I began my career on the trading floor. At the time it was a vortex of financial activity. Various size groups of mostly men in varied colored trading jackets. The noise was constant, traders bidding on contracts, brokers yelling for attention. An archaic paging system in constant use as the 100’s of traders and support staff worked on time critical transactions. The floor littered in used trading tickets and ephemera. Almost like ants at a picnic undisturbed, the appearance of chaos but in actuality, everyone had a well-orchestrated role. No actions were random, everyone had a role to play even if it is not apparent to an untrained eye.
I would maneuver around the perimeter of the trading crowds. A few times my mentor Nate would grab my arm and say I want you to see this. He would say watch and listen closely. There was a process when there was a dispute over a transaction. I said buy 1,000, not 10,000. No, you said… It was a dispute over facts. Pretty much black and white issues, easily resolved. There were witnesses, recordings, a floor official to be consulted if one side demanded a ruling. Nate would want me to dissect the dispute particularly when one side would use a certain tactic.
The moment one side would say it’s “not fair” Nate would squeeze my arm for emphasis. He would say “watch your wallet.” His basis for this observation was his belief that the moment someone injected a subjective argument in an otherwise objective discussion was a dangerous development. He was very much an old-school businessman who felt emotions, feelings had nothing to do with trading, business. He felt there was a certain integrity in the decorum, and there was. He liked his business, trading decisions based on nothing but the facts. In fact, he would ask his traders why they made a certain trade. The only acceptable answer as far as he was concerned was an objective decision based on sound reasoning.
It was a smokescreen, a distraction, a means to change the subject from a factually based discussion to one based on feelings. Feelings are subjective and the definition of fairness is different from one person to the next. It reaches across all industries and scenarios. There are certainly many situations where feelings, fairness need to be a central part of the calculation. The problem develops when shrewd negotiators play the fairness card. It’s almost as if you could substitute the word advantageous in lieu of fair. When someone says it’s “not fair” they mean this situation is not to my advantage; the facts are against me so let’s talk about my feelings. It’s a very calculated move to change the topic of discussion. Proceed with great caution.
This was one of those valuable life lessons from the trading floor that I have used on an almost daily basis. I have been accused of being “cold” or “unfeeling” during negotiations but that is actually not the case. I choose to leave my “feelings” at the door and make my business decisions based on only the facts. A detached view of any disputes I find myself in is the best route for me. I require a clear head and good information in order to make a good business decision. The moment someone wants to influence the outcome of a discussion by injecting their feelings it’s time to say stop, this is not about feelings it is about facts.
In a legal setting, this is exactly the way the system was designed to work. Let’s use a real estate transaction as an example. A buyer finds a home, he/she has it inspected, he/she has her/his agent do comparisons to see if the price is an accurate reflection of its value. The parties sign a contract. At that point what is fair? Enforcing the terms of the contract is the obvious answer. If after the signing its announced a golf course will be built next door, doubling the value, what’s fair? Enforcing the terms of the contract. If after the signing it’s announced a waste treatment plant will be built next door, halving the value, what’s fair? Enforcing the terms of the contract. In either scenario, one party will be viewed as the lucky winner and one the unlucky loser. Either way, it’s fair.
We don’t have to look very far to see all kinds of people playing the fairness card. We really need to push back. The drunk driver who kills someone and then claims the system is treating him unfair is right. It’s not fair. The victims can never be made whole again. The CEO who recently lost his position after increasing drug prices exponentially for no better reason other than he could. He claimed he was being treated unfairly and he also was right. It’s unfair he was in a position to act in such a reckless and unethical manner and have the ability to harm others. Be very wary and look and see if someone is discussing the facts or discussing their feelings.
The great writer Carl Sandburg (1878-1967) once wrote “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” In other words get emotional and talk about your feelings.
But more to the point you need to protect yourself and your interests. I am not interested in helping the shrewd negotiators attempting to improve the outcome to their advantage. We all need to be more aware and cognizant when someone uses that particular negotiating tactic. The more powerful the person claiming they are being treated unfairly the more you need to be skeptical. The moment someone wants to change a factual discussion to a discussion about their feelings, take a step back and look at the situation and be very cautious.
As my friend and mentor Nate would say “watch your wallet, you are about to be robbed!”
Originally published by Bizcatalyst360
No Replies to "The Most Dangerous Word in Business Negotiations"