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.

Trust In Negotiations.

 Last year I included the following as part of one of my Blogs - It is even more valid today.

Trust:

Trust is built up over time between parties. It becomes established as agreements are honoured exactly as agreed – not just once, but every time.

Trust is a major part of a relationship, a corner stone.

Trust allows each side to “know” how the other party will act, not just an expectation but a promise that will be fulfilled. 

One can expect (and be right) that secrets and confidences will be kept. The parties know if the trust is ever broken it can never be repaired.

Deals will be delivered to the letter – exactly as agreed, not distorted, misinterpreted, reneged upon or ignored and forgotten.

If changes have to be made they will be discussed and agreed in advance.

The parties know the value of trust (and the cost of losing it).

In Business: 

Trust is very difficult to maintain because:

• Employees are for ever changing.
• Market and economic pressures do not remain constant.
• Greed for profit / commission or bonus have a negative impact – relationships are expendable when there is a quick profit to be made.

When an individual does not understand complexity, consequence, sustainability and the long term, they do not understand trust, relationships, integrity and partnership.

#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. 

EU Referendum - We are All Prisoners of an Ill Thought Through Dilemma.

Articles are mounting up in the world's press highlighting the dilemmas facing the British voters, the political parties and the EU member states.

Conflicts and Contradictions:

If the state of the NHS will be threatened by Brexit - why put it in jeopardy by having the Referendum? The Referendum was tactical in dealing with UKIP and the Tory Euro Sceptics; Strategic in attempting to negotiate reform with the other EU states, but did not meet the critical objectives of the main manifesto priorities -  Security of the nation, maintaining The United Kingdom, protecting the NHS, maintaining economic growth.

Proper setting of objectives - clarity of priorities - analysis of foreseeable consequences of the alternative strategic choices and tactical plays (Leadership!) would have identified all of the current risks before the last General Election.

WTO chief says post-Brexit trade talks must start from scratch - Guardian

Britain's debate over Europe has been disappointing - Chicago Tribune

No 10 mulls last-ditch attempt to revisit free movement negotiations - Guardian

EU referendum: Osborne warns of Brexit budget cuts - BBC

Praying it will work? Chancellor plotting 'punishment' Budget with THREAT 'to add 2p to income tax' and increase death duty, booze and fuel costs. - Daily Mail

Conservative Party Manifesto - 2015


The ability to negotiate is far more important than spin. 

Poor Negotiating - A Reminder

Whether the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland decide to remain or leave the E.U. there will be negotiations inside and outside the Kingdom involving organisations great and small.  But to negotiate with strength, control and authority there will need to be a much clearer set of objectives than have currently been defined and this will require a significant quality of leadership. After all, everyone I meet, who voted in the previous referendum on the Common Market, had no intention of it becoming what it is today; the responsibility for this outcome lies with the politicians (in government and opposition) who let it happen AND the failure of our democratic system to control them and keep them to  the outcome for which we had voted.

To date, the campaigns for In and Out have been chaotic and negative and for many of us  achieved one significant result - that the current crop of politicians and influencers can not be trusted to handle the consequences of any result the referendum might bring.

When coaching Directors and MBA students I find a common problem when analysing their negotiations. It is the inordinate amount of time spent on negative argumentative behaviour, when negotiations is about the possible. The more time wasted in arguing about what is not possible, probable, permissible or needed (what we do not want ), the less time there is for the possible and predictable way ahead (what we want that is possible). The negative, fear tactics are more in line with  PPI selling than the task of shedding more light on the critical issues that have to be weighed up by the intelligent electorate who will be making the decision.

It is the confusion between strategy and objective that highlights the leadership problem. The Referendum hustings are beset with politicians looking for media opportunities to “sell” themselves to their parties, constituencies, and funders in the hope they may get further up their particular hierarchy. They use the present opportunity as a personal strategy to gain attention. However,  the Referendum is only a strategy to provide a clue as to where we want to go. European Union Membership is only a strategy to help us achieve what we want as a Nation. What we want as a nation has yet to be defined, but at least we may be able to define what we do not want. Staying with the status quo may mean that we as a nation no longer want leadership, but prefer drift.

The parties with whom we will have to negotiate are all watching and listening. Our politicians may not realise it, but they are already in the early stages of the post referendum negotiations, and structuring expectations in a way that may not be helpful to us, but helpful to those with whom we will have to deal.

We need to toughen up.

Saying you are negotiating may not be negotiating!

Setting the prime objective of a negotiation as just “closing a deal (any deal)” is not negotiating and dangerous. It underlines your priority objective to the other side giving away leverage on the one hand and leaving one no exit if deadlock occurs.

However many may think that they are negotiating when they are saying they are trying to get the best deal. It is not. It is giving in to the other side before you start. It puts all the control in the hands of the other party and you get what others are prepared to give you / let you have - not what you want and only what you deserve.

Being seen to negotiate by  going through the motions of negotiating - meetings, discussions, arguments,  - may just be grandstanding for the audience. Trying to make it look tough and difficult to get an agreement are old games which have been played out many times over  hundreds of years which should not fool anyone these days. However, these little dramas are still attempted by the inexperienced, less skilled and under-prepared performers - especially if PR gets in the way.

Often the other side will go along with this game. Why? Well because they may have to protect the relationship between the parties by playing along so as to humour them and keep them from embarrassing themselves. Protecting the other side’s “face” is often important - especially in the world of politics and international affairs.

Anyone can say "yes" just to get a deal, but it will be a deal on the other party's terms.

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 and Risk

Poor Negotiating creates Dangerous Risk - You Pay in the End!

A key objective (and responsibility) of the good negotiator is to reduce and manage risk. The professional negotiator see these as fundamental and part of the constant set of objectives always on your list of objectives - Relationship, Risk.

•  To protect the security and safety of the organisation.
•  To make sure that in doing a deal with other parties, those parties will not put at risk the security and safety of the organisation.
• To ensure that there is adequate conditional protection built in to the deal.
•  To make sure all parties are clear about the penalties for not honouring the agreement in full.
•  That there is no doubt that the organisation and its servants have the determination to go through with the penalties and that is clearly understood by all parties to the agreement.
• That all parties understand that subject to the above, the deal will be honoured in full as agreed.

 However, in politics, being seen to negotiate may be more important than agreeing a deal. Sometimes there is no intention of going through with a deal anyway; it is enough to be at the negotiating table to buy into a club. During the process objectives, strategies and responsibilities become confused. Instead of negotiating to clearly defined outcomes, the game is corrupted by conflicting agendas - the original goal becoming lost in a fog of politics and vested interest.

 Politicians sitting around the negotiating table add risk by allowing their own personal objectives to influence their party’s objectives, their sponsor’s objectives and their country’s aspirations.  With this level of complexity at work, simple mistakes and hidden agendas can have very significant consequences! In politics we often see a reliance on trust - but trusting politicians is risky business.