Overconfident? Not me.

Well, it turns out that most of us are. For instance, Rod Kramer of the Stanford Business School found that 68% of the MBA students in his negotiation class predicted that their bargaining outcomes would fall in the upper 25% of the class!

When our home was being constructed, I asked the contractor - who has two decades of experience - how long it would take. Ten months, he asserted, with complete confidence, despite my reiteration of the question.

It took fifteen months, with a hopelessly rushed job at the end, for which we are still paying the price, years later .😼

 

Overconfidence is a bias that is now well studied and recognised (except in those who are overconfident!). We tend to minimise the probability of poor outcomes and emphasise the reverse, the probability of perfect or semi-perfect outcomes.

ps: The difference between belief, optimism and overconfidence is something I am learning all the time......

.Harvard Law School has four short ways - that I strongly believe in - to minimise the overconfidence bias in negotiating and decision making:

1. Collect credible information about the other side

2. Consider the opposite: why you could be wrong, or your assumptions incorrect

3. Find a devil's advocate (and make her feel comfortable about criticising your idea or plan)

4. Do not be afraid to ask (even for information that you assume the other party will not provide you).

Read the one-page note, which expands on these points, here.

Do you respect your adversary? Read the finest paragraph ever written on this

From the classic by Ernest Hemingway, 'The Old Man and the Sea'

"He is a great fish and I must convince him, he thought.  I must never let him learn his strength nor what he could do, if he made his run.  If I were him, I would put in everything now and go until something broke.  But, thank God, they are not as intelligent as we are who kill them; although they are more noble and more able. 

Has Reactive Devaluation happened to you?

 Here is what Reactive Devaluation is......

In a discussion with someone, you put forth an idea that could solve a tedious, time-consuming task. This idea has never been considered earlier. The other person hears you out for a minute or two and then conversationally asks, “Whose idea is this?” 

When you mention a team member’s name, the person's smile alters a fraction - just a fraction, mind you. With an imperceptible shake of the head, he says, “This idea won’t work, don’t waste his time or yours on it.”

What do you do next?

Read on......

 

If you were Max Bazerman, the behavioural economist, you would reply to the other person, “Aha!  What you have just done is to reactively devalue the idea, to judge it on the bias you have against the team member!” (Well, actually, Max would just think that and not say it, but you get the pic).  All of us have lots of biases (that includes You!)

ps: actually, I do not have any.......just kidding!

If it were not Max Bazerman but one of us instead, we might get

a)    Combative

b)    Defensive

c)    …or – less often – just nod the head and change the topic (but feel a certain uneasiness within and curse the other person)

 

Why are we, in these situations, combative or defensive or uneasy?  Because, implicitly, we have endorsed the idea, put our weight (and, in a small or not-so-small way, our ego) behind it.  Perhaps we like the team member. 

Communication is complex! Ask me, my hair has turned grey trying to figure it out.

 

So, what should we do?  Recommended course of action…

 

I will be honest: there is a great temptation to begin with a sarcastic, “So, if you know so much……!”

Yet, our endorsement of the idea is itself a bias, though not necessarily a bad one – can we recognise that? 

So, ask an open-ended question, with a compliment at the beginning.  Such as, “You know more about this than I do.  Can you tell me why it will not work, for my understanding?”

And listen to understand.

Not to pick flaws in that argument.

But to understand.

 

Inevitably, the other person will have a litany of complaints against the team member that will surface in the conversation, all of which are unrelated to the idea.  Such as, “He has no commitment to his tasks” or “He is not a team player” and so on.  We should agree wherever we think he is right and keep quiet where we disagree.  After he is done, we have the opportunity to show our support for the idea by saying: “Based on your feedback, we should take safeguards to prevent the idea from failing.  This is a really useful conversation.”  

 

If the person remains insistent that it will not work, but we are convinced that it should be given a try, the only way out is to be assertive and take ownership.

“You have made some excellent points.  I will keep them in mind, and try out the idea, taking full responsibility for the result.”

Assertiveness and negotiation go together!

 

At other times, we can also try this with the other person: “Can you be someone who critiques this, if the team member does a small pilot under my supervision?”

What is the advantage of asking this?

President Lyndon Johnson has the answer  ! 

 

 

 

Story: When Senator Joseph Biden Reframed A Conversation - it is brilliant!

Sometimes, you can influence another by accepting his superiority, while stating your interests clearly.   Consider this example from “Getting Past No” by William Ury.

