You Need a Problem
One of the first steps in preparing for a negotiation is assessing the quality and depth of the relationship with the other party or parties. Typically, one can rate them on a scale of -3 to +3, with +3 meaning you practically have sleepovers every week.
When I join a deal team and perform this exercise, the team typically overstates the quality of their relationship. Some are downright delusional.
In a previous job, I was leading a negotiation to resolve a dispute on a data migration deal with a state government. I put the names of all government officials on a white board and asked the team, generally, what was the quality of the relationship. They said, overall, a +2. By the time I finished the exercise, every name on the whiteboard was -1 or worse. “I think we’ve found the issue,” I told the five executives. “The client hates us.” They nodded in agreement.
The good news with that deal was: we had a dispute. Some people find this hard to believe, but one of the best ways to improve a relationship is to have to work through a disagreement. Once, when a client account leader called me because he said something had gone wrong, I congratulated him.
“You need a problem,” I said. “It’s the only way you’re going to take your relationship to the next level.”
Recommended by LinkedIn
Problems with clients can be great opportunities because it gives a service provider the chance to show the client how their people behave during a crisis. Everyone gets along when things are going great. Why shouldn’t they? Things are going great! But how do you get along when there is stress and conflict?
In a dispute, we can demonstrate our discipline, integrity and empathy. We can focus on the problem, not the fault. Deal with root cause analysis later. Sit down with your team, candidly assess the situation. What did they do or not do? What could we have done better. And then shape a communication plan toward working through the remedies.
If you’re at fault, admit it (with certain limitations that lawyers reading this would raise as comments!). Did we under-staff? Did we have the wrong people on the project? Did we miss deadlines? The fastest way to demonstrate trust-worthiness is to admit when you’re wrong and acknowledge that the other party is right. It will also encourage the other party to admit where they could have performed better.
The goal should be that the client recalls how you responded during a difficult time and, with everything settled, appreciates the candor and honesty with which you help get the program back on track to make them successful.
(Follow me for weekly insights and tips on Leadership, Sales and Negotiation, or subscribe at www.runningtheroom.com.)
Understanding the nuances of disputes and negotiations in relationships is key, and it seems you're delving into the complexities of human interactions. 🤝 Generative AI can offer unique insights and strategies for conflict resolution, enhancing your approach to these sensitive matters. By leveraging AI, you could develop tailored communication tactics and even simulate various negotiation scenarios to prepare better. 🧠 I'd love to explore how generative AI can elevate your work in this field. Let's book a call to unlock new possibilities and streamline your processes. 🚀 Brian
Chief Revenue Officer at Planhat
1yAgreed and well said. What's the exercise that made the realization that the relationship was at -1 and not +2 John Dieffenbach ?
Global Procurement Leader
1yExcellent article, once again John. Relationships get tested through adversity, and while it is a chance to solidify it can be a bit of “He’s Not That into You” when the opportunity is floundered.
Headshot Photographer | I help professionals put their best face forward | Irvine | Orange County | Los Angeles
1yThe problem as a litmus of a relationship!
Expert In Human-Centric Deal Processes|High Stakes Outsourcing and Digital Transformation Programs
1yCouldn’t agree more, John! Deep relationships are built in foxholes not at parties, as long as you can reach alignment (not concessions or agreement, but alignment)