In 1996-97, I worked odd jobs to save money for university. On this day (Boxing Day) in 1996, I was ordered to be in the clothing store I was temping at by 6am. As I arrived at 5.45am, people were camped (actually, in tents and sleeping bags) outside the shop front. I made my way to the front as someone shouted at me (thinking I was queue-jumping, a sin akin to infanticide in parts of Middle England). I explained I worked there, and she switched to berating me for not opening up early (as she was cold). I was young (and nicer than I am now), so I took the McBreakfast breath spittle-fused yelling with a smile. But something broke. I realised retail and B2C was not for me.
My wife runs a jewellery business (among two other jobs). The demands made by some clients are crazy. They make them of small business owners as too often they get away with it. Some of the requests defy logic and all generally accepted standards of decency.
You may work with some of these people. Their unifying feature is a desire to make their problems (screw-ups, often) yours. So, here are some negotiating tactics I’ve picked up over the years (mainly purposed to handle extortionists, kidnappers, and terrorists, but they work equally for toddlers, teenagers, and regular Facebook ranters). Please see what might work for you: a late Christmas present from me to you (possibly also helpful when dealing with family over the holidays 😬).
💡 Never get drawn into assumptions; wherever possible, stick to facts. 💡 Acknowledge barriers head-on (e.g., “I fully understand why you would want… however, if I do that, then I would also have to offer the same to others.”) 💡 Use mirroring if you’re being accused of being a barrier. Often, the language used can be harsh or exaggerated; when you repeat their words (calmly), the more reasonable folks will edit down the invective (the less reasonable folks, avoid!). For instance, “I understand you feel that I always….” 💡 Pause: after labelling a barrier or mirroring. Even if it’s an excruciating silence, you have reflected on their words or acknowledged something unspoken. We need to hear from them. 💡 Once we have a more reasonable sense of their agenda, anger, or angle, you can use what some negotiators call “an accusation audit.” Here, you list why they might not want to agree, believe, or cooperate with you. For example, “I imagine you will assume that my intention is to [bad thing they might think you’re trying to too, e.g., dodge responsibility] and that I don’t understand [pain they claim or seem to feel].” When we do this, we diffuse the situation, as they will often start negotiating themselves down. The accusations you’ve levelled at yourself are a cartoonish representation of how they’ve depersonalised or ‘othered’ you. 💡 Now, we can be more constructive and ask questions like, “What are we trying to accomplish?” and “What’s the core issue here?” 💡 Or if they’re bringing a problem (i.e., we don’t yet know the solution), you could try more explorative questions like, “What happens if you do nothing?” “What is the biggest challenge you face?” 💡 When you give them a more reasonable outcome and objective, we’re more likely to agree.
It’s difficult, but the alternative (malingering discontent and accusations around the office or family dinner table) is generally more work to untangle. I wish I’d known this earlier in my career when I (more regularly) intersected with challenging folks.
Now, enjoy the leftovers!
Acronyms = Good for $, Bad for Risk
We now see ESG, DEI, and other acronyms targeted by resentful populists. I blame advisors.
An odd thing for me to say, as, err, an advisor. But hear me out.
The intentions may not be nefarious, but when applied in a blanket setting (as is often the approach with advisors tied to predefined and inflexible methodologies), it can feel like you’re the square peg being shoved through a round hole.
In my book Bootstrapping Ethics, I discussed how diversity might (should?) look different in a military veteran-run organisation than in a femtech startup. Similarly, a genuine commitment to sustainability might manifest differently in a semiconductor manufacturer (worker welfare and conflict minerals as priorities) than in a social media platform (content moderation, misinformation, server energy use, etc.).
However, when wielded by folks wedded to ideology over pragmatism (often incentivised by crassly conceived regulation), the acronyms can become blanket “best practice” standards. These benchmarks leave all but those with the deepest pockets behind.
Managing two or three sustainable development goals with commitment and expertise is much better than piecemeal efforts across 18.
For organisations that genuinely care about impact, the demise of acronyms and one-size-fits-none consultants would be good. It’s a chance to double down on what matters. What do you think?