Communication and Negotiation
Legal Aspects of Technology Management - NIT Northern Institute of Technology Management, Hamburg · part of my Technology Management MBA · study notes for revision.
This is the session that steps away from statutes for a whole day and works on the thing that actually decides whether your legal knowledge ever reaches anybody: how you say it. The timetable runs in four blocks. The morning is communication, built entirely around the Pyramid Principle. Late morning is storytelling, the technique of shaping a message so that people feel it and remember it. The long afternoon is negotiation, taught from the Harvard method. The final block is appearance and voice, which turns out to be mostly about breathing.
The four blocks look unrelated and are not. Each one is an answer to the same question from a different angle: an idea only counts once it has landed in somebody else’s head. The Pyramid Principle is about the order you deliver ideas in. Storytelling is about the shape that makes them stick. Negotiation is about what happens when the person opposite you wants something different. Voice is about the physical carrier that all three travel on, and about the uncomfortable finding that the same sentence spoken two different ways produces two different outcomes.
For a technology manager the practical stake is high. You will spend more time explaining a contract position, defending a licensing decision or talking a partner out of a dispute than you will ever spend reading the statute behind it. All of that is delivery.
1 · Why clear communication decides personal success
Section titled “1 · Why clear communication decides personal success”The communication block is taught from Barbara Minto’s book The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking. The claim it opens with is deliberately large: the clear communication of ideas is a key factor in determining personal success. Not a nice-to-have, a determinant.
What the technique promises is precise. Applying the Pyramid Principle lets you present your thinking so clearly that the ideas move off the page and into the reader’s mind with a minimum of effort and a maximum of effect. Effort on the reader’s side goes down, effect goes up, and both happen because of the ordering rather than because of better vocabulary.
The reason it works is a claim about how the mind behaves, which the deck calls the human spirit:
2 · The magical number seven
Section titled “2 · The magical number seven”The capacity limit behind all of it is what the session calls the magical number 7, and it comes with four consequences the deck spells out.
That last box is the whole discipline. Most untrained writing builds up to the point, because that is the order the writer discovered it in. The pyramid inverts it: the reader gets the destination first and then the road.
3 · The shape of the pyramid
Section titled “3 · The shape of the pyramid”If you group and summarise your information, the structure you end up with is a pyramid, and all the ideas inside any one grouping must have a logical order. The deck’s own diagram has three levels, each of which answers a different question.
4 · The three rules of the pyramid
Section titled “4 · The three rules of the pyramid”A grouping is only a proper grouping if it satisfies all three. This is the checklist to run over any slide, memo or opening statement before it goes out.
| Rule | What it demands | The failure it prevents |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Abstraction | All ideas on each level must always be the summary of the ideas grouped under them | A heading that is not actually the sum of its bullets, so the reader cannot trust any heading |
| 2. One logical level | All ideas in each grouping must always be the same kind of idea | A list that mixes causes with symptoms with actions, which the mind cannot sort |
| 3. Logical order | All ideas in each grouping must always be logically ordered | An arbitrary sequence, which reads as if nothing in particular follows from anything else |
The third rule needs unpacking, because the session insists there are only four logical ways to order a series of ideas. If your sequence is not one of these, it has no order.
- Main condition, then second condition, then conclusion
- First, second, third
- Hamburg, Berlin, Duesseldorf
- Most important, second most important, and so on
Alongside the seven-item storage limit sits a much tighter one: the mind can only perform three analytical activities at a time. That is why so much good structure comes in threes, and the deck gives the three shapes it keeps seeing: three steps to solve a problem, three key factors for success, three problems in the company.
5 · Deductive and inductive chains
Section titled “5 · Deductive and inductive chains”Good communicators, the session says, always build the argumentation according to deductive logic, from the abstract to the concrete, in three or five steps. The worked illustration is the oldest one in logic.
- Abstract thesis: humans are mortal
- Concrete connection to the event or facts: Socrates is a human being
- Conclusion: so Socrates is mortal
- Abstract thesis: humans are mortal
- Definition or requirement: death means the end of the functions of the cerebrum
- Concrete connection to the event or facts: Socrates is a human being
- Synthesis, the concrete conclusion: in Socrates the cerebrum no longer shows any functions
- Abstract or summary conclusion: so Socrates is mortal
The deck then gives the mirror image. Three-step inductive logic is a method of proof, and it runs the other way, from the specific to the abstract:
6 · Storytelling: what a story is
Section titled “6 · Storytelling: what a story is”The second block is taught from Robert McKee’s Story: Style, Structure, Substance, and the Principles of Screenwriting, and it is organised around three questions: what do I tell, which covers the definition of a story, its elements and the choosing of events; who am I telling about; and how do I tell the story, which covers structure and design.
