| When clients get locked into a preferred solution, and you think they are wrong, feelings can run high. Malcolm Sleath from coaching consultancy 12boxes suggests how to resolve the impasse without loss of face. |
| How to get your own way by giving in |
| |
|
| | By Malcolm Sleath
Question: I’ve
started talking to a
client about an approach
to the design of a new
system. The solution is
robust and
future-proofed and I am
sure it matches their
needs. But they are
advocating a solution
they know and understand
from elsewhere. I think
it will be less
effective and
considerably more
expensive in the long
run.
I’ve tried explaining
to them that what we are
proposing is exactly
what they need but I’m
being humoured as a
well-intentioned geek
instead of having my
point of view seriously
considered.
Should I just cave
in?
Answer: No, not
yet, anyway. It used to
be said of military
types that they were
always planning to fight
the last war instead of
the next one. Something
similar could be said of
client specifiers; they
usually develop their
criteria based on
earlier experiences
instead of what is
coming up.
People like to be
consistent, or rather to
see themselves as being
consistent. At the
moment this trait is
working against you. You
have to shift something
so that it will work for
you. Let’s think about
this under three
headings: attitude,
behaviour and cognition.
Attitude: You are
feeling humoured and
possibly patronised.
They may or may not be
doing this. Let’s assume
they are. When people
feel under threat they
look for ways to
minimise it. It’s the
equivalent of imagining
the person the other | |
|
| | side of the desk in
their underwear when
going for a difficult
interview; it cuts the
opposition down to size.
If you weren’t somehow
seen as a threat, your
client would not feel
the need to do this.
This means you have
power. You have to use
it responsibly. They
want to believe that you
are a paper tiger and
minimise the threat your
ideas represent. If you
cave in to the pressure
and start taking it
personally, you are
confirming what they are
hoping for.
Instead, follow the
maxim in the classic
negotiation book
‘Getting to Yes’, and
separate out the people
from the problem. Be
hard on the problem and
soft on the people.
Reduce their sense of
threat by doing
something they are not
expecting.
The people in the
situation want to be
seen as consistent and
are reluctant to change
their criteria. The
problem is that this
will incur heavy costs
later. At some level
they know this and feel
threatened, but on no
account suggest this is
how you see it.
Behaviour:
Surprise them. They are
expecting you to defend
your proposition. The
last thing they expect
is that you will take
seriously the solution
to which they are so
wedded. So, ask them
what they like about it.
Bearing in mind what
I said about
consistency, you might
think this
counterproductive.
Surely, you might think,
this will reinforce
their decision to stick
to what they know. But I
am not asking you to
write advertising copy | |
|
| | for their preferred
option.
Instead, you need to
work out what interests
would be served by their
preferred solution. They
are clinging on to a
position (“We want the
known solution”),
because they believe it
serves their interests.
Interests? Positions?
1. “I want my
daughter to remember my
birthday and phone me
every week” is a
position.
2. “I want a warm,
loving, mutually
appreciative
relationship with my
daughter” is an
interest.
If I insist on the
first, I could end up by
missing out on the
second.
The reason for
exploring their
interests is so that
they will say them out
loud: “The reason we
like solution X is that
it gives us...” As in
Judo, you can then use
the weight of their
desire to be consistent,
by showing how those
interests would be
served by your proposed
solution.
But, at all costs,
avoid creating any sense
of ‘See. I was right all
along’. The atmosphere
you should create is one
of shared discovery,
‘Oh, I now see why your
preferred solution was
so important to you’.
Let them bask in that
for a while before you
go on to, ‘Would you be
prepared to look at some
alternative ways of
achieving those things?’
Continued on page 12
... | |
| |
| |
|
Previous Page 
