5
Building Rapport and Shifting Gears: The Power of a Good Opening
Openings matter. It's one thing to get the other party to the table where negotiation might be a possibility; it is another to actually get the process started. The way that negotiation gets started can have a significant impact on the agreement reached and the process by which it is reached. Research on traditional negotiation contexts—buyer-sellers, employers-applicants—demonstrates that what happens in the first few minutes of a negotiation not only predicts the process that will be followed but also foretells the outcome.1
Such research gives us insight into several dimensions of openings. They help us understand something of the strategy of opening offers: who should make them, what information one should have to make them, what constitutes a good opening offer, and the relative advantages of making them.2 The research also helps us recognize certain scripts we're likely to follow: those that are more opening and trusting (often among acquaintances), problem solving or creative exploration of the issues, or haggling over price.3
Openings Work Differently in n-Negotiations
When negotiations lack such clear structures, openings take on a different character. The context matters. In collective bargaining, opening moves are likely to be characterized by angry posturing as a way to show the various constituencies, especially on the labor side, that the bargainers are going to fight for their interests.4 In hostage negotiations, opening moves are intended to contain the hostage taker's anxieties and calm the person down. So rather than opening offers, one might witness moves like mirroring, self-disclosure, and paraphrasing.5
In the same vein, openings in n-negotiations are also likely to be different.6 They often entail shifting a request, assignment, or even dialogue from a routine meeting into something that resembles a negotiation. And these negotiations do not take place between strangers; the potential parties are likely known to each other.
In the first part of the chapter, we discuss some basic principles of opening as they've been described in the literature. These are the kinds of moves that build rapport and are crucial in n-negotiations. The second part of the chapter explains how you can shift gears by turning a meeting about one matter (say, a status update or a planning meeting) into a negotiation. In the third part of the chapter, we discuss the ways to put the preparation on mindfulness to work.7 Finally, we deal with a special kind of situation where negotiation is unanticipated: you are asked to do something—sit on a diversity committee, take on a new project or role—and you are not happy about it. These are the situations when you are asked or assigned to do something and the expectation is not that negotiation will begin but rather that you will say yes. Based on our experiences, this kind of negotiation requires a different kind of opening.
Building Rapport
People frequently emphasize the importance of rapport in the negotiation and dispute resolution fields. Building rapport is about creating a connection or getting in sync with your negotiating counterpart. People tell stories about the ways strangers build rapport—how they discover some connection between them, like a mutual friend, common interests, or similar backgrounds. In their book on the emotional dimensions of negotiation, Roger Fisher and Dan Shapiro suggest that these moves build structural connections between parties.8 These connections contribute to creating a context where parties can work together despite their differences. These rapport-building moves seem especially important when you do not have a relationship with the other party—situations where you are if not strangers, at least not well known to each other. But what about n-negotiations, where you most likely not only know the person you will be negotiating with but already have a working relationship with her?
In these situations, rapport is still important.
The Costs of Lacking Rapport
Mika Brzezinski gives us a sad but humorous picture of the failure to build rapport when she tells of how she went into the office of MSNBC president Phil Griffen in the interest of securing a raise: “I sat down on his couch and proceeded to tell him in no uncertain terms that my salary was a joke and he'd better change it.” She proceeded to raise her voice and even “tossed in a few F-bombs.”9 According to Brzezinski, the conversation unraveled to the point where she and Griffen stood six inches apart, jabbing each other in the shoulder. She described this incident as a failed attempt to emulate Joe Scarborough's masculine approach, which is surely true. But Scarborough's approach with Griffen was likely based on a bantering form of rapport that the two men had established. Brezinski, in contrast, had done nothing to establish a rapport of her own.
You probably have a relationship with the person you plan to negotiate with in n-negotiations—a boss, a peer, or a person who reports to you—so rapport exists at some level. However, the possibility of a negotiation, where interests are likely to diverge and where one person expects a negotiation while the other may not, calls for some care in setting the stage for a negotiation to begin. This stage setting is important; it creates a kind of holding environment for proposals to be heard.
