Turn An Argument Into A Negotiation

If you're ever in a conflict and you can't see a way out, it's probable that you are in the world of wants rather than the world of needs. I maintain that conflict resolution is easy: find out what people need and, if you can/are willing to, give them what they need.

Or, as the Rolling Stones sang, "You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need."

Let me distinguish wants and needs.

If you’re ever arguing and not arriving at an agreement, it’s a good bet you’re in the world of wants. People argue over wants because this world is one of limited resources such as people, money and/or time. In this world, there is a winner and a loser because there’s a limit to how much money, time and people are available. In this world, the person who has the “power” (usually due to authority but sometimes due to who can scream the loudest or pout the longest) will get what he/she wants and the others will be left with whatever is left over. It’s a prescription for dissatisfaction and resentment.

For example, if a couple has only one car and both want it, there will be trouble unless one party gives in to the other. In this case, the person who gives in may be resentful (against such small rocks do marriages crack).

The world of needs, on the other hand, is a world of almost unlimited possibilities. While people will argue in the world of wants, they will negotiate in the world of needs because they perceive that there are multiple ways to get their needs met.

For example, let us heal that couple's relationship by noting that, while both people want the car, neither of them actually needs it. 

If you’re arguing and not getting anywhere, ask the question, “Why is that important to you?” to get at the underlying need. For example asking, "Why do you need the car?" will yield the obvious answer "To get to (somewhere)" and, of course, while there is only one car, there are multiple ways "to get somewhere."

Whatever the conflict is about, if you reach an impasse, simply ask, "Why is that important to you?": "Why is getting that money important to you?" Why is being right so important to you." "Why is arguing important to you?"

The answer will always represent what the person needs. The conversation then shifts to the myriad ways needs might be met versus arguing over whose wants are more important.

Of course, if the person will only be satisfied by getting what he/she wants, that person is in a "take it or leave it position" which is not even worth talking about because you only have two choices: Take it or leave it. And, yes, you may choose to leave the relationship.

Finally, it’s important to remember that the most effective influencers are open to being influenced. While it may be easy to blame the other person, at every moment, you must be willing to admit that it may be you and not the other person who is arguing over what you want versus negotiating over what you really need.

Want To Improve Your Relationships? Don't Take It Personally

You may have heard the advice, "Don't take it personally" when you have been told something about yourself that was hurtful or that surprised you or that you disagreed with.

It's hard not to take it personally. Of course, it's personal, you might think. Wasn't the person speaking personally to me?

Actually, no. In reality, the advice not to take it personally is exactly right because it isn't personal. It's never personal because the feedback is not about you but is about the person giving the feedback. In fact, feedback is information for you about the person giving the feedback and what that person needs from you to improve the relationship with you.

I'm not at all suggesting that you ignore feedback you receive. In fact, I'm suggesting the exact opposite: Pay attention to every bit of feedback you receive because you're going to hear exactly what you must do to mend, improve or enhance a relationship from the perspective of the feedback giver and only from the perspective of the feedback giver. Someone else might love the very behavior for which you are being criticized.

By the way, this also applies to feedback that you love to hear. It's not personal. It's information about what you should keep doing in order to maintain a good relationship with the person who gave you the feedback and only with that person. Someone else might dislike the very behavior for which you have just been praised.

Years ago, I was told, "Everything you do is manipulative." It was so long ago I don't even remember who said it or what the circumstances were, but I do remember being stunned by the comment. I thought about it for days. I still think about it although it was so long ago that the sting is gone.

I had no idea what he meant by the comment and I still don't. I was too embarrassed and ashamed to find out. After all, I want to be authentic and trustworthy, not manipulative and sneaky.

I wish I knew then what I know now. Whatever the person meant by his comment would have been incredibly useful feedback not only to improve my relationship with that person but, perhaps, with all people. But I was so busy taking it personally that I missed the golden opportunity with which I was being presented. I failed to ask the simple question, "What do you mean?"

Here's what I do now with all feedback but especially feedback that initially puts me back on my heels:

1.   1. Pause and take a breath before responding. Say to yourself, "It's not about me."

2.   2. If the feedback is particularly upsetting, buy yourself some time to get centered by simply parroting what you just heard. For example, "So you think that everything I do is manipulative."

3.   3. Ask, "Why do you think that" or "What am I doing that causes you to think that?"  Keep asking the person to clarify until the person tells you exactly what you are saying or doing that has caused him/her to give you the feedback.

4.   4. If you care about the relationship, do what the person has requested of you (unless, of course, it violates some ethical or moral principle). For example, if you're told, "you don't listen," listen. If you're told, "I never hear anything complimentary from you," give compliments. If you're told, "You don't help me clean the house," help. If you're told, "You didn't give me a chance to explain my side of the story," give the person a chance to explain his/her side of the story. Give up the right to be defensive and argumentative in exchange for improving the relationship.

