Tag: Empathy

Posted on

The power of empathy

The Harvard Negotiation Project at the Harvard Business School has developed a   Negotiation Method, the principles of which are explained in the best-selling book  Getting to Yes. How to negotiate without giving in, by Robert Fisher and William Ury. Another Harvard professor, Deepak Malhotra, has a book entitled Negotiating the Impossible. How to break deadlocks and resolve ugly conflicts (without money or muscle) , where he analyses how they act in the context of complicated negotiations. 

Below, we will analyse some of Malhotra’s advice in the section of his book on complex negotiations, ‘The Power of Empathy’, from the perspective of the Minerva Strategy Blog.

Empathy expands the set of options you have for resolving the conflict. The better you understand the other side’s perspective, the more likely you are to find a solution.

Empathy is often understood as putting oneself in another’s situation.  The  Golden Rule  maintains that “treat others as you would like to be treated.” A good exercise is to ask yourself: if I were in the other person’s situation, how would I like to be treated and how would I behave? This rule is fine, but it should include safeguards to prevent exploitation. The Silver Rule states: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” This would be a practical application of empathy. However, ultimately, there is the Bronze Rule: “Do unto others as others do unto you.” This would be an extreme form of reciprocity and, at times, the mere possibility of applying this Bronze Rule may have strategic value.

Empathy is needed most with people who seem to deserve it least. The more intolerable their behaviour, the greater the potential benefit of understanding it.

There may be individuals with challenging personalities or who find themselves in complicated situations, or who may behave unusually due to cultural, religious, gender, disability, or other identity factors.

The relevant issue is that, in business contexts, information about the parties’ backgrounds is key. This data can help explain certain behaviours and attitudes, and/or justify each party’s actions and action plan from their point of view. This exercise in understanding the other party can be useful, as it can highlight differences in interests, assessments or perceptions that may be of strategic interest.

There is almost always a trade-off between maintaining strategic flexibility and safeguarding credibility.

The term trade-off is used in economics as a synonym for compromise, referring to a situation in which gains are made on one side, but losses are incurred on the other. 

Credibility is the degree to which others believe that we will follow through on our commitments. From the deontological ethical model, Kant is the ultimate example of credibility, as he maintained that promises must always be kept. Strategic flexibility is the option to change one’s mind if continuing with previous commitments seems unwise. In the Machiavelic ethical model, Machiavelli is the paradigm of strategic flexibility; for example, in chapter XVIII of The Prince, he analyses whether the prince should keep his word. 

Typically, Malhotra asserts, we want as much credibility as possible while maintaining flexibility. However, if we invest more in strategic flexibility, we typically have less credibility, and vice versa. 

Don’t force people to choose between doing what is smart and what save face.

A first rule of negotiation, linked to empathy, is that proposals for agreement and subsequent negotiations should be framed so that one party is trying to “save face” for the other. In other words, consider the specific consequences the proposed deal will have for the other party. But here, Malhotra, in line with the Harvard Negotiation Project, goes further and calls for the other party to be provided with an intelligent solution. This means the other party must also consider it a good agreement. 

Ignore ultimatums. The more attention you give to them, the harder it will be for the other side to back down if the situation changes.

Ultimatums can be seen as threats. A distinction should be made between business threats and real threats. The former plays a strategic role in negotiation, and the key is their credibility in the eyes of the other party. Real threats will entail a specific response, with negative consequences, towards certain behaviours. Malhora’s advice is to ignore ultimatums and threats and reformulate them so they can be incorporated into the broader negotiating framework. 

Think trilaterally: evaluate how third parties influence or alter the interests, constraints, and alternatives of those at the table.

In certain negotiations, the weight and influence of third parties are very present, conditioning the entire negotiating framework, whether in terms of interests, communication between the parties, or perception. A key point from this perspective is the real power of third parties in the framework, development, and agreement of the negotiation, and the type of link that connects the other negotiating party and the third party. If the real power and influence of the third party are strong, there is no doubt that we must think trilaterally; even if they are somewhat weaker, it is worth considering the third party’s power and influence in favour of our cause. 