In 1979, the SALT II arms control treaty was up for ratification in the US Senate.  To obtain the necessary two-thirds majority, the Senate leaders wanted to add an amendment, but this required Soviet assent.  A young US senator, Joseph Biden, was about to travel to Moscow, so the Senate leadership asked him to raise the question with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko.

The match in Moscow was uneven: a junior senator head-to-head with a hard-nosed diplomat of vast experience. Gromyko began the discussion with an eloquent hour-long disquisition on how the Soviets had always played catch-up to the Americans in the arms race. He concluded with a forceful argument for why SALT II actually favoured the Americans and why, therefore, the Senate should ratify the treaty unchanged. Gromyko’s position on the proposed amendment was an unequivocal nyet (Russian for ‘no’). 

Then it was Biden’s turn. Instead of arguing with Gromyko and taking a counter-position, he slowly and gravely said, “Mr. Gromyko, you make a very persuasive case. I agree with much of what you’ve said. When I go back to my colleagues in the Senate, however, and report what you’ve just told me, some of them – like Senator Goldwater or Senator Helms – will not be persuaded, and I’m afraid their concerns will carry weight with others.” Biden went on to explain their worries. “you have more experience in these arms-control matters than anyone else alive. How would you advise me to respond to my colleagues’ concern?” 

Gromyko could not resist the temptation to offer advice to the inexperienced young American. He started coaching him on what he should tell the skeptical senators. On by one. Biden raise the arguments that would need to be dealt with, and Gromyko grappled with each of them. In the end, appreciating perhaps for the first time how the amendment would help win wavering votes, Gromyko reversed himself and gave him consent.

Instead of rejecting Gromyko’s position, which would have led to an argument over positions, Biden acted as if Gromyko were interested in problem-solving and asked for his advice. He reframed the conversation as a constructive discussion about how to meet the senators’ concerns and win ratification of the treaty.

On Reframing :- 

Reframing works because every message is subject to interpretation. You have that power of positive perception, the ability to put a problem-solving frame around whatever your opponent says. He will often go along with your reinterpretation, just as Gromyko did, partly because he is surprised that you have not rejected his position and partly because he is eager to pursue his argument.

Because your opponent is concentrated on the outcome of the negotiation, he may not even be aware that you have subtly changed the process. Instead of focusing on competing positions, you are figuring out how best to satisfy each side’s interests. You don’t need to ask your opponent’s permission. Just start to play the new game.
Reframing is one of the greatest powers you have as a negotiator. The way to change the game is to change the frame.

Two Kinds of Aggression & Your Response

 

There are two broad kinds of aggressors

Primitive Aggressors: Have short fuses.  If someone triggers in them feelings of inferiority or weakness, they explode.  They lack self-control, and so they tend to not get very far in life, inevitably hurting too many people (which makes them ever more unhappy and, often, aggressive). 

Sophisticated aggressors: Often rise to top positions and can stay there because they know how to cloak their manoeuvers, to present a façade and to play upon people’s emotions. They know that most people do not like confrontation or long struggles and so they can intimidate or wear people down.  

You can recognise them by one simple sign:  they get to where they are going primarily through their aggressive energy, not through their particular talent. They value amassing power more than the quality of their work (and do not like to share this power).

Let us analyse this personality further: They would like to instill in you the idea that you have no options, that agreeing with their solutions or point of view is inevitable and the best way out.  They will often present themselves as holier-than-you or as the victim of other people’s malice.  The louder they proclaim their convictions, the more certain you can be they are hiding something. They could also be charming and charismatic.  They may have a history of piggybacking on your hard work and presenting it as theirs. 

(Summarised from The Laws of Human Nature -a highly recommended book)

Even as I first read this - behaviour, symptoms and the whole nine yards of manipulative aggressive display - the question was, How would one deal with either kind?  The first step is, of course, to recognise the manipulation inherent in the action (I have learnt to pay attention to action, not statements.  Do you agree ?)  

Once we recognise aggression and a pattern of manipulation, isn't there a dilemma?  How do we deal with this - counter attack or ignore?  To each his/her own, I say.  Since your (and my) goal - every day - is to be happy, should we 

a) take this person on?  A like-for-like confrontation, due to which the manipulator might back off?
b) avoid the person as much as possible?
c) put up with it with a brave face and a smile, but have a release valve: a friend (or a tree) who will listen to my complaint?  Do not discount this option, for it is often the best way out.
d) get others on our side, to neutralise such behaviour from an individual?

I have chosen one of these as the dominant approach (which shall remain a rather flaky secret), other tactics to be used when they appear suitable.  

Our goal - every day - is to be happy (a reiteration!).  Manipulators are never happy.  So, if we choose our method of dealing with such a person, we have won.  