Building Rapport: The Power of Schmoozing
The first step in building rapport, even with current coworkers, managers, and employees, is to set up some form of routine meeting to accomplish a number of things. First, as we suggest in chapter 4, these meetings provide an opportunity to update your boss about the status of ongoing projects, presumably in a way that emphasizes the value that you and your team consistently contribute. But second, they can create potential occasions for introducing a subject that might be ripe for negotiation. This can take the pressure off by eliminating the need to hold a special meeting, one that may raise the stakes.10
There are several ways to initiate a process of rapport building. People talk about the value of schmoozing—a word that comes from the Yiddish schmeusen or shmoos, which means to converse. Although people use the term to mean a host of networking activities, we refer to it to mean talk informally or to make small talk.11 I'm always surprised that people know this word when I teach in other countries, since I tend to associate it with my background growing up in New York. Schmoozing, it turns out, makes a difference in negotiations. One study found that negotiators who engaged in small talk for just a few minutes before negotiating felt more cooperative and were more likely to come to an agreement than those who did not schmooze.12
Schmoozing is not an alien concept. Most of us start conversations by engaging in some kind of informal chitchat. We ask about each other's families, catch up on the local sports team, or in more benign fashion bemoan or applaud the weather. Schmoozing pretty much comes naturally in our normal day-to-day relationships. Yet we tend to be anxious to cut right to the chase when we're going into a negotiation—and so we forget to schmooze. In his book on improvisation in negotiation, Mike Wheeler describes a real estate negotiation role play: experienced real estate professionals were videotaped negotiating the terms between a developer and a major tenant. In one instance, the obviously anxious developer launches right into a discussion of the issues; in the second video, he spends time connecting with the tenant by talking about what they have in common. Wheeler suggests that the differences in how the tenant responds—the first in a rather hostile manner, the second more collaboratively—can be traced to these opening moves.13
Creating Rapport Routines
People establish rapport routines. The ones that get the most press are probably discussions of Monday-morning quarterbacking about local sports teams. People who use their weekends in other ways don't feel as comfortable participating in these discussions. But schmoozing can be about anything that connects you and the other person. If you don't know the person that well, you can talk about your business's recent performance. If you notice photographs on the wall or on a bookcase, you can ask about the family. In situations where you already know the other person well, maybe because it is a regularly scheduled meeting, schmoozing involves picking up on some of the standard topics of conversation you have usually engaged in.
Schmoozing Isn't Just for Strangers.
It is important even in well-established relationships because it allows us to get a read on where the other party is that day. One reason schmoozing is important is that it gives you a sense of what's happening with the person at the moment. You might, for example, want to know that your boss was involved in a car accident on the way into work before you broach the idea of a bonus. Let's say you do find out from schmoozing that this is not a good time—that something untoward has happened to the person with whom you've planned to negotiate and he or she is stressed or late or otherwise distracted. Under those circumstances, it might be a good idea to postpone the conversation. Schmoozing gives you some sense of how the other person is likely to perceive what you propose to negotiate.
Nonverbal Cues.
Though schmoozing is obviously about the words we use, it is also about the nonverbal cues we send. Researchers have found that when people are in each other's company for just a few minutes, their behaviors subtly start to converge.14 So the other party is likely to mirror actions like leaning in and making eye contact. And when others respond in kind, we are more likely to trust them. As a result, we should be wary of basing trust only on people's responses; sometimes we need to use other means to assess how truthful a person is being with us.15 This advice is critical when we are dealing with strangers or people we do not know very well. This may be less true with colleagues or bosses with whom we conduct n-negotiations. We have other criteria we can draw on to assess trustworthiness in those situations, since we are likely to have some form of ongoing relationship with them, or at the very least we know them by reputation, giving us other means to judge trustworthiness. Our goal in the opening few minutes of the conversation is to establish a relatively comfortable connection before we start actually negotiating.
