Negotiation with
“Difficult” People - Art or Science?
Lydia Dews
Does it really matter whether we call it an “art” or a “science”? The first thought might be no, of course not – just give me some advice on dealing with the people who are driving me and my community nuts. That is the more common response when we put things opposed to one another – as if coexistence is unnatural for art and science. As it applies in the community association setting nothing could be more poignant than the art of living with our neighbors, board members, managers, vendors and all the other human beings who make this system possible; it’s also the science of human behavior – including our own- that may help relieve us of the dread we face when a simple task becomes an epic and presidential blunder. One that surely costs money and time, but most significantly depreciation of peace of mind, quality of interaction and the feeling of being appreciated for our exhaustingly good intentions. In this article I’d like to share a brief summary of what skill negotiation is and is not. Simply put it is not always possible. To think that you can always negotiate is a fruitless ambition, and rife with opportunities to simply turn into a miserable scrooge. Skillful negotiation involves realistic goals, being willing to show vulnerability and articulate the why.
The first, and oftentimes missed step is to know your “why”. There is literature that would suggest you need to first know your outcome. And, while I agree that knowing your outcome is crucial for a successful negotiation; after several decades in the art and science of negotiation I believe failure is certain when the parties don’t know their why. “Well it’s in the governing documents”, “it’s just the way it’s been done for years”, or “do you have documentation that I said that?”, are a few examples of certain negotiation failure. People are not difficult, situations are. When people get their way all the time, they appear friendly and even generous. But when the situation shines light on possible changes even if for the betterment of the office, fear of the unknown, fear of becoming obsolete, invisible or less significant can wreak havoc in a relationship. If we know the why of our requests or denial of a request, we can communicate the reason and the hopeful outcome. The outcomes may be similar when two sides come together with opposing views, so knowing the why helps to parse out the real conflicts.
Whether we look at the “negotiations” of the early “settlers” who negotiated their way from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or the parent trying to convince their two-year-old that rain boots are not the best foot attire for temperatures of eighty degrees on
28 Community Associations Journal | July/August 2018
the sandy beach – we know successful negotiations leave clues. Some look at the introduction of new ideas as welcoming while others see it as a challenge to traditional values; innovation is cursed, and intolerance is golden. These dichotomies are the example of why looking at things from only one perspective is primed for not only failure, but full on fallout and burnout. Being mindful that constant battling is hopeless for enduring peace and resolution and should not be lost when winning a few battles. If it appears that one side is always getting their way, remember every economy has a change in the tide – and some of the sand turtles get washed away with the new moon.
Once you know your why and your well-intentioned outcome/ goal are articulated, the science of negotiation fits nicely. One concept that is present in our lives without us realizing it is “anchoring”. The Harvard Center on Negotiation with several studies, and collaboration by universities around the world, show that anchoring is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions. During decision making, anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. Is it readily recognizable how this applies to negotiating with “difficult people”?
Think for a moment the last time someone presented you with a request/demand. Was your first thought to prepare a well-reasoned response to their outlandish request or did the request seem so far afield that you dismissed them along with their request? If you’re in a position of leadership, you may have had to deal with the person on the surface, but let’s be honest, you may have mentally dismissed them as just a “difficult” person. The labeling of a person as “difficult” tends to suggest that any request made by them will be unreasonable. In this context, the anchoring effect serves to limit our own ability to use our artfully crafted skills of negotiating to bring the situation under control.
I have witnessed successful and not so successful negotiations; some I was a participant and others as a neutral bystander. In all of these situations, I learned that being calm and attentive is extremely important. Although your calmness may also incite others to heighten their vitriol, it’s short-lived. They will fume a bit; however, your calmness proves to others and yourself that you’re in it to reach a resolution and not simple to win
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
