BrandSoul

Snowball conflicts

When it comes to analyzing conflicts it is important to be aware of their structural traits. I will explain this with an example:

A man and a woman are going through a very difficult couple situation. Their relationship has degenerated to the degree that they no longer keep respect for each other. They decide to separate. The custody of the child is assigned to the father. The child attends primary school and as a matter of fact, her mother works as a teacher in the same school. The mother has restricted her rights to take care of the child once she gets out of school, by judicial decision. No matter the sentence, the mother cannot get rid of her mother role and everyday takes care of the child before she joins her father and goes home. The school has adviced the mother/teacher that they are legally responsible for leaving the child in the sole company of the father. The mother states she is being porrly treated by her company. She believes the school should allow her to get in touch with the child. The opposite reflects the unsensitivity of the board of teachers towards her working mate. Some other teachers have positioned themselves alongside the mother/teacher and in opposition to the team ruling the school. This has generated a stream of unpopular comments in the school. The mother/teacher also states she will prove the father is treating the child badly. This statement, without any proof sustaining it for the moment, sanctions the father's public image and his reputation, as long as it will take some time to the judge to give a verdict.

In this case, we can clearly distinguish the conflict's structure unfolds in an ever growing perimeter of influence:

1. The conflict is between the couple. They separate.
2. The conflict extends to the child.
3. The conflict affects the working environment of the mother, especially the board of Directors.
4. The conflict spreads along the community of teachers, that is the social life of the school.
5. The conflict risks extending to the whole social environment of the couple, by the accusation of bad behavior.

This is a perfect example of a Snowball Conflict. And it is taken from real life.

My advice in this case is to deal the conflict at each level, what french intellectuals would call, deconstructing it. This way, the inertial force of the conflict loses power.

The ignorant's tactic...and other negotiating tricks

Few days after I was back at work in Bilbao, I had the opportunity to test my negotiating skills. I had to negotiate a package of financial products with the leading Bank in our area. While on the table, I just tried to figure out what their tactics were to make the deal possible. These were some of them and I explain why they did not work.

1. The first tactic was to make an offer without any basis according to the reality of our company. The offer was, obviously very low for our interests, but if I had accepted it would be a great deal for them. At least for the sort term, because that means they don't care for their customers, they were not offering me thei best products or at least products that fitted with our needs.This is the tactic of the ignorant. It just works if you are a total ignorant on the issue you are negotiating.

2. I obviously reacted and said it was not a fair deal for us. I presented them some balance sheets and financial information as to make them see what our needs were and what we could offer to them. Their second offer was better than the first, much better, but did not take into account the information I was giving to them. Another possible interpretation of this is that they didn't know how to interpret the financial information, but I take for granted they have the background to do it. This is the tactic of the apparently confused man. The apparently confused was him, for not taking into account the information I was giving and explaining to him.

3. The third offer really was in sintony with our needs and our possibilities, but it just kind of matched up the conditions another competitor was already offering to us. The man negotiating with me, turned out saying we should reach to an agreement because it would be great for our companies to work together. I just could tell him, I thought this was a matter of practical solutions in a very focused area. I could not see why we should work with them if they were not offering us better conditions than the competition. He then said it would be good for both of us to work together. I think he referred to the prestige or reputation working alongside them could bring us in certain circles. This is the condescendent friend tactic.

Well, none of these tactics worked out. They just showed out three things:

1. They don't care about the customer's needs, they just want to hunt their money.
2. They are not used to negotiating on the basis of proffessional standards.
3. They really believe they are powerful as to make you sign a contract that is painful for you, for the sake of working with them.