Shifting Gears
You're able to shift gears when you have an idea about what you want to negotiate and recognize a potential occasion to do so. That potential occasion might have a different purpose—a status update, a planning meeting, or an off-site retreat. Shifting gears requires that you find a way to repurpose the meeting. In the general course of doing your work, you identify an issue about which you want to negotiate—perhaps your workload or the structure of your role. Maybe it is an idea you have to fix a persistent challenge: a morale problem in the unit, a well-resourced project that keeps underperforming, or a new structure that does not seem to be working. Or maybe you want to advocate for more resources in your role. It might even be a promotion that you think is due. Shifting gears typically involves repurposing a meeting—such as a status update, standing one-to-one, or a planning meeting—and turning it into a negotiation.
Successful Gear-Shifting Moves
In our interviews and work with women leaders, we have seen a number of successful moves that shift gears from what might be a typical meeting into a negotiation. We've also seen a number of unsuccessful moves. Too often people jump right into their ask (even after some schmoozing) without thinking hard enough about how to shift gears. They may start out by asking very directly for what they need—more resources for their team, more compensation for themselves, a new opportunity—without creating a context that is more likely to move the other person into a negotiating frame of mind. We have observed several approaches that seem to work better in making this shift.
Picking the Right Time and Place.
We explored in chapter 4 one of the challenges in getting a negotiation off the ground: when the other person tells you that the time is right. You don't need to be rebuffed to plan ahead for what might be the right setting to start an n-negotiation, especially an unexpected one. Should you meet in an office, or would a less formal setting be more conducive?
That was the decision Meera, a partner in a pediatric practice composed of several physicians, had to make when she wanted to introduce a new compensation structure to her partners. The practice's income is basically fee-for-service, and the partners had a bonus formula to divide profit based on the number of patients each doctor treated. However, Meera believed that the compensation structure did not contribute to the practice's overall effectiveness: the doctors were not rewarded for things they did to help the practice outside of seeing patients. Partners who took on extra responsibilities (overseeing finances, working to help set insurance policies at the state level) ended up working just as much, if not more, yet they earned less compensation because they spent less time with patients.
Meera thought there might also be an opportunity to adjust their compensation plan because it failed to take into account revenue from their nurse practitioners. But she knew her proposal—that they instead base compensation on hours worked, not patient caseload—would be controversial because it would affect some of her partners' income. She also knew that if she proposed it during a regular staff meeting, her agenda could easily get hijacked by other pressing practice issues. So she decided that the annual off-site retreat where they meet at someone's house, rather than the office, would offer the most auspicious setting for her controversial proposal. The setting helped, the group was able to discuss her proposal on its merits, and ultimately they agreed that it would be more fair.
Connecting to What Is happening in the Organization.
With this opening, the person starts the conversation by talking about something important in the organization. Tanya, a country leader in a financial services firm, wanted to renegotiate expanded areas of autonomy for her role. She began the negotiation by saying, “As you know, we are hearing from the CEO that budget is a big focus this year and we need to reduce expenses. We in Peru could manage to cut some substantial costs if we look at new ways to deal locally with our vendors.” With this opening, she positions her ask in the broader context.
Connecting to the organization's overall activities is also a potential way to advocate for a promotion, even though that might seem self-serving.16 Kristin, a director of human resources, believed she deserved a promotion but knew that there was only a small window to make that happen because her boss was leaving the company. She opened the meeting by saying, “You know, I don't often come with an ask, but I want to take our one-on-one agenda and put it aside.” Kristin then went on to introduce the topic of her desire for a promotion to vice president by anchoring it in the context of two departures—that of her boss and of her counterpart in China—and the need to continue the work they had been doing by integrating different functions.
It can sometimes be difficult to advocate for a promotion for oneself; locating it in the context of what is occurring in an organization can make such an ask somewhat easier.17 Still, it's never entirely easy.
Providing an Update on a New Role.