Posted on

The Power of Empathy

Through the Harvard Negotiation Project,  the Harvard Business School has developed its  own negotiation method, the principles of which are explained in the best-selling book  Getting to Yes. How to Negotiate without Giving in, by Robert Fisher and William Ury. Another Harvard professor, Deepak Malhotra, has a work entitled  Negotiating the Impossible. How to Break Deadlocks and Resolve Ugly Conflicts (without Money or Muscle), where he analyses how they act in the context of complicated negotiations. 

Below, I will analyse some of Malhotra’s advice in the section of his book on difficult negotiations entitled ‘The Power of Empathy”, from the perspective of Minerva Strategy Blog.

Empathy expands the set of options you have for resolving the conflict. The better you understand the other side’s perspective, the more likely you are to find a solution.

Empathy is often understood as putting oneself in the other’s shoes.  The Golden Rule  is “treat others as you would like to be treated.” A good exercise is to ask yourself: if I were in the other person’s situation, how would I like to be treated and how would I behave? This rule is fine, but it should have some safeguards in place so that it is not exploited. The Silver Rule states: “Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.” This would be a practical application of empathy. However, ultimately, there is the Bronze Rule, which states, “Do to others what others do to you.” This would be an extreme form of reciprocity and, at times, the mere possibility of applying this Bronze Rule may have strategic value.

Empathy is needed most with people who seem to deserve it least. The more intolerable their behaviour, the greater the potential benefit of understanding it.

There may be individuals with 1) challenging personalities, 2) who find themselves in complicated situations, 3) who may behave unusually due to cultural, religious, gender, disability, or other identity-related factors.

The relevant issue is that, in business contexts, information about the parties’ background is key. This data can be useful in explaining certain behaviours and attitudes and/or justifying each party’s actions and action plan from their point of view. This exercise in understanding the other party can be useful, as it can highlight differences in interests, assessments, or perceptions that may be of strategic interest.

There is almost always a trade-off between maintaining strategic flexibility and safeguarding credibility.

The expression trade-off is used in Economics as a synonym for compromise, in the sense that there is a situation where gains are made on one side and losses on the other. 

Credibility is the degree to which others believe that we will follow through on our commitments. The Kantian ethical model is the ultimate example of credibility, as he maintained that promises must always be kept. Strategic flexibility is the option to change one’s mind if continuing with previous commitments seems unwise. From the Machiavellian model, Machiavelli is the paradigm of strategic flexibility, for example in chapter XVIII of the work The Prince, where he analyses whether the prince should keep his word. 

Typically, Malhotra asserts, we want as much credibility as flexibility as possible. However, if we invest more in strategic flexibility, we typically have less credibility, and vice versa. 

Don’t force people to choose between doing what is smart and doing what helps them save face.

A first rule of negotiation, linked to empathy, is that offers of agreement and subsequent negotiations should be linked to one party trying to help the other “save face”. In other words, consider the specific consequences that the proposed deal will have for the other. Here Malhotra, in line with the Harvard Negotiation Project, goes further and requires negotiators to be provided with an intelligent solution. This means that both must consider it a good agreement. 

Ignore ultimatums. The more attention you give to them, the harder it will be for the other side to back down if the situation changes.

Ultimatums can be seen as a kind of threat. A distinction should be made between negotiation threats and actual threats. The former plays a strategic role in negotiation, and the key is the credibility of their plausibility in the eyes of the other party. Actual threats will entail a certain response, with negative consequences, towards certain behaviours. Malhotra’s advice is to ignore and reformulate ultimatums and threats so that they can be incorporated into the broader negotiating framework. 

Think trilaterally: evaluate how third parties influence or alter the interests, constraints, and alternatives of those at the table.

In certain negotiations, the weight and influence of third parties is very present, conditioning the entire negotiating framework, whether in terms of interests, communication between the parties, or perception. A key point from this perspective is what the real power of third parties is in the framework, development, and agreement of the negotiation, and what type of link connects the other negotiating party and the third party. If the real power and link of the third party are strong, there is no doubt that we must think trilaterally. Even if it is weak, it is good to consider the power of third party’s influence in our favour. 

