Beyond Reason

Introduction We cannot stop having emotions any more than we can stop having thoughts. The challenge is learning to stimulate helpful emotions in those with whom we negotiate—and in ourselves. You negotiate every day, whether about where to go for dinner, how much to pay for a secondhand bicycle, or when to terminate an employee. And you have emotions all the time. These may be positive emotions like joy or contentment, or negative emotions like anger, frustration, and guilt. When you negotiate with others, how should you deal with these emotions—both theirs and yours? As hard as you might try to ignore emotions, they won’t go away. They can be distracting, painful, or the cause of a failed agreement. They can divert your attention from an important issue that ought to be resolved now. And yet as you negotiate formally or informally, you have too much to think about to study every emotion that you and others may be feeling and to decide what to do about it. It is hard to manage the very emotions that affect you. Beyond Reason offers a way to deal with this problem. You will learn a strategy to generate positive emotions and to deal with negative ones. No longer will you be at the mercy of your own emotions or those of others. Your negotiations will be more comfortable and more effective. This strategy is powerful enough to use in your toughest negotiations—whether with a difficult colleague, a hard bargainer, or your spouse. Because Beyond Reason is about emotions, we (Roger and Dan) have added a personal dimension to our writing. We have included a number of examples drawn from our personal lives as well as from our involvement for many years in the field of negotiation. We each have developed negotiation theory and have trained people from all walks of life, from Mideast negotiators to marital couples, business executives to university students. This book is a product of our personal learning and research. It builds upon Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, which is coauthored by Roger and has become a foundation for the widely used process of interest-based negotiation. This process suggests that negotiators obtain the best results by understanding each other’s interests and working together to produce an agreement that will meet those interests as best they can. (See Seven Elements of Negotiation on page 207 for details.) Many have commented that though the advice in Getting to YES is powerful, it does not spend much time addressing the question of how to handle the emotions and relationship issues in our toughest negotiations. This is our attempt to dig into those questions. This book would not have happened were it not for the late professor Jerome D. Frank, who introduced the two of us. His intuition suggested to him that there might be synergy between “a negotiator interested in psychology” and “a psychologist interested in negotiation.” He was right, and we are indebted. We have worked together for the past five years on this book. It has taken far longer than either of us would have predicted, in part because we have so enjoyed spending time talking together and learning from each other. We now understand far more about emotions in negotiation than the sum total of our combined knowledge a few years back. In this book, we share some of the excitement of these ideas with you, the reader.

I The Big picture CHAPTER 1 Emotions Are Powerful, Always Present, and Hard to Handle A prospective customer threatens to back out of an agreement just before the final document is signed. The dealer who sold you a brand new car says that engine problems are not covered under warranty. Your eleven-year-old announces there is simply no way she is going to wear a coat to school on this frigid February morning. At moments like these, when your blood pressure is rising or anxiety is creeping in, rational advice about how to negotiate seems irrelevant. As constructive and reasonable as you might like to be, you may find yourself saying things like:   “Don’t do this to me. If you walk away from this agreement, I’m out of a job.” “What kind of sleazy operation is this? Fix the engine or we’ll see you in court.” “Young lady, you’re wearing a coat whether you like it or not. Put it on!”   Or perhaps you do not express your emotions in the moment, but let them eat away at you for the rest of the day. If your boss asks you to work all weekend to finish something she didn’t get to, do you say okay, but spend the weekend fuming while you consider quitting? Whether you speak up or not, your emotions may take over. You may act in ways that jeopardize reaching agreement, that damage a relationship, or that cost you a lot. Negotiation involves both your head and your gut—both reason and emotion. In this book, we offer advice to deal with emotions. Negotiation is more than rational argument. Human beings are not computers. In addition to your substantive interests, you are a part of the negotiation. Your emotions are there, and they will be involved. So, too, will the emotions of others. WHAT IS AN EMOTION? Psychologists Fehr and Russell note that “everyone knows what an emotion is, until asked to give a definition. Then, it seems, no one knows.” As we use the term, an emotion is a felt experience. You feel an emotion; you don’t just think it. When someone says or does something that is personally significant to you, your emotions respond, usually along with associated thoughts, physiological changes, and a desire to do something. If a junior colleague tells you to take notes in a meeting, you might feel angry and think, “Who is he to tell me what to do?” Your physiology changes as your blood pressure rises, and you feel a desire to insult him. Emotions can be positive or negative. A positive emotion feels personally uplifting. Whether pride, hope, or relief, a positive emotion feels good. In a negotiation, a positive emotion toward the other person is likely to build rapport, a relationship marked by goodwill, understanding, and a feeling of being “in sync.” In contrast, anger, frustration, and other negative emotions feel personally distressing, and they are less likely to build rapport.* This book focuses on how you can use positive emotions to help reach a wise agreement. In this chapter, we describe major obstacles you might face as you deal with emotions—both yours and those of others. Subsequent chapters give you a practical framework to overcome these obstacles. The framework does not require you to reveal your deepest emotions or to manipulate others. Instead, it provides you with practical ideas to deal with emotions. You can begin to use the framework immediately. EMOTIONS CAN BE OBSTACLES TO NEGOTIATION None of us is spared the reality of emotions. They can ruin any possibility of a wise agreement. They can turn an amicable relationship into a long-lasting feud where everybody gets hurt. And they can sour hopes for a fair settlement. What makes emotions so troubling? They can divert attention from substantive matters. If you or the other person gets upset, each of you will have to deal with the hassle of emotions. Should you storm out of the room? Apologize? Sit quietly and fume? Your attention shifts from reaching a satisfying agreement to protecting yourself or attacking the other. They can damage a relationship. Unbridled emotions may be desirable when falling in love. But in a negotiation, they reduce your ability to act wisely. Strong emotions can overshadow your thinking, leaving you at risk of damaging your relationship. In anger, you may interrupt the long-winded comments of a colleague who was just about to suggest an agreement workable for both of you. And in resentment, he may retaliate by remaining silent the next time you need his support. They can be used to exploit you. If you flinch at another negotiator’s proposal or hesitate before telling them* your interests, these observable reactions offer clues about your “true” concerns and vulnerabilities. Careful observers of your emotional reaction may learn how much you value proposals, issues, and your relationship with them. They may use that information to exploit you. If those are possible results of emotions, it is not surprising that a negotiator is often advised to avoid them altogether. EMOTIONS CAN BE A GREAT ASSET Although emotions are often thought of as obstacles to a negotiation—and certainly can be—they can also be a great asset. They can help us achieve our negotiating purpose, whether to find creative ways to satisfy interests or to improve a rocky relationship. President Carter used the power of emotions during the historic peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt. He invited Israel’s Prime Minister, Menachim Begin, and Egypt’s President, Anwar Sadat, to Camp David. His goal was to help the two leaders negotiate a peace agreement. After thirteen long days, the negotiation process was breaking down. The Israelis saw little prospect for reaching agreement. By this time, Carter had invested a lot of time and energy in the peace process. He could easily have expressed frustration, perhaps approaching Begin with a warning to accept his latest proposal “or else.” But an adversarial approach might have caused Begin to abandon the negotiation process completely. It would also have risked damaging the personal relationship between the two leaders. Instead, Carter made a gesture that had a significant emotional impact. Begin had asked for autographed pictures of Carter, Sadat, and himself to give to his grandchildren. Carter personalized each picture with the name of a Begin grandchild. During the stalemate in talks, Carter handed Begin the photographs. Begin saw his granddaughter’s name on the top photograph and spoke her name aloud. His lips trembled. He shuffled through the photographs and said each grandchild’s name. He and Carter talked quietly about grandchildren and about war. This was a turning point in the negotiation. Later that day, Begin, Sadat, and Carter signed the Camp David Accord. The open discussion between Carter and Begin could not have happened if there were a poor relationship between them. Begin talked to Carter about difficult issues without resisting or walking out. The groundwork of positive emotions allowed nonthreatening conversation about serious differences. This groundwork did not just “happen.” It took work. Honest work. Carter and Begin began to establish rapport at their first meeting more than a year prior to the negotiation. They met at the White House, where Carter invited the Prime Minister for an open, private discussion about the Mideast conflict. Months later, Carter and his wife invited Begin and his wife to a private dinner, where they talked about their personal lives, including the murder of Begin’s parents and his only brother in the Holocaust. Later, during the Camp David negotiation, Carter demonstrated that he was looking out for each party’s welfare. For example, before Begin met with Sadat for the first time at Camp David, Carter alerted Begin that Sadat would present an aggressive proposal; he cautioned Begin not to overreact. Carter did not want the negotiation to fail, nor did Begin or Sadat. Everyone had an interest in “winning.” And positive emotions between Carter and each leader helped to move the negotiation forward. In an international or everyday negotiation, positive emotions can be essential. They can benefit you in three important ways. Positive emotions can make it easier to meet substantive interests. Positive emotions toward the other person reduce fear and suspicion, changing your relationship from adversaries to colleagues. As you work side by side on your problems, you become less guarded. You can try out new ideas without the fear of being taken advantage of. With positive emotions, you are motivated to do more. Things get done more efficiently as you and others work jointly and with increased emotional commitment. You are more open to listening and more open to learning about the other party’s interests, making a mutually satisfying outcome within your reach. As a result, your agreement is more likely to be stable over time. Positive emotions can enhance a relationship. Positive emotions can provide you with the intrinsic enjoyment that comes from a person-to-person interaction. You can enjoy the experience of negotiating and the personal benefits of camaraderie. You can talk comfortably without the fear of getting sidetracked by a personal attack. That same camaraderie can act as a safety net. It can allow you to disagree with others, knowing that even if things get tense, each of you will be there tomorrow to deal with things. Positive emotions need not increase your risk of being exploited. Although positive emotions may help you produce a mutually satisfying agreement, there is a danger that you may feel so comfortable that you make unwise concessions or act with overconfidence. Our advice is not to inhibit positive emotions but rather to check with your head and your gut before making decisions. Before committing to an agreement, check that it satisfies your interests. Draw on standards of fairness. Know each person’s alternative to a negotiated agreement, and use that information wisely. Table 1, which follows, contrasts the effect of positive and negative emotions on a negotiation. This table illustrates the effect of emotions on seven key elements of the negotiation process that are described on page 207. DEALING WITH EMOTIONS: THREE APPROACHES THAT DON’T WORK Despite knowing that emotions can harm or help a negotiation, we still have little guidance on how to deal with them. How can we reap their benefits? It is sometimes suggested that negotiators: Stop having emotions; ignore them; or deal directly with them. None of those suggestions helps. Stop Having Emotions? You Can’t. You cannot stop having emotions any more than you can stop having thoughts. At all times you are feeling some degree of happiness or sadness, enthusiasm or frustration, isolation or engagement, pain or pleasure. You cannot turn emotions on and off like a light switch.   Consider the experience of “Michele,” a researcher who was just offered a job at a big pharmaceutical company. She was initially excited about her compensation—until she discovered that two other recent hires had been offered higher initial salaries. She was upset and confused. From her point of view, her qualifications far outshone theirs. Michele decided to negotiate for a higher salary. When asked what her negotiation strategy was, she said, “I plan to negotiate ‘rationally.’ I’m not going to let emotions enter into our conversation. I just want to ‘talk numbers.’” She tried to persuade a company executive that if others of equal caliber received a higher salary, she deserved a similar compensation. Good, principled approach. Unfortunately, the negotiation did not go well. Her emotions failed to stop during the negotiation, even though she presumed she had them under control. As Michele recalls: “The tone of my voice was more abrasive than usual. I didn’t want it to be that way. But it was. I felt upset that the company was trying to hire me for less money than the other two new hires. The company’s negotiator interpreted my statements as demands. I was surprised when the negotiator said that he refused to be arm twisted into giving a salary raise to anyone, let alone a new hire. I wasn’t trying to coerce him into a salary raise. But my emotions just didn’t switch off the way I had hoped.” In most circumstances, negotiators would be foolish to turn off emotions even if they could. Stopping emotions would make your job harder, not easier. Emotions convey information to you about the relative importance of your concerns. They focus you on those things about which you care personally, such as respect or job security. You also learn what is important to the other side. If the other person communicates an interest with great enthusiasm, you might assume that that interest is important. Rather than spend days trying to understand the other side’s interests and priorities, you can save time and energy by learning what you can from their emotions. Ignore Emotions? It Won’t Work. You ignore emotions at your peril. Emotions are always present and often affect your experience. You may try to ignore them, but they will not ignore you. In a negotiation, you may be only marginally aware of the important ways that emotions influence your body, your thinking, and your behavior. Emotions affect your body. Emotions can have an immediate impact on your physiology, causing you to perspire, to blush, to laugh, or to feel butterflies in your stomach. After you feel an emotion, you might try to control the expression of that emotion. You might hold back from a smile of excitement or from crying in disappointment. But your body still experiences physiological changes. And suppressing the emotion comes at a cost. A suppressed emotion continues to affect your body. Whether an emotion is negative or positive, internal stress can distract your attention. Trying to suppress that emotion can make it harder to concentrate on substantive issues. Emotions affect your thinking. When you feel disappointment or anger, your head clogs with negative thoughts. You may criticize yourself or blame others. Negative thinking crowds out space in your brain for learning, thinking, and remembering. In fact, some negotiators become so wrapped up in their own negative emotions and thoughts that they fail to hear their counterpart make an important concession. When you feel positive emotions, in contrast, your thoughts often center on what is right about you, others, or ideas. With little anxiety that you will be exploited, your thinking becomes more open, creative, and flexible. You become inclined not to reject ideas but to invent workable options. Emotions affect your behavior. Virtually every emotion you feel motivates you to take action. If you are exuberant, you may feel a physical impulse to hug the other side. If you are angry, you may feel like hitting them. Usually you can stop yourself before you perform a regrettable action. When you feel a strong emotion, however, careful thinking lags behind, and you may feel powerless to your emotion. In such moments, your ability to censor your thoughts or reflect on possible action is severely limited. You may find yourself saying or doing things that you later regret. Deal Directly with Emotions? A Complicated Task. Negotiators are often advised to become aware of emotions—both their own and those of others—and to deal directly with those emotions. Some people are naturally talented at dealing directly with emotions, and most can improve their ability. If a negotiator habitually gets angry, for example, he or she can learn helpful skills to recognize and manage that anger. Yet even for a trained psychologist or psychiatrist, it is a daunting proposition to deal directly with every emotion as it happens in oneself and others. And trying to deal directly with emotions is particularly challenging when negotiating, where you also need to spend time thinking about each person’s differing views on substantive issues and the process for working together. It can feel as though you are trying to ride a bicycle while juggling and talking on a cell phone. Dealing directly with every emotion as it happens would keep you very busy. As you negotiate, you would have to look for evidence of emotions in yourself and in others. Are you sweating? Are their arms crossed? You would have to infer the many specific emotions taking place in you and in them. (Look through the list of emotion words in Table 2 on page 13 and think how long it takes simply to read through that list, let alone to correctly identify which emotions you and others are feeling.) You would have to make informed guesses about the apparent causes, which may be multiple and unclear. Is the other person upset because of something you said—or because of a fight with a family member this morning? You would have to decide how to behave, then behave that way, and then notice the emotional impact of that behavior on yourself and on the other person. If the resulting emotions are negative and strong, there is a great risk that each person’s emotions will quickly escalate.  Emotions are usually contagious. Even if your emotions change from frustration to active interest, the other person is likely to be reacting still to your indignant behavior of a few minutes ago. The impact of a negative emotion lingers long after it has passed. The stronger and more troublesome the emotion, the greater the risk that both of you will lose control. Thus comes the question to which this book is directed: How should a negotiator cope with the interacting, important, and ever-changing emotions of each side? Given that we cannot realistically be expected to observe, understand, and deal directly with these emotions as they occur, must we simply react as best we can? AN ALTERNATIVE: FOCUS ON CORE CONCERNS This book offers negotiators—and that means everyone—a powerful framework for dealing with emotions. Whether or not you acknowledge emotions, they will have an impact on your negotiation. As the following chapters suggest, you can avoid reacting to scores of constantly changing emotions and turn your attention to five core concerns that are responsible for many, if not most, emotions in a negotiation. These core concerns lie at the heart of many emotional challenges when you negotiate. Rather than feeling powerless in the face of emotions, you will be able to stimulate positive emotions and overcome negative ones.

