Fayola-Maria Jack, PC.dp., FWCC, MCIPS, MBA, PhDc

Most commercial negotiation training workshops teach you how to negotiate challenging matters with difficult, yet rational, counterparts. The elephant in the room, too often overlooked because of complexity, is how one negotiates during a commercial crisis with an irrational, unpredictable, highly emotional and hostile counterpart. This short article shares a few tested and proven tips to tackle the elephant.

Contain the dispute.

Step one, it is imperative that you first contain the dispute. In a commercial crisis matters will have already escalated, therefore the aim is to bring that escalation to a firm halt.

Refusal to engage in dialogue with a counterpart because of bad behaviour sounds drastic, but it works if executed well. The motive is not to ignore, but rather to deflate risen tensions. The key to success is to make your counterpart aware that you are purposefully suspending engagement, to communicate why, and to be firm yet courteous. Silence for a reasonable period is a bold move, but it's effective.

This method of containment enables you to reset expectations. By pointing out the undesirable behaviour which is triggering your temporary disengagement, and making clear what is required for sensible dialogue, you are indirectly defining new boundaries. When you do re-engage, you are rewarding an expected change in behaviour.

After the heat of conflict has seen its first signs of containment, when you do reopen dialogue with your counterpart, the first communication will be powerful. It will be powerful by nature of the communicated behavioural boundaries which many are too often timid to articulate, the resultant silence, and sometimes an element of embarrassment from your counterpart by virtue of what is essentially a rain check in professional conduct.

Pick your counterpart.

All interactions, including eventual re-engagement, should be directed to one person. You need to quickly establish trust and build cooperation, which is easier achieved on a one-to-one basis. In a crisis with many moving parts and tensions, one-to-one dialogue with the person in a position of influence creates an isolated environment within which you can foster a useful relationship.

It's a mistake to target a counterpart based on title, or to just mindlessly engage with anyone who presents themselves. Sometimes the most senior individuals will be far removed from the details of the problem and wholly disinterested in engaging. Likewise, the person from the other party who initially actively engages with you may just be a dedicated but unempowered messenger.

Seek out the individual who seems to be carrying the pressure of resolution, whose name reoccurs in the majority of the correspondence, and then undertake some due diligence to determine who that individual answers to - person ‘x’. Each scenario will be different, but person ‘x’ is a good start if you are unsure.

Establish ground rules.

You must word the first communication carefully and it is suggested that you omit any reference to the substance of the dispute at hand and simply lay some ground rules. As strange as this may sound, in reality it is incredibly effective. As an accredited commercial mediator, at the onset of any commercial mediation the mediator should lay similar communication ground rules to facilitate productive dialogue, such as -

We agree to express ourselves in terms of needs, interests and the outcomes that we wish to realise, rather than defaulting to hard positions.

We agree to listen respectfully and sincerely, and recognise that we are equally free to voice our perspectives.

We agree not to dwell on things that went wrong in the past, and instead focus on the future working relationship we would like to create.

We agree to make a sincere effort to refrain from unproductive venting and historic narration, and instead focus our energy on reaching the fairest and most constructive agreement possible.

Manage all emotions.

Before tackling the more substantive matters in dispute, emotions must also be specifically addressed, or they will continue to have a negative influence on progress.

Most heated hostile negotiations are driven by emotions. Emotions will never be the root of the problem, but they will certainly influence how the root develops, and are therefore on the critical path to success. You must deal with the emotions of your counterpart without being distracted by them.

You will find that unreasonable positioning and demands will mask an underlying emotional position, such as frustration. Start by listening carefully to your counterparts demands with the aim of identifying the primary underlying motivation. Rather than engaging your counterpart by questioning their approach and attitude, which would understandably be perceived as confrontational, demonstrate concern and interest through active-listening techniques. Self-disclosure and supportive remarks, such as “it sounds like you feel very frustrated that the milestones were missed”, will open the way for meaningful and progressive dialogue.

Time spent identifying and exploring the emotions behind your counterpart’s position will never be time wasted. Understanding you counterpart’s emotional position will inform your strategy for resolution.

Emotional extremes hinder.

When negotiators get along, which can happen, creative problem solving is easy. When you are engaged with an angry counterpart however, you may find they seem uninterested in problem solving. Instead the emotion of anger is permitted to steer the interaction, skewing perceptions and preventing the reasonable dialogue necessary for resolve.

An angry counterpart may often seem to favour attack, conflict and the infliction of pain. It is in fact usually the case however, that such an individual is simply unaware of the extent to which the emotion of anger has hijacked their ability to reason, their thoughts, and their demeanour. Essentially, an angry person may often do and say things because of impulse rather than reasoned intent.

Anger left uncontrolled will cause your counterpart to lose sight of the fact that they are even in a negotiation. A warped school of thought propounds that open and transparent dialogue makes you vulnerable and has no place in a situation of crisis. This is warped for a fundamental reason - what your angry counterpart wants most is to be heard, to understand and to be understood.

