Blog

Influencing is not a one-sided activity. It’s a dynamic process that involves both parties trying to persuade each other to adopt their views or actions. We need to be aware of how we influence others and how they influence us. It is important to understand the factors that affect our own and others’ decision-making, such as emotions, values, biases, and objectives. By being Process Aware, we can improve our influencing skills and avoid being influenced by others

Today, we pay tribute to the courageous men and women who have laid down their lives for this great nation. They fought to defend and protect our values and our freedoms. We owe them a debt of gratitude and respect for their service and sacrifice. Let us honor their memory and cherish the freedoms they secured for us and for future generations.

We have all been in meetings regarding several topics, where consensus has been reached, then in walks the ‘Manager’. The manager makes a comment or two, and what had been previously agreed, vaporizes like a cartoon talk bubble, ‘Poof’. It has been replaced by virtual ‘Like’ buttons from the participants. The manager speaks and they click the ‘like’ button. Gone are their ideas, creativity, and solutions, replaced by what the manager feels is the best course of action.

So why do people make these sudden shifts in positions? It is fear. Fear of going against a manager, fear of having to take responsibility for an idea, or fear due to a lack of belief in themselves or their idea. Keep in mind these are founded fears, many managers do not like nor promote those who do not agree with them. They are not interested in open discussions, just open validation of their ideas or points of view; press the ‘Like’ button. If we go ‘out on a limb’ with an idea, we could look back and only see saws, no one pressing the ‘Like’ button.

Companies and organizations should look to create a culture where creativity is not only encouraged, but it is also required. Managers should task their teams to think more about what could be and provide multiple solutions to any given problem or strategy. Once these are created, have an open discussion so the ‘Like’ button can be pressed for the BEST idea or strategy.

Business Crayons definition of Empathy in Business – Building Common Ground with others’ emotions

According to Psychology today, Sympathy is feeling of concern for someone else, and a desire that they become happier or better off, while Empathy involves sharing the other person’s emotions. Compassion is an empathetic understanding of a person’s feelings accompanied by altruism, or a desire to act on that person’s behalf.

“In the book Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as If Your Life Depended on It™, we call this kind of empathy Tactical Empathy™. Very simply, Tactical Empathy is the process of knowingly and intentionally influencing your counterpart’s emotions to make deals.” Chris Voss

Long before I read Chris Voss’s book, I had a heated exchange with a colleague regarding the use of Empathy as a Tactic. After a group discussion on how to be empathetic and the importance of Empathy in a negotiation, I summed up the discussion with, “so, empathy is just another tactic to use in influencing the other person to get what you want.” By their reaction you would have thought I had declared the world was flat.

In business situations, the use of Empathy is all about the giver gaining something from the person they are trying to influence. Undoubtedly you have read articles or seen posts on LinkedIn regarding the importance of empathy or being empathetic. Being Process Aware, we need to recognize when people are using Empathy as a Tactic on us, “feeling for your situation.” Remember they don’t really care about your situation, if they did, they would be showing sympathy or compassion. They are simply trying to build Common Ground with your emotions to get what they want!

We often hear in business, ‘what are our needs’, ‘what do we need’, and ‘what do we want to achieve.’ Less often we hear, ‘what are their needs’ and ‘what do they want to achieve.’ It is quite understandable though; most corporate direction and focus is on ‘us’ and what ‘we’ will gain out of the relationship with our customers. However, we almost never hear, unless someone has attended a Business Crayons Workshop on Account Management or Negotiation Process, ‘what do they value’, or ‘what are their value drivers.’

To understand others, and ourselves better, we need to understand what people Value. Each of us has our own set of Personal Value Drivers, they are formed from our core values and principles and measured and guided by what we feel are acceptable or not acceptable levels of behavior.

While core values and principles change little over our lifetime, what we consider acceptable or not acceptable, can change based on changes in societal norms. People with a high level of iValue (Power, prestige, recognition, etc.) must use as a measure and guide what they feel is an acceptable level behavior vs that of societal norms. Those who fail to do this, and become out of step with what is acceptable could be considered overbearing, power hungry, self-serving, etc. While those who stay within societal norms are considered effective, successful, and even admired. Keep in mind with these two examples, both could have the exact same values and principles, one is simply better at measuring what is acceptable level of behavior and what is not, based on the CURRENT societal norms.

Find out what people Value and their Value Drivers. This will lead you to a better understanding of their Needs and Motivations, and your own.

About a month ago I was having a discussion with a college student regarding the impact social media has to control or censor information. The topic of Twitter came up with their banning of public figures, i.e. President Trump, while still allowing dictators and hostile governments to still ‘Tweet’. The discussion was around how much power they have to control and censor information.

PLEASE NOTE, THIS IS NOT A POST ON WHAT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE CRITERIA FOR BANNING OR CENSORING PEOPLE ON TWITTER OR ANY SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM.

The student felt that Twitter is a private company (non-government) and should be free to allow or disallow whomever they wanted, even if it is used by federal, state, and local governments along with elected officials at all levels, to provide information to the public. If people didn’t like it, they could just go to some other platform, ‘what’s the big deal.’ They also felt that Twitter should censor and ban people that were spreading, ‘disinformation’, and were being socially responsible in doing so.