The definition itself is worth learning as written. A story is something worth telling that the world wants to hear, and it is a metaphor for life, meaning its essence. The story is a life story compressed into a few moments. Mechanically, a story is a selection of specific events, combined into strategic sequences, to trigger certain feelings and express a certain point of view.
Everything in that sentence is a choice. You select the events, you sequence them strategically, you have a target feeling, and you have a point of view. Nothing in a story is there because it happened.
Values get their own definition, and it is the one that makes stories feel like life. Values are generally valid human experiences which can shift from positive to negative from one moment to the next. The deck lists nine pairs.
7 · The main parts, the plot and the setting
Section titled “7 · The main parts, the plot and the setting”The main elements of a story, as the deck sets them out:
- Story. A series of two to five acts. The character’s situation is value-laden from beginning to end. The main event, the climax, sits in the last act. At the end there is a change or turnaround that is irreversible and absolute.
- Emotions, always, and there are two of them: joy and pain.
- Conflict, which is what motivates the change.
- The dominating idea, which is the core meaning of the whole thing.
There is a second, tighter definition of story alongside it. A story is a dynamic sequence of action, reaction and gap, and its substance is the gap between expectation and result. That gap is the engine. Nothing interesting happens while things go as planned.
- The classic plot, called the archeplot, has an active protagonist
- External conflict: he fights against external, antagonistic forces
- Causality and linear time, a fictional reality that hangs together
- At the end he experiences an absolute, irreversible change
- Antiplot: coincidence, non-linear
- Miniplot: open ending, inner conflict, several protagonists
- The setting of a story is fixed by four things: epoch, duration, setting and conflict level
8 · Who you are telling about
Section titled “8 · Who you are telling about”The protagonist is the character, and the session separates two things that get confused. Characterisation is the sum of all observable characteristics, age, gender and so on. True character reveals itself through decisions under pressure.
The rest of what the deck says about the protagonist:
- He has a conscious desire, a goal or need that he knows about. The question to ask is simply what do you want, and you take his point of view.
- He may also have a self-contradictory unconscious desire.
- He has the ability to pursue the desired object in a persuasive manner.
- Empathy is the reader’s reaction: this character is like me.
- His actions provoke antagonistic forces, and the world reacts differently from the way he expects.
The deck draws the desire as a target with three rings of resistance around it. The protagonist wants the desired object, and standing between him and it are inner conflict, personal conflict and conflict with the outside world. His first action leads him further away from the goal, not closer.
9 · How the story is built: acts, sequences, scenes, beats
Section titled “9 · How the story is built: acts, sequences, scenes, beats”This is the structural hierarchy, largest unit to smallest.
Three terms out of that hierarchy get their own definitions, each phrased as questions you ask yourself while writing:
| Term | The questions the session attaches to it |
|---|---|
| Conflict | What is the opposite of the wish? What would I do if I were the character, and what is the opposite of that? Focus on the reaction |
| Gap | Antagonistic forces block the protagonist’s desire, opening a gap between expectation and outcome. The character adapts, raises the stakes, takes a new step, takes a greater risk. It is a pattern of perpetual increase |
| Risk | What is at stake? What is the worst that can happen to the protagonist? The higher the value, the higher the risk |
And the overall design of a story, the arc you lay the material onto:
10 · The negotiation exercise the session runs
Section titled “10 · The negotiation exercise the session runs”Before any theory, the room is split into two groups and given a live dispute to negotiate. Group 1 represents an IT provider, group 2 represents a hospital.
- The hospital bought servers worth about 2 million euros from the provider for its data centre
- The provider is only the reseller: it purchased the servers directly from the manufacturer and delivered them on
- The servers have no automated firmware update. The hospital has to import every firmware update by hand
- The contract does not list that feature as a performance requirement
- When ordering, the hospital assumed automated firmware updates were a technical standard, and now wants to cancel the contract
- The supplier refuses, pointing at the contract and at the manufacturer
- The manufacturer cannot produce the firmware updates automatically
- A different manufacturer does offer servers with automated firmware updates
11 · What a good negotiation looks like
Section titled “11 · What a good negotiation looks like”The afternoon is taught from Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without giving in, and the method comes from the Harvard Negotiation Project.
