuable than legions of mediocrity, they are often more valuable than groups that include great individuals.’ Here’s a link, if you’d like to read the whole article.

The following are some telling extracts from 22 pages of comments:

• It takes a full orchestra to perform Beethoven’s 9th symphony, but an orchestra did not write this or any other symphony.
• Certain realms of achievement can only be reached by great individuals and not a team
• Mediocre minds can destroy the value or contribution of a great mind. (Exceptional people are usually slowed down [obstructed] by people who don’t appreciate what they say/do/etc.)
• The team has its place, as does the individual.
• An individual cannot succeed without a team to support him [in the vast majority of cases].

Well over 2,000 years ago Euripides wrote, “Ten good soldiers wisely led will beat a hundred without a head.” He did not suggest one extraordinary person acting alone could do the same.

Some individuals have exceptional talent and others are full of bright ideas. Enabling these potentially great individuals to contribute fully to a joint endeavour is one mark of a really good leader. Some things are best done solo, especially creative tasks like sculpture, composing and computer programming. However, in most organisations there are few opportunities for individuals to achieve much without the consent or support of others.

For the vast majority of people, overall effectiveness does not come just from being effective as an individual. It also requires interacting successfully with others. Stephen Covey explains this neatly in The Seven Habits (*2). It’s also why, in this short video clip I suggest that if you really wish to improve the way an organisation performs, you need to focus on the capacity of people to work well with others.

*1  Jeffrey Stibel, Chairman and CEO of Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp and author of ‘Wired for Thought’
*2  The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, by Stephen Covey

The editor-in-chief of Helsingin Sanomat in Finland wrote yesterday that the foundation of successful negotiation ”lies on mutual trust and respect, a mutual vision of the situation, and a shared goal.” That is too idealistic.

While these things can be helpful, they cannot be required as the foundations for success. It is virtually inevitable that these political parties have low levels of trust and respect for each other and they will find it difficult to agree a mutual vision and shared goal – at this stage. That lack of trust and respect will grow if they assume that horse trading is the right way to negotiate.

Trust takes time to develop. At the outset of a negotiation, it is normally best to be neutral about trust, neither trusting nor distrusting the people with whom we negotiate until we know them better. A more realistic starting point is for the parties to recognise that they are likely to be better off by working together and to explore that possibility through a constructive dialogue. Being better off means satisfying more of their own interests by cooperating, rather than choosing their alternative.  Sound communication, with a realistic focus on this interdependence, helps to form the bridge that makes workable coalitions possible.

I suspect that Finnish politicians are similar to those in most countries, they genuinely believe that they are seeking to make the country a better place for its citizens. They may disagree how to achieve that end and as observers we may think they are deluded, but politicians are usually sincere in their belief that they are trying to do the right thing for the country.  If the parties stop focusing on their demands and positions and seek to understand what they and the other parties are really interested in, they will find that they have more in common than they currently acknowledge. Then they will need to expand their thinking and be more creative in order to explore how those interests can be satisfied in ways that are mutually acceptable.

When they find they have conflicting interests, as will inevitably happen, they must seek to agree a resolution that is fair and reasonable – some objective, external benchmark is helpful. Hard bargaining seldom achieves this legitimacy. Resorting to power undermines constructive negotiation in many ways. It makes people cagey about sharing information and reluctant to accept the validity of another party’s proposals. It also reduces commitment to the outcome.

Many people perceive negotiations purely in terms of the bargaining and haggling that commonly takes place in commercial deals. In this model, power is the key to success. But sound negotiation is much more than such horse trading. It embraces the full process through which parties with different starting points seek to agree a good way forward. The most constructive approach includes a lot of respectful persuasion and problem-solving to find the best solution, while minimising the role of power.  It is very demanding.

Sadly, it looks like Finland’s politicians, like ours in Britain last year, have adopted the cruder approach. It’s a bit late to start retraining the party leaders in Finland as crisis negotiators,  but I’m sure a good mediator would be very helpful in their current situation. Pity I don’t speak Finnish.

Corruption is one of those moral issues that many negotiators face. So, it was interesting to hear that callers to Radio London were apparently split 80/20 against the principle of bribing the decision makers.

This blog is about providing practical insight and guidance, not expounding about ethics. The choice we make between principle and pragmatism, when we are negotiating for ourselves, is a personal one. When negotiating on behalf of others, as I said before, we should be comfortable explaining our decision to them. So, it’s interesting to note that 80% might find it hard to accept that bribery is appropriate.

Many people believe one should always try to negotiate before resorting to force or litigation. After all, negotiating doesn’t mean giving up everything that matters to you. It only involves seeking to reach an agreement that serves your interests better than the alternative.

