There are times when you have made a pledge that no longer makes any practical sense to honor. You are faced with an immediate dilemma: "How do I 'undo' this pledge that no longer makes sense without appearing to be weak, indecisive, or untrustworthy?" It is an issue involving negotiations, diplomacy and public relations.
Recently a pledge made by the Americans For Tax Reform created a legislative gridlock because the parties involved were terrible negotiators -- they were at loggerheads -- simply restating their pledges and inferring that there was no basis for discussion. Any negotiator knows that a door must be left open for some discussion, exchange, and flexibility.
When two parties just sit on opposite sides of the room with their arms crossed, refusing to acknowledge that their biggest problem is not the issue under discussion, but the paralysis that the gridlock is producing, and the fact that no problem is being solved as a result. It's as simple as saying, "We've made pledges to our constituents about our firm positions, but we each have an obligation to move forward toward a solution. Circumstances have changed. This has gone too far. It is injurious to each of us as well as our respective sides to refuse to solve the problem as a matter of some principle. Our real task now is to sit down and solve the problem to minimize the damage caused by our inability to cooperatively arrive at a solution. Let's find someplace to talk."
------------
The following is excerpted from an article provided courtesy of CBS Newswatch:
"The pledge may be the biggest reason Washington is gridlocked, and this is harming everyone. Republicans enter budget discussions unable to even explore raising taxes. The result is a mutant form of negotiation in which people almost always stop listening, demonize the other side, and pile up so much ill will that people can barely talk to each other. Sound familiar?
The overwhelming evidence in negotiations research is that the best deals arise out of people stating their positions -- including how taxes cannot be raised -- and then setting them down. Great negotiators know that if they set a demand aside, and have an open conversation where they'll learn about the interests and values of the other side, they often come to common ground on core values. Once they get to this point (technically called "alignment"), they can construct a global solution that expresses those values. This isn't compromise, or meeting in the middle. It's innovation and creativity that often leads to a far better deal than either side initially had in mind.
People have to be able to let go of their original demands, even though it's possible, and often likely, that the final agreement will include those demands.
There are two problems with pledges like the one made to ATR. First, they prevent effective negotiations, alienate the other party, and ensure gridlock and childish behavior.
Second, pledges encourage bad decisions by shutting off people's ability to think. Robert Cialdini's book Influence is one of the most important of the last 50 years. He writes that after making something like ATR's pledge: "We don't have to sift through the blizzard of information we encounter every day to identify relevant facts; we don't have to expend the mental energy to weigh the pros and cons; we don't have to make any further tough decisions. Instead, all we have to do when confronted with the issue is turn on our consistency tape, whirr, and we know just what to believe, say and do." Lack of thinking leads to "dumb ass syndrome," and that's what we see across America -- in government and in the corporations.
If pledge takers could find a way to undo it, the benefits would far outweigh the risks of alienating ATR, Grover Norquist, and a few voters. First, people could actually enter into good-faith negotiations that would produce better results for the country. Second, elected officials -- are you sitting down -- might actually start to think. Third, Congress would appear to be more committed to the welfare of their constituents than to re-election.
The question is, how do elected officials who are having a change of heart "undo" the pledge? And how can we undo a promise we made -- to an employer, an employee, a business partner, or a friend? Most of us don't know the mechanics of how pledges and promises work, including how to "unpledge."
Practically, here's what to do when you have a pledge, promise or agreement that makes sense to undo. First, state why the pledge no longer makes sense at the time. Second, offer a former "revocation" of the pledge. Third, make a new pledge to the core values that are the same as the original pledge. Fourth, deal with, and take any responsibility for, any train wrecks that your actions cause.
---------------
When two parties just sit on opposite sides of the room with their arms crossed, refusing to acknowledge that their biggest problem is not the issue under discussion, but the paralysis that the gridlock is producing, and the fact that no problem is being solved as a result. It's as simple as saying, "We've made pledges to our constituents about our firm positions, but we each have an obligation to move forward toward a solution. Circumstances have changed. This has gone too far. It is injurious to each of us as well as our respective sides to refuse to solve the problem as a matter of some principle. Our real task now is to sit down and solve the problem to minimize the damage caused by our inability to cooperatively arrive at a solution. Let's find someplace to talk."
It bears repeating: Nothing good can come of a pledge that is untenable. If you promised to land at an airport in St. Louis but the airport is fogged, you have to set aside you initial pledge and look at the greater directive of finding a safe place to land. It's as simple as saying, "We've made pledges to our constituents about our firm positions, but we each have an obligation to move forward toward a solution. Circumstances have changed. This has gone too far. It is injurious to each of us as well as our respective sides to refuse to solve the problem as a matter of some principle. Our real task now is to sit down and solve the problem to minimize the damage caused by our inability to cooperatively arrive at a solution. Let's find someplace to talk."
The greatest problem in leading a negotiation is adhering blindly to a pledge that is either no longer plausible, or which is creating problems which are far greater than those which are the subject of the frozen negotiation. It is always sensible to 'unpledge' or move from your fixed position if an issue of greater importance obscures the nature of the smaller argument which you are not having because neither side knows how to approach the other. To be a problem-solver, to retain command, you must be able to walk across the room and persuade the other party to enter into productive discourse.
for TAKING COMMAND! and for BUSINESS AND PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment