Leaders vs. Managers: Distinct negotiation approaches

There are two basic ways in which to view and approach any negotiation. We can see it as either distributive or integrative; or a combination of the two. Leaders have the ability to see negotiations in both lights, but based on the literature it appears that managers are biased in seeing negotiations as inherently distributive in nature.  Here is why I would make such a claim. 

First, let’s break down some key features of the approaches to a negotiation and then look at why managers are predisposed to focus on distribution and not integrative approaches.

Distributive Negotiations are generally seen as:

·      Having an outcome that is win or lose,

·      Zero-sum in nature or a fixed pie,

·      Actively seeking to assert one’s position only,

·      Focused on limiting information sharing as much as possible,

·      Having the mantra that anything not acquired is lost.

Integrative Negotiations are generally seen as:

·      Having an outcome that is focused on mutual gains for both parties,

·      Focused on creating value and enlarging the pie before dividing it,

·      Seeking to actively understand the other side’s perspective,

·      Understanding the importance of reciprocally sharing information,

·      Having the mantra that mutual giving can result in mutual gaining.

Now that we have clarified that, it is critical that we draw a clear distinction between leadership and management.  John Kotter, Professor at Harvard Business School, explains that the classic business school definition of management revolves around¹:

1)   Planning

2)   Organizing

3)   Directing

4)   Controlling

Contrast that with McFarland, Senn, and Childress, who collaborated to write Twenty-First Century Leadership: Dialogues with 100 Top Leaders. They defined the 21^st century leader as someone who:

1)   Facilitates excellence in others

2)   Has interpersonal sensitivity

3)   Exhibits a mastery over change

4)   Takes a holistic approach -- embracing a wide variety of qualities, skills, and capabilities.

Based on the following descriptions we can see that a manager's inherent training and focus on ‘directing’ and ‘controlling’ aren’t conducive with most element of the integrative approach to negotiations.

Someone who believes they need to direct the discussion won’t actively seek to understand the other side and someone who is trained to control a situation won’t likely be willing to share information in a reciprocal manner. Further, neither directing nor controlling are natural segues into the concept of mutual gain.

Juxtapose this with the 21^st Leader as described by McFarland, Senn, and Childress. Every aspect of a leadership approach lines up with the integrative negotiator:

The concept of mutual gain and that value can be explored and found align with a leader's desire to take a more holistic approach and facilitate excellence in others.

Actively seeking to understand the other side directly connects with a leader's tendency for interpersonal sensitivity. And finally, we find that this leader who has mastery of change understands that giving can result in mutual gaining. Anyone who is comfortable and capable of changing and embracing change will be open to creative and collaborative solutions.

This isn’t to say that the manager bias in negotiation is always bad. Certain negations are best viewed through the lens of distribution. Simple, transactional negotiations are perfectly tailored for the manager. In fact, they are likely to be the most effective and efficient at this type of negotiation.

However, the information presented would seem to indicate that for more complex, multi-variable negotiations you will want to have a leader, rather than a manager, involved.

With thanks to Chayse Myers for his input.

The Leadership Style and Negotiation Approach of Donald Trump. What can we learn from his past for the next four years?

With Donald Trump taking office it is important to ask what kind of leader and negotiator he will be as he leads the United States.  There is certainly ample evidence from his past to draw from.  In this month’s blog post, I will begin by looking at his leadership style and how it can be characterized.  Then I will shift slightly and look at his negotiation approach and the way he tries to develop deals at the table.  In the end I will weave them together to see if we can understand what the next four years will look like.

In terms of leadership style, this is a rather tricky one to characterize.  However, lets give it a try.  There are a number of different leadership styles.  Lets use these five approaches as explained by Rose Johnson on the website Chron (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/5-different-types-leadership-styles-17584.html) The five styles are Laissez-Faire, Autocratic, Participative, Transactional, and Transformational.  Briefly here is a summary of each:

·      A laissez-faire leader lacks direct supervision of their followers and fails to provide regular feedback to those under their supervision. The laissez-faire style produces no leadership efforts from those also capable of exercising leadership. This often leads to poor performance and a lack of control.

