Pascale Parodi
Overview
A European company with two corporate sites located in different countries wanted to offer its employees a two-day in-person training seminar on negotiation skills. The goal was to develop the negotiation skills of all employees in the corporate group.
A particular feature of the company is that it embraces almost all European nationalities. In addition, there are two corporate sites in Spain (management and most of the support functions) and France (supervision and operational support of the construction sites). The project was a gigantic structure that had never been built before.
Topic
The client’s brief was to highlight the differences in natural negotiation styles so that the employees could perform more effectively and confidently in professional negotiations. They were to be taught a number of basic concepts and models that they were to use in their daily business.
The group was already familiar with the aspects (such as relationship, process, contents) that play a role in negotiation. The shared mental models were visualized and collated.
Stage
a. Preparation
Team² was used at the beginning of the second day. The agenda billed it as an “experiment.” In order to maintain the surprise effect, the names “METALOG” and “Team²” were not mentioned.
The purpose of the experiment was, for both the participants and myself, to consolidate and visualize what had already been covered, understood, and achieved in the training seminar – but also what questions remained unanswered.
I prepared the room in advance of the experiment:
• The rules were pinned up (half-covered) on the wall.
• I joined tables to form a large working space.
• I placed chairs around the working space.
• I divided up the work area with tape.
• I placed the parts in the middle of the work area and thoroughly mixed them so that the participants were not able to guess the size of the rectangles they had to create.
• The wooden box remained hidden.
Tip: One variation is to work with standing tables. Please remember that any change in the setting will affect the training results and the learning outcomes of the participants.
b. Performance
“Welcome back! Yesterday we spent a whole day getting to know each other and discussing personal preferences and some of the theoretical principles around negotiation skills. Now let’s do an experiment together. It’s going to be fun. It’s perfectly doable, no trap, no tricks!
Different roles need to be assigned – we need constructors and one observer. When I say “role,” I don’t mean playing a role like an actor, but filling a role with your own personality. The complex nature of we humans causes enough unexpectedness as it is. Please stay true to yourselves and experiment. And even in the role of observer, it will not be boring, but very enlightening.”
Tip: For me, the most effective way is when I am not in explanation mode, but read out the objectives and the rules step by step as I have prepared them. The rules of play must therefore contain everything needed to make sure the experiment is doable. Otherwise, keep the rules deliberately ambiguous. The more ambiguous they are, the greater the opportunity to address and further explore the topic of tolerance of ambiguity and, hence, complexity – both of which are strongly linked to interpersonal communication and play a key role in negotiation.
“The goal is for each one of you to build a quadrilateral out of the components. There are a few rules you must observe:
• Nonverbal communication.
• The constructors will use the components that are in their own work area.
• The constructors are allowed to provide and help themselves to the components in the center field.
• It is not allowed to take components directly from the other constructors.
• All components must be used.
• The task is complete when all quadrilaterals are in place.”
• The observers were intentionally offered “resource-focusing glasses.” The guiding question for the observers was: “What contributes to success?”
c. Progression
At the beginning, the mood was good and the participants were obviously having fun. After about ten minutes, looking very pleased with themselves, the participants signaled to me that they were finished. I looked incredulous and pointed to the rules: each player had indeed completed a (differently sized) quadrilateral, but some parts were left in the center.
All the pieces were returned to the center. Only one person kept their small quadrilateral – this was how they had understood the goal and were happy with their quadrilateral as it was.
After a few minutes, no one was having any fun. As often is the case, I had to intervene, otherwise we would have run the risk of the group ganging up on one of its members. No one should be stigmatized. After all, the way we behave should make sense to us. I made the “T” sign with my hands to signal I wanted to take a time-out: “Please stand up. Everyone take a step back. What is happening right now?” After a three-minute discussion, I asked the participants to start again.
After a while, the group achieved its goal.
Reflection
Debriefing is an essential part of the experiential learning process. It is a prerequisite for moving forward, looking at our practices in a different way, and thus developing our competencies.
The reflection was carried out in three groups of three participants each. The group results were documented on a flip chart and presented to the others. The guiding questions were:
• How did I feel during the experiment?
• What contributed to the success?
• What can I specifically apply to my daily working life, for example, when I have to negotiate with clients depending on the situation I am in?”
At the same time, the observers wrote down on a flip chart their personal insights into the following questions, which they then presented:
• What contributes to success?
• What behavior would I like to see more of?
Tip: The general rule for debriefing is not to debate, but to let others’ opinions stand as they are. If someone says something that evokes strong feelings, the participants should try to write them down instead of vocalizing them. This is a potential opportunity to create lessons learned.
Tranfer to the real World
| Elements in the learning project | Elements in the real world |
|---|---|
| Goal of the experiment | Company or departmental goals/objectives |
| Trainer | Management as process facilitators or employee coaches, customer testimonials (external intervention) |
| Observers | Power and depth of analysis from an outsider taking a meta-position, such as project managers or external colleagues |
| Rules of play | General organizational framework, internal processes, IT tools, EU directives, ethics, etc. |
| Individual colored parts | Resources available to draw up a contract Financial data to be consolidated Required building materials and equipment to be purchased, delivered, installed |
| Work areas demarcated with colored tape | Departments, locations, individual offices on the construction site Global management in one country and operational management in another Restrictions due to the high standard of security and confidentiality |
| Carrying out the simulation in silence | The various EU languages The obstacles encountered at workplaces in different countries. Suppliers also located in different geographical locations Restrictions resulting from the high standard of security and confidentiality |
| Nonverbal communication | English as a common language with different levels and accents |
After this part of the discussion, I gave the group the opportunity for personal reflection when I asked: “And now that you know all this, what do you know about negotiation?”
I collated the key lessons learned from the participants on the flip chart:
• Align own interests with the interests of the organization.
• Be creative.
• Give yourself time to analyze the situation.
• Remain calm.
• Stay concentrated.
• Share available information/resources with the team.
• Take a step back.
• Do not judge, but try to understand why a person’s behavior makes sense to them. This experience enables you to better understand the other person’s negotiation strategy.
Conclusion
The participants were able to understand and articulate how they naturally behave in negotiations. They realized that once you know what your beliefs, values, and fixed/recurring patterns are, you have the freedom to change your path.
This enabled them, for example, to:
• Adapt to the context.
• Consider what the company’s objective is.
• Put their ego aside.
• Move to a meta-level.
• Consciously choose a different negotiation style that makes more sense in the given setting.
• Choose to delegate negotiations to colleagues or create a negotiation team.
What is taught through books or trainers is certainly sound knowledge. But what is experienced and internalized has more chance of actually being put into practice. For me, this insight is what makes experiential learning so powerful. Knowledge can be passed on. However, trainers can only create the context within which skills can be developed. When it comes to putting knowledge into practice, we are all alone in the driver’s seat.