The starting definition is blunt: negotiation is getting what you want from others, and it is designed to reach an agreement. The Harvard method is called principled negotiation, or negotiation on the merits. Look for mutual gains wherever possible, and where interests genuinely conflict, decide the issues on their merits and by fair standards. Anyone can use it, diplomats, investment bankers, couples, contract negotiators, hostage negotiators, because the basic elements are the same in every negotiation. It is an all-purpose strategy.
A negotiation can be judged against three criteria:
Against that stands the usual way people negotiate, which the session calls positional bargaining: focusing on positions instead of merits, that is instead of solutions. Negotiators tend to lock themselves into conflicting positions, which turns the negotiation into a contest of will, and then the ego becomes identified with the position, so the whole thing becomes about saving face.
12 · The four points of principled negotiation
Section titled “12 · The four points of principled negotiation”The Harvard alternative to positional bargaining has four basic points. They are worth memorising as four single words.
- Deal with the human side as a thing in its own right, not as part of the substance
- The position is what they say they want; the interest is why they want it
- Generate possibilities before deciding what to do
- The result should rest on some objective standard, and you use objective criteria to get there
And negotiating runs in three stages, each of which touches all four elements:
| Stage | What you are doing |
|---|---|
| Analysis | Diagnose the situation and gather information |
| Planning | Generate ideas on each of the four elements and decide what to do. How will you handle the people problems? Which interests matter most? What are realistic objectives? |
| Discussion | Discuss the four elements with the other side. Differences can be acknowledged and addressed, and options generated jointly |
The intended result of running all three is the first of the three criteria: a wise agreement.
13 · Separate the people from the problem
Section titled “13 · Separate the people from the problem”The premise is that negotiators are human beings with emotions, deeply held values, different backgrounds and viewpoints. They are unpredictable, and their egos are easily threatened. So the first move is to get the people out of the substance.
- Participants should come to see themselves as working side by side, that is as problem-solvers.
- Build a working relationship before you start: get introduced, make small talk.
- Attack the problem, not each other. Share the problem and face it jointly.
- The question to keep asking yourself: am I paying enough attention to the people problem?
People problems, yours and theirs, sort into three categories, and the deck treats each in turn.
Perception
Section titled “Perception”- Put yourself in the other side’s shoes, that is understand the situation as they see it.
- Do not deduce their intentions from your fears. Avoid interpretations that simply follow your own perception.
- Do not blame them for your problem. Even where the blame is justified it is counterproductive, because it is an attack: they will defend, stop listening, resist or strike back. Talk about the problem, and distinguish the symptoms from the person.
- Discuss each other’s perceptions and treat their concerns as important.
- Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with their perceptions, for example by behaving as a partner rather than as an enemy.
- Give them a stake in the outcome. Involve them early, so both parties feel ownership of the idea. Ask for their advice.
- Face saving: reconciling an agreement with the negotiators’ principles and values and with their self-image.
Emotion
Section titled “Emotion”Recognise and understand the emotions on both sides by asking how do I feel and how do they feel. Then watch the five core concerns, which the deck warns you not to trample on.
The rest of the emotion advice:
- Consider the role of identity: avoid confronting the other side with their failings or threatening their identity.
- Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate, with a sentence such as: our concern is this, do you feel the same?
- Allow the other side to let off steam. Let a polemical speech run. Listen without responding.
- Do not react to emotional outbursts. Keep your self-control.
- Use symbolic gestures: a note of sympathy, a statement of regret or an apology, a small present, a handshake.
Communication
Section titled “Communication”- Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said. Interrupt only occasionally, and when you do, ask whether you have understood correctly. Pay attention and admit the legitimacy of their point of view.
- Speak to be understood. This is not a debate and not a trial. Limit the size of the group.
- Speak about yourself, not about them. Describe the problem in terms of its impact on your side.
- Speak for a purpose. If anger and misperception are running high, some thoughts are better left unsaid. Do not disclose your flexibility too much. Before making a significant statement, know what you want to communicate or find out, and what purpose that information will serve.
14 · Focus on interests, not positions
Section titled “14 · Focus on interests, not positions”The point of this element is to overcome the drawback of people’s stated positions. Interests are what define the problem and what cause a decision.
