These budget/debt ceiling negotiations (hereafter called “The Negotiations”) give a lot of insight into what can go wrong in negotiations. Here are 3 negotiation tips you can apply in your own life to avoid the mistakes of our elected officials:

1. Have the right decision makers at the table

All sides have to want to resolve the issue, and the people who are authorized to make the decisions need to be at the negotiations. I believe that one problem with The Negotiations is that the American people are the ones most affected by the final agreement, and we weren’t represented at the table. The people who are supposed to be representing our interests weren’t doing that. They didn’t even care enough to educate, inform, and bring together the American public. They were more concerned about their political careers, their narrow-interest financial supporters, and their pledges to small interest groups. It doesn’t appear they are interested in resolving the real issues.

2. Appreciate the consequences if you walk away

A strategy mediators use is to ask the parties to consider the consequences if the issue is not resolved. The hope is that they will give it some thought and decide the consequences are too great to not resolve the issue. If the consequences are not great, it’s easier to walk away.

In The Negotiations, some of the negotiators apparently felt they could walk away even though the majority of the American public felt the consequences were too great to do so. In a true negotiation, the negotiators would be concerned about the needs and interests of all sides to determine how best to accommodate them. They would be willing to move away from their “position statements”. The negotiators seemed to be ignoring the needs and interests of the American public. They didn’t assess their risks realistically.

Unfortunately, if the negotiators walked away from The Negotiations, there was no court, or other decision making authority, to impose a decision. However, negotiators have to remember negotiations don’t exist in a vacuum – they may have to negotiate with the same people again and again on other issues.

3. Have a neutral party mediating

A neutral mediator can listen to each side, suggest ways of finding common ground, and help broker an agreement that satisfies all parties. A mediator focuses on keeping the parties talking, which is a critical piece to achieve a successful negotiation. Mediators know that many negotiating parties believe fully that the best deal doesn’t come until the final hour, and they are not willing to complete an agreement until then. Mediators also know that many breakthroughs happen when it seems all hope is lost.

It’s doubtful that the Supreme Court (or any other authority) could impose a mediation requirement on the negotiators; however, a mediator could help them move beyond position statements, consider the needs and interests of the true parties (the American people), and explore true long-term settlement options.

The process itself shall be partially dependent upon the level of trust between the people. Therefore, if you build your trust level with those around you on a daily basis, it will make all of your negotiations smoother.

Here are 6 things you should do to help people trust you:

1. Evaluate your own ethics. Make a commitment to being an ethical person. Evaluate ethical and professional dilemmas, and consider how you would react to the dilemma. Compare your presumed reaction to how others would react.
2. Don’t lie. This is self-evident. If you have a reputation as a liar, you will not be trusted to resolve a conflict.
3. Communicate your intentions clearly. Evaluate and anticipate situations, and clearly communicate to others how you intend to act. People will know what to expect, which will ease their uncertainty.
4. Follow through and be dependable. It’s not enough to just communicate clearly; you also have to follow through and do what you said you were going to do.
5. Be predictable. Be consistent in everything you do, so people know what to expect from you at all times.
6. Be confident. If you show uncertainty and regularly change your mind, people will doubt your skills and abilities. They will question whether any decision you make will last very long.

Recent Amazing Race winner, Nat Strand, has been recognized for her ability to endure the rugged, globetrotting scavenger hunt while managing her Type 1 diabetes. Strand and her teammate, Kat Chang, had to carry all of Strand’s equipment and medicine without assistance from the production crew. Strand was poking her finger numerous times each day in cars, boats, and other unusual locations. She had to protect and work with the insulin pump attached to her. She had to maintain her controlled diet in unexpected locations and eating unfamiliar food.

In an interview after winning the competition, Strand said, “As a diabetic, you’re very used to getting yourself out of a jam—like if you get low somewhere or you accidentally rip your pump out, or you run out of insulin or strips faster than you thought—you get pretty resourceful. It breeds this part of you that gets creative about dealing with adversity, and finding solutions to adversity is the biggest advantage in the Race, and in life.”

There have also been studies that show when we have challenges and limited choices, our brain goes into a problem solving mode. Creativity can lead to surprising and effective solutions.

When you are in the midst of a conflict, try imagining that you have some non-existent handicaps or limitations. It will force your brain to work more creatively, which may allow you to recognize some less obvious choices.

You have heard about saving your money to prepare for war. How about saving your money, and improving your skills and resources to prepare for peace?

Do you have a peace chest to handle conflict? Developing a peace chest is a decision to focus on teamwork, problem solving, and interest based negotiation rather than threats or power. A strong peace chest promotes harmony, encourages self-empowerment, and provides for healing.

Peacemaking is not easy, it requires a shift in thinking, and it can’t be done alone. You build your peace chest by doing the following things:

• Rely upon and develop a community of professional assistance
• Develop your owns skills in the area of listening, negotiation, creative thinking, brainstorming, tolerance, teamwork, and health and exercise.