This reasoning ignores the fact that negotiating has its own costs, one of which is time. Negotiating may allow an adversary time to become more powerful. Or it may allow a situation, which we believe should end immediately, to continue while we talk. What if negotiating could be seen as a sign of weakness or indecision? There are times when negotiating could be a tactical mistake.

Recent events in Libya and parts of the Middle East elicit challenging questions about other situations in which it may seem wrong to negotiate. Are there some people, such as terrorists, with whom it is always wrong to parley? Could negotiating give credibility to a party that doesn’t deserve recognition? Could it legitimise and encourage bad behaviour?

Fortunately, few of us will ever have to decide whether it’s right to negotiate with terrorists or vicious dictators. But there are times, when we are so enraged by the behaviour of another party, that we feel it would be wrong to negotiate with them. Examples may be when they have done us enormous harm, reneged on a promise or made extortionate demands.

Situations like these tend to arouse strong emotions and make us feel betrayed, angry or unable to trust the other party. These feelings are intuitive, virtually instant and affect the way we interpret facts. Strong feelings make it difficult to think clearly, but ignoring them is not the answer. It makes sense to respect our feelings, without allowing them to take control. But it’s not easy.

Dealing effectively with demons, who have wronged us or pose a serious threat to our welfare, calls for a combination of intuitive and analytical reasoning. We need time to think. The first step to getting on top of the situation is counting to ten (or a lot higher) before reacting. This is easier when we are aware of our own ‘hot buttons’ and the risk of cognitive distortion. That’s when our mind convinces us of something that isn’t necessarily true. It also helps to remember that we still have the right to cease negotiating and opt for an alternative later.

Thinking through challenging situations involves weighing the potential transaction, information and consequential costs of negotiating against the potential benefits. It helps to have a clear framework for our analysis.

1. identify the real interests of the parties
2. appreciate the alternatives each one has
3. decide whether there is potential to satisfy the interests of each party in a way that

• is better than the alternatives
• has a realistic chance of being implemented

It is appropriate to evaluate our gut instinct as part of this analysis. Many of the risks that our instincts warn us about can be managed as part of the negotiation. But our conscience will sometimes tell us to walk away, even when it may be pragmatic to negotiate. When negotiating would violate our core values and undermine our personal integrity, if it would make us complicit in something illegal or morally unacceptable, we may have to put principle ahead of pragmatism.

Backing our principles becomes more demanding, when we represent other people, who will live with the consequences of our decision. Sometimes, it may be prudent to canvass their opinion before deciding, but this won’t always be practical. At the very least, we should be comfortable explaining our decision to them.

Deciding whether to reject negotiation in situations like this is a tough test of character. It requires responsibility, courage and self respect. When the stakes are high, it would be rash to decide alone. But, when all is said and done, we may have to seek reassurance in the words of Mahatma Ghandi, “a ‘No’ uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please or, what is worse, to avoid trouble.”

Please leave a comment or get in touch, if this is an issue you’d like to discuss further.

If you want to read even more about this, I can recommend “Bargaining with the Devil – when to negotiate, when to fight” a book by Robert Mnookin, which you can buy here http://amzn.to/jvcepe

Integrity has two pragmatic advantages for negotiators. The first relates to what happens when things go wrong. The essence of integrity is adherence to moral principles. When we deal with people who consistently behave in a way we respect, we are more likely  to be comfortable working with them. Integrity helps us build relationships in which people are prepared to give each other the benefit of the doubt. This helps us overcome difficulties, especially when nobody is at fault. We are also more likely to forgive the mistakes of people we trust.

Integrity also involves unity or wholeness. In this context, we may learn something from martial arts. I am told by those who should know that one is better served by mastering a single martial art than mixing them together. A black belt in either karate or judo will likely fare better in a fight than someone who has a brown belt in both. Goodness knows what would happen to someone who tried to do sumo and judo simultaneously! In much the same way, mastering one method of negotiating achieves better results than picking and switching between several.

A common approach to negotiating focuses on the use of incentives and sanctions as the source of power. Value Negotiation has a different focus, emphasising the important role of communication and relationship. Minimising the use of power, especially sanctions, reduces resistance. This enables people to cooperate more fully and maximise creativity. A negotiator who mixes the two approaches will confuse other people and run into difficulty.

Negotiators confronted by someone who is underhand face a real dilemma. How should one respond when dealing with someone two-faced, who cheats, lies, connives, plots, stabs you in the back and twists the meaning of commitments after they have agreed something (otherwise known as deal creep)? Like the security services, the negotiator who responds by giving up his own integrity will leave himself navigating without a compass. That is scary and ultimately leads to failure.

