Dodo Loves Marketing

3. Invent OPTIONS for mutual gain.

Interest-based bargaining promotes a less contentious climate in the Dialogue that aids the search for both-gain solutions. In this more collaborative mode, you may search creatively for alternatives that might benefit both of you. Now the Dialogue is a problem-solving discussion where your orientation is us-against-the-problem rather than me-against-you. Ideally, both disputants can brainstorm possible solutions, listing as many ideas as you can think of without worrying about how practical or promising they are. Once a pool of alternative solutions has been brainstormed, each option can be tested for compatibility with each disputant’s underlying self-interests.

4. Identify objective CRITERIA.

To agree on an issue is to make a joint decision. Decisions are always based on criteria for judging whether they are good or bad decisions.

In typical arguments (searches for a joint decision), these criteria are generally not conscious or explicit. But just because we are not aware of them doesn’t mean decision criteria are not present. Let’s say you have decided to go to Nando’s Chicken for dinner tonight rather than Mike’s Kitchen. How did you make that decision? If you answer, ‘Because I like the food better’ or ‘Because I like the atmosphere better’, then we now know that the criterion for the decision about where to eat tonight was ‘The food must be good’ or ‘The atmosphere must be pleasant’. That is, a good decision must meet these criteria. A bad decision would fail to meet these criteria.

An objective criterion is neutral with respect to the self-interests of the disputants. That is, an unbiased observer would say that your agreement is a fair one. If the criteria for agreement between you and your Other are objective, rather than subjective, then your agreement is more stable and likely to last. If criteria are subjective, then one disputant will feel that the decision was unfair and therefore will not feel motivated to implement it.

Return to our conflict over sleeping with the window open or closed. An objective criterion for deciding what to do about the problem might be: ‘Both people have the right to sleep comfortably’. Therefore, a fair solution will permit each person to sleep comfortably. An agreement (joint decision) that satisfies that criterion will be a good one.

ASSERTIVENESS

If I could grant my children only one social skill, it would be assertiveness.

Let’s define what we mean by this often misunderstood idea. It is best understood as one of three social behaviours taken together:

• Aggression: Behaviour that violates another person’s rights.
• Submission: Behaviour that allows another person to violate one’s rights.
• Assertion: Behaviour that insists on one’s rights without violating the rights of others.

Readers who are familiar with Oriental and African cultures will recognise that, at least in hierarchical organisations, submission to superiors is necessary to survival. To behave assertively risks causing loss of face to the superior, and promptly leads to social ostracism of the assertive person. Within a Western cultural context, however, I assert the following two value judgements:

• Assertiveness is good difference-managing behaviour.
• Aggressiveness and submissiveness are poor difference-managing behaviours.
• Aggressiveness sparks defensiveness in others. Also, aggressiveness is its behavioural expression — the way we act when we feel defensive. Submissiveness may be a useful short-term strategy to avoid confrontation, but it sows the seeds for resentments that flower into future episodes of conflict.

Again illustrating with the open/closed window conflict, the bedmate who slams down the window and shouts threateningly at the Other to leave it down is behaving aggressively. The Other’s rights to have his comfort considered have been violated. If the bedmate who was shouted at gives up the struggle and sleeps poorly because of the stuffy air, he is behaving submissively. This bedmate, having his rights violated, will surely feel resentful. This state of affairs does not promote interpersonal peace.

An alternative to submissiveness is assertiveness: ‘I want to sleep comfortably — cooling ventilation would help me do that.’ By stating one’s needs and insisting that they be considered by the bedmate, one is more likely to find a mutually acceptable solution to the issue. Even if a both-gain solution is not found, one can more willingly accept a less-than-ideal solution without holding a residue of hostility, ready to burst out in response to the next triggering event.

Bumpy, But a Road Nonetheless

So listening, asserting your needs, and negotiating on principle in the Dialogue will help you reach the Breakthrough. Even if your skills in these areas are highly developed, you will find the road bumpy. There exists no smooth avenue to interpersonal peace. Those of us with more yet to learn must abide the ruts and potholes. Just do your best with the skills you have gained in the school of life. The road may be rough, but it leads to where you want to go.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Business Interpersonal Peace, Skills for Dialogue continued

• The mobile Internet Part 2
• What the Employers are looking for
• Business Interpersonal Peace, Skills for Dialogue
• Saturate Customers with Information
• Affiliate Networking: Online Shopping Lamps and Lighting Accessories
• Business Relationship Conflict, What it can do, what it can’t part 1
• Internet E-commerce and Law of Business Divergence part 1
• Competitors Proliferate
• Business Facts about Collaborators
• The mobile Internet Part 1