You develop your skills by:

• Attending conflict management programs
• Reading books
• Watching videos
• Reading blogs, articles, and newsletters

Fried describes that his company provides a real-time chat tool for small businesses called Campfire, and on a particular occasion, the software was not working correctly. Users of the software were becoming impatient and irate. Fried writes that the upset customers contacted his company and expressed their unhappiness on Twitter.

Fried’s most telling statement, however, is, “Of course, all companies experience episodes like this. How they handle the situation is what counts. I’m not talking about fixing the problem—you have to fix it; that’s a given. I’m talking about how you communicate with your customers, how you accept responsibility, and how you make things right. That’s what people remember.” By communicating with their clients and accepting responsibility, Fried’s company resolved the conflict before it became a truly long-term disaster. Fried provides three steps, which can be applied to all conflicts:

1. Communicate, communicate, and communicate
2. Accept responsibility (don’t hedge; don’t avoid ownership; don’t offer an insincere apology)
3. Make things right (make sure the behavior doesn’t happen again and provide more restitution than expected)

Note that the apology was only the second step to resolve the conflict; the company also had to make things right. Action needs to follow words. Fried writes, “People don’t judge you on the basis of your mistakes—they judge you on the manner in which you own up to them. In my experience, most companies do a terrible job of taking blame.”

Sarah Palin was visiting Israel, and while at the Temple Mount, her hosts explained that Jews are not allowed to openly pray on the Temple Mount, which is a holy site for both Jews and Muslims. Palin responded by asking, “Why are you apologizing all the time?”

From my review of the news reports, I don’t completely understand the context of Palin’s question. Based on Palin’s past comments, I believe it’s fair to assume that she was really stating a belief that Israel, as an independent nation, should just be able to take whatever actions it wants to take and not acquiesce to the feelings and beliefs of those who disagree. In other words, Israel should be able to pray at the Temple Mount, build settlements in disputed areas, and damn those who disagree.

Although I agree with the premise that Israel is criticized way too much for its decisions, Palin’s comment about apologies shows a lack of understanding of the power of apologies when in conflict. Interestingly, Esquire magazine recently posted an article that claims Palin only publicly apologized seven times during 2010. You can read that article here: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/sarah-palin-sorry-011311

Many times we debate too much about whether any injury actually occurred and whether the recipient is deserving of an apology. Instead, there should be a recognition that strong relationships are built on equality and evenhandedness.

Technically speaking, an apology is an acknowledgement that the person has created an injury and they are accepting responsibility for the damage. Strong leaders are able to show humility and admit mistakes. An apology can also be a powerful tool in negotiations and mediation. Apologies are transformative experiences wherein the person who feels injured now feels empowered. The apology itself enables closure and allows the people involved to move on so they are able to work together in the future.

Isn’t it the truth that we all saw this conflict coming? Isn’t it also the truth that nobody involved did much to head off this conflict? I believe that the Two and a Half Men debacle has provided us with at least Two and a Half lessons to avoid conflict.

1) Address the source of conflict early on

To avoid conflict, it’s important to encourage a frank and honest discussion about everyone’s interests and concerns before taking any positions. Sheen has a history of turmoil in his life. CBS now believes Sheen’s turmoil affects the show. How did CBS’s producers address that at the beginning? What action did they take after Sheen’s recent arrests and binges? In the public eye, all the producers said was that these are private matters in Sheen’s personal life, and that Sheen is the consummate professional who always shows up for work. If that’s the case, then what has changed now? From what I can see, absolutely nothing, other than they decided this was the time to address the conflict. The truth is they all enabled each other to allow the problems fester.

2) Don’t let greed and money dictate avoidance as the solution to conflict

CBS seemed fine with everything while Sheen lined their pockets with gold. Sheen seemed fine with everything while CBS paid him almost $2 million per episode. Don’t ask, don’t tell, and everyone gets rich. Then Sheen took to the airwaves to publicly call his bosses stupid clowns. CBS responded by cancelling the rest of the season for Two and a Half Men. Sheen responded by saying, “I fire back once and this contaminated little maggot can’t handle my power and can’t handle the truth.” Suddenly, the money doesn’t look so rosy anymore.

2.5) A narcissist will always think that they’re the smartest, best looking, most powerful person in the room – so how do you negotiate conflict with a narcissist?

During his recent statements, Sheen claimed that he’s the most important person to the show, that everybody is jealous of his talent and his lifestyle, and that he’s a special person capable of turning off his addictions without any assistance, and certainly without a rehabilitation program. The only person who truly believes all that is the narcissist, and in this case, the narcissist with the addictions. Most conflict negotiation tactics backfire with a person who has a narcissistic personality. Negotiations require a high level of skill and patience. When negotiating with a narcissist, you need to decide whether you have any options to avoid negotiation and whether you (or your representative) have the skills to negotiate with a narcissist.

by Floyd Brown

Some people want conflict. They have just never really learned any other way. 

I came out of the movie theater with my family, and the other car was parked too close to mine on the driver’s side. I gently opened my door part-way to not hit the other car, and I squeezed into my car. There had been about an inch gap between the edge of my open door and the other car.

