Section 2.

Communication

EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
Effective communication is a challenge under any circumstances. It can be even more challenging in negotiations where the participants perceive that they have different values and goals, often complicated by uncertainty at best and suspicion at worst. In this section we will explore the complexities of the communication process and discuss strategies for its improvement. Elements in the communication process It is important to understand the various stages or elements in communication in order to understand the range of choices that the negotiator has in developing an effective communication process. 1. Encoding the idea The first step in communication is to encode the message into some format that is accessible to those that we are intending to communicate with. Most often in negotiations we do this through language. We need to always remember that if we are encoding, the other party will have to decode the message. This requires that both parties use the same code. There is an often an assumption in verbal and written communication that if we are both speaking the same language, this will be accomplished as a matter of course. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. For example, there may be technical terminology that isnt understood. Terms may have nuances among certain groups that they do not have for others. The burden is on the communicator to ensure that the recipient of the message is using the same decoder. The best way to accomplish this is to use the recipients code, not their own. 2. Choosing the medium There are myriad choices for conveying the message. Some common examples are: Verbal: face-to-face, telephone, video conference. Written: letter or memo, formal or informal; typed or handwritten; faxed, post office or emailed. Non-verbal: gestures, postures and places; intended or unintended.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Communication and Relationship Management Page 2

Each of these choices has a consequence. Marshall McLuhan is often quoted as saying that the medium is the message. 1 In a sense, part of the decoding of any message is the medium employed. For example, carefully crafted and formatted proposals may be received quite differently than a handwritten outline of a proposal. Verbal communications provide opportunity for response and clarification on a real time basis. Face-to-face communications are further informed by non-verbal cues, intended or unintended. Written communications are, by their very nature, one-way. They may result in a series of one-way communications as responses are made. There is little opportunity to clarify or establish context. Contrary to common assumption, written communications, therefore, are inherently less clear and harder to decipher than verbal communications. 3. Atmospheric interference The ability to receive the message clearly is also affected by atmosphere in which it is sent. Surprise, distrust, uncertainty, anger and other emotions may both interfere with reception and confuse the decoding. Long and boring meetings can be problem, as can uncomfortable surroundings. Generally, the less formal the proceedings and the fewer people involved, the easier it is to communicate. The effective negotiator will pay attention to these factors. They will consider where meetings will be held and, more importantly, how to create certainty and safety for the participants. This will usually require a good of preparatory work before and between meetings if the meeting itself is to be conducive to effective communication. 4. Decoding the message Just as the encoder should ensure that the recipient of the message has the correct decoder, preferably by use a code that corresponds to the decoder, so the recipient of the message should seek to obtain the correct decoder for the message. Where it is not available, there is a necessity for careful two-way conversation to enable effective interpretation.

The actual title of McLuhans book is The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects, Marshall McLuhan with Quentin Fiore and Jerome Agel. New York: Bantam, 1967. He did, however, use the term the medium is the message elsewhere: "The Medium is the Message" in Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Communication and Relationship Management Page 3

5. Completing the process Effective communication requires a two-way link. There are a number of techniques that can improve the return link. The first is listening carefully to what is being said and what is intended and confirming what is being received. This is particularly important at the end of any conversation or meeting. The effective negotiator will summarize what they have heard, interests and concerns, what they understand of priorities, and any assignments that they may have. If the other party doesnt volunteer similar information, they will ask them what they are taking away.

Personal Styles and Communication

A key objective of communications in negotiations is provide the kinds and amounts of information that will enable the other party or representative to agree. One of the filters that can make clear communication difficult is the differing ways in which individuals process information and make decisions and considerable work has been done in studying these differences. The result has been a plethora of schemes for describing and differentiating personality types. For the purposes of this discussion, four typical styles are described. 2 These styles are not good or bad. Nor are they better or worse for negotiations or a negotiator. However, they are significantly different and one or more styles are likely to be encountered in any negotiation. Therefore, it is important to consider the implications of the interactions of these differing styles for reaching agreements. 1. The people person For the people person relationships tend be very important. Often, who they agree with may be as important as the substance of the agreement. This can result in a desire for social interaction before moving to substantive issues and during the process, a tendency that can foster effective agreements on procedure and exploring a wide variety of possible outcomes. This style tends to be highly consultative when making decisions and test ideas within both formal and informal networks. People persons may also be interested in knowing who has reached similar agreements and make judgments based upon whether or not they wish to be associated with them even in their own minds by agreements they make. Some with this style find it difficult to say no or to make clear their disagreements, perhaps not wanting to appear disagreeable or disappoint the other party. This can result in time being wasted on proposals and ideas that are non-starters. Similarly, there is a potential for disagreement to be defined in personal rather than substantive terms. This style is generally quite willing to devote considerable time to the negotiations process.
2

In describing and differentiating the styles I am noting some of their most important characteristics for purposes of developing a negotiations strategy. The result is almost a caricature of each style to make the point. Remember that almost no one will fall clearly into a single style category. Most of us have some characteristics of each of the four styles.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Communication and Relationship Management Page 4

2. The driver The driver is interested in getting on with it and getting things done. They have a tendency to see procedural discussions as a waste of time and want to focus on the real issues. Time is money for this style and they want to move quickly to closure. They tend to be willing to assume risk if this decision or agreement doesnt work, just make another one. Drivers are not hesitant to say no or to indicate their disagreement. Interestingly, they tend to respect others who do the same and do not regard even heated disagreement as negative or damaging to a relationship. A key risk with this style is the making of procedural or substantive assumptions that can lead to later problems. 3. The analyst Making orderly, carefully reasoned decisions is of high importance to the analyst. They place a high value on data and facts as they move toward decisions and agreements. The analyst is concerned not only with finding the right answer but with being able to demonstrate to colleagues that it is the right answer. In a negotiation situation this focus on a single right answer can sometimes make it difficult for them to make accommodations. Getting it right will usually be more important than time: No decision is almost always better than a wrong decision. Analysts are sometimes accused of never having enough data and may find it hard to make decisions where there is not one clear best answer. On the other hand, analysts can be relied on to prepare carefully for negotiations and to know the material being discussed. They are often invaluable as advisors to negotiating decision-makers but can become upset if their advice is not taken. 4. The conceptualizer Like the analyst, the conceptualizer is likely to be more interested in facts than in people. However, they are also more interested in ideas and concepts than facts. Innovation and finding new directions rank high on their list of virtues. These are the people who see broad connections where others may see only disjointed information. In negotiations they are often the ones who can articulate a set of principles or a direction that can bring together and address apparently disparate interests and priorities. The conceptualizer enjoys brainstorming sessions and is often surprised when other negotiators are nervous about the consequences of going beyond their instructions or the danger of being assumed to support an option because they were willing to discuss it. On the other hand, it is sometimes difficult for conceptualizers to focus or to make difficult choices. They may have little patience for details and may often appear unprepared for meetings. I like the direction this is going. may be a signal that they consider the discussions have reached a satisfactory conclusion, leaving other to work out the details.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Communication and Relationship Management Page 5

As was noted above, these styles are not good or bad or better or worse for negotiations or a negotiator. They are important for the negotiator to understand because a mix of styles is likely to be encountered in any negotiation. In negotiation these differing styles may clash with each other making communication and agreement difficult. Indeed, what some styles regard as a virtue others may regard negative. Some of these differences and reactions are summarized in Table 1. Table 1.: Reactions to Differing Communication and Decision-making Styles Interprets and Perceives as
People Person People Person Analyst Wishy-washy Sentimental Manipulative Time waster Personalizing issues Casual Subjective Manipulative Subjective Narrowlyfocussed Sentimental Manipulative Impulsive Superficial Careless Lacking principles Over-bearing Impulsive Lack of vision Too focussed in short term Driver Arrogant Cold and inconsiderate Untrusting Always in a hurry Analyst Facts at the expense of people Insensitive Unfriendly Indecisive Rigid Overly cautious Slow Conceptualizer Self-involved Condescending Ignoring real (human) impacts Impractical Talks too much Avoiding real questions Unrealistic Careless thinker Solutions not based on facts