In 1988, a woman named T. Cole-Whittaker wrote a book called, "What You Think Of Me Is None Of My Business." Great title. I would change that title, however, to "What You Think Of Me Is The Most Important Business Of My Life," especially if you are important to me.

It's just that what you think of me isn't personal.   

It's The Truth. Isn't It?

On August 14th, the television program "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" did what I thought was a brilliant piece of political satire that has implications for conflict and collaboration in every facet of life.

Mitt Romney had just selected Paul Ryan to be his running mate. "The Daily Show" commentators demonstrated what this might mean to the Republicans and Democrats by running two mock political ads.

In the first ad, presented as though the Republicans had created it, we see a picture of Paul Ryan. A narrator with an upbeat voice says, "Paul Ryan favors cutting 70 billion dollars out of Medicare and supports a tax plan that would cut top taxes to 1%."  The mock advertisement ends with the same upbeat narrator reading the following tagline seen on the screen: "Paul Ryan. The Change America Wants."

In the second ad, presented as though the Democrats had created it, we see the same picture of Paul Ryan. A narrator, using a voice appropriate to a horror movie says, "Paul Ryan favors cutting 70 billion dollars out of Medicare and supports a tax plan that would cut top taxes to 1%." The mock advertisement ends with the narrator, using the same scary voice, reading the following tagline on the screen: "Paul Ryan. The Change America Wants?" (notice the question mark.)

Our reaction to these ads, of course, depends on our point of view. Cut Medicare by 70 billion dollars. That's a good thing. No wait. That's a bad thing. Would the top tax rate really go to 1%? Great. Or not. Are these numbers accurate? Depends on our point of view.

We are human and, therefore, inescapably have a point of view. We argue not because we have a point of view but because we believe our point of view is right and other points of view are wrong or, at best, misinformed.

When someone says, "I don't see a solution," they aren't kidding. From their point of view (that is, from their way of seeing), they literally can't see a solution.

We can tell we're speaking from a point of view when we use the words "are" or "is." For example, "My boss is..." "My spouse is..." My children are..." "The (other) political party is..."

Points of view are a truth but not the truth. Creative solutions to our problems emerge when we meld our different points of view into something unique, something that no one could have seen (literally) when viewing the world strictly from one point of view.

What can we do about this that will make a difference? Well, for starters we can recognize that what we call "the truth" is a point of view open to interpretation.

It's when we think our point of view is the truth and others' points of view are merely opinion that conflict goes from being a disagreement open to resolution to one in which no agreement is possible.

How To Transform A Difficult Person

I was coaching Jennifer, a special education teacher in an elementary school, who contacted me just prior to school starting on September 4th. She had read my book on resolving conflict and wanted some help.

Jennifer was worried because she knew she would be seeing Miranda, a coworker on the team of teachers who worked with the special education kids. Miranda had more experience than Jennifer but wasn't Jennifer's supervisor.

As school was ending last June, Miranda had shocked Jennifer when, completely out of the blue and with a threatening tone of voice, she had attacked Jennifer's teaching methods, telling her that the way she interacted with the kids was doing more harm than good. Jennifer was furious but was too stunned to say anything.

Jennifer remained furious all summer. She told me she wanted to give up her need to be right about Miranda (which I advise people to do) and just listen to understand Miranda's opinion in the hope of learning something, but Jennifer was too angry and judgmental to do so.

Further, she was afraid to confront Miranda because, "I'm not a courageous person. My brain turns to mush and I just don't know what to say." 

Here's what I said to Jennifer:

1.   1. You have plenty of courage. Being courageous means that you act in spite of your fear, not in the absence of fear.

2.  2. Giving up the need to be right has nothing to do with giving up being judgmental and angry. Of course, you're judgmental and angry. Don't try and change your feelings. You can't. If I were in your shoes, I would be angry and judgmental. However, you can feel angry and judgmental and not act that way. This may seem phony to you, but part of giving up the need to be right is to not return anger with anger After all, if you don't listen to Miranda, why should she listen to you?

3.  3. Because you're worried about your brain turning to "mush," I recommend you write down and practice what you want to say to Miranda. I suggest you bring that piece of paper with you and preface what you're going to say with, "I'm nervous and I wanted to be sure and say this to you in the way that I want to say it. So I'm going to read this."

af   4. After explaining why you're reading what you wrote, I suggest you say something like this: "First, I want to tell you what a great job you do with the kids. I know there's a lot I can learn from you. However, when you spoke to me as you did, I shut down because the way you said it made it difficult for me to listen. I want to hear what you have to say. I request that when you have something to say to me you say it with a calm tone of voice so that I can hear you without getting defensive. Will you do that?"

 Always end your request with "Will you?" not "Could you?" "Would you? " "Can you?" or any similar variation.