As I closed my door, I noticed the 60-something female driver of the other car peering at me through her passenger window. Her eyes were tight and piercing. I didn’t know what she could be upset about, so I continued to buckle my seat belt and put the key in the ignition.

Suddenly, the lady was on the passenger side of her car inspecting her door. She quickly spun around and her tight, pursed face was against my window. It was obvious she had something to say, so I rolled down the window.

She quickly snapped at me, “Your door hit my car.”

It’s possible that my car door touched her car as I entered my car because she had simply parked too close. If my car touched her car, the impact was certainly minor and there was no damage.

I’m not sure what the lady expected from me before she approached my car. She was obviously upset even after she confirmed there was no damage to her car. Did she feel compelled to continue on her emotional ride because she was now out of her car? Did she feel that if she returned to her car without saying something that she was being “pushed around”?

She certainly didn’t care that she played a role in the incident by parking her car too close to mine. She certainly didn’t pay attention or care that I had taken steps to avoid my door hitting her car. She either assumed I had not, or she saw my actions and decided I hadn’t done enough.

I had many choices while this lady’s twisted, angry face was planted at my window. Others would have denied that the door hit her car. Others would have told her they didn’t care about the door hitting her car because she was the one who caused the problem by parking too close. Others would have simply told her to stick her car where the sun don’t shine. I believe those were the responses she expected, maybe even wanted. This lady was braced for an argument – she didn’t care that her facts could be wrong; she didn’t care that her parking job was the real cause of the impact; she didn’t even care that the incident was so minor that there was no damage.

What would be the point of arguing with her? What would even be the point of explaining to her my side? She had no interest in feeling anything other than anger, and I wasn’t going to let her dictate my emotions.

I responded with a smile and softly said, “I’m not aware of the door hitting your car, but if it did, I’m sorry.”

She stepped back from my car and paused. My response seemed to confuse her. Where was the anger? Where was the confrontation? She snapped sharply, “You need to be more careful.”

She took another quick look at her car door to confirm there was no damage, and she walked back around to her driver’s side. She probably continued to bitterly complain for hours about the careless, insensitive jerk that slammed his door into her precious car. Meanwhile, I went back to enjoying time with my family. Let others stew in their own anger over meaningless interactions.

Photography by visualpanic

Bill Eddy, the President of High Conflict Institute and author of numerous books, describes potential parties to a negotiation as a “math” person and as a “feelings” person. He warns that the differences in “math” people and “feelings” people can unnecessarily block a settlement.

Eddy says that “Math” people believe they have everything figured out on their own. “Feelings” people, however, don’t have a clear idea of what they want. They are still in shock about how they feel they’ve been wronged, and/or they are fearful about their future.

I have found in my negotiations that the “Feelings” person is the most challenging component in achieving a settlement. Most attorneys tend to be “Math” people; they have analyzed all of the evidence and understand the benefits and risks of going to court. They know a certain amount of discussion is necessary for the negotiating parties to gradually move from their positions, but in the attorney’s world filled with trials, hearings, mediations, meetings, and appointments, only a certain amount of time can be allotted to work with the “Feelings” person.

It is also not uncommon for “Math” persons and “Feeling” persons to develop business and personal relationships together. They have a separate set of skills, and when the relationship works well, they are able to achieve more together than individually. When the relationship is not working well, however, all communication breaks down, and they both see the other person as unreasonable.

The “Feelings” person is challenging because all of the non-“Feelings” people need to slow down and recognize what the “Feelings” person needs in order to reach a settlement. This is difficult for “Math” people to do; however, there are some strategies that work.

1. Take the necessary time to work with the “Feelings” person to make sure they understand the true realities of their situation and the realistic outcomes. Don’t be unnecessarily challenging or confrontational.
2. Be interested in the “Feelings” person’s viewpoint, and allow for full discussion before tackling the details. Try to approach the facts using stories and people as examples.
3. Keep summarizing to make sure they are comfortable and areas of agreement are being achieved.
4. Don’t enable the “Feelings” person. All personality styles are valid and should be handled respectfully. Work with the “Feelings” person to move them towards understanding, not to support their belief that the other person is unreasonable.

If you consider that to be a truth in all of your communications, you will avoid potential conflict. Many times somebody says something that offends you at some level, and your first reaction is to…well…react. React with anger, confusion, and maybe ridicule.

If you stop to consider, however, that the person may not have intentionally offended you and that it’s human nature to state something without fully considering the implications, you may avoid a confrontation.

I recently shared a suggestion with a group of people by email. One person responded with a number of reasons why my suggestion wouldn’t work. The person even provided some additional problems in the response that loosely applied to the group, but really didn’t have anything to do with the topic.

I don’t know the person very well, and I truly believe they were attempting to provide helpful information. I don’t believe they intended to be insulting, and certainly not confrontational. However, the person probably didn’t spend a second considering how their message could be considered offensive.

After reflecting on the truth that people don’t think before they speak, I decided to respond politely and welcoming. I told the person I valued their information, and I suggested they should continue to communicate with me.

So what was the result? This person and I are still communicating effectively, and after this person shared their “helpful” information with the group, they no longer have a need to be directly engaged on the original topic.