- For every interest there usually exist several possible positions that could satisfy it
- Behind opposed positions lie many more shared interests than opposing ones
- Weighed against the shared interests, the opposed ones look more manageable
- Sometimes interests do not conflict, they only differ, and that is what makes agreement possible: differing interests are usually complementary
- Divergent interests may be amicably reconciled
- Ask why about their position, and try to understand the needs, fears and desires behind it
- Ask why not about the decisions they did not make: analyse the consequences they see in agreeing or refusing, on their own interests and on their group’s interests
- Remember each side has multiple interests
- The most powerful interests are basic human needs: look for bedrock concerns such as security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, control
- Make a list
The session adds a piece of psychology here, because negotiating is dealing with psychology: the theory of cognitive dissonance. People dislike inconsistency and will act to eliminate it. So if you attack the problem while giving your personal support to the individual on the other side, that person feels the dissonance and tries to resolve it by dissociating themselves from the problem and joining you in doing something about it.
How to talk about interests without sliding back into positions:
- Make your interests come alive. Describe them specifically, in concrete detail and facts. Invite correction with a phrase such as correct me if I am wrong. Ask whether they would feel the same.
- Acknowledge their interests as part of the problem. Show that you appreciate them: as I understand it, your interests are basically these, have I understood you correctly, do you have other important interests?
- Put the problem before your answer. Never start with the solution. Give your interests and your reasoning first, and your conclusions or proposals afterwards. Talk first about the problem and how you feel about it.
- Look forward, not backward. Get out of a quarrel by asking where you would like to go and what you want to happen in future, rather than where you have come from. The question is: who should do what tomorrow?
- Be concrete but flexible.
- Be hard on the problem and soft on the people. Be hard: commit yourself to your side’s interests and advocate them strongly. But attack the problem without blaming the people.
15 · Invent options for mutual gain
Section titled “15 · Invent options for mutual gain”This element is about designing an optimal solution under pressure, and the session calls the skill of inventing options for mutual gain the most useful one in negotiation. Four things get in the way of producing an abundance of options:
Against those four obstacles stand four requirements: separate the act of inventing options from the act of judging them, broaden the options on the table rather than looking for a single answer, search for mutual gains, and invent ways of making their decision easy.
Invent first, decide later
Section titled “Invent first, decide later”Brainstorm without asking whether the ideas are good or bad, realistic or unrealistic. The deck gives a full protocol in three phases.
| Phase | The steps |
|---|---|
| Before brainstorming | Define your purpose. Choose a few participants, five to eight people. Change the environment, away from a normal meeting room. Design an informal, relaxed atmosphere. Choose a facilitator who will enforce the ground rules and stimulate discussion |
| During brainstorming | Seat participants side by side facing the problem, not facing each other. Clarify the ground rules including the no-criticism rule: introductions all around, ground rules such as off the record, and negative criticism outlawed |
| After brainstorming | Star the most promising ideas, relaxing the no-criticism rule and nominating ideas worth developing. Invent improvements for the promising ones by asking how to make each better or more realistic, using the form: what I like best about that idea is this, might it be even better if. Then set a time to evaluate the ideas and decide |
You can also consider brainstorming with the other side in a joint session, but keep that joint session clearly distinguished from the negotiation itself.
Broaden the options
Section titled “Broaden the options”Instead of hunting for one answer, generate multiple options by shuttling between the specific and the general. The basic moves are: think up other action ideas, go back one step further, generate other approaches, examine the problem as different experts would. Then multiply the number of possible agreements along four axes, and change the scope.
- Stronger or weaker
- Substantive or procedural
- Permanent or provisional
- Comprehensive or partial
- Fractionate the problem into smaller units
- Involve fewer parties
- Let the agreement remain effective for only a limited period
The deck draws the shuttling as a circle of four steps, with the left half sitting in the real world and the right half in theory.
Search for mutual gains
Section titled “Search for mutual gains”Shared interests lie latent in every negotiation. Four questions bring them out: do we have a shared interest in preserving our relationship? What opportunities lie ahead for cooperation and mutual benefit? What costs would we bear if the negotiations broke off? Are there common principles, such as a fair price, that we both can respect? Shared interests are opportunities, so formulate them as a shared goal, and stressing them makes the negotiation smoother and more amicable.