 After asking, "Will you?" stop talking and just listen. If Miranda hesitates before responding, do not fill the silence. Just wait for her to talk.

5. When Miranda does talk, do not give your opinion until Miranda knows that she has been fully understood by you. Do this by paraphrasing and asking questions. Your goal is to understand Miranda so well that you could explain her position to a stranger and Miranda would agree that she has been well represented by you.

I spoke to Jennifer several days after school had started and she was ecstatic because her conversation with Miranda had gone spectacularly well. They had cleared the air and created agreements for how they would communicate in the future.

Jennifer had, indeed, written down and read what she wrote. Jennifer was especially glad that she had begun by "thanking her (Miranda) for meeting with me and telling her how much I admired her." Jennifer could see that Miranda, who had appeared defensive, relaxed her shoulders.

When Miranda responded, Jennifer told me she did listen even though "I had to bite my tongue to keep from jumping in with my opinion."

When Jennifer gave up her need to be right and listened, Miranda reciprocated (which often happens) and admitted that she wasn't "very good at this relationship thing" and revealed some things that had happened to her in childhood that had caused her to be the way she was. The conversation ended with Miranda apologizing and promising to behave differently.

As they parted, Miranda, who had previously stated she wasn't comfortable with the "touchy feely stuff," hugged Jennifer.

This situation is, of course, different than circumstances in your life. However, this is a good template for how to transform a difficult person in any circumstance.

A Position That Doesn't Have To Be Defended Is Most Open To Change

"Above all, he learned how to listen, with a still heart, with a waiting, open soul, without passion, without desire, without judgment, without opinions."

         Hermann Hesse Siddhartha

Siddhartha is the story of a man finding enlightenment when he gives up trying to find it and just listens to the world around him. The story parallels the life of Buddha but is not intended as a recreation of Buddha's life.

I love the "Siddartha" quote because I believe it is a brilliant prescription for conflict resolution, both the conflict within ourselves (when we try, through an act of will, to change ourselves) and the conflicts we have with other people (in which we try and change them).

Hesse is suggesting that the very act of trying to change others (and ourselves) produces resistance to change and that, paradoxically, giving up trying to change others (and ourselves) is what makes change possible.

These thoughts were inspired by a story from the September 4th, 2012 issue of "The Daily Good," an online blog. The article was first published in the Harvard Business Review and was written by Peter Bregman, CEO of Bregman Partners, a "global management consulting firm."

The story Bregman tells doesn't appear to be about a conflict, but it is.

Conflict is, by definition, a disagreement. Basically, conflict exists because one person, one group, one nation wants another person, group or nation to change and encounters resistance.

That's what happens in the story Bregman tells.

Bregman writes about visiting some friends whose 9-year old daughter had just returned home from a swim meet where she had been disqualified for a "false start" (that is, leaping into the water before the starting gun had been fired). The girl was close to tears.

The parents tried to change their daughter's perception by telling her that the false start indicated she was really trying hard to win, that every swimmer at some point is disqualified for a false start and that she'd have many more chances to win at other swim meets that year and in the years to come.

The parents' words did nothing to change their daughter's despair.

Just then, the girl's grandmother entered the room, sat beside the girl, put her arm around her and said nothing. The girl put her head on her grandmother's shoulder. After a few moments of silence, the grandmother said, "I know how hard you work at this, honey. It's sad to get disqualified."

After a few more moments of silence, the girl got up, wiped her tears and said, "Thanks, Mimi" (her grandmother's name).

Notice that the granddaughter changed when the grandmother didn't try to change her but simply validated the girl's experience ("It's sad to get disqualified.") and just listened.

Why does not trying to change produce change?

Consider: from the moment we leave the womb, someone is trying to change us. Our parents, our teachers, our friends, our coworkers, our bosses and the advertisements we read and see are all on a mission to influence us to change (I'm not judging whether the changes are for the worse or for the better).

Is it any wonder then that we are distrustful of those who seem to want us to change? What we may hear under the surface of every conflict is, "There's something wrong here, perhaps with you" and that,"I can fix you if you just do what I tell you to do."

But suppose, instead, we just listened as Siddartha did, as Mimi did, not to change but to understand? There would be no reason to be defensive because there would be nothing we'd feel the need to defend.

When in a conflict, listening "with a still heart, with a waiting, open soul, without passion, without desire, without judgment, without opinions" will produce change in us and others because, as someone once suggested to me, a position that doesn't have to be defended is most open to change.

You can read Peter Bregman's article here.

Resolving Conflict: Who Deserves The Cookies?

Dr. Dachner Keltner is a psychology professor at the University of California who studies how "humans negotiate moral concerns." One of the experiments he conducted has implications for conflict resolution. 

