Teach Me How to Lie like an Englishman

Quite often on my international courses I am requested to; “Teach me how to lie like an Englishman”. This used to bother me, as I was somewhat surprised that the English had this reputation. But as this request became more frequent it caused me to think about it.

As many of you know, I have been working in international negotiations since the early 1980s. My work has taken me to all parts of the world and for clients in many types of public and private organisation. In the last 15 to 20 years, it has been increasingly noticeable that people are lying more often during negotiations and one must wonder why?

Well, as I teach on my courses – we need to ask ourselves:

What are we doing, or failing to do, that is making the other party do this?”

And

Why do many nationalities think the English are economic with the truth and do it better?

There will be many reasons, which include:

·      They get away with it most of the time.
·      A belief that everyone does it.
·      It is only a small lie.
·      No one accuses them of lying to maintain the relationship, save them from embarrassment – save face.
·      They do not realise that they are lying.
·      If they tell the truth, they will not get what they want.
·      Standards of morality no longer exist or are of no importance.
·      Right and Wrong are not taught effectively anymore.
·      Lack of Conscience.
·      Caveat emptor – let the buyer beware. It's your fault if you fall for it.

However, what has led to this state of affairs? Has it always been like this? What if anything should be done? The reasons are many and include:

·      Parenting, the home culture, the visible behaviour between parents.
·      Modern teaching, learning and training techniques.
·      The avoidance of “difficult” situations and people.
·      Current attitudes towards morality.
·      The pressure to “get the deal”, almost at any cost.
·      The incentives of bonus or commission corrupting honesty.
·      Denial of responsibility.
·      Behaviour of role models.

The evidence for these behaviours we see every week during our courses when people are conducting negotiations. The rule seems to be if you are able to get away with it - all well and good. If they find out that you have profited from the lie that is the other side’s tough luck.  And if the lie gets called out - they know you are lying - what happens then?  Well, never mind - you live to fight another day. But the cost may be that you cannot be trusted to negotiate honestly with that party ever again.


And it is this thought that influences my answer to the original request. What reputation are you trying to achieve for the long term? Someone to be trusted, relied upon and good to work with. Professional Negotiators are trusted.

#Negotiating Lessons from #Brexit Experience - Lesson Five - Deadlock

-->

The UK Westminster Government have been in deadlock, even stasis, for many months; a situation of its own making and repeated at various levels. This state of affairs means that we may have participants involved who do not know how to move forward: do not understand how deadlock works, how to analyse it and seem unable to listen or take advice and so are caught in the headlamps of stasis. Whatever the case, it is not good for the reputation of Parliament, the reputation of MPs, the knowledge and experience of Government Ministers and their advisors – both Permanent and bought in.

Problem One – Deadlock should always be under control – Your control. It is a very useful tool or weapon depending on the nature and style of the negotiation. Even if one has not set up the deadlock, one should see it coming and be able to manage it.

Deadlocking is useful

because:

·      The cost is cheaper than having to negotiate.

·      The political cost is often cheaper than moving to another tactic / strategy (e.g. General Election) – but only if there is a way out.

·      It buys time to work out new strategy or tactic and review objectives – after all they more no longer be realistic or achievable.

·      It provides time to sort out Negotiator / Negotiating Team if they are not up to the job – have personality issues with the other side – have lost credibility.

·      It applies pressure of time and silence on the other party which may force movement.

·      It allows one party to frustrate and irritate the other – although this is a risky game.

·      While in deadlock one does not have to negotiate. Remember, negotiators often will create long and varied arguments designed not to persuade but to deadlock. These tactics keep the other party engaged – give the appearance of a negotiation but are in reality a means of stopping the process.

·      Threat of not negotiating and deadlocking may not be real but is worth suffering than changing a deal and may be rewarded by the other side backing off.

The current deadlock besetting the UK is under the control of the EU.

Why? Because:

·      They have done a deal with the UK and to renegotiate is a precedent. To recognise a change in PM as a reason for renegotiation is a precedent. The value of the unity of their 27 is higher, far higher, than the UK being in a mess.

·      They do not want the UK to leave the EU and whilst deadlock keeps UK as a member state it suits both EU and Remainer factions.

·      Maintains a Status Quo

·      Buys time for moves by Remain parties to frustrate, build strength, undermine Leavers.

·      Allows time to use persuasion to rehearse arguments of the benefits of EU membership

·      Maintains the unity of the EU amongst the 27 members.

·      Enables “Business as Usual” during deadlock period

·      International business will reposition their assets within the EU to avoid the uncertainty thus benefitting EU states

·      Provides time for a change in the Commission, EU Parliament etc.

·      Causes UK Leavers to “think again”.

·      Keeps the strategy of “While the UK has not left there is the chance they will remain.”

To break out from the Deadlock the costs to the other party (EU) have to be escalated so that the advantages of negotiating or getting on with the leaving process outweigh the costs of maintaining the status quo. The position that the EU is blocking is to allow the UK to negotiate new trading relationships right now which might give it an advantage and demonstrate the value of being independent and fully sovereign outside the EU. Having been a member for so long and an architect of this rule makes the current situation very ironic.

But of course, until the EU has set up the new appointments to the offices of the EU it will not be ready to change anything. At present it will not want to move anyway as:

·      Precedent – Maintaining the 100% solidarity of the member states is a priority. EU will do nothing to disturb this.