The moment of taking on a new role is obviously a good time to negotiate. If you let that opportunity go by, will you be stuck with the role description you agreed to? Suggest that you want to take some time (maybe three months) to evaluate it, and then schedule time to negotiate what changes might make sense. That's what Amari did. She was three months into her role in a newly merged business development unit when she found that she was overwhelmed with day-to-day operational work and wanted more resources. She began the negotiation by stating, “I want to catch you up on how the new role is going. I really enjoy it and am so glad that you gave me the opportunity. But having spent a few months in this position, I think I see a way to deal with how stressed the group is.” In this way, Amari paves the way to negotiate for hiring a new project manager so that she can spend less time on day-to-day operations and be more strategic in how she develops this new unit.
Enlarging the Context for Negotiating.
Amari also enlarges the context for the negotiation. Yes, she wants more resources—but not just for herself. She argues that it will likely help the team, and her opening sets the stage for that.18 Sheryl Sandberg provides a nice example of this in Lean In. She explains that in negotiating her role as chief operating officer for Facebook, she was prepared merely to take what the CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, offered. But her brother-in-law pointed out that a man would not consider taking the first offer. Equally interesting in this anecdote is how she opened the conversation: “Of course you realize that you're hiring me to run your deal teams, so you want me to be a good negotiator. This is the only time you and I will ever be on opposite sides of the table.”19 We know she did quite well in the negotiation, but how she opened was an interesting way to draw him in and connect their negotiation to the broader role.
Discovering the Other Person's “Good Reasons”
In chapter 3, we discussed the importance of mindful preparation for a negotiation. We introduced the notion of considering your counterpart's perspective as well as any reasons she might have for taking these positions. Those reasons are the hidden agenda of any negotiation: the things that can potentially derail a negotiation if they are left unsaid. Because we are likely to be the initiator of a change in n-negotiations, the other party may become defensive. If you claim that a new structure is not working, for example, are you implicitly blaming your boss by bringing it up? If you have been overlooked for a development opportunity, are you implying that some type of bias was involved? Obviously you do not want the other party to feel blamed. But this person might—and could adopt a defensive posture, which makes it difficult for him to attend to the options you plan to propose. You find the party is defending more than listening.
Putting Good Reasons to Work
How can you mitigate this potential effect? One way is to mention one of your counterpart's good reasons early in the meeting so that you can discuss it.20 Remember, we all have our own good reasons for taking the positions we do. When Cheryl wanted to negotiate about her schedule and locale in chapter 3, she knew her boss would likely have some significant reservations: among other things, it could mean that her job performance would suffer. She legitimates his concern by mentioning it early on in the conversation; then they can talk about it. When she introduces the option of a “tri-office,” they can discuss how they will ensure that her performance does not suffer. Once Isobel (chapter 4) got her boss to the table to negotiate an expanded role for her, she expected that he would be concerned about the costs of the restructuring. When she brought it up, he confirmed her suspicions: he was concerned. From there, they can agree to discuss the financing of the new arrangement. The advantage to Isobel is that she has prevented the objections from coming up later in ways that might derail the negotiation. She's addressed the elephant in the room right off the bat.
In the workshops I teach, I always suggest that people consider mentioning a good reason early on in the negotiations. Although people appreciate the advice to consider the other party's good reasons for saying no, they often disagree with my advice to mention a good reason early in the negotiation. I've heard several objections:
- First objection: Tipping your counterpart off. The first concern (and the one that's the easiest to deal with) is whether you will mention a good reason that the other person hasn't even considered. That is always a possibility; however, when you know the person with whom you are negotiating and are familiar with the situation, you are unlikely to introduce an idea he has not thought about. This is not always a good strategy in N-negotiations, but in most n-negotiations, our familiarity with our counterpart and the situation make it unlikely we will raise a concern he hasn't already considered.
- Second objection: There are likely to be many good reasons. And what happens with the reasons you didn't mention? Will the other person raise them as objections later in the negotiations? This person well might, but by starting the conversation with a good reason, you signal that you have thought about her perspective and that you see her opinions and reactions as legitimate. That is more likely to prompt your counterpart to do the same and set a problem-solving tone for the negotiation.