CHAPTER 2 Address the Concern, Not the Emotion Rather than getting caught up in every emotion you and others are feeling, turn your attention to what generates these emotions. Core concerns are human wants that are important to almost everyone in virtually every negotiation. They are often unspoken but are no less real than our tangible interests. Even experienced negotiators are often unaware of the many ways in which these concerns motivate their decisions. Core concerns offer you a powerful framework to deal with emotions without getting overwhelmed by them. This chapter provides an overview of how to use them. FIVE CORE CONCERNS STIMULATE MANY EMOTIONS Five concerns stimulate, for better or worse, a great many emotions that arise in a negotiation. These core concerns are appreciation, affiliation, autonomy, status, and role. When you deal effectively with these concerns, you can stimulate positive emotions both in yourself and in others. Because everyone has these concerns, you can immediately utilize them to stimulate positive emotions. This is true even if you are meeting someone for the first time. You reap the benefits of positive emotions without having to observe, label, and diagnose the scores of ever-changing emotions in yourself and others. Obviously, powerful feelings can be stimulated by hunger, thirst, lack of sleep, or physical pain. The core concerns, however, focus on your relationship with others. As Table 3 illustrates, each core concern involves how you see yourself in relation to others or how they see themselves in relation to you. These five core concerns are not completely distinct from one another. They blend, mix, and merge. But each has its own special contribution in stimulating emotions. Together, these concerns more fully describe the emotional content of a negotiation than could any single core concern. The core concerns are analogous to the instruments participating in Mozart’s Quintet for Piano and Winds. No sharp edges divide the contribution of the piano, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, or horn. But together, the five instruments more fully capture the tone and rhythm of the music than could any individual instrument. We want each of the core concerns to be met not excessively nor minimally, but to an appropriate extent. Three standards can be used to measure if our concerns are treated appropriately. Do we feel that others are treating our concerns in ways that are: Fair? Fair treatment is consistent with custom, law, organizational practice, and community expectations. We feel treated as well as others who are in similar or comparable circumstances. Honest? Honest treatment means that what we are being told is true. We may not be entitled to know everything, but we do not want to be deceived. When the other person honestly addresses our concerns, their intent is not to deceive or trick us. They communicate what they authentically experience or know. Consistent with current circumstances? It is perhaps unreasonable to expect all of our concerns to be met in every circumstance. Norms change as we deal with everyday matters or a crisis. Appropriate treatment is often consistent with these changing norms.  The difference between having a core concern ignored or met can be as important as having your nose underwater or above it. If, for example, you are unappreciated or unaffiliated, you may feel as if you are drowning, alone, ignored, and unable to breathe. Your emotions respond, and you are prone to adversarial behavior. On the other hand, if you feel appreciated or affiliated, it is as if you are swimming with your head above water. You can breathe easily, look around, and are free to decide what to do and where to go. Your positive emotions are there with you, and, as a result, you are prone to cooperate, to think creatively, and to be trustworthy. (See Table 4 on page 19.) USE THE CORE CONCERNS AS A LENS AND AS A LEVER The power of the core concerns comes from the fact that they can be used as both a lens to understand the emotional experience of each party and as a lever to stimulate positive emotions in yourself and in others. As a Lens to See a Situation More Clearly and to Diagnose It The core concerns can be used as a lens to help you prepare, conduct, and review the emotional dimension of your negotiation. Preparing for your negotiation. You can use the core concerns as a checklist of sensitive areas to look for in yourself and in others. In what ways might others be sensitive to what you say or fail to say about their status? Will the senior negotiator on the other team feel that her autonomy is impinged upon if you revise the current proposal without first consulting her? Do you feel your sense of affiliation has been affronted when the rest of the team goes to lunch without inviting you? Conducting your negotiation. Awareness of the core concerns can help you see what might be motivating a person’s behavior. For example, you might realize that the other team’s leader feels unappreciated for the many weeks he spent building internal support for the agreement. With that awareness, you can tailor your actions to address his concern. Awareness of your core concerns can defuse much of the volatility of escalating emotions. If the other party says something that pushes your button, you want to prevent yourself from losing control of your own behavior. Rather than reacting to the perceived attack on you, take a deep breath and ask yourself which of your core concerns is being rattled. Is the other negotiator impinging upon your autonomy? Demeaning your status? TABLE 4 THE RISK OF IGNORING CORE CONCERNS  THE POWER OF MEETING CORE CONCERNS  Reviewing your negotiation. In reviewing a meeting, you can use the core concerns to help you understand what happened emotionally. If the discussion was cut short because your colleague stormed out of the meeting, you might take a moment to run through the core concerns to try to figure out what may have triggered the other person’s anger. You can use this information to address the situation or to prevent its recurrence. If a meeting went surprisingly well, the core concerns can be used to understand what worked. You might develop your own list of best practices. As a Lever to Help Improve a Situation Whether or not you know what a person is currently feeling and why, each core concern can be used as a lever to stimulate positive emotions. This is often easier than identifying which of many negative emotions have been stimulated and then determining what to do. You can say or do things that address one of the areas of core concern, moving a negotiator up or down in status, affiliation, autonomy, appreciation, and role. Positive emotions result. You can also use the core concerns to shift your own emotions in a positive direction. Perhaps you can reduce the pressure of a big decision by reminding yourself that you have the autonomy to accept or reject an agreement with the other team. Or perhaps you can raise your status by sharing with others a relevant area of knowledge. A big reason to proactively meet the core concerns is to avoid the strong negative emotions that might be generated if those concerns are left unmet. (The joy people experience when they breathe is no match for the distress they experience when they are drowning.) SUMMARY The core concerns are human wants that are important to almost everyone in virtually every negotiation. Rather than trying to deal directly with scores of changing emotions affecting you and others, you can turn your attention to five core concerns: appreciation, affiliation, autonomy, status, and role. You can use them as levers to stimulate positive emotions in yourself and in others. If you have time, you also can use them as a lens to understand which concern is unmet and to tailor your actions to address the unmet concern. The core concerns are simple enough to use immediately, and sophisticated enough to utilize in complex situations. A negotiation that involves multiple parties and high stakes requires an advanced understanding of the five core concerns. The following chapters consider in depth how to use the power of each core concern both as a lens to understand and as a lever to improve your negotiation.

