is “The Curse of Knowledge”. The Curse of Knowledge is when the sender of the communication assumes that the receiver understands the message simply because the sender understands it.

The Curse of Knowledge is a barrier to successful negotiations because the sender falsely believes that the sender’s signals are being received correctly by the other party.

When the sender questions whether the receiver will care about the message, the sender will answer “yes” because the sender cares about the message. Made to Stick gives an example of the Murray Dranoff Duo Piano people, who say that they “exist to protect, preserve, and promote the music of the duo piano.” They’re shocked that they’re statement doesn’t arouse the same passion in others.

At some point in a negotiation, you will probably be tempted to send a subtle message. I’ve had clients who want to gain the “upper-hand” by holding the negotiation discussions in my office (“the home field advantage”) or by making the first low-ball offer. It’s an attempt to subtly tell the other side that “we’re in charge”.

Sometimes we adjust our settlement proposal to show that we are willing to “meet them halfway” in the negotiation.

These communications are subtle, however, and Made to Stick shows that more times than not, subtlety is lost in communications. The message is loud and clear in your head, and as a result, you falsely believe that your negotiation partner is hearing the message too.

You get frustrated that your negotiation partner can’t see the obvious. Meanwhile, your message is misunderstood, if it’s even perceived. You now have a breakdown in your communications and potential termination of your negotiations.

To learn more, buy Made to Stick here.

meaning which communications get people to buy products, spend money, and simplify their buying decisions. It explains how to influence people – a core component of negotiation strategy – by showing there is more to persuasion than logic and facts.

Here’s how to create a “sticky” negotiation message using the six principles from Made to Stick - Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotional, and Stories:

1. Write out in detail the goal of the message you wish to convey in the negotiation.
2. Write out what message you believe your negotiation partner currently perceives. 
3. Then create and write out a second negotiation message trying to use the SUCCESs principles from the book.
4. Create a scorecard (see below) to evaluate which negotiation message has more points, based on the SUCCESs principles. Rate the principles in the message on a scale of 1 – 5. The message with more points is more “sticky”.

Checklist                     Old Message                     New Message

Simplicity
Unexpectedness
Concreteness
Credibility
Emotional
Stories

You can buy the book here.

meaning the message is memorable. The book is primarily aimed towards people whose responsibilities include presentations, marketing, and sales; however, it is not limited to those groups of people. Made to Stick also provides valuable insight for those people involved in negotiations. The book can help you understand how to make your negotiations sticky.

Made to Stick is written by two brothers, Chip Heath and Dan Heath, who were working on the same subject from two different perspectives – business and academia. The book provides a simple and practical blueprint for creating effective communications. The principles are backed up with interesting anecdotes and facts.

It looks at business communications from a psychological perspective, meaning which communications get people to buy products, spend money, and simplify their buying decisions. It explains how to influence people – a core component of negotiation strategy – by showing there is more to persuasion than logic and facts.

The book provides six principles using the acronym SUCCESs – Simplicity, Unexpectedness, Concreteness, Credibility, Emotional, and Stories. Here are the principles, and how you can use them in your negotiations:

• Simplicity: Your main idea (argument) must be stripped to its core, and the most important points should be evident. Don’t try every argument, hoping one of them is successful. The Heaths write, “To strip an idea down to its core, we must be masters of exclusion. We must relentlessly prioritize.”
• Unexpectedness: Your negotiation partner has expectations about your motivation, your argument, and how you will present it. You have to put yourself in your partner’s place to understand what it is they expect. Then find a way to break the expectations and destroy their preconceived notions. Make them want to know more about how your solution benefits them.
• Concreteness: Use real-world analogies and explain concrete actions and benefits. They have to understand exactly what you’re proposing, and how it will benefit them. Your concreteness must be focused on what’s in it for them.
• Credibility: In a negotiation, you already start off with the disadvantage of mistrust. You must put your negotiation partner in a position to believe you. If your partner doesn’t trust you, they’ll actively try to dispute your argument.
• Emotional: Information makes people think, but emotion makes them care. Your argument must be meaningful enough to make your negotiation partner act. You have to appeal to their emotional needs by forming an association between what they care about and what you are seeking agreement on.
• Stories: People pay closer attention to stories and feel more connected. In your negotiation, find a way to put your partner in a story that ends with them receiving the benefit they are looking to obtain.

You can buy the book here.

I forgot in kindergarten.

Creativity, however, can be critical to finding solutions in the negotiation process. Successful negotiations typically require us to change our thinking process in order to move us away from positions and towards exploring solutions to resolve concerns.

Fortunately, Roger von Oech has written A Whack on the Side of the Head. Von Oech takes the premise that our educational system and business environment stifle creativity. Through this book, von Oech provides illustrations, puzzles, inspirational quotes, and exercises to help us adults rediscover our creativity.

Von Oech points out that solving a problem in negotiations requires “soft thinking”, which is imagination and creativity, and “hard thinking”, which is the practical phase of decision making. Both “soft thinking” and “hard thinking” have their place. When tackling a negotiation, we should start off like an artist, using “soft thinking” skills to realize there’s more than one idea. We can then convert to being a judge, using “hard thinking” skills” to decide which ideas are acceptable and practical to implement.

A Whack on the Side of the Head provides numerous examples and great lessons to improve negotiations. The book provides great information about where and how to use “soft skills” to look at a negotiation from a different perspective.

This is a must-read book that you can buy right here.

1. You can control your emotions by controlling your actions. When you force yourself to behave in a certain way, even if you don’t feel it, the action creates the emotion. As an example, if you force yourself to treat someone you don’t like with love and respect, you will slowly begin to appreciate and care for them. It is also true that if you ignore and rarely show appreciation for someone, you will continue to progressively dislike them. Therefore, you are choosing your emotions by choosing your actions. You have the ability to change your choices.