- Third objection: Ceding control. A final objection that people have is that you've ceded control of the situation by starting with your counterpart's potential objections. Our executives tend to believe that it's preferable to control the agenda so you can best make your case. That is a legitimate point of view. However, mentioning a good reason and giving your counterpart space to air her potential objections actually does give you the best opportunity to take control. Recall our discussion of anchoring and that what happens early in the negotiation often anchors the conversation and determines both the scope of the negotiation and its outcome. Objections can work in this way as well. When you introduce one of your counterpart's good reasons, you're not just signaling that you are empathetic and problem solving; you also anchor the negotiation on whichever of their objections you wish to focus on. While others may come up, it's likely the focus will be on the issue you have raised.21 Of course, this does mean you need to be strategic when you consider which “good reasons” you choose to introduce.
What Cheryl's Case Teaches Us
When Cheryl mentions that her boss will be concerned that any change in her locale will affect her performance, she makes it easier and more comfortable for them to discuss the issue. In doing so, she has created a space to introduce her proposal of the tri-office. And because her preparation helped her anticipate his reaction, her proposal includes ways to ensure that her performance doesn't suffer. Similarly, when Tanya opens with her wish to discuss how they handle local vendors, she mentions her boss's likely concern that this would change how the corporate office deals with country divisions. They can discuss this, and then when she introduces her proposal, they can discuss how they will sell this new idea to the corporate leadership.
Setting the context through opening moves is an important part of any negotiation. We have suggested that an opening has three parts: building rapport, shifting gears to set a context for negotiation, and mentioning a good reason to get potential defenses out in the open. Let's look at how one individual put all of these into practice.
I recently worked with a group of senior women using a short case involving a woman named Alexandra that exemplified the challenges of opening an n-negotiation in the context of an ask.
Of course, the women in the program were not pleased with the boss's ask. They reasoned that Alexandra was being asked to give up her initiative just when her hard work would pay off. Credit for the initiative's success would pass to her subordinate. And she was being asked to exchange that for an ambiguous role with no assurances about where it would lead. The women saw this as a request that was ripe for negotiation.23 They developed creative options about the role, the title, the future, and the project she would be leaving.
We then set up a role play, and those playing Alexandra had a difficult time getting negotiations off the ground. The boss, wanting and anticipating a yes, did not expect to negotiate. Most of those playing Alexandra were frustrated that they could not open the negotiation. As the boss flattered her about how perfect she was for the role and how good she would be in it, Alexandra consistently tried to discuss other options. She wanted to actually get the title, or at least assurances about the role in the future, as well as some form of continued role in (and credit for) the initiative she had led. A skilled role player, the boss easily deflected these opening overtures, and the negotiations did not get off the ground.
What Alexandra's Case Teaches Us
While this case may not be specifically typical of n-negotiations, it does reflect a significant category of situations where people are asked to do something—take on a new role, a seat on a diversity task force, or a new subordinate—with an expectation that they will assent. We saw this situation in Marisa's case from chapter 1, when the managing partner was willing to engage with her and the advice to respond with “Yes, and…” seemed straightforward. But that is not always the case. Indeed, recent research suggests that women are more likely to be asked to do work that might not be beneficial to their careers.24 Another example is when a company announces a reorganization and a subset of people are put into new roles. As part of that process, the expectation that accompanies these announcements is that there will be no negotiation. Indeed, in the case of reorganizations, we are sometimes grateful to still have a role at all. Launching these presumably nonnegotiable situations requires setting a context that will shift the conversation—one wherein it is a more difficult challenge to shift gears.
Similarities between Opening Moves and Responding to an Ask
As we have interviewed people about these situations and observed them role playing, we see these occasions as ones that make use of similar principles of opening moves yet deployed in slightly different ways.
Use Gratitude Carefully.
Obviously schmoozing still applies because you want to connect with the asker. But a trap we have observed people fall into all too frequently is continuing in that vein by expressing gratitude for being asked. There is nothing wrong with expressing gratitude in general. But in this context, it can give the impression that you are prepared to say yes, whereas you want to either say no or more likely make it a “Yes, and…”
We have observed that people speak appreciatively too often when they are not really appreciative. Alexandra is not particularly happy about being offered an ambiguous role where the reward for doing so is not at all clear. If anything, rather than expressing gratitude for the opportunity, you can express gratitude in a way that legitimates your competence. “Thank you for recognizing I am qualified to take over the vice president's role” can be much more effective than “Thank you for this opportunity.”