How To Talk To Anyone - Small talk in negotiation is important!

If you find yourself being hesitant in opening a conversation with someone - a very common issue that most of us experience at least some of the time - then this is an interesting seven-minute video to see -  which summarises the book 'How to talk to anyone'. 

I recommend it strongly (and have begun using the leads provided in it).  Among the useful tips was one that says: Do not ask 'Where do you work?' or 'What do you do?' which often forces a formal, unhappy answer! Instead, substitute this with 'So, how do you spend most of your time?'

Happy viewing!

Unspoken: When Silence Speaks

 A story from a Winfluence participant:

“So, I am sitting with a junior of mine who has made a mistake in the program design that is quite obvious. He has the experience to recognise this, but clearly did not read the file before forwarding it to me and other senior team members. The guy comes from a small town and speaks in his language, Tamil, with his circle of friends, but is formal with anyone outside this circle and reticent. ....that is the word I want, reticent!

Now, I begin the conv by asking him how he could possibly make such a mistake. He looks at the document in a puzzled way and says, ‘I do not understand, sir.’ even after I point it out a second time. This is frustrating and my irritation is now visible, I think (my wife reads me well, and says that it requires little skill, because I have an expressive face. I take that as a compliment!). 

‘What do you mean, you do not understand, man? Look at this, it is clearly an error and contradicts the project specifications.’ I then show him the source document with the specs in it, which he must have read a hundred times by now.

Yet, he still stares at the page for a whole minute. He is not reading, it is just an irritating silence while he figures out what to say.

‘Sorry, sir, but I do not think there is an error sir.’

I am losing my patience. Big time. ‘Ok,’ I say in an aggressive tone, ‘justify it then.’ He begins hesitantly — English has never been his strength — and seems unsure of what he has done. Many techies have this issue — they justify their average work and later complain that their seniors are poor managers. 

I let him ramble for a bit, but I will be honest here, I am not listening to understand, I am listening to contradict. So, at a point, I interrupt his flow and make my assertion emphatically, with my side of the argument and why that error that he made is, in fact, an error and a big one at that. 

He is quiet and listening without eye contact. When I am done and ask him to make the correction, he does not seem to want to leave, but stares at the paper in front of him and shuffles uncomfortably in his chair. 

‘What is wrong with what I am saying?’ the question from me is a weary one. For a moment, I think he is going to apologize for the mistake and revert with the corrected version, but he does not. Techies again!

He gets up after a minute or two. ‘Ok sir,’ he says and leaves the room. 

The next day, his team leader requests a couple of minutes from me to talk about the junior. ‘N (she calls me by name), this guy has taken the day off.’ I reply that if he, the junior, is upset about being ticked off by me, he is welcome to leave the team or the company. I have enough on my hands than dealing with fragility like this.

‘Actually, N, please do not mind if I say something?’

‘Ok, but no advice please. No gyan.’

‘No, no, it is not about advice — you are far more experienced that we are. What I found out yesterday…..’ here the team leader is hesitant and not making eye contact herself, ‘…..was that he is right.’

My body stiffens, eyes narrow and the eyebrows lower and draw together. I can feel my ego revolting, but there is a voice within that says, ‘Ok, listen’. 

‘I did not understand?' I ask

She then details out an assumption that I had made that, as per the requirement, was incorrect; the past baggage of a similar project had led me astray and it was a baggage that the junior colleague did not carry. This time I pay attention and it is clear to me that he was right.

‘But, why did he stay silent?’ I question, ‘He could have pointed it out to me!’

It is her turn now to be silent. She smiles and turns her eyes away. 

I realise — this is where the guilt becomes overwhelming — that had my assumption been followed, the team would have had to rework a big part of the project. 

The chap returns to work the next day and we carry on, as if the incident had never occurred. There is no dramatic ending to all of this: he does not leave in a month or anything like that, there is no backlash from anyone and, of course, the customer never knows of a problem that could-have-been-but-never-became-one. 

I changed though (my wife agrees). I remember this incident, I think, because I could not say Sorry.” 

 

 

The Zax - the Genius of Dr Seuss!

 

One day, making tracks

In the prairie of Prax,
Came a North-Going Zax
And a South-Going Zax.

And it happened that both of them came to a place

Where they bumped. There they stood.

Foot to foot. Face to face.

"Look here, now!" the North-Going Zax said, "I say!
You are blocking my path. You are right in my way.
I'm a North-Going Zax and I always go north.
Get out of my way, now, and let me go forth!"

"Who's in whose way?" snapped the South-Going Zax.
"I always go south, making south-going tracks.
So you're in MY way! And I ask you to move
And let me go south in my south-going groove."

