Dixie Gillaspie teams up with best-selling author, Bob Burg, to examine the truth behind what it takes to be a better negotiator – regardless of your gender.
—
Sure, we’d all like to get paid a little (or a lot) more. Get contracts approved a litte more often. Or just be able to get our way with anyone, anytime. Right?
And we can. If only we learn to negotiate “like a man.”
But, according to this article in Forbes, negotiating “like a man” means lying (with impunity, no less,) not feeling guilty for losing your temper, and learning to intimidate the other party.
Those aren’t traits I want to perfect. Neither are they traits I associate either with men, or with skilled negotiators. (To see just how outraged I was at the insults that article dished out to men and women both, read last week’s post.)
After reading Ms. Breslin’s conclusions about why men were better negotiators, I knew I had to start unpacking all the false premises and assumptions that were packed into that article. For my own benefit, if not for yours.
So I reached out to the most skilled negotiator I know, who just happens to be a man, and asked for guidance.
◊♦◊
Bob Burg is a good friend, trusted mentor, and undeniable expert on successful negotiations. He is also the author, with John David Mann, of The Go-Giver and the two subsequent books in that series, as well as Endless Referrals, now in its third edition, which is pretty much required reaching for sales staff and anyone whose success depends on relationships and referrals.
Bob and I have been working together for about four years while I was developing coaching materials based on The Go-Giver for his Certified Go-Giver Coaching program, and, as the Master Coach for that program, I’ve had the opportunity to hear him teach from his first book, Winning Without Intimidation, as well as from his most recent work, Adversaries Into Allies: Win People Over Without Manipulation or Coercion, which is a definitive and powerful treatise on how to get what you want without resorting to coercion, manipulation, or intimidation.
Bob has been teaching on these topics for over 20 years, and I’ve watched the trajectory of his clients and certified coaches for long enough to know that what he teaches works.
Some of our discussion found its way into the previous article; “All Men Are Liars and Other Myths About Men Being Better Negotiators”, which mostly focused on how demeaning it is, to all of us, to propose that men are better negotiators because they don’t have to be honest, or nice.
But we devoted a lot of our conversation to what it takes to really be a better negotiator. And gender had nothing to do with it!
◊♦◊
The first problem, Bob asserts, is that Ms. Breslin starts by setting the expectation that women are, or feel they are, poor negotiators. As he says, “It’s a mindset that women have about their own abilities, and I think it’s important that it be addressed.”
It is a definite skill set involving principles, strategies, and tactics. Read a book and/or take a course. Study it. Become good at it. Don’t accept that which need not be accepted.
|
So we set about to address it. Here are some excerpts from our conversation:
Me: I agree that even the concern about not being a good negotiator isn’t gender-exclusive. I know a lot of guys study with you because they think they’re poor negotiators too. But, since we agree that the examples Ms. Breslin chose to study and cite won’t really improve her negotiation skills, or anyone else’s, what would you advise people to do?
Bob: To just simply make the statement that Ms. Breslin made, that most women feel they aren’t good negotiators and that men are better at it, doesn’t seem productive to me. She must know there are lots of classes and courses, as well as books, on negotiating. It is a definite skill set involving principles, strategies, and tactics. Read a book and/or take a course. Study it. Become good at it. Don’t accept that which need not be accepted.
If helping women become better negotiators is really the concern, then those who are leaders and are mentoring other women should make this a priority. Teach negotiating skills to women! But please don’t tell them that men are naturally better negotiators. Especially if you’re going to tell them men are better at it because they lie and yell at people!
Me: Yeah, about lying. Or lying with impunity, as she says. How does that figure into negotiating?
Bob: This, of course, is based on a false premise. I don’t mean that saying men lie better than women lie is false. I don’t know, it may or may not be a true statement. I’ve known many of both genders that have been honest, and I’ve known those of both genders who have been liars. I don’t have the facts to back up her statement or to argue it. But, even if men are indeed better liars than women (which, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume is true) the false premise is that … “Lying equals negotiating.”
Thus, a reasonable conclusion to that premise would be, “A good liar is a good negotiator.”
No, when someone lies, that person is not a “negotiator.” They are a … “liar.” Teaching women that to be a negotiator you must be a good liar is sure to keep many women (and men) from wanting to become better negotiators. Why? because if your value system says that lying is bad and you are being told that in order to be a better negotiator you must become a better liar, you’ll choose not to become a better negotiator. What a hugely dangerous false premise that is.
Me: So what about yelling and intimidation? I know you quote your dad a lot and one of his gems that you included in Adversaries Into Allies was something like, “Tact is the language of strength.” And the very first principle you share in that book is “control your emotions.” So I’m betting you’d tell Ms. Breslin that there was a reason she didn’t feel better after yelling at that person, and that channeling her inner Michael Clayton wouldn’t make her a good negotiator either.
