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.

Hello and welcome to  all of you who are interested in professional negotiating.

The intention of this site is to be able to exchange views and ideas amongst our growing community of negotiators. 

As a group of interested practitioners, we will also comment about some of the more significant negotiations on-going in the world; negotiations which will or might impact on us all.

Feel free to use this site, and to build it into your own personal development schedule.

Best Wishes and Good Negotiating

Mike Roberts

Founder, Partner - ScottRoberts Negotiating

#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.

The Negotiating Gifts from Greece - 3# - Be Sharp but Beware Clever Clever

Experienced Negotiators Know how to use a Weak Position to Advantage

1. If you are in a Lose / Win situation your options provide plenty of scope to be proactive by making proposals or pursue varied strategies. After all, you have nothing to lose. Proposals can be realistic or unrealistic depending on whether you wish to move forward or just buy time. Strategies can be outrageous in a multilateral negotiation with many parties, as the complexity  of the situation and the needs for a level of unity protects (and hampers) all.
   
2. Following the old negotiator’s adage “one is always in a stronger position than one thinks”, and taking courage; being proactive and making a proposal can bring surprising results:
1. It can steal the agenda,
2. Give uncommitted parties something to work with,
3. Force a response,
4. Seize the high ground,
5. Control the deadlock.
   
3. Pursuing varied strategies and tactics can lock the parties in a dangerous and escalating competition in which each tries to prove their ideas are better (more clever) than everyone else’s. This is a modern day negotiating curse - being too clever in developing smart games, gambits and tactics - brings in high risk as strategy becomes more important than the original objective.
   
4. Beware that being sharp is not confused with being clever, and being clever may be no better than being stupid.
   

The Negotiating Gifts from Greece - #2 - Kicking The Can Down The Road - Deadlocking

How to Deadlock the Negotiation -

1. Argue and keep arguing - whilst arguing you are not making concessions or even proposals. In fact you are not negotiating (attempting to secure an agreement). You keep the position in stasis by playing the argument game. Negotiations appear to be ongoing, but the reality is deadlock. This is used for many reasons - for example: to buy time - encourage concessions as the other parties surrender through frustration - allow deadlines to be overrun - appear to be fully engaged in the negotiation when not - grandstand to the audience (audience as in noise to listen to)
2. Unrealistic Proposals - making proposals that one knows to be unacceptable are designed to create argument - deadlock. It allows one to push the onus to the other side and make them responsible for lack of progress. It is high risk, but often tried. If the other side sees it for what it is it is matched by an equally unrealistic response. There are elements of this behaviour operating between the Greeks and Germans as I write.
3. Appeal to higher authority - referendum - seek the view of the electorate and use their answer to deadlock further.The danger is two can play at this game. Another matching game to deadlock the process or bring people to their senses.
4. Making an agreement but then take it away for approval / ratification and then finding all sorts of problems with it. Kicks can down the road, but attempts to set up opportunities to amend the agreement. Lots of this going on.
   

These techniques are used often by parties who:

• May not know what they want.
• Do not know what is likely to happen if they go through with threats or agree to something they do not fully understand.
• Have nothing to lose.
• Know it costs less to deadlock than to negotiate / make concessions.
• Find that by using frustration tactics they get rewarded - especially if some parties are keen to “get a deal”.
• Want to appear to be negotiating by being at the meeting, but have no intention of allowing progress.
• Think that winning the argument is negotiating - it is not.

The Negotiating Gifts from Greece - How not to Negotiate

Gift One: Preparation

1. A few lessons in How not to negotiate.
1. Being Unprepared hands control to those who would seize it. The lack of a clear idea of what the consequences of Grexit might be make it difficult, or even impossible, to have clarity of purpose or objective. Why has this not been done? Daring to think the unthinkable is a negotiator's skill (but not a politicians).
2. Two wrongs do not make a right - Remember where you start from. How good was the agreement that created the situation? Was the last agreement respected and honoured? Had either party carried our any diligence to check the integrity of the relationship?
3. What is the relationship like? Can it be repaired / improved through the processes of negotiation? How important is the relationship? Does it matter?
4. Membership qualifications were not met although the rules for membership are clear. The consequences for turning a blind eye were always clear to see. This should have meant that all parties should have been working to resolve this looming crisis years ago. However, it would appear that eviction from the Union is not catered for. (Another unthinkable).
5. No should mean No. But what does No mean in the Eurozone and European Union?
6. Poor strategy, but all too common! It goes like this: "Let’s see what the other side come up with and then make our minds up / decide what to do". Or: "We will listen to what they say and then tell them it is not enough" A typical buyers gambit but often leads to a game of slow surrender. It allows the skilful negotiator to set the agenda; it can signal to other side that you do not know what you want; it may signal that you are ready to negotiate when you are not (make concessions / surrender / change the rules / disunity).
7. Be realistic! - Objectives need to be realistic. Proposals need to be realistic (unless being used to cause deadlock). Can the terms be met? Would you meet the terms if you were sitting on the other side? If the objective is agreed, will it be honoured / implemented? Can you trust the other side? Can you trust yourself?
8. Objectives that are more about avoidance may be part of the problem. Avoid "giving in"; Avoid being seen / perceived as losing; Avoid evicting a member state; Avoid losing face; Avoid taking a "haircut"; Avoid being seen as weak by one's own electorate; Avoid giving in (set some other party up). The list goes on.

Negotiating Lessons from The Past

It is an interesting time to be working as an Industrial relations specialist and negotiating expert. The pendulum is swinging back towards another period of unrest as relations between “Management” and “Union” become increasingly strained. There is a fear that we might be returning to the 70’s. This is most unlikely, as today’s economic situation is very different. However, what we are witnessing are reminders of past lessons.

Issues of the moment in the current round of disputes include:

• Forced changes in contractual pay and conditions

• Pay freezes and reductions in benfits and conditions of employment

• Reductions in pensions , closure of schemes, major deficits in funding of schemes

• Job security (insecurity)

• Bullying and competitive management behaviour

• A challenge to industrial democracy and a perceived attempt at union busting

Many of these disputes have declined into attacks between personalities. Some are taking on new issues as situations grow worse and objectives become blurred. This is leading to deadlock followed by blame being directed across the table.

So what is going on?



1. Leadership Issues

 If a company suffers a strike it is the Management’s responsibility. It is part of the negotiating landscape. Both sides are responsible for allowing issues to escalate to the point where one side or the other has to take this level of action. An unwanted strike will be a failure of planning, communications, management of expectations, realism, sensitivity, understanding and more importantly, leadership.

If any of the current levels of dispute have not been anticipated by the managements involved, then both the dispute and the management are “out of control”.

Too often we see objectives which are unclearly specified at the outset become further distorted as a dispute escalates. Managements who pursue single inflexible strategies fail, even if the objective is reasonable and fair. Macho, confrontational behaviour to be seen as a strong tough leader creates intransigence, deadlock and out of control confrontation. 70’s behaviour. When both sides indulge in this behaviour they cease to represent the interests of those on whose behalf they act.

2. Listen to The Language

A key role for the Manager as Leader is to look after the interests of those they manage. It is the Manager who should be communicating company positions, explaining the challenges ahead, clarifying offers on the table and ensuring their employees understand. If this key channel breaks down, or is not trusted, then management leadership is failing and the vacuum invites others in who will have different agendas.


Engage with employees as employees. When a company starts to talk about “Union Members” rather than “Our Staff” or “ Our Employees”, it signals a breakdown in relations. The conflict is  described by personality not issue.

When the dispute is over, relationships will need to be rebuilt and then strengthened.


Key Negotiating Lessons:

Objectives need to be absolutely clear.

You should always review the impact on relationships. For management, internal relationships are critical; for investors they may be irrelevant.

Beware – Improved staff relationships will most likely be both an objective in itself as well as a strategy for managing change. Ask yourself:

• What kind of staff relationships do you want to have following the outcome of the negotiation?

• How quickly do you want to implement change?

• What will be the impact on your own employees if you pursue the current strategy?

• What is the best way to achieve widespread support? For objectives and strategy? To rebuild?

• Do you want the Management to represent the best interests of your staff or do want this to be taken over by others? Who do you want them to trust most?

• Listen more talk less