·      The autocratic leadership style allows managers to make decisions alone without the input of others. Leaders possess total authority and impose their will on their followers. No one challenges the decisions of autocratic leaders.

·      The participative leadership approach values the input of team members and peers, but the responsibility of making the final decision rests with the participative leader. Participative leadership boosts follower morale because they make contributions to the decision-making process.

·      The transactional leadership style focuses on certain tasks to perform and provide rewards or punishments to followers based on results. Goals are predetermined together and the leader possesses the power to review results and train or correct followers when they fail to meet goals.

·      The transformational leadership style depends on high levels of communication. Leaders motivate followers and focus on the big picture to accomplish the goal.

Given these five styles, where does Trump fit?  At first glance, he seems to be a combination of the autocratic approach and the transactional style. There is little doubt that he has a top down style where he is in charge.  He certainly wields his authority and imposes his will on others.  Further, it is fair to say that the transactional approach is one that Trump talks about often.  Wanting new deals that benefit America and other approaches that see agreements as transactions rather than part of a larger relationship.  However, if we listen to his own words we find quite a different characterization that leads one to believe that he actually has a laissez-faire style.  Consider these comments he made about his own leadership style, "Most people are surprised by the way I work. I play it very loose. I don't carry a briefcase. I try not to schedule too many meetings. I leave my door open. You can't be imaginative or entrepreneurial if you've got too much structure. I prefer to come to work each day and see what develops."  Or consider this characterization of how he plans to deal with the media if he were to be elected president, “I’ll wing it and things will work out.”  As we watch Trump ascending to the Presidency these statements do seem to reflect his leadership approach in many ways.  The lack of details around policies during the campaign and the confidence he has in himself lend credence to this perspective holding truth.         

Now lets weave that together with his negotiation approach.  To do that we can turn to various snippets from his book the Art of the Deal.  To begin, it is clear that Trump is a transactional negotiator and takes a very positional or distributive approach to negotiation.  “My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.” (pg. 45)  Take the example of the wall he wants to build with Mexico.  The fact that he has stated he will get Mexico to pay for the wall is aiming very high…to the point that people are talking less about the building of the wall and more about who will pay for it.  He also seems to know how to manipulate people – playing on their sense of self.  As he stated, “I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole.” (pg. 58)  Trump also suggests that he is unafraid to dig in and may even take a deal past what may make sense or be rational (AKA the psychological concept of entrapment).  As he explains, “I fight when I feel I’m getting screwed, even if it’s costly and difficult and highly risky.” (pg. 236)  Finally, one can hope there is some truth in this statement. “You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion, you can get all kinds of press…but if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.” (pg. 60) 

Practically, his willingness to take risks has resulted in some great 'deals', such as the purchasing of the dilapidated 40 Wall Street in 1995 for $1 million, followed by $35 million in renovations, which resulted in a current value of $500 million today. Juxtapose that with other ventures, in which his laissez-faire approach (and later recalcitrance), have resulted in problems which eclipse any possible gains (e.g. all the problems with Trump University).

What we seem to have in our next president is a laissez-faire leader who likes to sense and feel his way through situations and believes he is more than capable of doing so very effectively.  Now, couple that with a very positional negotiator, who is unafraid to take risks, but ultimately knows he needs to produce results, and you have a very uncertain four years in the offering.   

What to do with trait theory when it comes to leadership and negotiation?

For quite some time the most common thinking about effective leadership hinged on Trait Theory. Trait Theory in general is about the characteristics of leaders and has been traditionally used to predict leadership effectiveness. Those traits are then used to gauge the likelihood that people will succeed as leaders. Similarly, various scholars have applied to idea of Trait Theory to negotiation as well, citing such traits as the ability to listen, think quickly on one's feet, be assertive, and empathic.

The question this blog is examining is whether it is helpful to use Trait Theory to conduct such an assessment and if the theory really helps identify successful leaders and negotiators.  In other words, what are the benefits and limits of such a theory and what can be concluded about this idea.        


