PERFORMANCE review ratings consistently indicate ineffective communication as the main reason for managerial failure. A negotiation is nothing else than the attempt to introduce a new project—a proposal to maximize the limited resource by distributing it in such a way as to harness one’s own interests and those of the other party. Communication is the only means of conveying that offer. Effective communication should work on three levels: verbal (words, content), nonverbal (appearance, gestures, body language, physical distance, bodily reactions), and para-verbal (flow, tone, intonation, pitch of voice, accents, latency period between words, silence). For it to be perceived as authentic, there has to be a balance between all three levels.10 This means that the recipient will only perceive the message as real if there is no dissonance—the spoken message reflects the non- and para-verbal behavior of the speaker. In that sense, effective communication is an art of perception management. As stated by Jung, perception is the only reality. People react based on their perceptions of reality, not reality itself.
Perception should, therefore, be crafted on two levels: internally and externally. We can stage the impact we want to have on the other person by careful choice of words, the way in which we convey our demands, and by paying attention to body language. Internally, the challenge is linked to managing the negative emotions related to the anticipation of rejection, which is at the source of rejection’s destructive power. The paralyzing fear of rejection far too often governs how (or whether at all) we verbalize our proposals and how the other person perceives them.
The importance and breadth of communication merits a separate study. For the purposes of this chapter, I will only concentrate on the aspects that pertain to the skills effective negotiators should consider, including in their bargaining repertoire, in order to avoid the risk of failure of their negotiating efforts.
The saying “He who complies against his will is of his opinion still” shows that people do not react well to imposed solutions, states, or world-views of others. Consequently, telling your counterpart that they must understand something sends a dual message: of enforcing combined with underestimating their mental capability. This is a recipe for an immediate defensive attitude, which will make navigating toward a more cooperative path more challenging.
Another common mistake that executives make is presenting and evaluating an offer from their own perspective or offering subjective solutions too quickly without having heard out and understood the other party. It is not possible to modify an attitude by telling someone to change or do something. In order to impact the behavior, one needs to first address the affective, and then the cognitive elements in the system that makes up an attitude. When an external trigger enters the brain, people first feel (the amygdala reacts), then they think and rationalize, and finally act. Therefore, our judgments and choices are nothing else than a reflection of endorsed and rationalized feelings. A skilled negotiator understands that the aim of communication—to influence people’s behavior—can only be obtained by respecting the feel–think–act sequence.
Many negotiators struggle to find the best arguments to support their offer and the demands they are making. They waste a lot of time and energy on producing reasons to support their positions. In doing so, they are only really convincing themselves and their egos. The other party will inevitably reciprocate by pulling out their artillery of arguments. The result is a never-ending debate that ultimately causes both parties to lose sight of the objective of the negotiation. In some cases, this may lead to an emotional spiral of attack and defense or criticism and justification. With reference to the attitudinal aspects resulting from the brain structure, it is not possible to be emotional and rational at the same time. Things communicated under the influence of emotions often make the best speeches that will forever be regretted having been given. The end result may be an impasse or a deadlock, and in extreme cases, a ruined relationship. This is definitely not a fertile ground for exploring the options of reaching a sustainable agreement.
In the negotiations I have moderated, I often heard the parties say: “I understand, but…” followed by a counter-proposal. These three words are what I refer to as communication quicksand. Intuitively, most people know that what follows after the but is the exact opposite of what the other party just expressed. The phrase “I understand” is only a buffer used to soften the counteroffer. It has little to do with real comprehension; in fact, it may even highlight the exact opposite. Negotiation is not an exercise in oratory skills. In order to master the art of persuasion, executives need to understand what is driving the feelings, thoughts, and actions of the counterpart. Communication starts with listening, and not with talking. The ratio should ideally be 70:30.
10 Morgan, N., 2013. How to Become an Authentic Speaker. HBR’s 10 Must Reads on Communication, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, Massachusetts.