Dear Clients and Friends,

FROM BLAME TO PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUE AND RESOLUTION

We have all been in meetings where blame and fingerpointing obstructs productive dialogue and resolution.  Join me in this November '16 edition of  NE GOTIATION STRATEGIES,  as I share some of ideas with you about how to turn these conversations around effectively.

 

For your reading convenience, we also distill this into a brief lessons learned at the end of the column.

 

Please feel free to forward this column or to share it via Facebook, Linkedin or Twitter by clicking on the appropriate icons at the top. If you know anyone who would like to subscribe, they can subscribe by replying to this email or directly from our website.

 

Also see  About Lapin Negotiation Services below for ways in which we can make a high impact and a demonstrable and substantive difference to your organization, negotiations and resolving of disputes.

With Best Wishes 

Sincerely,

Raphael Lapin

The project appeared to be going well until the final stages when testing began. It soon became dismally clear that there was a flaw in the compatibility design that would require significant redesign and engineering. This would set the project back months if not years and at significant cost. A bitter dispute broke out between the two corporations as to who was at fault. Each asserted blame on the other with equally believable arguments while at the same time neither would accept responsibility.

It was decided that rather than to go to arbitration, the parties would first attempt to negotiate a resolution to the problem. After a frustrating day of negotiations during which the parties were engaged in a barrage of blame and counter-blame, we were retained to mediate the dispute.

We sat in on the next round and observed while once again the discussion spiraled into a cycle of attack and counter attack, with emotions flaring uncontrollably. Our problem was how to guide these negotiations past blame towards constructive dialogue and a satisfactory resolution.

We first needed a process to allow the parties to give vent to their feelings constructively before any useful dialogue could occur. A ground rule regulating one party speaking at a time was proposed and agreed to by all. A further agreed upon ground rule was that any party presenting their point-of-view, could only do so after demonstrating understanding of the previous speaker (without necessarily agreeing). This would be accomplished by the party wishing to respond, first to paraphrase their understanding of the previous speaker's words and to obtain confirmation for accuracy of that understanding, before proceeding.

As soon as we introduced some process, the discussion became efficient and productive. Although they did not agree with each other, at least they listened and acknowledged. This fostered an environment of mutual, albeit modest respect, and the volatility was significantly reduced. 

I was then able to effectively redirect the discussion by framing each side's blaming of the other, as a perception as opposed to fact. I said: "As I understand it, there seems to be two very different perceptions in this room as to culpability and as I am listening I can understand how each of you could see it that way. Perhaps having heard and understood these perceptions, better use of our time now would be to focus on what's to be done as we move forward. Is that something you are all willing to do?"  

After obtaining their consent we were then able to facilitate some good dialogue and a very productive problem solving session. They agreed to establish a joint task force to explore alternative design and value engineering options; to share in costs proportionate to their respective percentage share of the contract; and to craft better collaboration and communication systems moving forward. 

As an added bonus, the working relationship between the two companies became even stronger than before, and they again won another joint award a year later!

LESSONS LEARNED

• Always design and introduce process to ensure productivity.

• Parties need to be allowed to vent in a controlled and guided environment before constructive dialogue can occur.

• Frame blame statements as perceptions as opposed to fact, as perceptions by definition cannot be defended as right or wrong and can be acknowledged without agreeing.

• After adequate venting has occurred constructively and perceptions acknowledged, move discussions to a future-focused problem-solving orientation.

• There are times when a neutral third party skilled in group process and facilitation can be helpful in guiding the process efficiently and productively.