Years ago, I received some advice that I have come to really appreciate and will use often to good effect – when you’re in the middle of tough negotiations or find yourself in a heated disagreement, it can be helpful to offer the other side a way out that allows them to save face. Doing so can smooth over any ill feelings as well as help to bridge what might have been two very different initial positions and make the final outcome more palatable for all… and may be more likely to last.
Granted, this won’t always be the case, and you need to have someone who is willing to ultimately change their original position. But if you do, then instead of viewing this as a winner/loser situation, consider if there’s a way for both parties to at least appear to have arrived at the solution together.
Let me offer a personal illustration. One time, I got into an intense discussion on a certain project about something we just didn’t have budget for. It started with a colleague taking an extreme “my way or the highway” position and I found myself in the unenviable position of having to argue against my co-worker (let’s call him “Bob” to protect the innocent).
Specifically, Bob was dead set on bringing in an outside design firm for a very important project, and he was ready to walk if we didn’t get the resource. Ironically, we had an in-house design team that we’d worked with for years so the additional expense was not only outside of our budget but it wasn’t needed. However, what I realized after a couple of minutes of our back-and-forth debate was that Bob had some long-simmering frustration where he felt we were doing the same old designs time-and-again and that they weren’t working. He wanted to shake things up or not be associated with what he felt would be sub-par work.
Ultimately, I was responsible for the budget so it was my call. However, I kept my calm but made it clear that there was no budget for this at this time. What I did, however, was stopped talking and used the pause to let a thoughtful look cross my face. I then explained that I knew Bob understood the economic reality we were faced with so I was wondering if there was something else that was compelling him to take such an extreme position, and I asked if it might be that he felt we’d benefit from having an outside perspective (mind you, I chose those words carefully and avoided casting Bob as a villain who didn’t think our internal team was up to the job).
“That’s it exactly!” was his response so I offered to go with Bob to our project sponsor to let them know about these concerns as I thought they did have some merit. Best case, we might get some additional dollars but, at a minimum, we’d plant the seeds for increasing the budget on the next project. I also wanted to talk with our lead designer to see how receptive they would be to stretching our creative legs a bit on this current project.
It wasn’t a perfect solution as there was no guarantee that anything would change, but Bob understood that he’d been heard and my proposed solutions still allowed him to “take a stand” and take action… albeit, in a more productive fashion than walking away. He could feel like he’d had an impact even though he probably wasn’t going to get what he wanted.
I’ve frankly lost count of the number of times I’ve used this over the years to help bridge different positions but – so long as there’s trust and an earnest effort to listen and understand – I find that this approach can work wonders.
Here’s where it gets interesting.
Last year, a good friend quoted his grandfather saying – and I paraphrase here – “Never let someone get away with telling a lie everyone can believe.” To me, his words spoke of the purity of always being honest… but I realized that, while I really liked the sentiment, my “give them a way out” does not always align with that and that gave me pause.
There have also been plenty of times when someone takes a stand and makes a statement which I disagree with but, by trying hard to see things from their perspective, I will try and take their statement, reflect it back to them but then shape it in a more productive direction.
For example, someone once said that “our customers will never use this new website” but I had already run the concept past our customer service team since they talked to customers every day and the were convinced it would be a huge win. Still, I took the above approach and responded with “you’re absolutely right, we won’t know if it’s going to work until it’s live and I don’t want to waste our time and money. Still, I have already taken the idea to the heads of the call center and they liked the direction we were going. Still, I respect your desire to get this right so I wonder if you and I could meet with that team again and talk through your concerns.”
While I was highly confident in my position, I managed to validate their concerns while also elevating it from “This is a stupid idea” to “I want what’s best for the customer and the company.” And then proposed a way to move forward that would only require one additional meeting. It was time well-spent, in my opinion, as it took a potential foe and turned them into an advocate who felt listened to and respected.
There’s a point in there that I’d like to underscore – recasting what someone has said in a different way that makes it more constructive and positive rather than destructive. It frankly makes people sound better and I’ve rarely-if-ever had someone correct me and return to using the negative phrasing. It can be a helpful reminder of our better natures.
Now, I’ll close with a counter argument to the advice I’ve just offered, for your reasoned consideration. A buddy of mine once shared one of his grandpa’s favorite sayings: “Don’t sugarcoat the truth for the sake of peace.” When he said that, it got me thinking about my approach to conflicts and whether finding common ground was always the best course of action.
On the one hand, I deeply respect the principle of unwavering honesty. But at the same time, as I reflected on all this, I ultimately didn’t feel that I was sugarcoating the truth, but rather that I was reframing the conversation in a more positive and constructive way. Still, I thought this an interesting way to close this post and leave the question ultimately up to you. What’s your take on this balance between diplomacy and direct honesty in conflicts?
And, as always, know that I’m pulling for you!
What If... 
Leave a comment