Posted on

Put yourself in your shoes: from self-criticism to self-understanding

Most books on negotiation tend to focus on the fact that the key to success lies in knowing the other party’s intentions, true interests, and even any details that provide some information about the other party. This is why it is crucial to know how to listen and to develop emotional intelligence techniques as the basis for a good strategy. 

However, it is no less true that knowing one’s own values and knowing how to manage one’s reactions are essential elements of a negotiation strategy. It is precisely this shift towards one’s own expectations and perspectives that is the focus of the book Getting Yes with Yourself (and other worthy opponents) by William Ury. 

This author is co-founder of the Harvard Negotiation Project and, previously, he had written, together with Roger Fisher, the world-famous negotiation manual entitled Getting to Yes. The Art of Negotiating Without Giving In. Following on from this famous manual, he reflects on his new work on focusing on the agent’s perspective, expectations, and reactions rather than the other party with whom he interacts to achieve his objectives.

After all, negotiation is an exercise of influence in which you try to change another person’s perspective. The first step, Ury explains, in achieving this goal is to understand where their opinions come from. However, putting yourself in someone else’s shoes can be very difficult, especially in a conflict or negotiation. Different cultures and religions have moral precepts based on reciprocity, altruism, and otherness, such as the Golden Rule of Humanity. 

There is a crucial, often overlooked, preliminary move that can help us clarify both what we want and what the other person wants. That move is to put ourselves first. Listening to ourselves can reveal what we really want while clearing our minds and allowing us to listen to other people and understand what they really want.

Putting yourself in your shoes may look strange at first glance, because, after all, aren’t you already in your shoes? But doing it properly is not as easy as it might seem, because our natural tendency is to judge ourselves critically and to ignore or reject parts of ourselves.

According to Ury, there are three actions that can help us: first, see ourselves from the balcony; second, go deeper and listen empathetically to our underlying feelings and what they are really telling us; and third, go even deeper and discover our needs.

Look at yourself from the balcony

In his lectures and writings, Ury emphasises the idea of going out on the balcony. The balcony is a metaphor for a place of perspective, tranquillity, self-control, and calm. We are all actors on the stage of life, so balconies are places from which we can see the whole play and develop with greater clarity to observe ourselves. It is important to go out on the balcony at any time, especially before, during and after a problematic conversation or negotiation. This is really relevant for better management of emotions in negotiations.

Empathetic listening

Empathy and sympathy are always confused, but they are different. Sympathy is feeling sorry for a person’s situation, but not necessarily understanding it. Empathy, however, means understanding what it feels like to be in that situation.


Listening to oneself with empathy is on a deeper level than observing. Observing means seeing from the outside, while listening means feeling from the inside. Observing gives you a distant view, while listening gives you an intimate understanding.

In this regard, Ury uses this image: When I do my daily exercise each morning, I imagine sitting at a kitchen table to understand and then use the intensity of these feelings. Every thought or emotion related to the family, such as anxiety, fear or shame, is displayed. I offer them a fictitious seat and so I have learned to welcome everyone. I would like to treat them like my old friends or acquaintances. Like a whole table in the kitchen. I listen to the free dialogue of thoughts and feelings.

This image of the kitchen table implies that we must know how to listen to our feelings and give them a place, but the essential thing is to know how to manage emotions properly. This sometimes means balancing emotions and reasons. 

Uncover your needs

Ury argues that we can question ourselves about what is not suitable for us. In what aspects of our lives are we not completely happy or fulfilled? Does work, money, family, relationships, health, or general well-being matter? Is it normal to experience feelings of anxiety, fear, anger, or sadness when your needs are not met? What do you want most? What are your primary motivations? The better you understand your needs, the more likely you are to be able to meet them. 

As simple and natural as it sounds, putting yourself in your place – in your shoes– to see yourself from the balcony, to listen to yourself with empathy, and to discover your underlying needs are often difficult tasks. The path from self-criticism to self-understanding requires constant effort.

.