Then dovetail the differing interests. Each side wants different things, so agreement can be reached through differences in belief, in values, in forecasts, in aversion to risk. Practically: offer them several options that are all equally acceptable to you and ask which they prefer, then work on that preference and present two variants of it, and ask again. The conclusion the deck draws is the classic trade rule: look for items that are of low cost to your side and high benefit to the other, and vice versa.
Finally, invent ways of making their decision easy:
- Whose shoes? Pick the actual person you are dealing with and see how the problem looks from their point of view.
- What decision? Draft multiple versions of the agreement and start with the simplest possible one. Look for a decision or a statement the other side may have made in a similar situation.
- Making threats is not enough. If you were them, what results would you most fear, what would you hope for, and what would be a proposition they could say yes to?
16 · Insist on objective criteria
Section titled “16 · Insist on objective criteria”Being stubborn rewards intransigence, so the fourth element takes the contest of will out of the room. The agreement must reflect some fair standard, for example market value, expert opinion, custom, or law. Ask for and discuss objective standards that are independent of the will of either party, legitimate and practical. Reach a solution based on principle, not on pressure. The more you bring standards of fairness, efficiency or scientific merit to bear, the more likely the final package is to be wise and fair.
Prepare in advance: develop some alternative standards beforehand. And use fair procedures. The deck’s example is the oldest one there is: one person cuts the cake and the other chooses, so neither can complain about an unfair division. You can also discuss what the other side thinks a fair arrangement would be before deciding finally, or let somebody else play a key role, for example an arbitrator.
Three basic points about discussing objective criteria with the other side:
17 · Appearance and voice: why the voice carries
Section titled “17 · Appearance and voice: why the voice carries”The last block opens with evidence. A study by Duke University and the University of California analysed the speeches of the male chief executives of 800 public companies, and found that a deep voice confers benefits in the competition for leadership positions in business. Chief executives with deeper voices ran larger companies and therefore earned more; a decrease of 25 per cent in voice pitch, that is 22.1 Hz, was associated with an increase in annual salary; and they also enjoyed longer tenures.
The historical example given is Margaret Thatcher, who took voice lessons when she became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and whose before-and-after recordings the session plays so the difference can be heard.
The uncomfortable implication is the point of the block: the sound of your voice is doing work whether or not you are managing it, so you may as well manage it.
18 · Breathing mechanics, and the four-step routine
Section titled “18 · Breathing mechanics, and the four-step routine”Before any technique, the session teaches the physiology, because the technique only makes sense once you know which muscle is doing what.
- Air moves in and out of the lungs in response to differences in pressure
- When air pressure in the alveolar spaces falls below atmospheric pressure, air enters the lungs, which is inspiration, provided the larynx is open
- When pressure in the alveoli exceeds atmospheric pressure, air is blown out, which is expiration
- The force needed to keep the lung inflated and to cause airflow comes from the chest and diaphragm, which are themselves stretched inward by the pull of the lungs
- The diaphragm is the muscular partition between chest and abdomen
- On inspiration the diaphragm and the external intercostal muscles contract
- The diaphragm moves downward, increasing the volume of the thoracic cavity, and the external intercostals pull the ribs up and outward, expanding the rib cage and increasing chest volume further
- That increase in volume lowers the air pressure in the lungs compared with atmospheric air
- Because air always flows from high pressure to low, it travels in through the conducting airway, nostrils, throat, larynx and trachea, into the alveoli
- On a resting expiration those muscles relax, the thoracic cavity returns to its original smaller volume, and air is forced out
- Breathing is the movement of air into and out of the thoracic cavity; respiration is the exchange of gases in the lungs
Then the claim the whole block rests on: breathing is the key to persuasive public speaking. It is about giving your voice the richness and fullness it deserves every single time you speak in public, so that the power of your voice matches the power of your words. If you do that, people will listen. The instruction is to practise the technique slowly in the privacy of your home or office until you can do it easily, so that it is available in aeroplanes, meetings, conferences and calls.
The structured routine has four steps, and this is the material to work through by hand rather than to read.
The partner exercise that goes with step 4 is the proof: find a partner and introduce yourselves twice. First using your normal voice, then take a few deep breaths and introduce yourselves using the deep breathing method above. The question to answer is whether you can hear the difference in your partner, whose voice should sound richer, fuller and more confident.