If you are faced with the challenge of negotiating with a difficult person and would like to discuss this with someone experienced in this field, try visiting www.aransa.co.uk or send us an email to info@aransa.co.uk

A survey in 2007 discovered that a business dispute with a value of £1m typically took up 3.2 years of line management time. That’s not counting staff in corporate services, who are paid to deal with these matters. It’s the time spent by people who are paid to run the business.

The CIPD has calculated that the total time spent on dealing with conflict costs UK businesses £24 billion each year. That’s roughly 2% of GDP. What if you could halve that figure in your business and save 1% of gross revenue? How much would that be worth?

When people are at odds they don’t communicate effectively. Conflict affects the quality and timing of decisions, including some that may decide the future of a business.

Unresolved conflict is also a distraction. How well do you concentrate, when you are still thinking about things you wish you’d said during an argument?  Conflict takes its toll on the people involved and affects the morale of those around them.

Disputes can also have an impact on your company’s reputation and could lead to customers heading off to your competitors.

All of this leads to reduced productivity, missed targets, and lost opportunities. The cumulative cost is staggering.

The same 2007 survey estimated the damage from disputes cost UK businesses £33 billion. Across the board, that equates to a percentage of net profit in double figures.

What would it be worth to add 5 to 10 percent to your net profit?

Few companies have plans in place to manage conflict effectively.  Many people think disputes are an inevitable cost of doing business. Some believe conflict isn’t worth planning for. They’d rather just react to each dispute as it happens. Worse still, they stick their head in the sand and pretend it will never happen in their business.

Few people like conflict. Most go out of their way to avoid it. But wouldn’t you rather have people who could think clearly, act appropriately and find a positive way forward when faced with a dispute?

Imagine the money and management time you would save.  Without the drain on your resources you could improve productivity, results, morale and goodwill.

Where to start

The impetus for change must come from the top of an organisation, where ultimate responsibility for corporate performance lies. People must know they are responsible and managers need to be accountable for managing disputes effectively.  Company policies must support them in this.

Policies and contracts can also provide for constructive procedures to resolve disputes efficiently, including the early use of neutral mediators if required.  There should be no stigma in seeking assistance to resolve disputes.

And always remember that conflict is inevitable when people interact.  Enable people to negotiate effectively and the payback will be enormous. Contact Aransa to discuss how we can help you do this with a measurable return on investment.

With a more principled approach, the negotiations now underway could mark the start of a real change in the way this country is run.  By adopting Value Negotiation, our politicians can show the country a new way of doing business together.

Positional bargaining

Most people expect the negotiations between the political parties will involve some form of positional bargaining.    The language used by political commentators on TV and radio certainly suggests it’s what they expect.

Bargaining is a familiar approach to negotiations that most readers will recognise. Parties try to broker a deal by trading concessions in areas of difference.  They try to gain in areas they consider as being more important, while making concessions in areas of lesser importance.    They often start by seeking agreement in areas where they have common interests.

Bribes, threats, bluff, brinkmanship, horse-trading and compromise are familiar components of bargaining negotiations.  Power is the key to success.  It comes in the form of things one side has that the other side wants (incentives) or one side could do that the other wishes to avoid (threats).  It’s a bruising process that can often strain relationships, especially if one side feels they’ve come out less well than the other.   But it doesn’t have to be like this.

A more positive approach

If Cameron and Clegg genuinely wish to negotiate a strong and stable basis for governing Britain, they would do well to start with Value Negotiation. [1]

Instead of setting out their stalls and diving straight into discussing the issues, they should first spend some time discussing the negotiation process itself.  This is a much easier place to start building a bridge between them, especially after the things they have said about each other during the election campaign.   Building a better relationship and a healthy negotiating dialogue creates s good platform for discussing the issues of substance.  A helpful guiding principle is ‘seek first to understand and then be understood,’ while focusing on interests rather than positions.

People who understand each other often find they can achieve much more together than they can separately.   Negotiators who recognise this interdependence tend to generate more creative and valuable options together.   They also think of appropriate ways to agree what is fair and reasonable, when it comes to deciding who gets what.  This legitimacy can be very important when negotiators need to explain the outcome to other stakeholders.

The negotiators must communicate with key stakeholders effectively.  (When it comes to how the country is governed, the biggest stakeholder of all is the British public.)  An early message should address expectations about how long the negotiations might take.   It doesn’t have to take too long, but it’s likely to take more than a couple of days.

Sensitive handling of the five elements we have discussed so far – relationship, communication, interests, options and legitimacy – pave the way for a clear and reliable commitment to work together.  Or, if either party eventually decides that working together is less favourable than their alternative, this process at least offers them more hope for the future.  It’s not always possible for people to negotiate a way forward together.  But if they’ve developed a good relationship and communicated well during the negotiation, they will be better disposed to try again in the future.