Then the North-Going Zax puffed his chest up with pride.
"I never," he said, "take a step to one side.
And I'll prove to you that I won't change my ways
If I have to keep standing here fifty-nine days!"

"And I'll prove to YOU," yelled the South-Going Zax,
"That I can stand here in the prairie of Prax
For fifty-nine years! For I live by a rule
That I learned as a boy back in South-Going School.
Never budge! That's my rule. Never budge in the least!
Not an inch to the west! Not an inch to the east!
I'll stay here, not budging! I can and I will
If it makes you and me and the whole world stand still!"

Well...
Of course the world didn't stand still. The world grew.
In a couple of years, the new highway came through
And they built it right over those two stubborn Zax
And left them there, standing un-budge in their tracks.

- originally published in 1961

The Greatest Negotiator. Ever.

These are hard decisions to make, but Mahatma Gandhi's ability to negotiate is considered by many to be without parallel.

He brought two qualities to this science that before him – and, regrettably, after – did not (and do not) exist: empathy and morality.  A beautiful little story from 1919  - about a hundred years ago – is most illustrative.

After the tragedy at Jallianwala Bagh (in May 1919), the Indian National Congress met in December that year for a plenary.  Gandhiji drafted a resolution condemning the massacre but criticizing also the preceding violence in which five young Englishmen were killed and an Englishwoman assaulted.  

KM Munshi recorded what happened subsequently:

“The hearts of most of us revolted at the latter part of the resolution.  One Punjab leader gave expression to the feeling rather crudely: no one born of an Indian mother, he said, could have drafted this resolution.  Lokmanya Tilak too was indignant, and so were Bipin Chandra Pal and CR Das; and the latter part of the resolution was lost by an overwhelming majority. 

The next day the President wanted the committee to reconsider the resolution as Gandhiji, he said, was very keen on it.  There were vehement protests.  Ultimately, Gandhiji – who was unwell - was helped to the table to move that the resolution be reconsidered.  Out of respect, the house sat quiet, but with ill-concealed impatience. 

Referring to the remark that no son born of an Indian mother could have drafted the resolution, Gandhiji stated that he had considered deeply and for long whether as an Indian he could have drafted the resolution.  After deep introspection, he had come to the conclusion, that only a person born of an Indian mother could have drafted it. 

And then he spoke as if his whole life depended upon the question.  When he stopped, we were at his feet.  The resolution was reconsidered and accepted in its original form.”

Gandhiji had given a new meaning to Indian honour, enabled the Congress to capture the moral height in the independence battle and put the Empire on the defensive. 

-          - Quoted from Why Gandhi Still Matters

"Two Ways to Do Things Around Here: My Way and the Wrong Way!"

The first chap I reported to after my MBA said this once and we found it terribly funny.  His name was Bala Rao, which we changed quickly to Balls, because that seemed to define him better.  After a career failure as an accountant, he had been put out to pasture by the company that was compassionate enough to not fire him, but we received his nuggets of wisdom every day.  

I shall now compare him with someone else (which comparison, you will agree after reading, is most unfair), quoting a little story from the book How Google Works.  

"Sridhar Ramaswamy, one of Google's ad leaders, tells a story of the early days of AdWords, Google's flagship ads product.

Sergey Brin, one of the co-founders of Google, had an idea for something he wanted Sridhar's engineering team to implement, but he did not make a compelling argument as to why his idea was the best and Sridhar did not agree with it.

Sergey was the big boss and could have simply ordered Sridhar to comply.  Instead, he suggested a compromise.  Half of Sridhar's team could work on what Sergey wanted and the other half would follow Sridhar's lead.  Sridhar still disagreed, and after much debate about the relative merits of the competing ideas, Sergey's idea was discarded."

Now, books have a tendency to highlight the exception and I hope this wasn't one of those.  If the incident is reflective of the person, then - you will agree - it was a remarkable display of modesty by the co-founder.

Three effective lessons from this incident:
Lesson One: Negotiate with an open mind - there's a fair chance that
a) you might be wrong
b) or have incorrect information
c) or have come in to the meeting with a bias or preference ("This is a great idea, it cannot fail." or "This is the only course of action possible now..." or "I am the only one who has the knowledge to take a decision on this")

Lesson Two: Therefore listen, paraphrase the other person's point of view and debate.  Acknowledge any point that the other person makes that is right.

Lesson Three: When there are people in your team who disagree with you, that is a strength and reflects positively on them.  

And a bonus lesson:  When you implement lessons One and Two above, it reflects well on you!