When You Should Question the Other Person.
In contrast to the examples we already gave regarding shifting gears and connecting your ask to a broader organizational context, you want to do the questioning in this situation. You want the asker to answer your questions and connect the request to the organizational context. Alexandra needs answers to her opening questions so that she will feel that she can say yes. She wants to know several things: Why is she being asked to do this only temporarily? How long will this assignment last? Why is she being offered only an acting role? What happens after it ends?
In our experience with these types of conversations, it's common to get only vague answers to these sorts of questions. Remember, the other party is expecting her to say yes and would rather not get too specific. So, then, what should you do—and what can Alexandra do?
Shift the Balance: When You Should Get the Other Person to Question You.
At this point, it's helpful to remind yourself that this person came to you, not someone else, for this assignment. Presumably he or she thinks you're the right person for this role. You might not be able to say no outright, but you do have some power here. Your boss's BATNA might not be so good in this situation; remember, there's a vice president who has to take a leave of absence and a scramble to pick up the pieces.
When you're not getting answers to your questions, it helps to shift the balance and the direction of the questions. Ultimately, you want your counterpart to start asking you questions about what you want. Once you can get that to happen, a negotiation can begin.
We have observed some useful opening moves to create this shift in the balance and prompt the asker (boss) to start doing the asking. Alexandra might respond:
- “Thank you for this offer, but I don't think I can say yes under the terms you are suggesting.” The boss responds with, “What terms would make it possible for you to say yes?”
- “I don't think I can take this role in the way you have described it.” The boss responds, “What would make you change your mind?”
- “I have some concerns about the role as you have defined it.” The boss responds, “What are your concerns?”
With each of these openings, Alexandra shifts the conversation so that the boss has to question her. This shifting of gears gives her an opening to put her options on the table. Obviously the degree of directness with which you make these kinds of openings depends on the situation and the relationship you have with your negotiating counterpart. In situations like Alexandra's, where you are offered an opportunity proposed uniquely to you, you have more leeway in how you open as a way to get the other party to ask you questions. You can be more direct. However, there are other situations where the first opening might prompt the other party to say, “Fine,” and move onto the next person. In situations where you realistically see that your bargaining room is limited, the third and more oblique opening is likely to work best. Whichever opening you use to switch gears from an ask to a negotiation, you need to be clear that just because a person expects you to say yes directly does not mean you have to do so.
Second-Generation Issues and Small Wins
Openings in n-negotiations are important and tricky because they involve a situation where the other person is not expecting a negotiation. It may be a routine meeting or simply that the other person expects acquiescence. The issue of asks is particularly important. We know from the research that women get asked to do many things because of their position in an organization. If they are one of few women, they may be asked to sit on various committees to bolster diversity—especially true for women of color. It may also be that women get asked more because people expect them to say yes—not just because there is a general expectation that women will say yes, but also because people get reputations for doing so. Indeed, Isobel (chapter 4) told us that she had to ask a friend to make sure that she did not say yes the next time the operations group asked her to do something.
Negotiation over asks is important so that you, like Isobel, can keep focused on the work that matters to you and is recognized. And if you do respond affirmatively, you need to think of it as a “Yes, and…” in order to ensure that you are not overloading yourself. It's critical to figure out what the “and” is. For Isobel to continue to do the extra work would not be good for her or the organization. That's part of how you prepare yourself to come up with creative options and anticipate the reactions to your ask. But equally important is to have a way to open these kinds of negotiations so that the other person is ready to discuss the options you have prepared. Once Alexandra responds to her boss with what it will take for her to agree to the temporary role, they can negotiate a good agreement for her, for her boss, and for the organization. These examples are small wins for the women who negotiated them. They put a value on the work they are being asked to do and so are more likely to get credit for work that might have been invisible.
For this and other materials, visit www.deborahmkolb.com.