Driver

Conceptualizer

Nit-picker Rigid Unable to see bigger picture

The skilled negotiator will, first, recognize his or her own style and understand the ways in which others may react to it. They will then use different communication strategies for dealing with each style. Some hints on communications strategies for negotiating effectively with each of the styles follow. 1. The people person Make sure you plan sufficient time to negotiate Introductions and references can be an important first step Be prepared to talk before you negotiate Look for opportunities to build trust and to make and keep commitments Remember their interest in the impacts on people and consider these in your proposals

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Communication and Relationship Management Page 6

Descriptions will be more influential than facts Plan for and highlight the importance of future relationships

2. The driver Be prepared before you begin do you homework on the sector, organization and person Have the information at your finger tips I dont know will not be well received Be direct, ask tough questions and expect direct answers Provide options and alternatives and let them choose they like making decisions You can ask for and expect a clear yes or no, but dont ask before you are ready It is very difficult to change a commitment or decision made

3. The analyst Base your discussions on measurable, verifiable facts Emphasize numbers over prose Develop and agree on criteria for decisions to help make choices later Find ways to jointly develop information and facts You may have to tie your response to requests for more information to a commitment to make decisions If there is difficulty in reaching closure, consider the book-of-the-month-club option If you dont say no, this is what we will do. Provide for future analysis to confirm the quality of the decision.

4. The conceptualizer Involve them in setting long-term goals for the negotiations Recognize the importance of innovation and build it into your proposals and options Provide them an opportunity to summarize progress and suggest directions Include opportunities for brainstorming Find ways to develop new approaches with them, not for them Discuss the future and whats next Test agreements in terms of their contribution to long-term goals

The negotiator should recognize his or her own style and consider how it affects others in the negotiations. They should also recognize how they are reacting to the style of others. The first step is modifying your own approach and reactions.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Communication and Relationship Management Page 7

Developing a Communication Strategy

Research has shown that effective negotiators communicate far more information than do those who are less effective. They will do this even if the other party is reticent. Too often negotiation is regarded as a game of poker, and some negotiators have a tendency to use communication strategies effective in that context: holding cards close, bluffing, and even deliberate misinformation. There is a great deal of information that may or could be relevant in a negotiation. If we constrain the information, we constrain the opportunity to find innovative, win-win solutions. Too often the focus is only on facts and data, supplemented by arguments and justifications. Other important information might include interests, concerns, principles and criteria, values and perspectives, and power, influence and BATNA. A useful measure for assessing whether or not you are being sufficiently forthcoming in providing information might be the question, Does the other party know enough to make you an offer you could accept. We suggest that the default question be Is there any reason not to provide the information? rather than the more common Is there any reason I need to disclose that information? There is often a tendency in negotiations to assume that if no information is provided, the matter will not arise. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an information vacuum: if we dont know something we think we need to know, we usually make assumptions or seek information elsewhere. Finally, a communication strategy will address such questions as timing for providing information, settings in which the information will be provided, developing information exchanges and the importance of verification. The following checklist can be a useful tool when developing a communications strategy for a negotiation process.

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Communication and Relationship Management Page 8

DEVELOPING A COMMUNICATION STRATEGY FOR NEGOTIATIONS

1. Think about some of the kinds of information that should be considered in these negotiations.

Interests Perspectives Concerns Information, data and facts Power and influence, BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) Other

2a.

What do(es) the other party(ies) need to know to be able to make proposals to you that you can reasonably consider? (Relate to categories above)

2b.