II Take the initiative  CHAPTER 3 Express Appreciation Find Merit in What Others Think, Feel, or Do—and Show It Several years ago, Roger was in Tbilisi, working with South Ossetians and the government of Georgia (a former Soviet republic). On his final day, he decided to shop. As he walked down the main street of the city, he saw a woodcarver under an arcade, hard at work carving a small tray. Some of his wares were displayed for sale. Roger stopped to watch. He remembers the interaction as follows: Of all the wares on display, I was most attracted to the tray on which the woodcarver was working. So I asked, “How much is the tray?” “It’s not finished yet,” he replied. “When will it be finished?” I asked, feeling a small wave of impatience. “In a couple of days. Then you can buy it.” “I’d like to buy it now—even with the carving still not finished. What is the price if I buy it now unfinished?” (I was, of course, expecting a discounted price.) “It is not for sale now,” the woodcarver responded. His curt reply irritated me. I had expressed interest in his work, was willing to buy it unfinished, and he gave my offer not a moment’s consideration. He gave me barely a moment’s consideration. I felt an impulse to insult his work, to insult him, or just to walk away. But instead, I took a deep breath. I realized that I was feeling unappreciated. Disrespected. Put down. And then it dawned on me. The carver probably felt unappreciated, too. My behavior had perhaps been no better than his. I had expressed no appreciation of him or his views. He might well have felt emotions very much like my own. “If I were to sell the tray now,” said the carver, “the price would have to be higher.” “Why?” I asked, surprised. He turned to me, smiled, and said, “Selling the tray today would deprive me of the pleasure of finishing it.” Now I smiled. “I’m leaving Tbilisi in the morning. I admire the tray. I admire your work. And now, more than ever, I want the tray to remind me of the carver who takes such pride in his work and such satisfaction in doing it right.” He smiled again, but said nothing. “In view of my necessary trip,” I asked, “would you do a favor to a traveling stranger by letting me buy the tray today, unfinished, at the same price that it would be were you to finish it?” After a few moments of thinking, he accepted my offer. APPRECIATION: A CORE CONCERN AND AN ALL-PURPOSE ACTION As Roger and the woodcarver learned, feeling appreciated is an important concern. Its importance lies in its impact on the one who is appreciated. From corporate CEOs to kindergarten teachers, diplomats to construction workers, everyone wants to be appreciated. The results of appreciation are simple and direct. If unappreciated, we feel worse. If properly appreciated, we feel better. Our esteem gains in value, just as the stock market appreciates as it gains in value. We become more open to listening and more motivated to cooperate. Appreciation is not just a noun that labels a concern: It is also an action. To appreciate is a verb. Appreciation takes on an added value as both a core concern and a strategic action since honestly expressing appreciation is often the best way for one person to meet many of the core concerns of another. Thus, appreciate others can be taken as a shorthand, all-purpose guide for enlisting helpful emotions in those with whom you negotiate. If you and the other side appreciate one another, you are more likely to reach a wise agreement than if each side feels unappreciated. In fact, you benefit by helping the other side feel appreciated, whether or not they reciprocate. They will tend to feel more at ease and cooperative. And by appreciating them, you are more likely to foster their appreciation of you. OBSTACLES TO FEELING APPRECIATED In most negotiations, three major obstacles inhibit mutual feelings of appreciation. First, each of us may fail to understand the other side’s point of view. We argue our own perspective but do not learn theirs. As the other person talks, our mind focuses on ideas we want to communicate. With no real listening, no one feels understood. Second, if we disagree with what the other person is saying, we may criticize the merit in whatever they say or do. We assume that part of the job of a negotiator is to put down the other side. All too often, we listen for the weaknesses in what the other person is saying, not for the merit. Yet everyone sees the world through a unique lens, and we feel devalued when our version of the world is unrecognized or dismissed out of hand. If we spent weeks putting a proposal together and the other side merely criticizes it, we are likely to feel discouraged and angry. Third, each of us may fail to communicate any merit we see in the other side’s thoughts, feelings, or actions. When either of us hears the other person only criticizing our perspective, we assume our message and its merit were not heard. We end up arguing more forcefully or giving up. THREE ELEMENTS TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION Expressing appreciation thus takes more than a simple thank-you. Since we so often fail to appreciate, we need: To understand each other’s point of view; To find merit in what each of us thinks, feels, or does; and To communicate our understanding through words and actions. Understand Their Point of View To appreciate another person, your first task is to understand how things look and feel from their point of view. Your main tools are your ability to listen and to ask good questions. Many people assume you cannot really understand how they see things unless you have heard it directly from them. While that is often true, you can anticipate quite a bit by imagining how you might feel in their shoes. But even if you do understand their point of view, they still may want to be heard. Be prepared to listen. During a negotiation, there are many active listening techniques you can use to improve your understanding of another. Two are worth noting here: Listen for the “music” as well as the words. The process of coming to understand is not limited to hearing specific words that someone utters. It is important for a listener to gather the ambience that surrounds them, to listen for the mood, character, atmosphere, and emotional tone that put the words into a context. Like listening to a song, it is not enough to get the words right. You want to listen for what is accompanying the words—the underlying melody. Just as the crash of a drum can turn a sentimental love song into an angst-ridden war cry, the emotional tone may confirm a negotiator’s words or refute them as when a person shouts, “I am not angry!” Listen for “meta-messages.” As you listen, you will notice that sometimes one message is buried inside another. Such inexplicit meta-messages occur all the time. At a dinner party, for example, a host may look at his watch and say, “I have been so enjoying myself that I did not realize how late it has become.” Most guests quickly catch the meta-message that the party is now over. Meta-messages often suggest whether a person feels supportive, ambivalent, or resistant to ideas being discussed. An easy way to detect meta-messages is to listen for which word is emphasized. Though the following four sentences are comprised of the same words, each sentence suggests a different meaning. Possible translations are in brackets.   I like this proposal. [But others are resistant.] I like this proposal. [I enthusiastically support this idea.] I like this proposal. [I like this proposal better than others.] I like this proposal. [As a proposal; I am not making a commitment.]   Do not ignore ambivalence or resistance. A person’s body language may express something quite different from what words communicate. By being aware of a mixed or meta-message, you can better appreciate another’s point of view. Find Merit in What the Other Person Thinks, Feels, or Does The second element of appreciation is to find merit. This means that we look for value in what the other person thinks, feels, or does. Just think about what happens around the house. Whether we are cleaning up the kitchen, making the beds, cutting the grass, or remembering a special day, if such efforts go unnoticed or are never outwardly valued, we feel let down. Table 5 illustrates how we might find merit in—and express appreciation for—what another person thinks, feels, or has done. When views conflict, find merit in their reasoning. Even if you disagree with the other person’s stance on an issue, you can acknowledge their reasons for seeing the world as they do. They might be motivated by strong feelings, a passionate belief, or a persuasive argument. Consider the situation Roger experienced while representing the federal government in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. He stood to make his arguments against the petitioner. Stepping forward he said, “The petitioner has a strong case. In fact, I think it is stronger than the one made by counsel here this morning. If I had been arguing for the petitioner, I would have added the following point….” “Mr. Fisher!” Justice Frankfurter interrupted. “You are here for the government!” “Yes, Your Honor,” Roger said. “And I want the Court to understand that we have an answer not only to the arguments that petitioner has made but also to another good argument that I think petitioner could make. Either way, their case is not trivial or farfetched. We believe this Court was right to grant review and to consider this case on its merits as we in the government have. Despite the strength of their case, we have concluded that the law is against them for reasons that I will now present…” Roger believed that by honestly expressing his appreciation for the merits of his opponent’s case, he was a more effective advocate for the government than if he had squared off, contending that the petitioner’s arguments were absurd and should be dismissed out of hand. Having demonstrated a thorough understanding of the other side’s case—and directly answering it—his argument was likely to be more effective than if he simply avoided their contention and made an argument of his own. (The government won the case.) This way of expressing appreciation also convinced the petitioner’s lawyers that they had been heard and that their arguments had merit. At the end of the day, counsel for petitioner came across the courtroom to Roger, shook his hand, and thanked him for treating their arguments so seriously.  Finding merit in another’s reasoning requires that you actually do see merit in it. Sincerity is crucial. It is your honest valuing of another’s perspective that makes them feel appreciated. You want to express that you understand the basis for why they feel, think, or act the way they do. While you may struggle to find value in what they say or do, look hard and imagine what their emotional experience is like, considering what concerns may be motivating their emotions. When you strongly disagree with others, try acting like a mediator. The hardest time to find merit in another’s point of view is when you are arguing about an issue that may be personally important. Listening for merit in another’s point of view can transform the way you listen. To do this, try acting like an impartial mediator. A mediator works to understand each disputant’s perspective and to look for the value in it. In this role, you refrain from judging whose side is right or wrong. Instead, you try to see the merit in each side’s perspective. To take on the perspective of a mediator, start by discovering why the other person’s view on an issue may be personally important and persuasive to them. What beliefs and reasoning underlie their view? You may not agree with their stance on the issue, but you can still find merit in the reasoning and beliefs that brought them to that conclusion. Once you find merit, you will be able to say: I understand [your point of view], and I appreciate [your reasoning or beliefs]. Consider the example of a pro-choice leader searching for merit in a pro-life leader’s point of view. She probably won’t find value in the leader’s stance that abortion should be illegal. But she might be able to see merit in some of the reasons and beliefs underlying that stance.  She might say: I understand that you believe that life begins at conception. [She demonstrates understanding.] And with this as a core belief, I can see the value in your wanting to protect what you see as an innocent child. [She shows that she sees merit in the other person’s reasoning.] Appreciation is not something to be bargained over. In fact, it loses much of its value if my expressing appreciation of your point of view is made conditional on your expressing appreciation of mine. If the pro-life leader were to go through the same process—finding and expressing some merit in the pro-choice leader’s reasoning—then each side would feel appreciated. And neither person changes her basic beliefs about abortion. In fact, each leader may become clearer and firmer in her own views. Thus, by seeing merit in the other side’s reasoning, the leaders can simultaneously disagree and work together. They might, for example, decide to initiate a joint project aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies. There may be persuasive reasons for your being unwilling to see some merit in the views of another. We have found two. The first is that to do so appears to be contrary to your religious beliefs. The second is that to express such merit could easily be misunderstood by your friends, family, or constituents. They might think that your seeing merit demonstrates that you agree with views with which you, in fact, disagree. Communicate Your Understanding The third element of expressing appreciation is to demonstrate your understanding of the merit you have found. Once you understand their perspective and find merit, let them know. Your remarks should be apt; fitting; to the point; appropriate to the circumstances; and, above all, honest. There is no need for flowery language. What is important is that the person’s thoughts, feelings, or actions are recognized and acknowledged. Plain and simple. It sounds like you feel worried that if you sell your shares of stock, your relationships with other members of the board would be damaged.  [You demonstrate your understanding.] I can appreciate your concern, especially given that you want to keep working in this industry. [You show that you see merit in the other person’s reasoning.] To ensure that the other person does not become defensive, express your message in an affirming tone. This is easier if you already have found merit in their perspective. Rather than saying in a sarcastic voice, “Yes, I understand the reason why you think you deserve a pay raise,” you can affirm their perspective: I think you have good reason to feel you deserve a pay raise. You have invested significant time in this company. You’ve worked hard. You have successfully managed projects involving two of our biggest clients. Both the sarcastic statement and the affirmative one indicate that you understand what the other person is saying. Yet only the second statement demonstrates that you see merit in the other person’s point of view. And validating their perspective does not mean that you are giving in. Reflect back what you hear. It is rarely enough simply to understand another or even to say, “Yes. I understand.” Others are likely to feel unheard unless you demonstrate to them that you do in fact understand what it is that they believe is important. This is a lesson learned by two leaders with whom Dan worked. As he recalls: I was in Lake Ohrid, Macedonia, facilitating a week-long negotiation workshop for social and political leaders. Participants included ethnic Albanians and Macedonians. At the time of the workshop, violence had erupted between these groups. The war in Kosovo had triggered an influx of thousands of Albanians into Macedonia. Some Macedonians feared a loss of political and cultural influence. During a coffee break, I sat at a table with two participants, “Ivan,” a Macedonian, and “Bamir,” an ethnic Albanian. They immediately started to argue. “Do you realize that thousands and thousands of Albanian refugees have come here from Kosovo?” said Ivan. “How are we supposed to take care of that many people?” “What’s the choice?” Bamir responded. “You don’t know what it feels like to be in a hopeless situation like ours.” “Look,” said Ivan, “if we don’t help those refugees, the world will think we’re ruthless. But our country’s too small. What are we supposed to do?” “You don’t understand the situation,” says Bamir. “You don’t know what it feels like to be rejected by your own country!” Back and forth the two men argued. Their voices got louder. They talked over one another. I had initially listened to learn their perspectives, but now things were getting out of hand. I cut in and said, “Hold on a minute. This is getting nowhere.” They stopped for a moment and looked at me. I said, “You both seem frustrated. Let’s try to figure things out.” “He just doesn’t get my situation!” interrupted Bamir. “He’s the one who doesn’t understand!” snapped Ivan. I paused for a moment. We all calmed down. “Ivan,” I said, “What did you learn from listening to Bamir?” He began, “Bamir thinks that Macedonians reject ethnic Albanians. And we don’t.” “That’s not what I said at all!” I asked Bamir, “What did you hear Ivan saying?” “It’s obvious that he only wants to take care of his people.” Ivan jumped in and said, “That’s not what I said at all!” The two men stared blankly at one another. They had listened, but they had not heard one another. Neither knew what the other one was saying nor responded to it. They were having two separate conversations, each responding to his own assumptions and emotions. There was silence. Then Ivan laughed. He realized what had happened, and the realization startled him. He said, “Nobody gets anywhere if we close our ears.” And he is right. All too often, people fail to listen because they want their turn to speak and express themselves. Listening is not passive, but active. It takes concentration. During the rest of the workshop, I watched as Bamir and Ivan tried to listen—to really listen—to one another. On more than one occasion, their emotions still overrode their ability to listen. But they were now trying to find merit in each other’s perspective—and to let one another know. If you find that you have stopped listening to the other person, ask yourself, “Am I done or are they done?” In other words, have you prematurely stopped listening to the other person—perhaps because you are tired of listening to them or are uncomfortable with the emotions they are expressing? Reflective listening motivates you to listen carefully. You paraphrase either the factual information or the feelings the other person is expressing. Dan demonstrated