Bob: Can I just take that whole thing point-by-point? Because there are so many false premises there and I want to try to cover as many as possible.
Ms. Breslin wrote: “For some reason, I had thought that arguing my point so dramatically would make me feel better.”
I don’t understand why she would think that since that is a very ineffective way to obtain the results you want.
Ms. Breslin wrote: “I felt guilty for yelling at the person on the other end of the phone.”
And, for good reason; she lost control of herself and her emotions. I’d feel guilty if I did that, too. Rather than being in control of her emotions, her emotions were in control of her. That’s not a good feeling. I’ve done the same, felt just as guilty, and I’m a guy. In other words, that’s not a matter of gender; it’s a matter of handling ourselves correctly and effectively or not doings so. And, when we don’t, we naturally feel badly.
Ms. Breslin wrote: While I’m all for taking a “by any means necessary” approach to negotiating,
Unfortunately she seems to have based her knowledge of negotiating on television and movies. Or, from some horrible real-life examples. If she were to actually study negotiating she would see that “win/win” negotiators who are just as interested in helping the other person attain satisfaction are by FAR the most effective and successful, both short-term and long-term. It’s a matter of creating a bigger pie rather than “taking” from a limited one. It’s living with a prosperity consciousness rather than with a lack one. Both parties should come away from the negotiation as winners; for practical reasons!
Ms. Breslin wrote: “I feel expressing emotions during negotiations is unprofessional.”
Actually, “expressing” emotions are fine. We are human beings; emotions are a part of our authentic nature. Being controlled by our emotions and expressing them negatively as a result of that lack of self-control is indeed unprofessional. (Of course, as human beings, we all make that mistake from time-to-time.)
Ms. Breslin wrote: “…but how can you be a skilled negotiator if the way you act is seemingly out of control?”
Indeed, excellent point. You can’t be. Skilled negotiators maintain control of themselves and of their emotions. None of this so far seems to be gender-specific. In my opinion, it’s a choice.
Ms. Breslin wrote: “Basically, I felt embarrassed by the way I acted and guilty for being such a tool.”
The key is to learn the lesson and, next time, be in more control of yourself. As far as her being a tool, not at all. I don’t see it one single bit that way. She didn’t go about it in a way that I would suggest will consistently get her the results she wants, but that is hardly being a tool.
Ms. Breslin wrote: “On the other hand, I got what I wanted.”
She got the result she wanted “in spite of” how she handled herself, not because of it. And, she felt lousy as a result. I wouldn’t be inclined to call that a personal “win.” And, handling the situation as she did is not likely to usually get her what she wants.
Ms. Breslin writes: “To negotiate is to intimidate”
No, it is not! That is a tactic some negotiators use and it is one of the least effective tactics for getting your way. At best, you might see some immediate results you want (most likely not because the person now doesn’t like you and wants to hurt you; and often will even at their own expense) but they will look for other areas to make difficult for you. Not to mention, after the deal is completed, they will often try and sabotage it (meaning, sabotage you!), whether consciously or unconsciously.
My heart breaks when I see someone claiming to not be a good negotiator make statements such as the above when she has most likely never read a book, taken a course, or even attended lecture on how to effectively negotiate. Nothing personal against Ms. Breslin, of course. She seems like a terrific writer. However, she has an opportunity to reach a lot of women with some helpful information and I’m not sure her article accomplished that goal.
Maybe that’s what Ms. Breslin is really missing, is that she’s defining the “win” in negotiation as initial compliance.
|
Me: You know, one of my favorite points in Adversaries Into Allies is that intimidation might get compliance, but it won’t get commitment. Maybe that’s what Ms. Breslin is really missing, is that she’s defining the “win” in negotiation as initial compliance. When the ultimate win is commitment, or even collaboration. As you say, when the other person is not only willing to help you, but wants to help you, and will continue to feel good about you and about themselves long after your negotiation is over.
Bob: Well, that’s where negotiation strategies become a way to create long-term wins and lasting influence, rather than just the possibility of a short-term win.
◊♦◊
Bob is so right. And that is where I’m going to leave it, for now. With a reminder that getting your way once, no matter how sweet, is nothing next to having an ally who will help you get what you want again, and again, and again. (Especially when what you’re negotiating is your salary! But I’ll save Bob’s comments on that for another article.)
So yes, I do want to learn to “negotiate like a man.” But the man I choose to model doesn’t lie, doesn’t yell, and doesn’t intimidate.
He does, however, win.
Also by Dixie Gillaspie:
All Men Are Liars and Other Myths About Men Being Better Negotiators
‘It’s For Your Own Good’ – When Abuse Masquerades as Motivation
Photo:Flickr/The_Warfield