19 · Emphasised speaking, pauses and the room
Section titled “19 · Emphasised speaking, pauses and the room”The last practical block is about pronunciation, emphasis and physical presence.
Tongue twisters are described as a great way to practise and improve pronunciation and fluency. They also help with accents, through alliteration, which is the repetition of one sound. They are not just for children: actors, politicians and public speakers use them when they want to sound clear. The instruction is to say them as quickly as you can, and the promise is that mastering them makes you a much more confident speaker. The set the deck provides:
Appearance in the room is the final checklist, and it starts before you speak. Arrive at the room 10 to 15 minutes before your speech, and consider the equipment:
- How big is the room?
- Are all the media ready, the projector, the connections and so on?
- Where is your position as speaker? Never hide behind a lectern, and if necessary move the lectern to the side. Face the audience directly. Stand close to the audience. Do not walk into the light cones of the projector.
- Is the outside light disturbing? Then darken the room.
- Where are the doors?
- What are the acoustics like?
Worked example
Section titled “Worked example”Take a message a technology manager genuinely has to deliver: you are terminating a cooperation with a development partner. The facts are that the joint project has slipped twice, that the partner’s contribution has not met the agreed specification, that your own board has reallocated the budget, and that the contract allows termination on ninety days’ notice. Same facts, two structures.
- We began the cooperation in March last year with a joint kick-off
- The first milestone slipped by six weeks because the interface specification changed
- In the autumn we raised concerns about the test coverage
- The second milestone slipped again, this time by nine weeks
- Meanwhile our board reviewed the portfolio and reallocated the budget for next year
- We also reviewed the contract, which provides for ninety days’ notice
- Taking all of this together, we have therefore decided to terminate the cooperation
- We are ending the cooperation, effective in ninety days, and we want to close it cleanly. That is the apex
- Group I, the delivery has not met the agreed specification. Evidence: milestone one late by six weeks, milestone two late by nine weeks, test coverage raised in the autumn and not resolved
- Group II, our own priorities have changed. Evidence: the board’s portfolio review, the reallocated budget for next year
- Group III, the contract provides a clean route out. Evidence: the ninety-day notice clause, the handover obligations, the licence position on what has been built
- Then, and only then, the detail under each group
Check the right-hand version against the three rules. Rule 1, abstraction: each of the three group headings really is the summary of the facts under it. Rule 2, one logical level: the three groups are all reasons of the same kind, that is grounds for the decision, rather than a mix of reasons and consequences. Rule 3, logical order: the three groups are ordered comparatively, most important first, while the evidence inside group I is ordered chronologically. Note also that there are three groups and not seven, which respects the limit of three analytical activities at a time.
Where the negotiation method changes the same message. If you want an outcome rather than just a clean record, sections 13 to 16 apply directly. Separate the people from the problem: the partner’s project lead is not the delay, and you should say so. Put the problem before your answer: give your interests, delivery certainty and reallocated budget, before you give the conclusion. Look forward not backward: instead of relitigating whose specification change caused the first slip, ask who should do what tomorrow, which in practice means handover, licences and open invoices. Search for shared interests: both sides want the built work to remain usable and both would bear a cost if this ended in a dispute. And settle the money on objective criteria, a market rate or the contract’s own formula, so the final number rests on a standard rather than on who pushed harder.
And where storytelling would apply. If instead of a termination letter you were explaining this decision to your own team, the story shape from sections 6 to 9 is the tool: a triggering event about a quarter of the way in, an increasing complication, a crisis, a climax and a resolution, with a single dominating idea holding it together. As flagged above, the deck teaches the technique in general and does not itself make this transfer, so this paragraph is my own application of it.
Apply it to your project
Section titled “Apply it to your project”-
Analysis first: diagnose and gather. Before you draft anything, work out what the situation actually is and collect the information. This is stage one of the three stages, and skipping it is why most people arrive with a position instead of an argument.
-
List your interests, and then theirs. For every stated position on either side, ask why, and for every decision they have not taken, ask why not. Look for bedrock concerns: security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, control. Write the list down, because each side has several.
-
Plan the people problem separately. Sort what you expect into perception, emotion and communication. Check the five core concerns, autonomy, appreciation, affiliation, role and status, and make sure your plan does not trample any of them. Ask yourself explicitly whether you are paying enough attention to the people side.
