In Chapter 12 you’re provided with theoretical knowledge and fundamental rules based on psychological theory that will help you understand cognitive processing and developing persuasion skills. There is particular emphasis placed on social judgment theory and cognitive dissonance. Why is that? Well, when we are trying to persuade others we have to deal with perceptions and inferences of others and ours as well as personality differences. So we need to understand when it’s just not going to be possible to persuade., as well as diplomacy and what you need to practice.
When was the last time you tried to persuade someone to do something? We do it almost everyday (assuming you’re speaking with others )
Persuasion is difficult. If it was easy, we’d all get our way with everything and likely not learn a lot outside of our own thoughts and beliefs.
If you recall in Chapter 8 we discussed the acronym GRIP and in this Chapter 12 they talk about two new acronyms: ACES and CREEK:
1. Prior to beginning persuasive efforts one must come to GRIP with an overall strategy and goals as we learned in previous chapters.
2. Additional psychological theories assist in finding ACES to cross the bridge to persuasion.
3. People perceive through their individual lenses and search for validity in assessing information. In addition to those automatic processes described in previous chapters, we must understand additional cognitive phenomena.
4. Attitude here includes opinions and beliefs.
Social judgment theory (meaning how attitudes are expressed)
emphasizes the effects of prior attitudes and helps us to understand when and/or how persuasion might be possible.
Latitudes help to explain the persuasion mystery.
The latitude of commitment contains firm attitudes unlikely to change. So change is least likely because people may hold very strong beliefs, opinions, attitudes etc…unless of course your proposal or attitude is substantially the same.
The latitude of noncommitment describes areas on which little or no prior attitude exists. We can also call this indifference. We are more likely to be able to persuade.
A latitude of acceptance is created for receiving messages similar to, or not blatantly inconsistent with, prior attitudes. Persuasion is possible here.
A latitude of rejection is created for messages inconsistent with or dissimilar to prior attitudes. Persuasion is not possible here.
We tend to readily accept at face value messages that are compatible with our prior beliefs and We try to discredit and undermine messages that are contrary to our prior beliefs.
What is cognitive dissonance? (or inconsistent thoughts, behaviours or attitudes)
The theory of cognitive dissonance explains additional unconscious cognitive processing that occurs simultaneously with the processing explained by social judgment theory and the other unconscious processing discussed in previous chapters.
Cognitive dissonance is the psychological tension created when we find inconsistency between our attitude and our behavior, or between two attitudes, or between two behaviors, including when a message seeks adoption of an attitude inconsistent with existing attitudes. It is an out-of-balance condition. It is uncomfortable. We seek to get back into balance.
People try to confirm their own attitudes, and people try to avoid dissonance by avoiding decisions! People try to reduce or eliminate dissonance by changing the relative importance of attitudes and beliefs, by distorting their own perceptions, by forgetting the out-of-balance factors, and/or by rejecting what is necessary to create balance.
We unconsciously tend to perceive similar statements as more similar than they actually are. This confirms the validity of our pre-existing beliefs.
Just as we tend to think everyone is like us, we tend to think the attitudes and beliefs of others are the same as ours. This is referred to as the false consensus bias.
The greater the dissonance, the greater the unconscious reduction efforts.
Negative information weighs more heavily than does positive information. Truly it is advisable to start off with the good news!
Preparing Your Arguments to Persuade. You must do more than argue.
You must focus on targeting and hitting the latitude of noncommitment or latitude of acceptance.
So how do we persuade in negotiations or an argument?
We should focus our argument on “ACES” our new acronym
A ppropriateness is the argument that what you seek is the right thing to do.
C onsistency is the argument for fairness and justice.
E ffectiveness is the argument that provides the answer or solution.
S pecial additional factors to the person or circumstance involved should be used as much as possible.
We are talking about finding a reason for the other to agree with you. In order for them to want to be persuaded, your argument will need at least one of the ACES reasons.
Crossing the “CREEK.” We use this acronym to help you remember the tools. In addition to focusing arguments with as many ACES as possible, one must use additional tools to actually persuade.
Common Ground. Mutuality is necessary, because self-benefit provides a reason for the person to consider the argument.
Reinforce with Supporting Facts and Data to bolster your argument and increase the weight of the argued item in the person’s cognitive balance equation.
Emotional Connection taps into the power of identification and the positive effects thereof such as trust discussed in a prior chapter. It also provides an opportunity for cognitive connection to something positive in the person’s mind, thus increasing the weight of the argued item in the person’s cognitive balance equation.
Empathy bolsters the other person’s self-esteem. However, it also tends to diminish the perception of attitude differences, and the extent of cognitive dissonance. If I say I agree with you and also want my way, it appears as though we are in agreement!
And finally K is for the key to credibility. It will always come down to you. You are the deciding factor in the persuasion effort. It is you who is presenting the reasoning and the support. Your credibility comes from your knowledge and expertise of the problem and the related issues.