What do you need to know about the other party(ies) to make proposals to them that they can reasonably consider? (Relate to categories above)

3a.

Are there assumptions that you are making regarding their interests, motives, preferences, reputation, influence, etc. that need to be confirmed? What are they?

3b.

Are there assumptions that they are likely to make regarding your interests, motives, preferences, reputation, influence, etc. that need to be confirmed? What are they?

4a.

Are there rumors that need to be clarified, and/or corrected regarding you?

4b.

Regarding them?

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Communication and Relationship Management Page 9

5.

Is there information (see 1 above) that you should not share? What is it and why?

What are the benefits of not sharing the information? What are the possible costs of not sharing the information? Is sharing the information a matter of timing? If so, when should it be shared? What will they do if they do not have the information? Make assumptions? What are those assumptions likely to be? Seek other sources? Who?

6.

Think about an information sharing strategy for 1, above. Consider:

Timing Who should provide the information How the information should be provided The possibility of a session devoted to information sharing The possibility of a group or subcommittee for information sharing Opportunities to trade information Whether and how the information can be verified The possibility of developing joint information The possibility of using a mutually chosen third party to develop or verify information Other

Gerald W. Cormick The CSE Group

Communication and Relationship Management Page 10

EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS: TICKLER REFERENCE GUIDE

Effective negotiating and relationship building require effective communication. We make many implicit choices when deciding what, when, where and how to communicate. Making choices explicit will reveal options and opportunities to improve the negotiation process. Cultural expectations, language, how we choose to communicate and fears, uncertainties and resentments all complicate communications.

Preparing the Message

Cultural, differences, language differences, and non-verbal content all affect the message sent. Organizations and professions develop their own jargon. Non-verbal cues may be misread. Cultural expectations regarding status, appropriate behavior, and time differ.

Conveying the Message

Face-to-face communication has the greatest capacity to convey complex and difficult messages and build relationships but is resource intensive. Written communication is less resource intensive but is one way and can be hindered by misinterpretation, a lack of context and no feedback.

Atmospheric Interference
Focus on making it safe to have difficult conversations. The more formal the situation and the more people involved, the more difficult that is. Uncertainties, fears, reputations, rumors, status, level of trust and even the room and its set up can all affect the atmosphere.

Receiving the Message

What you do makes it hard for me to hear what you are saying: Cultural expectations, language and non-verbal content all affect interpretation and the message received. There may be a fear of displaying ignorance or losing status by asking questions. We dont know what was heard unless we ask. Are we using the same code book: Do I know what they have heard or seen and how it is interpreted? What assumptions might be affecting my interpretation? Do I seek clarification when I hear or see something I dont understand? Do they? Do I need an interpreter?

Context

Consider

Are we using the same code book? Do we have the same assumptions? Are we misinterpreting each others behaviors? Am I using technical language, organizational language, or acronyms? Do their verbal and non-verbal responses indicate understanding? Invest time talking about history and aspirations. Ask how they prefer to negotiate. Talk about differences and how to address them. Look for interpreters of culture and language.

Bandwidth: is the medium capable of conveying the message? Signal strength: Is the message loud and clear? Will our relationship provide benefit of the doubt if there is misunderstanding? Am I matching importance and content with how? Am I saving time now at the cost of later clarifications? Use face-to-face meetings to establish a relationship and understanding. Call ahead to set the context for written materials. Face-to-face meetings may have an important ceremonial function.

Are misunderstandings or uncertainties causing negative interpretation? Are issues of status or role a problem? Do we surprise each other? Is this a good time and place? Am I making use of both formal and informal communication? Have we created an assumption of agreement? Jointly discuss how to communicate. Avoid words and actions that cause others to ask, Why? Create informal opportunities to talk at formal meetings. Dont bring new players without prior discussion.

Tips

Summarize. Watch for non-verbal cues. Ask for specific feedback at a concept or idea level to test understanding. Jointly capture discussions in notes and verbal summaries.