Keeping your cards close to your chest, fervently denying liability, dismissing the part your organisation has played in the crisis and dismissing your counterparts views will fuel anger and lead to further communication breakdown.

If dialogue will consist of you and your counterpart merely asserting respective positions and demanding certain actions from the other, no progress can be made. The ‘admit nothing’ and ‘aggressively challenge’ your counterpart mindset is a counterproductive, time consuming approach. You will eventually reach an impasse and the threat of a messy escalation will force you to hand matters over to lawyers. If you reach this stage, you've lost; certainly financially.

Straight talk wins.

“Do you want me to lie to you?” Not even the most dishonest irrational person will invite dishonesty on themselves. The direct question will be unexpected and will certainly catch your counterpart off guard. Good start.

“We earn respect by being honest,” is the direction from crisis negotiator Richard J. DeFilippo. I agree fully. The next step then is to re-baseline the relationship by making an express commitment to honesty. Honesty is the foundation for trust and respect. It also enables you to be blunt about what you are and aren't willing to accept and creates a safe space for you to directly refuse any unreasonable demands. Once your counterpart trusts that you are speaking truthfully and directly, ‘no’ will lose its sting and will suddenly become much less offensive.

A hostile and arrogant counterpart is likely to be incredibly direct. You can now mirror their directness safely without adversely intensifying the tone of the negotiation or triggering defensive mechanisms. Mirroring behaviour is a proven means of bonding and building understanding. It is a nonverbal way of saying ‘I am like you’.

You can increase synchronicity by also mirroring your counterparts body language. If you want to increase the connection with your counterpart, mirror his or her posture, gestures, sitting position and talking pace. This will positively play to their subconscious and ease tensions.

The gift of acknowledgement.

Acknowledging your counterparts concerns is necessary. If you can take the time to acknowledge the concerns of your counterpart, you will find the likelihood of making large concessions greatly diminishes. It is absolutely possible to acknowledge your counterparts concerns without accepting responsibility and generating exposure to liability.

“We’re in this together” is also a great way of attempting to create a bond that is akin to the bond psychologists create with their patients. If the crisis is positioned as mutual, your counterpart will instinctively be drawn to resolve the crisis in partnership.

“Talk to me,” is a favourite of mine, because it encourages collaboration. These three words say little, yet much. They demonstrate that you are interested, that you are actively listening, and that the views of your counterpart are valued.

“What does a positive future relationship together feel like” is another great way to divert attention to a solution and does two things. Firstly, it informs you on the priorities of your counterparts organisation. This is particularly beneficial because you may have lost sight of these in all of the contention. Secondly, the deliberate use of the kinaesthetic ‘feel’ in place of the more common visual expression ‘look’, triggers the subconscious to actively engage positive emotion.

And finally, in closing.

Complex negotiation takes a great deal of technical skill and experience to do well, especially in a dispute scenario. The best negotiators are not cunning; they are technically brilliant, experienced and sincere. Good business ethics always wins.

'Imagine Blue' is a series of articles on commercial dispute resolution. The views expressed in this article are my own, based on extensive professional experience. This article should not be reproduced in whole or part without my express consent.

Fayola-Maria Jack, PC.dp., FWCC, MCIPS, MBA, PhDc

London, England, United Kingdom

9K followers 500+ connections

Education

University of Oxford

Recommendations received

Warren James CB CBE

Rachael Anne Pountney

View Fayola-Maria’s full profile

Other similar profiles

Andrew Marsh

Mark Thomson

Gerry Walsh

Jake McClure

Chris Ferguson

Kevin Lowry

John Nollett

Jenny Danson

Hassan Kajee

Emma Ferguson-Gould

Nick Chism

Robin Walker

Geoff Linnell

Mike Venables OBE

Tim Byford FCIPS

Peter Khoury

Steven PAUL, CDir FIoD

Rex Tomlinson

Sarah Robson

Paul Jones FCPFA

Explore collaborative articles

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Fayola-Maria Jack, PC.dp., FWCC, MCIPS, MBA, PhDc

London, England, United Kingdom 9K followers 500+ connections

Education

University of Oxford

Recommendations received

Warren James CB CBE

Rachael Anne Pountney

View Fayola-Maria’s full profile

Other similar profiles

Andrew Marsh

Mark Thomson

Gerry Walsh

Jake McClure

Chris Ferguson

Kevin Lowry

John Nollett

Jenny Danson

Hassan Kajee

Emma Ferguson-Gould

Nick Chism

Robin Walker

Geoff Linnell

Mike Venables OBE

Tim Byford FCIPS

Peter Khoury

Steven PAUL, CDir FIoD

Rex Tomlinson

Sarah Robson

Paul Jones FCPFA

Explore more posts

Explore collaborative articles

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

London, England, United Kingdom

9K followers 500+ connections