Hello readers and
welcome to week four of our class on decision making for leaders! This week,
we’ll look at deception in negotiations and how to identify when it is
occurring.
Hoch, et al (2001)
discusses four groups of cues that can be indicators that there may be an
attempt to deceive being used. The cues, or “tells” as poker players would say,
are separated into vocabulary, verbal, vocal, and visual categories. There are
three categories relating to aural stimuli, however, it should be noted that
the longest list is under visual cues. That is not surprising, as John Medina (2008) reminds us, “We learn and remember best
through pictures, not through written or spoken words.” (2008, p. 240)
I would also like to
make a plug for preparation. There is an old adage of “the five P’s”. The
saying goes, “Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance.” Having done ones
homework prior to beginning negotiations will go a long way toward protecting
against deceptive practices. Having learned lessons form not being prepared, I
can attest to the validity of “the five Ps”.
Now, let’s get back to
interacting with another human during negotiations. Because of our biological
reliance upon visual stimuli, negotiating via electronic media automatically
puts both sides at a disadvantage. If a side were to willfully intend to
deceive the other, this fact could actually be turned into an advantage. Just
be aware of that fact. More diligence in fact checking and direct questions
needs to be applied if you can’t see with whom you are dealing.
There are some caveats
to the list of cues provided in Table 11.1 (Hoch, et al., 2008, p.195) of the text. “First, none of these cues is
perfectly correlated with deception. Second, despite the abundance of available
cues, most people are not good at detecting lies, and third, most people are
overconfident in their ability to detect deception.” (2008, p.194) People like
Bernie Madoff and P.T. Barnum excelled in exploiting these caveats.
If we focus on
evaluating information for deception during the negotiation process, the four
main processes are shifting the frame, asking direct questions, listen
carefully, and paying attention to nonverbal cues. (2008, p. 196-197)
Simply in the way
questions or statements are posed, a point of view, or frame, is created around
the topic. Is something a short-coming or a trade-off? Is a product that is
$999.99 really more affordable that one that is $1000.00? There are tools that
can be applied to statements to change the frame and allow for new perspectives
to be viewed for clarity. Past lessons in our program have addressed this
topic. The upshot is that frames, and presenting information in a particular
light, are powerful tools in negotiation and are open to manipulation and,
therefore, deceptive practices.
Listening, while not
the primary way humans absorb information, still must be done with intention.
Is the speaker qualified to make the statements they are making? As deception
most often occurs through acts of omission, rather than commission, what is not
said may be more important than what is said.
That leads us to
asking direct questions of the other party. Specificity is important, but one
must be careful to gather info in both the broad and narrow categories. One
will miss much if using a microscope to view a landscape. Conversely, using a
telescope to look for bacteria will produce less than optimum results. Proper
preparation is a big key here. Data mining and ensuring the plan of action and
desired results are extremely well defined provides a strong base from which to
operate.
Observing and noting
nonverbal cues, as we noted earlier, may provide the best indication of
deception. These cues absolutely must be combined with other information to
confirm any suspicions. Depending on the gravity of the negotiations, the
pressure of the situation may cause people to demonstrate signs that could be
construed as indicators of deception (sweating, stammering, nervous tics,
etc.). Take note, but corroborate the cue with information before calling
someone out.
An example of a
negotiation where I feel I was misled would be the first home purchase I ever
made. The situation is intimidating, to begin with, and complex. I was relying
on the realtor and my then spouse to operate in my best interest as I was out
of town over 20 days a month. The house was nice, but had numerous small
defects. Taken separately, the items were not grandiose. However, as repair
cost mounted, I realized that the parties I had relied upon did not have the
same goals as I would have represented in the negotiation. The realtor wanted
to get a sale and my wife just wanted to get out of apartment living as soon as
possible. I learned that due diligence falls to me, especially when I’m signing
the loan papers.
Looking back on a time
where I may have overstated a position, I am reminded of the follies of youth. Overstating
my abilities to teachers, coaches, friends…I am guilty. Not performing to the
standards I had proposed I could led to embarrassment and damaged
relationships. All the lessons learned have helped me to understand how important
one’s reputation is to one’s dealings with others. Repairing the damage takes volumes
of effort more than merely doing what one says one will do.
That leads to defining
how far I would go in utilizing some form of deception in a negotiation. There
is always a part of negotiation that falls under gamesmanship. I am reminded of
a quote by Admiral Horatio Nelson of Trafalgar fame, “Gentlemen, when the enemy is
committed to a mistake we must not interrupt him too soon.” I am bound by, and
appreciate, ethical practices and also my fiduciary duties to my company. As
Levine’s (2009) book on conflict resolution tells us, we must
look for opportunities to have all parties come away having been heard and with
a sense of resolution. Weighing all of these facets of a negotiation is what
makes the complexities an even greater responsibility of leaders and
negotiators. If it was easy, everyone could do it. History shows that negotiations
of seemingly little consequence can have
large impacts and must be treated seriously.
Preparation, reputation,
knowledge, trust, and a bit of cynicism are all a part of playing the
negotiator role. Good luck in the situations you may face!
Hoch, S. J., Kunreuther, H. C., & with
Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on Making
Decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Levine, S.
(2009). Getting to resolution - Turning
conflict into collaboration (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.
Medina,
J. (2008). Brain Rules (T. Cutchlow
Ed.). Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment