Group Negotiation Secrets: How to Lead Without Losing Control

If you've ever walked into a meeting and felt like people are talking past each other, or worse, not really talking at all, you are not alone. We spend most of our lives in groups. At work, at home, in our communities. But we rarely stop to think about how these groups actually function or why they sometimes break down. My guest is Dr. Colin Fisher, a professor at University College London who studies how teams really work, especially under pressure. He's also a former jazz musician, and in this conversation, we talk about his new book, the Collective Unlocking the Secret Power of Groups, which unpacks the hidden dynamics that make or break group performance. I learned so much in this episode, and I believe you will, too. So without further ado, let's jump into the interview. Let's get into this, because this is. This is great, because not only are you an expert in group dynamics, we've seen that throughout your career and with this new book, which is incredibly exciting, but now you also have negotiation expertise. So when you think about the distinction between negotiation and the challenges of persuasion in a group, what would you say are the biggest differences?

So to. I'm. I'm going to turn that around and actually talk about the similarities first. Cool.

Let's do it, man.

Yeah. Yeah. Because, you know, to me, what we would think of as teamwork and negotiation are just kind of, you know, two ends of. Or two sides of a coin in a way. So we have. On the one hand, there's stuff. When you're in any group, whether it's in a negotiation setting or in a setting that's a work team, you've got stuff that we all have in common that we have interests that we share, we have goals that we share, and we've got stuff we want to accomplish that's the same. And at the same time, in any group, we also have differences in what the individuals want to get out of it, what they want to accomplish. And some of those things are, you know, what we would call in negotiations, integrative. Right. Like if there are. Win. Wins in groups, and sometimes there are things that are distributive. There are things that if I do more of the work, then, you know, you do less of it, and that's. That's good for you. So everything in a group is a little bit of a negotiation, and everything that's in a negotiation is showing a little bit of group dynamics. It's really just about the proportion of the things that we're trying to accomplish that are cooperative and the proportion that are not as cooperative and that. But that like the way we're trying to find solutions is actually quite similar.

That's exciting and also refreshing because I think that one of the challenges people have when it comes to these conversations or persuading on, I don't want to say at scale because that's more marketing, but within like a workplace, those group dynamics, persuading within a group can be really challenging. It sounds like one of the biggest mistakes or challenges that people have is that they over complicate it before the process even begins. And then that that fear leads to overthinking, which makes it harder for them to engage.

Well, so this now I think you have hit on one of the differences between negotiation and groups is I think people are actually really thoughtful that negotiations are this special thing that when you tell somebody, oh, I'm going to go in and negotiate, I'm going to negotiate my salary, I'm going to negotiate the job offer. Like we know that's a big moment, right? And that we have to treat that moment differently than we treat other moments. But groups are so much a part of our lives, you know, that we're at the dinner table with our family or our roommates, we hang out with friends, we're in groups all the time. And that when we're in work teams, we actually don't think of that as being the same kind of special moment. And so we under invest in thinking about how we're going to approach it. Now, I think it's one thing if we're in a situation which sounds like kind of what you're describing, where I'm going in there and I'm going to advocate for a certain position, I'm going to try and convince all my fellow group members to go along with that there. I think we do get some of those same negotiation like dynamics where we know we've got to prepare, we've got to think really carefully about that. But most of the time, the reason I wrote this book is that people don't think about groups at all. They're almost so obvious in our lives that they become invisible and that we underprepare. We underinvest in thinking about how we want to approach those interactions.

That's incredible. That's such a cool paradigm shift because you're 100% right. And what's funny is that there's a lot of overlap in that mistake between group dynamics and negotiation. Because one of the biggest mistakes people make in negotiation is not identifying these conversations as negotiations. So they're not as intentional. But this is really Fascinating. We spend so much time in groups that we don't recognize persuasive opportunities within groups. We just kind of let the opportunity pass by.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, groups fundamentally are about finding, you know, commonality that we can have a shared sense of what it is we're doing, how we're interacting and finding room for consensus. And, you know, that even in the best group, you know, if we think of, you know, championship winning sports teams, bands that are making great albums, there's still differences in individual incentives within those things, you know, that we. If you take, you know, if you're a basketball fan and you take the Chicago bulls in the 1990s that were winning, you know, Michael Jordan obviously gets a lot of the. The attention and the credit. But if we listen to Scotty Pippen, the, you know, by most accounts the second best player on that team now, he felt like there was a lot he wasn't getting as an individual from that hugely successful team. And those same dynamics are always possible in any team. That it's not that because we're achieving our common goal, that means we all are getting exactly out of it what we want to get out of it. And that's where I think there is this area of negotiation that's always going on in teamwork as well, because teams are interesting because they pit some individual interests against some collective interests. And that. We're not ants, you know, we're not, you know, if you watch Star Trek, we're not the Borg, where the collective is everything to us. We've still got our individual interests. And the collectives that humans build will often suck you dry if you let them. If you don't assert your individual interests and come to a common understanding about what the right balance of going for the. Of putting in for the collective versus taking care of the individuals who are part of it are.

So, you know, now we're getting a look into the weirdness of Kwame Christian's brain. Because now, Colin, after you said that, I'm like, man, do ants have beef? Do they really?

Right.

But you're so right this. And, you know, it seems like one of the things that makes this so tough, especially in a culture that sometimes struggles with engaging in conflict in a meaningful way, is that we might, like you said, we have the goals of the group and we understand what could advance the group forward. And we don't take as much time to consider the individual differing incentives among the group members and to complicate it because people are often conflict avoidant. They are often not going to be willing to share those incentives. So people might be moving along, but they are internally feeling a lot of resentment as at the direction that they're going because of the personal sacrifices that they never articulated to other people. And so as a leader or somebody who is in groups, what can we do about that?

So I mean, this is really where the secret sauce of groups comes in and that there's, there's a Harvard researcher named Amy Edmondson who's come up with this concept called psychological safety. And psychological safety is the feeling within the group that it's okay to make mistakes, it's okay to speak up and voice your opinion and you're not going to get criticized, you're not going to get ostracized by the group. And that's really hard to create. And so for leaders you have to both say that you want everybody to speak up when something, when something's amiss, when they have an idea about what we could be doing differently if the group is putting on them something that's not sustainable. People have to feel it's okay to speak up for us to even know that that's a problem and to have a real discussion about how to fix it. But too often we don't feel empowered to speak up in that way. So leaders first just have to say they want that. I want a group where everyone feels like they can speak up, like they can share their ideas, their questions, that they can experiment, they can make mistakes, they can call me out as a leader when something, when I'm not doing something. Well, all these things are things that you have to say as a leader and you have to model that so that if you're not willing to then share when you're making a mistake and what you've learned from it, other people aren't going to do that either. And so creating this climate is one of the most important things that leaders can do to make sure that the group isn't silently draining everybody dry in this work team or group.

Yes, it's so important because some of the key skills of great leaders are the same skills of great negotiators too. And one of the things that you mentioned is essentially just stating the obvious because a lot of well intentioned leaders truly do believe this down deep, down deep in their bones. But they never articulate it because they think it's so obvious to everybody else. But some of those things you have to just say and it reminds me, and first of all, before I tell this story, I am a much more evolved man, at this point, Colin, I gotta get that out. But I remember when Whitney and I were dating in undergrad. We've been married for 15 years now. She wanted me to say, I love you more. And I was like, just, you know, I love you because of how I act. If I just say this, the word love is just like any other commodity. I flood the market. It decreases value. Relationships aren't markets, Colin. I. I should have been just saying it. Now I say it more and everybody's happy, right? And I think leaders need to be willing to say those seemingly obvious things to their people because now they can start to believe it, because they are hearing it more consistently.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think you've hit on one of the not so secret secrets of. Of great leadership, which is you repeat yourself and you don't make a lot of assumptions about what everyone else is thinking. You make it explicit. And that goes for why we're here in the first place. And this, this is probably one of the most common mistakes that in work teams, it's not as obvious as when you're on a date, what you're there for. And even on a date, you know, you might need to say what you both want out of the experience. But in the work team, there's a lot of different things we could be in the room to accomplish. And the best leaders are saying it right. They're saying it over and over and over. It's in the email, it's in the agenda. It's the first thing out of my mouth when. When I start leading a meeting and they repeat, especially the really deep purposes and goals of that group. They get said over and over and over. And it's the same for the norms, the way that we want to communicate, the kind of group that we want to be. Those things need to be explicit. We shouldn't be assuming them. And we need to not just say them once, but to repeat them and then to ask people, does that make sense to you? Is that what you understood? Is there anything I'm missing about what it is we're here to accomplish? And that's where really productive conversations that keep us aligned, that keep us working together, are created.

It's so interesting because what I'm hearing is that for people who say, hey, how do I persuade somebody within a group dynamic, within a group setting, they're starting the process at the wrong place. The foundation of persuasion is laid just in the foundation of the relationship in itself. You have to have psychological safety. You have to have some kind of relationship with the people who are there. You have to be able to clearly articulate what your goals are and the fact that you want people to share. And if you haven't laid that foundation, then it's going to be really hard for you to persuade effectively and connect authentically in the moment in the middle of a difficult conversation in front of a group.

Yeah. And that so much. You know, when we're in. When we're in work groups and teams like, we. We have this assumption that we are all on the same team, right. That we're all trying to get to the same place, and that when we get into situations where people are trying to persuade one another in these group situations, it's often because they have slightly different views of what the priority in our various goals are. So some examples like, of that in a work team might be, is the most important thing that we deliver something on time, even if it's, you know, 85% of the best thing we could do? Or is it more important that we deliver 100% of the best thing we could do, even if it's a day or two late? And so if we start trying to argue about how we're going to work, but we have these two different views of what's important in mind, it's no wonder we're going to have slightly different views of how we should work, how we should act, what we should do next. And so, you know, having these conversations about very specific aspects of what we're trying to accomplish, really important. You know, in. In the student groups that I see so much of, you know, that often getting, you know, an a and getting 100% on their assignment, that's not all of their goals. Right. That's not what they all want. And. And I asked them to have a very explicit conversation of what's the lowest grade that you'd be happy with. You know, what. What would constitute success, what would constitute failure? You know, how much is it important to you that this group is about all of us forming really great lifelong relationships? How important is it that we're learning the material? And if that had to come at the expense of one of these other potential goals, how would we prioritize? Now, we don't always agree, right, that we may. We may need to make our case to the group, but at least we have it out there that there are these different things we could be shooting at and that just saying, oh, yeah, we want to get the best grade and have a good time and, you know, I'll become buddies. That's not enough. That's not precise enough to guide real coordinated action.

This is unbelievable because I just keep on thinking about how many of these types of conversations with multiple people, how many of them fail simply because people don't even know what is at issue you know, with. In law school, like now for me, as a law professor, looking at the students too, it's the. One of the key skills is issue spotting. What are the issues that are at play? And if you're a leader in these conversations or somebody who is just at the table, you can't solve problems if you can't identify them. You can't identify them if you're not curious enough to ask. And even if you're curious enough to ask, if you haven't laid the foundation of psychological safety, they might not feel safe enough to share. And so again, we're recognizing there's, there's so much that goes into this. And I'm even thinking about this on the personal level too, because the, the example that you gave with some people are okay with other grades. I think for a lot of people, if you're listening to this podcast, most likely you're a high performer. The, the thought of accepting a C or a D is just like, you know, blasphemous. But some people are just like, hey, listen, I've got, I got my grades. I remember senior year, I was like that. I was like, listen, I know my gpa. I know what it is. I got into school. I just need to not fail and I'll be good. So there, there are so many of these conversations that need to happen now. How does this apply in family situations or friendship situations? How does it shift?

So, I mean, it's the same, especially like in families like me. I've got two kids, been married for a long time now. And that there's different modes. You're in that kind of parallel, these same kind of goals, right, that families are dominated by what we would call relational goals. Our primary function of our family is to provide support and care for one another. But sometimes we've got tasks, sometimes we've got real work to do. You know, we've got to figure out how we're going to get the kids to school. We've got to figure out how we're going to do the shopping, we've got to plan our vacations, we've got to do all kinds of things that are actual work. And that the being explicit again with our, with each other, that's what we're doing right now is really important in that in that process to say, all right, right now we're sitting around the dining room table, and it's the same place that normally we're just sharing about our day. But I think actually right now I want to get something done, say, hey, it's really important that we, you know, figure out what you guys are going to do on your vacation next week, because the rest of us have to plan our schedules around that. Let's just take the next 10 minutes and make sure we do that rather than letting other people not, you know, assume that we're just having our normal family dinner. To really signal there's a task, we need to switch modes. And similarly, if we're with a work group and we're switching modes to relational mode, that sometimes we need to signal that as well. So for these groups, just like we talked about with negotiation and teamwork, there's always these two different kinds of goals that are there. There's always things that are about our relationships with one another, our care for each other as humans and individuals, and there's stuff about goal attainment that we're trying to get some kind of instrumental work done and that all groups should have both of those goals at all times. It's really a question of balance, but that sometimes we're really switching into one mode or the other. And that just like we were talking about to signal that. Clearly not assume that just because I brought up what we're going to do next week that everybody knows now I'm trying to actually get our scheduling done and get our planning done. But to say, no, this is what I'm hoping we're all doing right now. Are you all on board with that?

