Curiosity kills the spat

The Scotwork Eight Step Approach has been helpful for thousands of negotiators by showing them how a simple process-driven method of reading a negotiation improves their deal-making confidence and competence.

But one criticism often levelled at the Eight Steps is the use of the word ARGUE for one of the Steps. This choice of word is not accidental. Much ARGUE Step material is persuasive in nature; when two parties who both think they are right collide, persuasion can be confrontational, and a spat ensues. There is however another more important element to this step; to improve the information base on both sides of the table by asking appropriate questions and by revealing information which will structure and educate.

One mistake often made by inexperienced negotiators is that they ask questions designed to ‘win’ the argument by pushing the other party into errors of admission. This works well in TV dramas, but is less successful in the real world.

Good negotiators ask questions because they are curious about the drives and motivations of the other side; they listen carefully to the answers to their questions and then ask supplementary questions to delve deeper, to check understanding, to discover the real needs.

It is very easy to ask lots of questions and fail miserably to get any useful information. There is a story told of a university professor of philosophy, who wrote a book about Gossip and its evils. One of his students came to him one day and said that he had an important story to tell about a fellow student called John.

‘Before you tell me the story,’ said the professor, ‘I have three questions I want to ask about this story. Firstly, are you absolutely sure your story is true?’

‘Well,’ said the student ‘I heard the story from a very reliable source, but I cannot absolutely guarantee it is true.’

‘So you want to tell me something about John but you don’t know whether it is true. Second question – does the story reflect well or badly on John?

‘Very badly indeed’ said the student with a smile on his face. ‘I see’ said the professor ‘so you want to tell me a story about John which might not be true and which reflects badly on him.

Third question – in comparison with the terrible things going on in the world today, would you describe this story as important?’

The student thought for a moment. ‘No’ he replied, ‘it is not earth-shattering in the sense you mean.’

The professor, obviously peeved, said ‘So let’s summarise. You came to me to tell me a story about John which might not be true, certainly reflects badly on him, and by your own admission isn’t even very important. Do you still want to go ahead?’

‘Put like that, I suppose not’ said the student, and he slunk away.

Which is why the professor never found out that John was having an affair with his wife.

Stephen White, Scotwork UK Managing Partner

©2010 Scotwork Negotiating Skills, www.scotwork.co.nz