When is Persuasion Unlikely?
Persuasion is unlikely when the argument falls within the person’s latitude of rejection.
Reframing is possible. Look for different ACES and try again.
Re-tool to cross the CREEK. Look for more common ground, more reinforcement, more emotional connection, more empathy, and check your credibility!
Ask why you are not convincing the person.
Know when to stop. (This knowledge is addressed in later chapters.)
The Key in every persuasive effort is to maintain your credibility. If you lose that, you lose the argument. Trust is related to credibility, of course.
Deterrence-based trust is the least effective for persuasive argument in negotiation.
Knowledge-based trust and identification-based trust enhance credibility and facilitate successful negotiation.
Assertion is appropriate. Aggression and pushing are not appropriate and will damage your credibility. To avoid being manipulated, periodically ask if anyone but the person arguing will benefit from the proposal.
And finally, use Diplomacy. Diplomacy is the art of restraining power and the ability to say the nastiest things in the nicest way!
The best way to understand diplomacy is by answering what you would say in the following two scenarios:
Scenario One—How might you diplomatically tell someone that there is spinach between the person’s front teeth?
Scenario Two—When your hair stylist asks how you like your hair and you feel that you would like to place a bag over your head, how might you respond diplomatically?
Let’s practice our ACES and CREEK. Page 181 Out Spot Out
This short chapter 13 provides guiding principles for use in developing negotiation skills and assessing performance. The purpose is for you to use these rules in your negotiation practice. I like to think of this chapter as the Do’s and Don’t’s of negotiation.
Remember your own personal negotiations and see if you can find any Do’s and Don’t’s you might have done…
p. 186-187 Do’s
p. 188-189 Dont’s
Rules.
Do not think of negotiation as a game. Experts in negotiation are adept in the art of human interaction they know when/how to compromise and when to accommodate.
Be prepared. You have to be organized and know your material. You need to know what information you have to gather, how you will strategize and prepare for your negotiations.
Know relevant aspects of your own personality and behavioral tendencies as well as your needs, goals, and power.
Perceive and assess relevant aspects of your counterpart’s personality, needs, power, and behavior.
Practice the rules of effective listening, speaking, filtering, and watching.
Never lose control of yourself.
Always look for common ground and common goals.
Know when to continue and when to walk away.
Maintain your personal integrity, and trust yourself. Persuasion is not possible where there is lack of trust.
Never negotiate with someone who has no authority to decide or commit.
Confirm the status of the negotiation regularly.
Put it in writing as soon as possible.
Common Mistakes.
It is a mistake to:
Assume what the other side wants.
Overestimate your weaknesses and/or underestimate the weaknesses of your counterpart.
Hold to a fixed plan in the face of new information.
Set your goals too optimistically or too pessimistically.
Set goals or take positions without reasoned support.
Make a counterproposal to an unreasonable or unsupported offer.
Let the other side know of a tight time deadline.
Jump at the first offer.
Focus on what the other side gets.
Say “no” the wrong way.
Chapter 14 is for you to learn how to prepare for negotiation interactions.
As that is accomplished, you should also gain familiarity with negotiating terminology and the stages of the process.
Negotiating Terminology - I want to clarify that this is not terminology that is carved in stone and used by everyone but you should be familiar with the “lingo” in case you’re ever in negotiations and these terms are used.
Approach to conflict and negotiation describes one’s general view of and attitude toward the matter.
Style is the manner of interaction—avoiding, competing, compromising, and collaborating.
Strategy is the overall plan that includes whether one will avoid, manage, or resolve, and the style selected.
Counterpart is the term best used to describe parties to a negotiation. Sometimes you’ll hear me say “the other party” or “management” or “the union”
Tactics are the actions and/or moves one makes in the negotiation.
Gambit is a chess term and is often used in negotiation language to refer to a move, or a tactic.
Technique is the term that describes the combination of tactics used.
Strategic behavior arises when two or more individuals interact, and each individual’s decision turns on what that individual expects the other(s) to do. The action that will effect the best mutual result is the rational choice.
Let’s look at exercise 14.1 on page 194. This is a great example that describes strategic behaviour.
There are five stages in the Negotiation process:
Preparation, introduction, initiation, intensification, and closing. The last three phases do not occur in precise order. Rather, they are intertwined as elements of the negotiation are addressed and progress is made on issues until complete resolution or agreement is reached.
The Preparation Stage. This is the hardest part as well as the part that most people resist and don’t put in near enough time. The process and the result will be only as good as the preparation. Thought, analysis, creativity, and the knowledge gained in this course are required for sound preparation. The steps are outlined below.
Gather information.
Determine what you want and need.
Rank your wants and needs.
Assess your counterpart’s perception of your wants and needs.
Assess what you think your counterpart wants and needs.
Determine what you can give.
Determine where there is already agreement.
Assess and analyze your power.
Assess your counterpart’s power.
Assign a value to all components.
Determine your OTNA (Options to a negotiated agreement) so that you will know whether you ought not negotiate and know when to walk away!
Identify possible alternative negotiated solutions.
Re-evaluate all of the foregoing and decide whether or not to proceed.
Prepare your support—your ACES and persuasive arguments to cross the CREEK, as discussed in a prior chapter.
Determine parameters on every issue as well as on the matter as a whole. This step requires identifying three positions on each matter and on the whole. One is the best you can arguably support and, therefore, the best you can expect. This is where you will likely start in the actual negotiation. Another, the middle position, is where you think you are most probably going to end up. The third is the worst you will accept. (All of this is your bargaining zone)
Anticipate counterarguments to your proposals.
Prepare alternative approaches and styles aimed at maximizing communication with your particular counterpart.
Prepare an agenda and resolve not to be tied to it.
Organize all of your preparatory material into a cohesive strategy.
Prepare to be open and flexible, particularly in hearing new information.
Pre-negotiation Preparation Evaluation.
If, according to your preparatory analysis, negotiation cannot meet your needs, go back to step 1.
If you are not comfortable proceeding, go to step 1.
If the gain is not worth your time, go back to step 1 .
In each of the foregoing cases, either you shouldn’t be negotiating is the best course of action, or you are not prepared!
OTNA=Options to a negotiated agreement
The point to chapter 15 is for you to become aware of specific tactics used throughout the negotiation process and learn how to develop and use these appropriate tactics. The chapter includes discussion of representative negotiation along with ethical issues.
As was discuss in the previous chapter there are 5 stages in Negotiation.
We’ve talked about the preparation stage now we’ll look at the other 4 stages as well as several tactics used.
Alternative tactics are grouped here by the stage of the process in which they are most often used; however, most of them may be used at any stage of negotiation.
Think of the The Introductory Stage of Negotiations in Steps:
Prepare.
Define rules and set the tone. This step will include your assessment of your counterpart’s personality and approach, including body language and any psychological games, and will determine whether or not an acceptable interaction is possible.
Focus on issues.
Begin persuasion.
Initiation Stage Tactics. See page 207-208
Asking Questions.
Beginning with Big Issues or Small Issues. The appropriate choice depends upon the personalities and desires of the parties.
Tentative Resolution.
Making the First Offer. It is best not to be first; however, if properly prepared there should be no fear of going first.
Starting High or Low. The first position should be the best one that is reasonably supported.
See Page 209-211
Extreme Positions. These are not appropriate and should not be countered.
Reluctance.
The Squeeze.
First and Final Offer. Most receivers of this are offended; however, one should not let ego interfere with a sound decision.
Bracketing.
Flinching Is a Behavioral Reaction Intended to Appear as a Response.
Blocking Is Ignoring a Substantive Part of an Offer.
Good Guy/Bad Guy.
Counteroffers.
Intensification Stage Tactics. Page 212-215
Diversion is an attack on the counterpart’s weakest—and usually minor—part of a proposal.
Association is often helpful as a collaborative step.
Forbearance.
Extrapolation always works but is very difficult to do!
The intense squeeze should be viewed as a non-move.
Begging rarely works and diminishes one’s personal power.
Bullying.
Limited authority.
Anger.
Threats.
Veiled threats.
Hand-off.
Intensified concessions.
Splitting the difference is a compromising tactic but sometimes appropriate.
Equalizing is the act of providing just as much support for your counterpart as was provided to you by your counterpart.
Narrowing diminishes options.
Intermission.
Persistence and patience are the most powerful tactics of all.
Closing Stage Tactics. Page 216-218
Creating time pressure.
Feinting.
Reversal uses the power of reverse psychology discussed in earlier chapters.
Withdrawal also uses the power of reverse psychology.
Closing concessions typically become smaller.
Silence is the hardest argument to refuse and employs persistence and patience.
Ultimatums are offensive and, therefore, dangerous unless you are at the point of your OTNA.
Walking away.
The nibble is annoying and should be avoided.
Negotiating in a Representative Capacity. Key precautions here are to know your authority and to remember the real party in interest. It is not your ego!
It’s always best to not have the “principal” attend the negotiations that way emotions stay out of it. (School Board example – Trustees vote on Minutes of Settlement)
A Word on Deceptive Tactics, Differing Styles, and Ethics.
Tactics that are deceptive and/or constitute psychological games include extreme positions, reluctance, the squeeze, bullying, anger, and threats.
Depending on who you are negotiating with, of course you may experience this. Remember that not everyone will come to the table with the same training as you, the same integrity, or discretion. You will need to take the high road and stay on track.
Your best defense when dealing with deception is:
Assertiveness, self-esteem, self-control, and preparation. They are the best defenses to psychological games.
Competitive negotiations are most at risk for deception.
Always establish and maintain your personal standards but be on guard.