The benefits of Trait Theory are:

1.  It is a relatively straight-forward concept.  If you possess the traits of an effective leader and negotiator than you have a high likelihood of being successful.  If you don't, well, you can either try to learn them (which the theory says is very hard to do) or you are out of luck and should try another endeavor.  
2.  Trait Theory provides a very clear way to analyze and assesses effective leadership and negotiation.  It sets forth benchmarks that can be measured.   
3.  Traits do matter in certain ways to help understand successful leadership.  Like anything, this can be taken too far, but the contribution is there nonetheless.  
4.  There is ample research to support the concept to varying degrees.  

The limits of the Trait Theory are:

1.  If taken too literally the theory is very limiting as to who can be a successful leader.  Because many people believe traits are something you are born with you cannot learn to adopt them.  The conclusion, therefore, is only certain people are cut out to be leaders or negotiators.     
2.  The theory, while it strives for objective measures, is inherently subjective in how it is applied.  
3.  There is not exact agreement on what the key traits are (there are many that have been identified) and there is disagreement over which are the most important.         

So what does all this mean and what can we conclude about trait theory:

There is little question that trait theory has given those interested in leadership and negotiation quite a bit to think about.  It helps those within an organization, for example, to know what to look for when scouting for the next generation of leaders and negotiators.  It can also help instill confidence in individuals should they possess these traits.  

That stated, it seems that trait theory may be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for leadership and negotiation success.  The fundamental question in my mind is related to how people acquire these traits.  The theory seems much less helpful and interesting if the conclusion is that we are simply born with these traits and they cannot be learned.  There is little question we are born with certain physical traits, but far less clear when this issue relates to cognition.  In fact, most of the things that make people successful leaders and negotiators emerge from success and failure loops where learning is a core part of what helps us grow.      

TGIF Quotation related to Primal Leadership

"When I say manage emotions, I only mean the really distressing, incapacitating emotions.  Feeling emotions is what makes life rich.  You need your passions."

Daniel Goleman

What is the connection between leadership approach and negotiation? Part 4: Primal leadership...and primal negotiation

Primal leadership sounds rather frightening at first blush.  It conjures up notions of Hobbes' conception of nature being red tooth and claw. However, authors Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee, in their book Primal Leadership, mean something quite different.  To borrow their words, Primal Leadership means to "prime good feelings in those we lead."  Put differently, the primary job of leaders is an emotional one.

Goleman and colleagues have spent many years researching the role of emotions in leadership.  To be more precise, the scientific evidence they gathered strongly indicated that a leader's emotional competencies have a significant impact on their overall leadership ability and ultimate success.  So what are they competencies they have identified?  There are four categories with upwards of 27 competencies involved.  The categories are:

1. Self awareness: comprised of the ability to be attuned to one's emotional self and the signals you give to others, an accurate self assessment (not over or under inflated), and a level of self assurance that puts people at ease.

2. Self management: comprised of a number of competencies including self control, transparency, adaptability to fluid and changing situations, taking initiative when needed and a healthy level of optimism. 

3. Social awareness: comprised of empathy, organizational awareness, and a strong commitment to service.  

4. Relationship management: comprised of a number of competencies, including inspiration, the ability to influence, helping to develop others, being a catalyst for change, dealing with conflict effectively, and building effective teams.  

As you can visualize, there is a lot that goes into effective primal leadership and only the very few are truly proficient at most of these.  And what about all of this and how it relates to negotiation?

The history of emotions in negotiation is an interesting one.  Back in the 1950s, when scholarly work really began about negotiation, theorists primarily came from an Economics background and worked off of a Rational Actor model.  The prevailing sentiment was that emotions should be kept out of negotiation.  However, that all changed as a myriad of voices from varied disciplines started pointing out that keeping emotions out of negotiation was essentially impossible (for a great read see Beyond Rationality by Fisher and Shapiro).  So how does all of this fit with the notion of primal leadership?

Quite well actually -- to the point where the primal concept applies equally to negotiation. Starting at the highest of levels, effective negotiators understand the importance of their counterparts coming away from a negotiation feeling primed about the process and ultimate outcome.  We see this time and again where one successful negotiation sets up the next process.