Here's the situation:

Imagine you have been arbitrarily designated as the leader of a team of three people who have been asked to develop ideas about how to curb drinking on college campuses.

Or, if you prefer, imagine you've been arbitrarily designated the leader of a team with two other business colleagues who are crafting an employee handbook.

Or suppose that you've been arbitrarily designated the leader of a team consisting of you and two other parents who are drafting a proposal to deal with bullying at your children's school.

Make up a team of your choosing if you don't like any of these situations. Whatever you choose, imagine you have become the leader purely by chance.

Now imagine that after exactly 30 minutes of being together, someone enters the room with a plate of four of your favorite cookies, fresh out of the oven.

You and the other two team members immediately reach for a cookie. They taste as delicious as they smell.

But who gets that fourth cookie still sitting on the plate? The solution is obviously to divide the cookie into three, equal pieces, right? 

Except when this experiment was carried out by Professor Keltner, that's not what happened. The experiment was conducted repeatedly with the same result: The leader of the team took the fourth cookie for himself/herself and ate it with relish, clearly enjoying this second cookie in full view of his/her cookieless teammates.

I first heard of this experiment in a talk given by Michael Lewis, author of "Moneyball," "The Blind Side," and "The Big Short," among other books. He was speaking to the 2012 graduating class of his alma mater, Princeton University.

On one level, this experiment merely confirms the old adage that "power corrupts." But Lewis used the results of the experiment for a slightly different purpose and one that has implications for conflict resolution.

Lewis cautioned the graduates to remember that it is easy when one gets to a leadership position or to a position of authority to imagine one automatically deserves an extra "cookie." And that one, by dint of that position, no matter how lucky one may have been to arrive there, needn't find it necessary to share one's "cookies."

But we don't have to be in a leadership position to face this dilemma. By definition, our point of view is the only one we've got. It's easy from our vantage point to believe it's the only one there is and, therefore, deserving of extra "cookies."

As Dr. Keltner notes on his website, "opposing partisans tend to assume that they alone see the issues objectively and in principled fashion."

At the very least, if we're interested in living and working cooperatively, we should consider the implications of the choices we make about how to divide the cookies.

You can watch Lewis's 13-minute talk at:

There Is No Cause. There Is Only Effect

On August 27th, 2012, the New York Times published an interview with the mother of Jeffrey Johnson, the man who killed a coworker in front of the Empire State Building.

When asked why she thought he did it, the distraught woman was as baffled as the rest of us. Valiantly trying to answer the reporter's question, she attributed her son's behavior to a car accident that had put him into a coma when he was in the sixth grade, then suggested that it might have happened because Jeffrey was devastated when a beloved cat recently died in his arms.

When police investigators were asked about a motive for the shooting, they theorized that Jeffrey did it because he blamed Steven Ercolino, the man he killed, for his recent job loss.

Jeffrey's mother and the police were simply doing what we all do when tragedy strikes: We search for answers in an attempt to make sense of the senseless. Why did they do what they did? Why do we do what we do?

I'm reading a book called "What Is The What" about one of the "Lost Boys Of Sudan" who, along with thousands of other boys (and girls), became homeless and orphaned as a result of the most recent Civil War in Sudan (there have been others, but the Darfur genocide has made us particularly aware of this one).

Reading the book is like listening to the explanation for why Jeffrey Johnson killed Steven Ercolino. To explain the Sudanese Civil War, one must begin with, "Thousand of years ago, the tribes of Sudan...."

The explanation for why anyone kills anyone might similarly begin, "Starting with when his great, great grandparents first arrived in the country..." and even that doesn't go back far enough.

And just try to explain the causes for the famous Hatfield/McCoys family feud (I can't even explain the game show of the same name).

In other words, if we start looking for cause and effect, we must logically go back to the beginning of the Universe when the Big Bang led to the formation of the Earth, the creation of mammals, then human beings and, finally, Jeffrey Johnson at the Empire State Building.

Or consider the every day world of people we don't get along with. We search for reasons why they are they way they are and we review our interactions with them for clues. But the explanation for why any of us think what we think and do what we do must begin with the beginning of time.

This is not to excuse or condone violence in any form. We must do everything we can to be sure people are safe and that sometimes means using force to stop force.

But if we are to end the seemingly unending conflicts in our lives, we have to stop searching for causes to blame it on and, instead, commit to the phrase, "I'm responsible."

We are the way we are because we've chosen to be the way we are. Even though neuroscience, philosophy and psychology at least since Freud, all question the degree to which we freely choose our actions, believing that we do at least gives us the possibility of altering life on this planet for our children and for ourselves.

At the same time, recognizing our limited ability to freely choose, we can show empathy and compassion for those who are stuck in the paradigm of "I can't help myself." If I stop looking for causes and accept my responsibility, then I'm responsible for helping people who think they can't help themselves (and of course, sometimes they can't).