Looking to the future

If the negotiations between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are successful, this will not be the only time Value Negotiation is appropriate for them.  They could use the same approach and skills in all the negotiations they will face, when dealing with the tough issues facing the country.

Given the state the country is in there will be plenty of negotiating challenges in the years to come – with trade unions, foreign governments, the financial sector and suppliers to the public sector, to name but a few.  Adopting a new way of negotiating would provide long term benefit for Britain and change forever the way this country is run.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with revisiting an existing agreement. It happens a lot, especially when reality turns out to be different from what was anticipated at the time the contract was formed. The success of any subsequent negotiation depends on a number of factors, but above all the competence of the people involved. This doesn’t just mean the negotiators, but also the people directing and influencing them.

Competence involves a combination of knowledge, skill and attitude. If the team at the heart of the negotiation knows what it’s doing and why, negotiates skilfully and has the right attitude, there is often plenty of scope to improve the value of existing deals.

However, the task should not be rushed into. To do so increases the risk that trust will be harmed and the relationship will suffer. The task then becomes much harder and less likely to achieve optimal results.

The maximum value is achieved when the approach to renegotiation is genuine win-win. Unfortunately, there are relatively few people who really understand what this means. Many people think of win-win only in terms of the outcome and believe that it means that both parties gain something from the negotiation. This view is prevalent among people who perceive negotiations purely in terms of bargaining or trading and falls well short of what is actually possible.

The distinguishing feature of win-win negotiations is the focus on effective communication to gain value instead of relying on power. Through effective communication, parties in a negotiation get to understand each other far better and can become allies in finding value.

Whereas the use of power naturally generates resistance and resentment, effective communication allows for low risk exploration of the potential value in cooperating. The ‘Value Negotiation’ process provides the methodology for doing this. Mastering it takes time and the best results are usually achieved by working with a mentor.

Rather than wading in at the deep end by trying to renegotiate existing contracts, a better starting place might be to ensure that new contracts achieve better value. Then, when the people responsible have practiced value negotiating in new contracts, they would be better equipped to re-open some of the existing ones.

If you are faced with the challenge of contracts that are not working well and are interested in discovering an approach to negotiations that is more profitable than conventional bargaining, try visiting www.aransa.co.uk or send us an email to info@aransa.co.uk

No more pussyfooting: let’s show the world Labour is serious
Labour needs to get red in tooth and claw if it’s going to be in with a fighting chance

Ignoring the subject, the language itself is a beautiful illustration of the confrontational mindset that besets not just the unions in this country, but also many managers with whom they negotiate. This win-lose mindset is a natural extension of the animal ‘fight or flight’ instinct, which is part of our DNA. Unfortunately, it is also the mindset that virtually guarantees a negotiation will not be win-win.

Bargaining is the most widely used and easily understood form of negotiation. It is based on thinking in terms of ‘us and them’. This is encouraged when one party seeks to get what they want by demonstrating or using power. It is evident in the models of negotiation that suggest power only comes from having something the other party wants or wishes to avoid. Therefore, they say, if you have no incentives or threats you have no power and cannot negotiate.

The use of power naturally generates resistance and resentment.  This becomes a problem in a negotiation by giving rise to a cycle of action and reaction. Very quickly negotiators can lose focus, control and the opportunity to create and discover value (present and future).

Getting beyond this power play or, better still, avoiding it altogether requires at least one party to try to get what he or she wants without resorting to the use of power. It usually requires the parties to spend some time appreciating the potential value in their relationship, separate from the substance of any specific negotiation. The key to success is in communication.

The art of constructive communication during negotiations can be learned and mastered through practice. Because it requires a significant change for many negotiators, having the support of a knowledgeable and experienced mentor makes a huge difference to the improvement of this skill.

If you are interested in discovering an approach to negotiations that is more profitable than conventional bargaining, try visiting www.aransa.co.uk or send us an email to info@aransa.co.uk

Gordon Brown seems to think that the level of public expenditure is an appropriate measure of how well the Government is serving the country. That just encourages waste. It is far from clear how the Conservatives would achieve their goal, but at least they have a good starting point: public spending must be focused on providing real value.

Delivering exceptional results starts with clarity about what really matters – purpose and values. These must be translated into sound objectives, which people are committed to achieving. It takes inspiring leadership and enlightened management to convert strategy into integrated performance. Many decisions are involved in this. Good ones require clear thinking and constructive negotiations between stakeholders.

Good information and intelligence are essential . Genuine respect between stakeholders improves communication and improves the flow and quality of information. It also improves the quality and efficiency of negotiations. Enlightened managers, therefore, build trust as an important step towards well-informed decisions that translate goals into reality and deliver outstanding value.

If you are faced with the challenge of defining goals or converting goals into reality and need help with some of the key decisions and negotiations try visiting www.aransa.co.uk