The four categories mentioned in primal leadership are essential for negotiators as well.  Taking them one at a time, self awareness in negotiation is fundamentally important since we communicate a significant amount through our non verbal behaviors and our ability to put others at ease.

Self awareness leads to self management and knowing how to control ourselves, when to share different kinds of information, and having the ability to adapt to different situations that emerge during what is an often unpredictable process. Since much of negotiation is about managing oneself in the face of the other, this category is critical for success.

Social awareness and knowing when to empathize, how to deal with the organizational challenges that might be part of any negotiation, and the desire to serve others all come into play in different negotiation processes.  If I empathize well, for example, the other negotiator comes away feeling as if I truly understand their needs and interests.

Finally, effective negotiation requires inspiration and the ability to influence others.  In fact, there may be no more important skillset than that combination.  These skills also help negotiators to address conflicts as they come up and to work with a broad array of people and teams constructively.

In summary, primal leadership connects directly with primal negotiation.  A negotiator's job is, in large part, an emotional one. While negotiators may not be leading people in the traditional sense, many of the abilities discussed are critical for effective negotiation.  Having both parties leave a negotiation satisfied to a large degree is the objective of most negotiations and being primal leads us clearly in that direction.    
            

What is the connection between leadership approach and negotiation? Part 3: The leader without authority

We often associate leadership with a role and with some form of authority.  Think the president of a country or company, a supervisor or boss, etc...  You get the idea.  However, there is quite a bit of interesting work that has been done on leading WITHOUT authority.  The common themes of this work, and the guidance given, is as follows:

1.  Meet the needs and interests of the people you want to follow you

When you try to lead without authority you must find and unearth the needs and interests of those who you would like to follow you.  If you meet those needs and interests people will naturally have many reasons to do what you are asking.  Put differently, people will move in the direction you would like because they see the value in what you are proposing.    

2.  Use persuasion that speaks to those around you

Coercion is not an option when trying to lead without authority.  Therefore one must possess the ability to persuade.  That means thinking about things from the other people's perspective.  A common mistake people make is trying to persuade others, but with arguments that make sense to persuader, not the persuadee.      

3.  Ask thought provoking questions

A leader who lacks authority has a best friend -- a thought provoking question.  A well placed provocative question, that gives people pause to think deeply, can be the best way to frame a problem or a challenge.  This type of question is also a great way to subtly shift people's thinking.  

4.  Be humble, yet enthusiastic

A leader without authority has to find a way to resonate with people and get them to believe in what they are saying and doing.  Part of the answer to doing this is exhibiting humility.  Being humble is something people want in a peer and a leader.  The other part of the answer is being enthusiastic.  People need to be energized by a leader's passion for the issue or challenge in front of them.  Enthusiasm is contagious and inspires quiet confidence.    

5.  Take responsibility when needed and give credit to others    

Taking responsibility is one way to exhibit leadership to others.  It is not easy to take responsibility in difficult times, but it conveys a level of commitment to a situation that people often want to see.  Furthermore, when credit is due to the team a leader can gain confidence and trust by bestowing that credit on others.  Most often that credit is due to their efforts in any case, with the leader gently guiding them along.

All of this guidance fits very well with effective negotiation.  In fact, in most negotiations we have to use the very same principles leaders without authority employ.  For example:

• Meeting interests and needs is a fundamental principle of all negotiations.  Unless those interests and needs are met negotiators will not say yes to what is being put in front of them.  
• The ability to persuade others is a core tool of any negotiator.  If one does not possess this ability they will fall short when met with resistance.     
• The best negotiators I know are not the smoothest talkers, but rather they ask the best questions and listen carefully for the information coming back to them. 
• Humility in negotiation is a disarming quality that can keep the other negotiator in the right frame of mind.  Coupling this with enthusiasm, and a never ending quest for a creative solution, is an infectious quality of a master negotiator.
• Finally, taking responsibility during a negotiation can help the other negotiator move past certain sticking points.  Giving credit to the other negotiator for the success you both achieve is an important way to build the relationship over the longer term.