·      Face – Ensuring the Union is seen to be strong, united and the 4 pillars remain non-negotiable.

·      Concessions – Until the EU knows exactly what the UK wants from the EU in the long term it is unable to assess trading options. It only desires one thing (the UK to remain). Until the UK actually leaves, the current situation suits the EU.

·      It will be happy to take on the UK over outstanding debts, duties and contributions as the EU institutions and advisors all benefit from legal process.

At the moment the EU has to do nothing as the UK indulges itself in this stasis; primarily because of the internal problems besetting the Conservative Party. However, to the outside observer what has been learned?

·      The UK does not appear to have a clear long-term objective for itself which unites its citizens. EU membership or isolated independence are strategies without a coherent objective.

·      In not knowing clearly what the ultimate objective is, it is difficult to negotiate.

·      Without clarity of objective it is not surprising that outsiders are not clear how committed the UK is to anything.

·      There is no vested interest helping the UK to determine the way forward or selecting the right leadership.

When there is no clear set of objectives or goals to provide clarity of direction, then one must look at what must be avoided (the direction from which to retreat):

·      Break-up of the United Kingdom with Scotland leading the way for independence, followed by a “me too” campaign to unite Ireland as a common market.

·      A breakdown of the British economy leading to serious damage to our lead service industries and consequences to tax raising.

·      Loss of status as a Global Player.

It is a time for professional negotiating. The UK leaving the EU is not the problem – It is the need for experienced leadership to navigate the negotiating process with confidence. Far greater negotiations lie ahead which are being damaged already by the performance of the current players.

#Negotiating Lessons from the #Brexit Experience - Lesson Four

Structuring Expectations: One  

The pre-negotiation phase: The negotiation has begun already! 

Many people make the mistake of thinking that in the period running up to the formal start of a negotiation the parties are not negotiating. They could not be more wrong. The reality is that once one becomes aware that someone wants something, then the opportunity to make a deal means that the negotiation is off and running. From the moment this reality begins expectations are being structured.

Every action, statement, move, meeting, event sends out messages as to the aspirations of the parties; how they intend to behave towards each other and indications as to the priorities they are working to. What they want and (often more importantly) what they want to avoid. 

The unguarded are giving information away all the time and not realising it. Discipline and coordination in this phase are all important.

If the negotiating landscape has a considerable number of interested parties trying to influence objectives and strategy,  discipline can become very problematic. An experienced negotiator can read much from watching from the other side. It provides useful information about how well prepared the other side is, what problems they are having within their team, who the key influencers may be, where the real power is and who the key decision maker is. 

 

In this phase the internal conversations within one side maybe the real negotiation. It can be very difficult to get the clarity of objectives and priorities when there are too many fingers in the pie.  But it gives away a lack of togetherness, conflicting objectives and strategies and possible lack of real negotiating knowledge and ability.

Sharpen up your skills at http://www.sharppractices.co.uk/negotiating_sharppractices.htm. 

#Negotiating Lessons from the #Brexit Experience - Lesson Three

Grandstanding.

Grandstanding may signal a range of messages which could have the opposite meaning to those intended. Good negotiators always think about consequences as part of their assessment of both objective and strategy - particularly those that may not be easily foreseen or may lead to the opposite of what is intended.

Trying to appear tough by taking “hard” positions. Making it look like a hard battle by using strong language, using argumentative behaviour, deadlocking. In fact trying to look and sound like their idea of a negotiator. This is not a good idea. And who are they trying to fool?

Not the other side of the table. Often this type of game is played out with the other side’s connivance. People forget that leadership is a very lonely situation; it is often only other leaders who appreciate this, and they are the sole ones they can trust (more than one’s own side). When you wonder who your friends are, they may be those sitting on the other side of the negotiating table.

Spectators want to see a real hard negotiation in order to accept the result.  Audiences want to hear strong language, to satisfy themselves that the “best” deal has been achieved. Agreements may be easier to accept if there has been a hard fought battle, often the reason for some of the "staged" battles in industrial relations disputes.

It can't be a good deal unless it takes time to achieve. Some cultures measure the quality of a deal based on how long it takes to achieve. If a deal is reached in quick time, it seems too quick, too easy and therefore not the best deal. This can lead to a staged ritual dance between the parties. Long meetings, deadlocks, ultimatums, walk outs, threats. All these are the dramatic tools of the grandstanding negotiator. Make it look as if the deal has been hard fought. Make the protagonists “look” good. Of course, while the "show" is performed, the real negotiation may be going on behind the scenes, in secret.

In talking about time, I am reminded of one dispute when I had to advise a negotiating team to go away and play golf as it had reached an apparent deal inside two months (a deal that more than matched their objectives). However the other side was not able to accept the deal until 6 months had passed even though it was also happy with the position. Their boss had said a good deal could not be achieved quicker than six months. So rather than try to force early acceptance, which would have been dangerous as it might have led to unnecessary concessions to buy the deal, it was better to go away until the time had passed. This kept everyone satisfied.

The danger of grandstanding is that the game (strategy) may become more important than achieving the planned outcome. The drama takes over and because it is so important to “look tough” the players cannot lose face by starting to soften their style (look like giving in) - even though this would provide the best and most efficient deal for the parties.