Within all things “people related”, there is bound to be crossover in various, related interpersonal sub-topics. After all, how different can sub-topics be regarding people? If you think about it, not that much! Every human is essentially hardwired the same, have the same hopes, fears, desires, aspirations, biases, and physical needs. So, with respect to how people are treated within a created culture, the subtopic of negotiation fits nicely within this realm. Let’s go through a few vital culture lessons from negotiation!
When we talk about negotiation, we are not talking about positional bargaining, “wheeling and dealing”, playing bad politics, or hard bargaining with others. Certainly, actions like that on a consistent basis tend to ruin relationships. The negotiation we are talking about is predominantly “principled negotiation” that is non-manipulative and seeks to understand the “whys” behind motivation or action. Only then can both parties meet each other’s interests. Interests are the reasons behind a position / stance.
So, let us break this down a little bit. A great lesson from negotiation that applies to culture is about assuming that everyone’s interests are in alignment just because they’re part of the same team, group, organization, or community. That is a fallacy. The reasons why people are a part of the group could be different in many respects. Part of principled negotiation is to do some investigating to find out why people feel the way they do regarding a position. This is the only way to understand the other party and have a chance of developing workable solutions that stick long term.
The same can be said for culture. Knowing why one is part of this team, group, organization or community is paramount. Some questions to ask people at the right time are: what are you looking to get out of your time spent here? What do you think works well? And what do you think doesn’t? What wakes you up in the morning? What would be the perfect work environment for you?
We bet that if a researcher asks that first question to 100 people in a random study, the outcome will probably be that at least half of those will be various answers, and the other half will be generic / common answers. It’s the 50% that do not fit the bill of your assumption of “why they are there” and what motivates them to be a part of this team, group, organization, or community. Also, it’s worth pointing out that the larger the amount of people together, the more variables. In a community of 100,000 people there may be several hundred of reasons why people live and spend time there.
So, the first lesson about negotiation… affecting culture is about having a deeper understanding of the people that make it up, and why they’re doing what they’re doing. Finding out the answers to “what wakes them out of bed in the morning” to have an impact on where they are. Or conversely, what doesn’t wake them up in the morning so where they are not having any impact.
It’s a great process that is not only stand-up, but it’s also highly intelligent and personal to have that deeper understanding of not only the common characteristics and the interests of people, but also what are the outliers. At that point, only then will a team, group, organization, or community can vision a future state. The architect(s) of the created culture will then have a baseline understanding to build from.
Another lesson from negotiation are the concepts and approach regarding:
- Taking in information
- Not reacting immediately
- Analyzing
- Strategic probing
- Brainstorming solutions
In a transformation effort (say a culture refresh) if a group of people that are completely reacting to action and statements without conducting the prior bullets, typically leads to a sub-par response. If a culture (and way of inter-personally communicating) could support a more of a negotiation type process / approach, there likely will be less unhappy people, and much more inquisitive minds. Curiosity will become the new renaissance! CreatorOfCulture would rather have many curious, inquisitive minds versus ones that had purely reacted. It’s easier for our brains to just react, or make decisions based on gut feelings.
It’s a great skill in negotiation to not react or decide immediately from some statement or action that the other party has made / conducted. It is ideal for an individual(s) to look at an action or statement as purely a perspective that is motivated by some factor. Curiosity and being inquisitive is a master key point of a culture that is sustainable over the long term.
The last point we want to make regarding how negotiation can bring a lot of value to culture, is plainly the day-to-day method of people interacting with one another. If someone has a really strong idea, or they feel their viewpoint is the “only” viewpoint, there tends to be “bulldog-ing” of action. In other words, only a select voice(s) gets heard by a hard push. In principal negotiation, a “bulldog-ing” individual who can only see one viewpoint is someone we say that is “stuck in a position”. Those individuals may not see other perspectives, therefore cannot understand different options for a result that meets both party’s needs.
When cultures allow and accept people “bulldog-ing” their ideas, voices, or actions, then the concepts of principal negotiation are vitally needed. That culture needs a shift to get back to treating each other in that fashion of seeing perspectives, inquiring, being curious, and meeting the interests of people involved. That style of approach leads to diversity in thought, and then leads to superior results typically over the long term.
To conclude, we’ve heard many different reasons and lessons from principled negotiation. These ways of treating people tend to exist in mature cultures where all involved are operating in the same fashion. Operating in this way will create an environment where people feel valued, have contributed to a future state, and ultimately that their interests in an outcome have been met.