• A Bigger Box 
• Could You Just  Listen? 
• Previous  Newsletter

How many times have you heard the following:  "Oh, that's what you're talking about!" or "Oh, that's what you want!  Why didn't you just say so?"  Most of our problems in communicating with others stem not from disagreeing but misunderstanding the other person.  Because we don't understand where the other person is coming from, we make assumptions about his or her real needs and desires based on the face value of what he or she says, and this limits our ability to devise creative solutions.  It limits the scope of our box. 

To solve a problem, we first have to be aware that there is one.  We have to see that a misunderstanding, rather than disagreement, exists.  We then need to take the time to listen to what the other person is saying to understand what their needs and desires are.  We also have to communicate our needs and desires to the other person so that they can understand us.  Once we have mutual understanding, we can begin to look beyond our respective statements and come up with the solution that best fulfills everyone's concerns.  Understanding our counterpart's needs and desires as well as our own increases the box we're working with by giving us more knowledge, more information - in other words, better data. 

Mother Knows Best?

Two sisters are arguing over an orange.  The first sister says, "I should have that orange.  It's mine."  The other sister comes back with "No, I should have it.  It's mine."  The first sister responds, "I'm older, so I should have it," and the second sister retorts, "No, I should have it because I'm younger."  They keep arguing back and forth, each trying to make a stronger case for having the orange.  The argument doesn't go anywhere -- the sisters could argue like this forever. 

When the mother comes into the room, all she sees are her daughters arguing again.  Why can't they just get along and learn to share?  The mother is tired of always being the referee, but she's sure that with the knowledge and wisdom of motherhood she can resolve things quickly.  She tells the first daughter to slice the orange in half, and the other daughter to choose her half first.  Now each girl has half of an orange -- as far as the mother's concerned, the problem's solved.  For her, 50-50 is a fair split.  But the mother only considers the problem from her perspective and never asks the girls what their real needs and desires are.  This limits her understanding of the real problem. 

That's why she's surprised when the girls come back.  "Look at how little juice I squeezed out of my half," says one.  "Look at how little rind I could use for my marmalade," says the other.  So what was the girls' real interest in the orange?  One daughter wanted to make orange juice and the other orange marmalade. 

If the mother had looked beyond the face value of the girls' argument "I want the orange" she would have been able to see the situation from the girls' point of view, and would have understood their reasons for their frustration with each other.  She would have been then able to divide the orange in an entirely different way: the full fruit pulp to one daughter for the orange juice, and all of the rind to the other for the marmalade.  Even if one of the sisters had used "hard ball" tactics such as "I am older therefore" and negotiated 70% of the orange, she would have still been on the losing side because she could have had the full 100% of what she needed.  The significant point here is not how much of the orange each daughter received, but whether their true interests were served as a result of the mother's understanding of the scope of her "box."

Imagine you're a stressed-out manager and you receive a voicemail Monday morning from one of your employees.  He wants a higher salary and he wants to meet with you this morning.  You've just been told last week that you will have to make do with the budget you have for the rest of the year.  You have no extra money in your budget.  So what do you do?  The employee wants more money, and you have none.  If you take the employee's assertion at face value, there is no solution.  You need to enlarge your box, increase your options. 

Let's take a closer look at your dilemma.  What would happen if you looked beyond "I want a raise"?  There probably are many more reasons for the employee's discontent than just a desire for cash: 
 

the employee is bored with his job and doesn't feel challenged

the employee has been putting in a lot of overtime and is exhausted

two people in the department left, creating more work for the employee

the employee just found out his friends are getting paid much more for similar work in other companies

the employee has a job offer and doesn't know if he wants to take it, so he's testing his current company

the employee has significant personality conflicts with his current supervisor/assistant/etc

the company's stock just fell, and the employee lost confidence in the company

Your goal is to find a mutually acceptable solution that fits within your budget.  But before you attempt to solve the problem, try looking beyond the employee's initial statement.  This way, you will be sure you are dealing with the right problem, while expanding your box -- your set of possible solutions.  For each possible problem above, there are countless solutions.  The more you know about the source of the employee's unhappiness, the bigger your box will 

But the VP isn't necessarily more inventive or clever than the sales rep -- he is simply better informed about their company's direction, strategy and overall levels of commitment.  He's working within a bigger box than she is -- he has more possible options to work with.  Because she is not as familiar with the company's overall needs, wants and desires, and because she has not been given the authority to use this knowledge, she is crippled by the size of her box, or the tight boundaries of what she perceives as her authority. 

Frustrated with the meeting, the sales rep goes back to the VP and asks if he has any other suggestions.  He suggests something and she says, surprised, "You mean I can do that?"  Her mind opens up not only to the VP's suggested action but all of the other possibilities she has always wanted to have but never thought she could.  Suddenly her box is a lot bigger -- and so is her perceived authority.  She is empowered by the knowledge she has about the company's best interests and by the authority to use this knowledge in negotiation.  This is what makes the sales rep's box bigger and her negotiation much more effective. 

---

Little Billy's dog just had two puppies.  Billy's family doesn't want to have too many dogs in the house.  So the parents sit down with their son and together they decide they should sell one of the puppies.  It's a mutual decision, one in which Billy fully participates.  He offers to sell the puppy himself.  The next thing they do is decide their asking price.  "I think this puppy is the best and the cutest puppy in the whole world," says Billy.  "I think he's worth ten thousand dollars."  The parents smile and say, "Alright, you go sell the puppy." 
 
 

Puppy for Sale $10,000.00

The next day Billy comes home with no puppy.  "Where's the puppy?" asks his mother.  "I sold it," the boy proudly declares.  "You sold the puppy?" the mother exclaims.  Billy replies, "Yes!"   "Well, how much did you get for him?"   "Ten thousand dollars.  Just like I said I would," says Billy.  "You got ten thousand dollars for that puppy?" the mother cries incredulously.   And Billy says, "Yes.  Little Suzie down the street gave me two five-thousand-dollar kittens."

You're back in that meeting.  You've got to close the deal.  You have 30 seconds to decide who is the best person to help you negotiate.  Who are you going to take - little Billy or Suzie down the street? 

Previous  Newsletter