I asked based on who’s standards of ‘socially responsible?’ Who determines what those are? We have a private (non-governmental) company with mass global reach, determining what is socially acceptable. Approximately 85% of Twitter’s revenue comes from Ad sales.

I asked what if someone came in and bought Twitter and took it private. In doing so they moved the platform in their own personal direction and used their own social standards, whatever they may be, to censor content and ban individuals. How would you feel about that? Their response was, ‘Twitter is too big for that to happen.’

So how do people feel about Twitter being purchased by Elon Musk? Well, some are ecstatic, and others are going into meltdown. We now have calls from people, who in the past fully supported Twitter’s right to self-censor, to have the federal government become more involved in regulating social media. On the other hand, those who wanted more control of social media by the government, are changing their positions.

The Power Dynamic has changed and from a Process Perspective it is important to observe how people are behaving. How are those who have lost their perceived power reacting and how are those who feel they are now in a greater position of power behaving? In negotiations we need to be aware, and plan for shifts or changes in the perception of Power. How will the other party react, and how will we react to these changes?

Anticipate the potential actions of both parties when shifts in Power occur, then develop strategies prior to the negotiation, to best manage changes in the Power Dynamic as you progress through the negotiation. In doing this, you will reduce the likelihood of your team going into meltdown mode or becoming overconfident in your position of Power in the negotiation. If either of these occur, the probability of you reaching your desired outcome will be reduced.

I spent time with a senior manager of a large corporation working on both strategy and negotiation strategy for the acquisition of a new client/customer. During this time, he commented on my exclusive use of an iPad to record notes and other information from all meetings.

He mentioned he was trying to move from paper to digital with an iPad and was not having much success. He asked if I had any tips or suggestions for making the transition.

I said, “Yes, I have one suggestion, stop using paper and only bring your iPad to meetings.”

For true change to happen, regardless of what you are trying to change, you need to invest 100% in the new, and be willing to give up the old. This does not happen overnight, and it is not expected you quit ‘cold turkey’ on the old. The key point is ‘invest in the new’ AND ‘be WILLING to give up the old’.

Without this state of mind, many people end up in the middle, trying to use both the new and the old. This increases frustration and level of work, along with decreasing productivity and positive outcomes.

People in the middle are the most vocal and most detrimental to the success of your change program. This is due in part to their increased workload; they are doing everything twice. If left unchecked, over time, they will bring down the entire program.

If expectations are not clearly defined, and management is not deeply committed to Sales/Commercial/Procurement/ Operational Excellence, they will allow the ‘people in the middle’ to derail the program. When this occurs, you will see management launch new programs like; CE 2.0, CE Reboot, CE Refresh, etc.

The goal of change programs should not include, reboots or refreshes, it should only be, ‘It’s just what we do’

Business Crayons can help develop, implement, and monitor your enablement and excellence programs, eliminating the need for future investment in refreshes or reboots. More importantly, we can help you facilitate change and better outcomes for your organization.

The mental tendency to replace strategy with metrics can destroy company value. I see this on a regular basis with business organizations, Goals and Objectives are set, then the focus shifts to the Metric for the goal or objective, and not the objective itself.

When sight is lost on the objective and why it was set, companies lose out on the value of the objective and just settle for hitting the metric. Most metrics benefit the one being measured, and not the organization.

Some examples of these are payment terms, average days to pay, number of projects in the pipeline, number of quotes, number of calls made, across the board 5% price increase. In theory these are good metrics to measure, provided meeting them contributes to the overall objective, something greater for the company and not just a number.

When expectations for goals and objectives are set low, vague, or generic, it’s a clear signal the person responsible for their establishment is not invested, committed, or focused on meeting them. Their focus will be on the metric; what benefits them.

Set multiple goals and objectives, review on a regular cadence and loosen the link between the metric and incentives.

‘When you set out on a journey of revenge, dig two graves’, is often credited with Confucius. It is actually derived from an ancient Japanese proverb, ‘If you call down a curse on anyone, look out for two graves.’

The original Japanese version is more applicable for negotiations, since less skilled negotiators tend to focus too much on the Content of the negotiation and are not Process Aware of what is going on in the negotiation.

Revenge is an emotional response by someone who feels wronged by another party. Retribution comes from high emotions which drive a short-term, ‘I win, you lose’ objective. This can lead to a cyclical situation where the other party then ‘strikes back’, with a new round of retribution or revenge tactics.

On the other hand, the pursuit of justice/fairness is based more on logical and impartial values. This focus helps to better manage emotions during the negotiation, reduces negative thoughts, and opens the possibility of more options and better outcomes for both parties.

I read a negotiation post on LinkedIn recently where the author claimed it’s not about you, or your fault, if a negotiation failed or was not successful. It could be due to some unknown need, not dealing with the decision maker, or not the right timing, just not you personally.

I might be ‘old school’, but it’s actually all about you; it is your job to uncover those needs, define the decision maker, and understand the customer’s buying cycle. The reality, they are not sharing this information with you, but they are with someone, the person who was successful.

Without developing some level of trust, people are not willing to open up about what they truly need or what motivates them. You might have the best product or service, and you will never get the business, because they will never tell you what they need, the decision maker, or their buying cycle.

Look first to develop some level of Trust, then ask questions and let the customer tell you all about what they need.