We like to think of negotiating as two sides coming together, sharing ideas and compromising on their interests in order to achieve a larger common objective. That is how negotiations work in an ideal world.
All too often we wind up in negotiations where one or both sides don’t want to negotiate in good faith – they refuse to subjugate their personal interests to the common objective. They want to win. And they want the other side to lose. Compromise is not acceptable.
Working in my industry I dealt with many of these bad faith negotiations.
When faced with these types of negotiations most of us make a critical mistake.
We believe that if we are nice, if we act in good faith, if we concede something first they will realize we are good people who they can trust and work with. We believe our goodness will cause them to have a change of heart.
In our optimism and naivety, we expect our goodness to work miracles in the opposition’s hearts – goodwill will blossom all over so we can negotiate among the sunshine, roses and rainbows.
But it doesn’t happen.
Instead they hit us with a sledge hammer and then run a truck over us.
Undeterred, we continue to tell ourselves that if we continue to be nice we have the power to win them over – we can convince them that we can create a “win-win” scenario.
Our good faith efforts are met by an even larger hammer being dropped on us and getting run over by an even larger truck.
We may try again. We may try again several times. But eventually we get the message that the other side’s real objective is for us to lose. They want us to bend to their will so they are in control.
How do we negotiate towards a common objective when we are faced with bad faith actors?
The traditional response is for each side to fight each other and try to intimidate the other side into backing down and conceding. This seldom works as each side just gets more entrenched in their position. This fight which I call Swamp Wars just goes on and on and on and on.
In more strategic workplaces there is a different tactic – instead of taking steps forward to move closer together, we deliberately take steps that drive us further apart.
We engage in a dangerous game of trying to back the other side off the cliff first. We take a step backwards, away from the middle which creates the perception of expanding our territory. In response the other side takes a step backwards too – they have to expand their territory too. Moving backwards each of us is moving closer to the edge and disaster. The strategy is to make steps on our part that force our opponent to make big steps in response, forcing him closer to his edge faster than us.
This is not a game for the faint of heart. You have to play smart and strategically. You have to know your industry and profession inside out, backwards and forwards so you don’t shoot yourself in the foot.
When the other side sees themselves losing they may go for the stalemate. However, a stalemate doesn’t guarantee they will now want to negotiate in good faith. They could just be buying time until they have the opportunity to strike again.
In my industry stalemates were common but not acceptable. They ultimately result in a lose-lose scenario which ends badly for all the individuals involved.
Therefore, we were forced to play hardball. We had to be better players in order to force the other side to acquiesce – to accept there will be no win-lose scenario in which they are the winner. (We already accepted we would never “win” either.) The best outcome any of us can hope for is a win-win.
When faced with the certainty of losing, the other side accepted the win-win scenario to save face (and their job).
Understandably, many women don’t like engaging in these bad faith negotiations because of all of the macho bravado and posturing that accompanies it. However, as a woman who had to engage in these situations I found that being a woman gave my side an advantage.
I had a different perspective – and different tactics I could employ.
Being a woman, the first tactic most men employed against me was intimidation.
??? – But who says that just because he is a man and I am a woman, I have to be intimidated -???
??? – What is there about him that I am supposed to be intimidated by -???
I never figured that out.
So, my response was to roll my eyes and either say out loud or through facial expression,
“Put it away. I’m not impressed.”
Many men also assumed that just because I am a woman they can roll right over me with a bunch of B.S. and intimidate me with their superior knowledge, experience or expertise. But, not so fast guys – if it smells like B.S., it is B.S. Let’s negotiate based on facts.
Over the years I learned that women are far better at bringing details and accuracy to the negotiating table than men. This gives us leverage…and power.
In negotiations men love to make statements or claims that aren’t supported by facts. Men tend to respond to these claims with bravado instead of facts that counter the claim. Even when they do respond with facts, the facts are weak because they aren’t as accurate or complete as they need to be. They open the door for a counter to the counter-claim.