2. The foundation of every relationship and interaction you have is the “desire to know”. He counsels his children that “curiosity is the soul of every relationship.” Much of Boteach’s advice is based on the premise that you have to find ways to be stimulated every day, and your relationships and interactions are a source of stimulation. Make those around you aware that you respect them, that you are curious about them, and that they are contributing to making your day unique.

3. The world will be a kinder, gentler place if we each honor and exhibit what Boteach identifies as the “feminine qualities” we all have within ourselves, such as peacefulness, tenderness, nurturing, and relationship-building. Boteach says, “Men lived by the sword and became known for their violent exploits. Little by little, however, as civilization progressed, allowing spirituality to spread, a more feminine world began to emerge. Suddenly people began to question the old notions. Maybe might didn’t make right after all, they said.” He believes that civilization continued along that path for hundreds of years, and now seems to be going back to “raw masculinity and savagery”. Some of you may look at nurturing your own peaceful and nurturing tendencies as being weak. It’s not weak, however, to be patient and to not immediately react with anger and violence. In fact, it takes great strength to dig deeper and reflect in order to explore, and perhaps understand, a perspective different from your own.

4. Show the people around you that you know you make mistakes and that you are seeking forgiveness. Furthermore, you should be willing to forgive those people who are seeking forgiveness from you. Becoming angry is a part of your relationships, and you need to communicate when you are angry, which provides the person an opportunity to apologize and to correct the action. Boteach teaches you should be willing to forgive, not just to make the other person feel better and to maintain the relationship. He believes the primary reason for forgiveness is for yourself, so that you don’t let the feelings poison you over time. Boteach says, “An unforgiving heart is a heavy heart. When you don’t forgive someone, you become bitter, and that feeling festers, affecting you more than it affects them. When you forgive, the one you are truly freeing is yourself.”

What can we learn from this article on Israel & Palestine about negotiation strategies? Plenty.

There are three points that the article presents that anyone would find helpful in tough negotiations.

First, the Israelis and Palestinians have decided to move backwards to communicate indirectly through a mediator. It’s a positive negotiation strategy to recognize that what you’ve been doing isn’t working and a change is needed. If in you’re negotiations you get bogged down in positions (instead of interests and concerns), and you allow the personalities to overshadow the problem, you need to explore another method of communication.

Second, both Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu need to save face with their constituencies. In order to keep your negotiation arguments relevant and focused, you must be able to analyze the interests and concerns of the person you are negotiating with. You must know what problem they are relying upon you to fix in a way that makes them popular. If you don’t make your negotiating partner comfortable, you will not be able to move to a discussion on interests and concerns.

Third, the use of a mediator will hopefully move the parties back towards meaningful progress. The book Getting to Yesis primarily devoted to the idea that you should not negotiate over positions; rather, you should focus on interests and concerns. A mediator helps parties develop an acceptable procedure and benchmark for advancement that’s separate from their independent positions. by Roger Fisher and William Ury

Mitt Romney recently addressed a group at the Values Voter Summit. In his speech, Romney criticized President Barack Obama for reducing the United States’ European missile defense policy. Romney discussed two of the reasons Obama’s administration provided for the change in missile defense policy: 1) Iran’s nuclear arms capability is less advanced than previously thought, and 2) Russia would appreciate the gesture and become more of a firm ally against Iran.

In his criticism, Romney said that President Obama violated the first rule of negotiation because he gave something away without getting something in return. Is Romney correct? Is that the “first rule of negotiation”?

First of all, in any negotiation, you have to know who is negotiating with you. The person on the other side of the table needs to be the decision maker. In his comments, Romney doesn’t clarify who he believes the United States was negotiating with: Iran or Russia. Perhaps Romney is saying it doesn’t matter, and neither country is giving the US something in return.

Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury is considered by many to the most important book on negotiation. I took a look at the Table of Contents, and nowhere does it suggest the first rule is to only give when you get.

In fact, the book is primarily devoted to the idea that you should not negotiate over positions; rather, you should focus on interests and concerns. Based on his comments, it sounds like Romney would negotiate over positions.

If Iran’s nuclear capabilities are less advanced than previously thought, the US’s interests and concerns are less dire and nothing is being given up in an attempt to secure a stronger relationship with Russia as a potential ally. It appears Romney would stick with an elevated European missile defense policy only for the sake of maintaining a previous position regardless of a change in interests and concerns. (Romney does make a valid point when he questions whether we truly know the level of Iran’s nuclear capabilities).

A thoughtful and comprehensive conflict management program, which is fair and easily understood, is the first step in an organization’s ability to effectively manage conflict. Conflict management programs establish procedures to follow for the purpose of managing and preventing conflict. These programs hold employees accountable for preventing and resolving conflict. These programs also provide for early intervention. Studies have shown that conflicts have been resolved through a conflict management program within 2-3 months and at a significantly reduced cost compared to traditional litigation.

 After implementing an employment dispute resolution program, Motorola reported a 75% reduction in litigation costs over six years. The Motorola program utilized different levels of conflict management. Motorola decided to set the presumption in favor of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), rather than litigation, and set dollar thresholds requiring claims over a certain dollar amount to go to ADR. Motorola’s attorneys were required to formally explain their avoidance of ADR. Motorola created a conflict management committee that established a screening mechanism, a review process for attorneys’ decisions, provided training, issued a conflict management manual, and generally promoted the concepts.

You can learn more about Motorola, and other Success Stories, by reading Controlling the Costs of Conflict: How to Design a System for Your Organization by Karl A. Slaikeu and Ralph H. Hasson.