reflective listening when he said to the men, “You both seem frustrated.” This allowed Ivan and Bamir to feel heard. Suggest how upset you might be if it happened to you. We are often unable to assess accurately the emotions that are affecting another person. If we try, we may misread the other person’s emotions and offend him or her. This happened to a tenant who wanted to negotiate the rent for her apartment. The landlord was a lawyer who lived in the apartment below her. The tenant decided to begin the negotiation by trying to build rapport. She said, “I heard you just switched to a new law firm. That must be tough.” The landlord’s face turned pale, and he snapped, “No. That’s not the case. Now tell me why you want to meet with me.” As he said these words, a different set of ideas cluttered his head. He worried, “Is she implying that I’m not strong enough to handle a job change? How weak does she think I am?” Despite the tenant’s good intentions, the landlord felt criticized and offended. A nonintrusive approach would be to assume only how we would feel if the situation happened to us. This is best done after asking the other how they are feeling. The tenant could say, “I heard about your job switch. What’s it been like? If I had to switch jobs, I know I’d find it tough.” Such a vicarious suggestion tends to open the way for better communication. In this less presumptuous approach, she remains open to learning, and the landlord no longer feels that an emotional experience is being imposed upon him. TO APPRECIATE DOES NOT MEAN TO GIVE IN Many people fear that appreciating someone’s point of view is equivalent to agreeing with them. Wrong. Whether or not you agree with someone, you can find merit in their reasoning and let them know. You give up none of your authority to decide; you can still say yes or no to proposals and increase the likelihood that the two of you will be able to work effectively together. It is possible for you to understand a person’s ideas or opinions that you think are foolish or patently wrong. It is also possible to understand, for example, arguments that you believe are weighty, important, and deserving of attention even if you happen to disagree with them or feel that they are outweighed by other factors. Communicating that you understand is quite different from saying, “I agree with you” or “I will do what you suggest.” For example, a lawyer can interview a client and demonstrate understanding of the client’s emotional difficulties. This does not mean, however, that the lawyer agrees with every action or opinion of the client. But he or she can appreciate the underlying beliefs and reasoning. To prevent misunderstanding, the lawyer might preface the conversation by saying, “I want to understand, to really understand, more about your experience so that I can best represent you. I may not agree with everything you say or have done, but I want you to be confident that I do see merit in your point of view.” In business, too, it can be helpful to appreciate another person while, at the same time, not giving in to them. Consider the case of “Mark,” a talented manager at an automobile manufacturing company, who was struck with Parkinson’s disease. As the disease progressed, he lost his ability to speak clearly and to keep his balance. He had fallen several times at work, but fortunately had not hurt himself. Mark was friendly with the leadership of the organization, especially “Sam,” the regional president, whose family had joined Mark’s family for the past four years’ summer vacations. Mark suspected that the leadership wanted him to take early retirement due to his impaired ability to communicate with employees. Mark wanted to semiretire. He loved his job, but wanted to spend winters with his wife at a home near the beach. He certainly did not want senior management to dictate unilaterally the terms of his departure.  Rather than making demands of the senior management and risk turning the situation into an adversarial battle, Mark used the power of appreciation. He set up a private meeting with the CEO and said: Sam, thanks for taking the time to meet. I’ve been thinking about how to manage my work life now that this disease is starting to make communication more of a challenge. We’ve been good friends for a long time, and I’m sure this is hard for you to see the disease affect me as it has. I know you want to look out for my best interest and to make sure that I don’t put too much stress on myself. I also assume that, as regional president, you need to look out for the company’s best interests.  You want people to satisfy their daily responsibilities efficiently. So I’d imagine that this situation is hard for you. I wanted to sit down with you and, without committing to anything, just think through some options we have. Through these statements, Mark demonstrates an understanding of Sam’s point of view without conceding anything. Rather, he recognizes that Sam cares about him and that Sam also has professional responsibilities to uphold. These statements promote a positive tone to their conversation and increase the likelihood that an outcome will satisfy the interests of Mark, Sam, and the company. PREPARE TO APPRECIATE OTHERS Now that you know how to appreciate others, you can get ready to do it. Although you cannot read a negotiator’s mind, you can do a lot to get a better sense of how things look and feel from their perspective. Decide Who You Want to Appreciate Your first step is to decide who you want to appreciate. Regardless of a person’s age, wealth, or authority, every person values appreciation. It is a core concern that is shared by people from the top to the bottom. We often assume that the person above us in rank or command does not need appreciation. Appreciation is supposed to be one way—from the top down, right? No. Subordinates need appreciation, and so do superiors. You can appreciate your boss, your subordinates, your peers, and even those with whom you are negotiating. In fact, in situations where you feel disempowered, your appreciation of others can level the playing field. When another person feels truly heard, you have valued not only the person’s message but also the person as an individual. Roger recalls an experience when he learned about the power of appreciating those higher and lower in the chain of command. In 1949, he was working in Paris for the Marshall Plan, the postwar economic recovery program for Europe. “Barry,” the finance officer in Paris and Roger’s good friend, had been working for weeks on a plan to deal with a potential financial crisis in Austria. One Monday morning, the Paris Herald Tribune reported that there was indeed a financial crisis. All banks in Austria were closed, and Ambassador Averell Harriman, head of the Marshall Plan for Europe, had flown to Vienna to deal with the crisis. Because Harriman left quickly for Austria, he had no chance to talk first with Barry about the situation. By the end of the week, Harriman resolved the crisis (brilliantly, Barry reported). Yet Barry felt unappreciated and unneeded. Harriman apparently had resolved the crisis without getting Barry’s input. Barry had spent weeks preparing ideas, but they were of no use. He told Roger he was thinking of quitting his job. The following week, Roger was working with Harriman on another matter when Harriman asked him to sit down and tell him about morale among the younger staff. Roger said, “Sometimes people don’t feel valued. Barry told me how well you had done in Austria without him. He’s now thinking of looking for another job.” “Barry?” the Ambassador said. “That guy’s a genius. When the call from Vienna came in on Saturday afternoon, I phoned Barry, but he wasn’t home. With the help of security, we searched his office, and in his safe we found a forty-page draft memorandum about what to do if there was a financial crisis in Austria. I had a copy of the memo made, which I took with me. It was my ‘bible’ all week. I simply followed his advice, and it worked.” “Have you told Barry?” “No. He was just doing his job. I’m not here to thank people for doing what they are paid to do. You can tell him if you like.” Roger called Harriman’s secretary into the inner office and, in front of Harriman, said, “Would you please find ten or fifteen minutes on the Ambassador’s schedule so the finance officer can hear from the Ambassador what he just told me.” “No,” said Ambassador Harriman. “Yes!” Roger said to his top boss, a man who was twice his age. “It is important.” “No one ever tells me that I am doing a great job,” said Harriman. Roger was dumbfounded. “I never thought of it as appropriate for me to be telling you what a terrific job you’re doing. Of course, you do come to the office late in the mornings. But by the time you come, you have already read all the overnight cables from Washington and from the missions and have figured out what to do. And you work late. Here we are still working at 8:30 P.M. ‘in the afternoon’ as you call it.” Ambassador Harriman may have learned as a boy to make his bed and to do other chores without expecting any thanks. But that did not mean that he did not want the appreciation. Later, as an adult, he may not have given appreciation to others because he himself had little hope of receiving it. Try the Role Reversal Exercise Prepare to appreciate another person’s point of view by trying the Role Reversal Exercise. Work with a colleague who can help you enter the role of the person whom you would like to appreciate. You “become” that person. Your colleague can ask you questions to help you understand what the person on the other side of the table might be experiencing.   “What do you [in the role of the other party] most care about?” “About what concerns are you particularly sensitive?” “Of course money is important, but please explain: What other things do you care about? Respect? Acceptance? Being heard?”   In response to each question, you answer in the first person as though you really were the absent party. For example, “I feel upset when others ignore my opinions.” By using role reversal early on, your colleague can help you step into the shoes of someone whom you would like to appreciate. Dan remembers how role reversal helped a mother cope with a difficult marital conflict. When her grown son called saying that he was moving back to town, “Ana” did not think twice before saying, “Why don’t you stay with us until you find a place?” At the time, she had no idea that her offer would bring up issues that would jeopardize her fifteen-year, second marriage. Barely able to contain her excitement, Ana told her husband, “Joe,” the good news. To her surprise, he was angry at her for inviting her son to move back in. “Why can’t you be excited about this?” she asked her husband. “I don’t want him here indefinitely,” he said. “They’ve left the nest. Now it’s time for us to be together.” “He won’t be living in our house forever,” Ana said. “Knowing him, he’ll make himself at home,” Joe said. “He’s in his late twenties now. He’s an adult…” “But don’t you want our family around?” Ana asked. “Or is it that this is my child and not yours?” “I don’t care whose kid it is! They’re just too old to be moving back here.” Ana suddenly had an awful feeling that this was not the man she married, the good father with whom she had raised her children and his. She was furious and confused; she felt as though she had to choose between her husband and her son. She got up and left the room. Tension escalated. Living together was almost intolerable. They began yelling at each other, something they had never done before. Ana turned to Dan for advice. After explaining the situation to him, they talked about a process for moving forward: I said, “You and Joe sound like two ships passing in the night. Neither of you seems to really understand the other person’s point of view. And it’s leaving each of you feeling unappreciated.” She nodded and asked, “So what can I do about it?” I said, “You both have an interest in wanting this relationship to work out. You can start by trying to appreciate Joe’s perspective. Let’s try an exercise to help you do that.” I asked her to answer three questions from Joe’s point of view. Here are the questions, as well as what she discovered. “In what ways might Joe feel that you do not understand him?” Ana recognized that she acted as though the son was hers alone. She accused Joe of not caring for the son because he was not related by blood (“Is it that this is my child and not yours?”). She had defended her own point of view and made little effort to understand his. “In what ways might Joe’s point of view have merit?” Ana imagined what the situation might feel like from Joe’s perspective. She realized that having a child under their roof may have awakened Joe’s memories of round-the-clock responsibility for teaching the children how to do everything from riding a bicycle to reading a book. At this time in Joe’s life, he probably wanted to reduce “extra” responsibilities and enjoy time alone with his wife. “Have you communicated your understanding to Joe?” Ana realized her failure to communicate what merit she saw in Joe’s perspective. She was afraid that by communicating merit, she would be conceding to his views. She never acknowledged any understanding of his fears and wishes. Ana then tried to appreciate her own point of view. She came to understand that the pressures of her role as wife and mother pulled her in two different directions: to support her son and to care for her marriage. She found merit in her point of view. She was trying to satisfy emotionally both her son and her husband. She wanted Joe to communicate his understanding of her concerns and the merit in them. Preparation gave Ana increased understanding of the conflict. Rather than criticizing her husband, she was now ready to listen and to learn. To change the tone of their negotiation, she prepared one simple question: “Help me understand. Where are you coming from on this?” Once she asked the question, Ana listened to the answer without judgment. She learned that her husband was protective of their marital relationship. He had looked forward to the time when their house would be all theirs and the two of them could spend “endless” hours together. She also learned that having an adult child around would make him jealous for her time. Because she listened to her husband and communicated her understanding until he felt heard, the tone of their interaction shifted. Joe felt that his wife loved him deeply and that she appreciated the need to set aside time for just the two of them. He learned that she felt a parental obligation to help her son, who recently had broken up with his girlfriend. And he discovered how much she missed playing the role of mother and watching him play the role of father to their children. There were no easy answers to their problems, but they were now negotiating their differences side by side. Their discussion became a source of mutual learning. After some time, they were able to comfortably negotiate an arrangement where the son would live with them for one month, which was enough time for him to find an apartment. Prepare a List of “Good Questions” to Learn Another Person’s Perspective As a negotiator, you would be well-advised to develop your own personal list of generic questions to learn more about another’s perspective. These might be questions that were prepared for a different negotiation—whether used or not—or good questions that were asked of you by another negotiator. Ana’s question to Joe, “Help me understand. Where are you coming from on this?” is a good example of a generic question that can be used in almost any negotiation. Other such questions include:   “Help me understand how you see things.” “Of all the things we’ve talked about today, what do you see as most important?” “What are some of the other things that you care a lot about in this negotiation?”   Too often, negotiators grill one another with questions that try to prove the other side wrong. Each negotiator treats the other negotiator as though he or she were on the witness stand. Such questions call for a short yes or no answer:   “Did you even think about the impact of your behavior on my client?” “Are you planning to go behind my back again?”   To pursue a wiser goal of coming to understand the other person’s perspective, you will want to use open questions. Not arguments, but honest inquiries. Such questions invite others to talk about what they consider important. Open questions typically begin with the words how or what. For example:   “You tell me that the house my client is thinking of buying is worth at least the $500,000 asking price. What comparable sales or other information do you have that led you to reach that opinion on value?” “What do you see as some of the advantages of this option? What are some of the risks?” “How do you feel things are going?” “What are some of your concerns about this proposal?”   HELP OTHERS APPRECIATE YOU What should you do if a person fails to appreciate you? A negotiation may feel lopsided and unequal if you are trying to find merit in their point of view, but they fail to value yours. In resentment, you might think that you should bargain over appreciation: “I won’t express appreciation of him unless he appreciates me.” But, as mentioned earlier, this won’t work well because appreciation should be sincere. You are likely to view with suspicion any appreciation given only by request. Don’t get discouraged. There are plenty of things you can do to help others understand what you are saying, find merit in it, and communicate their understanding. Here are some: Help Others Understand Your Point of View If you think that others do not understand your message, take action. Propose a specific amount of time for them to listen to you. You can let someone with whom you are working know that you have a particular point on which you would like to be heard. Roger remembers a time when three minutes made all the difference. John Laylin was the partner at the law firm of Covington & Burling for whom I worked for a number of years as an associate. He and I had each prepared a draft of a letter that our client in Pakistan might send to an Indian official. We each read and commented on the other’s draft. Mr. Laylin decided that we would work on his draft. I believed that he had failed to understand why I thought that his was a poor draft. I told him that I thought we should work on mine. He said no—we would work on his. Did I have any changes to suggest? I asked him to give me three minutes to explain what I thought was wrong with his draft. He resisted. Then he took out his pocket watch, put it on the desk in front of him, and said, “All right. You have three minutes.” I had been speaking for only two when he interrupted me, asked why I had not been equally clear earlier, and