-
Invent options before you judge any of them. Brainstorm with a small group of five to eight, away from the usual room, with a facilitator and a no-criticism rule, sitting side by side facing the problem. Only afterwards star the promising ideas and improve them.
-
Broaden what is on the table. Turn the dials: stronger or weaker, substantive or procedural, permanent or provisional, comprehensive or partial. Change the scope by splitting the problem into smaller units, involving fewer parties, or limiting how long the agreement runs.
-
Choose your objective standards in advance. Market value, expert opinion, custom, law. Test each against three questions: is it independent of the will of either party, is it legitimate, is it practical? Prepare alternatives, so you are not left with only one standard to defend.
-
Now build the pyramid for what you will actually say. Put the summarising idea at the apex. Under it, no more than three groups. Under those, the evidence. Then run the three rules over it: is every level a genuine summary of the level below, is every grouping made of the same kind of idea, and is every grouping in one of the four logical orders, deductive, chronological, structural or comparative?
-
Put the problem before your answer. Open with your interests and your reasoning; keep the proposal for later. Make your interests concrete and invite correction. Acknowledge theirs out loud and ask whether you have understood them correctly.
-
Rehearse it out loud, on the breath. Posture first, feet shoulder-width apart, shoulders back, ribcage lifted. Breathe into the belly, not the chest. Speak on a supported breath so the voice does not flop over at the end of sentences, and breathe at every full stop. Two minutes a day is the prescribed dose.
-
Walk the room before you speak. Arrive 10 to 15 minutes early, check the media, find your position, move the lectern aside rather than hiding behind it, stand close to the audience and facing it, stay out of the projector beam, check the light, the doors and the acoustics.
Key terms
Section titled “Key terms”| Term | What it means in plain words |
|---|---|
| Pyramid Principle | Arranging every piece of writing as a pyramid of ideas, so the summarising idea comes first and each level below it is the detail that supports it |
| Magical number seven | The finding that people can hold about seven terms at once, which is why information has to arrive pre-sorted into groups |
| Abstraction rule | Every idea on a level must be the summary of the ideas grouped underneath it |
| One logical level | Every idea inside a grouping has to be the same kind of idea as the others |
| The four logical orders | The only four ways to order a series of ideas: deductive, chronological, structural, comparative |
| Three-step deductive logic | Abstract thesis, concrete connection to the facts, conclusion. The five-step version adds a definition and a concrete synthesis |
| Inductive logic | The method of proof that runs from a specific observation, through a definition, to an abstract conclusion |
| Story | A selection of specific events combined into strategic sequences to trigger certain feelings and express a point of view |
| Value | A generally valid human experience that can shift from positive to negative from moment to moment, such as hope against despair |
| Gap | The distance between what the protagonist expects and what actually results, which forces him to adapt and raise the stakes |
| Beat, scene, sequence, act | The four structural units of a story: six beats make a scene, two to five scenes make a sequence, sequences make an act, two to five acts make the story |
| Positional bargaining | The usual way of negotiating, focusing on positions instead of merits, which turns into a contest of will and then into saving face |
| Principled negotiation | The Harvard alternative, negotiation on the merits, built on four points: people, interests, options, criteria |
| Wise agreement | An agreement that meets each side’s legitimate interests as far as possible, resolves conflict fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account |
| The five core concerns | Autonomy, appreciation, affiliation, role and status, the emotional interests you must not trample on |
| Dovetailing interests | Reaching agreement through differences, by trading items that are low cost to you and high benefit to them, and the reverse |
| Objective criteria | Fair standards independent of either party’s will, legitimate and practical, such as market value, expert opinion, custom or law |
| Speaking on the breath | Letting a full, steady exhalation carry the whole sentence, so the voice stays supported instead of trailing off |
Test yourself
Section titled “Test yourself”- State the promise of the Pyramid Principle and the four consequences the session draws from the magical number seven.
- Give the three rules of the pyramid, the only four logical ways to order a series of ideas, and the limit on analytical activities.
- Define a story as the session defines it, name its four basic elements, and say what a value is.
- Set out the structural hierarchy of a story from act down to beat, with the numbers attached to each level, and name the five stages of story design.
- What are the three criteria for judging a negotiation, what is positional bargaining, and what are the four basic points of principled negotiation plus the three stages?
- What does the session say a breathing technique is for, and what are its four steps?
Revision summary
Section titled “Revision summary”Next: Law on Artificial Intelligence → - the newest rulebook of them all.