Men figured this out about each other so they made a change to their negotiating tactics.
Instead of going macho-bravado against macho-bravado, one side changed out a team member and brought in a man who could nit-pick really well…for a man.
But he wasn’t just a nit-picker – after all, men have dealt with nit-pickers before. No, this man applied a different tactic – he acted like men’s worse nightmare: A bitchy, nagging wife.
www.123rf.com – 37345269
Yup.
The first time I saw it used, I was stunned.
I was stunned by how incredibly effective it was at neutralizing the machismo in the room. I was also stunned and a little freaked out by the inner depths of the male psyche that was being revealed to me. Were men really that intimidated by bitchiness and nagging?
At first, I thought this tactic was unique to that particular situation. But then I encountered it again. And again. It became common place.
I found humor in this tactic until it was used against me. Yes, men (note the plural) played bitchy, nagging wife against me.
I was bewildered so, my response was: “Sorry guys, we don’t live in some alternate universe where that will work against me. You aren’t going to out-woman or out-bitch me. It just ain’t gonna happen…ever.”
They caught on. So, they changed tactics and went all macho.
After I stopped laughing my response was: “Guys. No. After you go all bitchy, the macho-man thing just doesn’t work.”
When they realized none of their tactics was working against me, I was labeled “infuriating.” I loved being called “infuriating” because it meant we were now playing by my rules.
Playing by my rules, intimidation had no effect. Men expected me to either fight or take flight when faced with their macho bravado. I did neither. I didn’t react. I stayed put sending a very clear message “That doesn’t work against me.”
My second rule was to cut through all the BS and get right to the facts. No game playing.
Whether it is negotiating or problem-solving, there are facts and realities that are fixed. They can be laws of nature, industry requirements, contract terms, laws or even basic math – 2 + 2 = 4.
Bravado does not change facts. All the bravado in the world doesn’t make 2 + 2 = 6, even though men will try their best to convince you it does.
In negotiating it is important to find and put all the facts out on the table. When the inarguable facts are known then the number of negotiable items is significantly reduced. Sometimes you find there is nothing left to negotiate.
Women are extremely good at digging up facts and details. This is where women find leverage in negotiations – we present the inarguable facts in a way that they can’t be countered. My favorite way of doing this is through what I call the Rachel Letter.
I came up with name from the from season 4 of Friends where Ross and Rachel after “taking a break” decide to get back together.
Rachel however, has one condition.
She writes Ross a long letter in which she describes everything that went wrong with the relationship and requires Ross to accept full responsibility for why things went wrong. Ross, anxious to get back together with Rachel lies and says he read the letter – twice – and agrees to everything in the letter. But, as he learns what he agreed to, he is unable to keep up the charade.
Ross finally comes clean and admits that he fell asleep reading the letter – it was 18 pages long – front and back!
The Rachel Letter a pure female masterpiece. It is excruciatingly long, citing every incident, fact and figure no matter how trivial in exacting detail. (Ladies, you know exactly what I am talking about.)
The Rachel Letter is what men try to replicate when they play bitchy, nagging wife. They try to replicate our skill for fact finding and connecting facts, but they just aren’t as good at it as we are.
I love writing Rachel Letters because it is one of the few times I can dive into the deepest depths of my femininity to turn bravado into stuttering and stammering blather. (Here is my article on writing Rachel Letters)
During my career I’ve written countless Rachel Letters. As men try to overwhelm and intimidate me with bravado and B.S., I respond with overwhelming, inarguable detailed facts. Sometimes it takes a few rounds of Rachel Letters for them to realize they will never get the win-lose outcome they want. They finally understand my message: I am negotiating in a good faith based on facts and I am not budging from my position.
This is how women intimidate men…and get them to the table to negotiate in good faith.
Share this article and Sign up to receive more helpful articles .
Get my book to understand the Unique Value of Women in the Workplace
Follow The Woman In The Room on Facebook