dropped his draft into the waste basket. We went to work on improving the draft I had prepared. I was heard. I made my point, and it was persuasive. Tailor your message to be heard. On the front of many ambulances in the United States, the word ambulance is written backward. This allows drivers who look in their rearview mirror to see the word correctly. The person who conceived of this idea wisely considered, “How can we tailor our message so that other drivers get it right?” In a negotiation, you want to shape your message so that others get it right. You may tell your junior associates that you will give them a 5 percent commission on every item they sell. You think that is generous. What many of them may hear is that you are keeping 95 percent of everything. They interpret the act as greedy. Your message and its intent have not been clearly communicated. When your emotions or theirs become strong, it can be difficult to communicate your message so that others will hear it. When you are angry, for example, you may have a desire to blame the other side for your negative feelings. “I’m angry because you didn’t consult me before signing the agreement.” Don’t blame. It makes others defensive. Their ability to listen declines as they develop counterarguments in their mind about why they are right and you are wrong. The ability to work together is reduced. Rather, you can communicate your anger as part of a forward-looking message. Let the other person know that you are expressing your anger in order to change future interactions. “I’m angry—and I’m letting you know—because I want to be consulted in the future before you sign an agreement that affects both of us.” Your chance of being appreciated in the long run is likely to be greater if you want to be heard not just to score points, but because you have a message designed to affect the future. Help Others Find Merit in What You Think, Feel, or Do There are actions you can take to help others find merit in your point of view and your emotional experience. Ask the other person to find merit in your point of view. Rather than argue the merit in your point of view, ask the other person questions. Get him or her to reflect on the merit in your point of view. You might say, “I’m not sure that I have been as clear as I can be about my own perspective. Why do you think I find my own stance on these issues to be important and persuasive?” Draw on a metaphor that resonates with them. You may feel angry if another person devalues your emotional experience. They might pretend not to notice that you are upset, or they might try to outdo your emotions with their own gripes. How can you encourage them to find value in your emotional experience? A powerful approach to defuse tensions is to introduce a metaphor into a conversation. A metaphor allows you and others to talk about your shared emotional experience without doing so directly and explicitly. Rather than saying, “I feel anxious about our situation, frustrated by you, annoyed with my colleagues, and pretty hopeless right now,” you can talk about your experience using a metaphor. “It feels as though we are dancing to different music.” Either alone or with others, you can create a metaphor that depicts your shared emotional experience. Here is a sampling of such metaphors:   “We seem to be walking a tightrope here. Let’s make sure we have a safety net.” “I feel as if we’re caught in a tide that is pulling us into dangerous waters. Let’s change course.” “I feel like we’re walking into a windstorm. How can we keep from moving in that direction?” “I feel like we’re digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole. How can we get out of this?” “I feel we’re trying to swim upstream. How can we make this easier for both of us?” “A chill seems to have come over this room. Can you help me warm things up a bit?”   Metaphors provide a common language for you and others to work through your differences. Through the use of metaphor, you can both acknowledge emotional obstacles and turn those obstacles into problems you can deal with. If you and others are “dancing to different music,” you might ask, “How can we synchronize our moves better? Should we take a short break, then come back and see if we’re more in step with one another?” If you and others have “hit a roadblock,” you might ask, “How can we get around this roadblock? Should we back up our conversation and review your interests and ours?” Metaphors are commonly used by politicians, news reporters, and negotiators to provide people with a visual, visceral sense of purpose. In the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, for example, the concept of a road map to peace was initiated jointly by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia. The concept of a road map resonated with many people around the world who saw the disputants as being “lost” in conflict. The road map provided a set of suggested activities each side could take. Rather than just saying, “We’re announcing a new plan for everyone to consider,” the tangible nature of a road map gave the public and politicians a concrete item to grasp and to discuss. Help Others Hear Your Message There are a couple of ways to motivate others to listen to you. Have only a few big points. In crafting a message to be heard, simplify it. You want to be able to answer a few important questions: Who is the person for whom the message is intended? What are they supposed to do? Will they understand that? What are the pros and cons of that choice as  they will see them? Are they likely to welcome the message or ignore it? Answer these questions succinctly and you will have built a strong, clear case for yourself. Ask them what they hear you saying. You will not know if others are understanding your message unless they let you know. A simple way to find out what they hear you saying is to ask them. You might say, “I’m not sure I’m communicating my message clearly. What do you hear me saying?” If they reflect back your message inaccurately, you can clarify. And whether or not they are accurate, this question motivates them to listen more carefully in the future. THE IMPORTANCE OF SELF-APPRECIATION There is a danger in relying on others to appreciate you. You do not have control over their actions. If they fail to give you appreciation, you may feel frustrated. They may even use appreciation as a manipulative tool, flattering you to influence your compliance with a request. Or they may refuse to understand your point of view. Any such actions will push your button if you rely on others for appreciation. You do, however, have control over your ability to appreciate others—and over your ability to appreciate yourself. You can use your own internal resources to appreciate yourself, to boost your self-confidence, and to clarify your understanding of your point of view and theirs. You will want to explore the objective merits of your views and actions, independent of a bias in your favor. Where your views deserve praise, do not hesitate to let yourself know. If you have a difficult time finding areas of value in your own actions or reasoning, imagine how an important mentor in your life would appreciate you. Perhaps you have a parent, teacher, or colleague who has supported you and boosted your esteem in difficult times. What might that person say to you as you are negotiating? Tell yourself that. How might they communicate their valuing of your efforts and views? Listen to that voice. Where, on reflection, you should qualify your self-praise, do so. Be honest with yourself. It costs you nothing. In fact, you can take pride in your willingness to make a candid appraisal of yourself. This is true whether the result is enthusiastic endorsement of your thinking or honest recognition that, at this point, your ideas are best considered tentative and deserving of rigorous rethinking. The more honestly you appreciate the ideas of another negotiator—both their possible flaws and their merits—and with equal rigor examine your own ideas for their merits and possible weaknesses, the better equipped you and others will be to reach a workable agreement. It may well be that you have little or no interest in building a long-term relationship with the other negotiator. Of course, one consequence of expressing appreciation of another is that you might change your mind about that. In any event, a better understanding of both the other negotiator and yourself will make it easier for each of you to work together in a way that will result in an agreement. SUMMARY Appreciation is a core concern. Everyone has a desire to feel understood, valued, and heard. If people feel honestly appreciated, they are more likely to work together and less likely to act hostile. You can appreciate by: *understanding a person’s point of view;  *finding merit in what the person thinks, feels, or does; *communicating your understanding through words or actions. You may not agree with the other person’s point of view. That is fine. But, you can understand it and acknowledge whatever merit you can find. The chapter on appreciation comes first in this book because we all become emotionally rewarded when we are appreciated just for who we are and what we do. It is also important for us that others appreciate the emotional concern we have for affiliation, autonomy, status, and role. In the following chapters, we share our advice on dealing with these remaining four core concerns.