Unreal. This is brilliant. And again, I just keep on having flashbacks of conversations in the family setting that did not go well. It wasn't, like, catastrophic, but it was certainly unnecessarily annoying. And the thing is, I think a lot of times for us as family members, we are hesitant to bring something that seems almost overly structured to those types of conversations because it seems almost cold. But we have to recognize that there are going to be those times where we do have things that need to be done. And we often just skate along on assumptions, assuming, hey, everybody sees this problem or this challenge or what needs to be done, and everybody's planning, planning on doing it in the same way. And that is rarely the case.

Yeah, but it's the same. The. The same foundation of having, you know, the kind of family version of psychological safety still needs to be there. Right. That A lot of conflict in families is not about the issue at hand. It's about, you know, it's about power, it's about status, it's about grievances that have been held for a long time and that the longer we allow those things to build up, the harder it is to then have the kinds of real task disagreements where we have frank exchange of views and don't make it personal, don't make it about, you know, the past or things that have happened before. It, it's really hard if we start to build up those resentments and because families, they're so complicated. Right. That we've got so much history with these people that it can be really difficult to do that and that. So I'm, I'm sorry, I'm gonna tell one, one additional little story on this or not really story, but the, the. So like a lot of times when you're teaching student groups, people want to work with their friends, right? And that when people work with their friends, they're stuck in this bind where sometimes they're people who don't really know what it's like to work with their friend. They don't know how capable their friend is, how reliable their friend is, how skilled they are with PowerPoint or something. And you're finding out in this group but that when that relationship is really important to you, sometimes you're not going to tell that person. I don't, I don't think the work you're doing is great because that relationship is more important to you than getting the task done. And that we see this in a lot of situations where we have friends or family who are working together, where the relationship is more important than the task. And so it becomes hard to get the task done because people are prioritizing their relationships and you know, that's a valid thing to do. But if you're running an organization and you're letting people work with their friends all the time, you know, there, there's a little bit of a threat there and that there, there's definitely been some research that shows working with your friends is a double edged sword, right. That like you, you have that rapport, you have that trust there. But sometimes the relationship comes first and that's not always what you want in an organization. You're so right.

And I think it's okay to just admit some people. Their value is vibes. It's like, listen, that you're good, you're great for vibes, but let's keep it at vibes. This, this brings up something Very interesting too, for me, because we, we talk about this through the lens of persuasion. We've talked about it through the lens of aligning on tasks. But the thing that people often complain about, especially within families, is how to resolve conflict within that particular group. Because, you know, it's, it's. You might be. It might be easy to walk away from a business opportunity, but, you know, genetics are strong. One thing about family is that I find that they are, they always seem to be around. Colin, what does it think about? So when you think about all of the studies and all of the work that you've done, when it comes to group dynamics, how does some of the psychology or some of the strategies, how do those apply to family conflicts in particular?

So. Family conflicts, I think, I think it's a great question. I wish I had all the answers on this one too. I mean, my kids are now, I think, past the sort of tough part of the teenage years. But it's still, you know, I remember lots of, lots of times I wish I had more insight or could bring myself to use all this research in those situations. But it's hard because, as you say, there's so many emotions when we're, when we're dealing with our family. I. The first thing is just like we were talking about having this solid foundation of what I would call having a solid group structure. It's a lot easier to have any kind of conflict, to have any kind of persuasive conversation when we really share this sense of what it is we're trying to achieve. And usually what kids want from parents, just like it sounds like your, your wife wanted from you, is this assurance that we're, we're going to care for them even if we disagree in this situation, that we're, we're gonna, we're gonna love you even after this, and that we could disagree about what the right thing to do is in this particular situation, but that, that's not going to break our relationship. And having that foundation of this group is there to love each other no matter what. And that we could disagree. We, we can, you know, have really strong disagreements and very strong differences of opinion on what we should do next. That's going to be a lot easier when we don't have this fear that we're not going to be cared for by the group, especially our family group, because our Paleolithic brain, its biggest fear is getting kicked out of a group is to be ostracized. And this Paleolithic brain is not rational. You can't reason with It. You can't reassure it. It's like, I'm not going to get kicked out of the house for this. It's afraid every time the people you identify with most strongly seem to be disagreeing with you. And that's what creates dysfunctional conformity pressures in groups, is that we're so afraid of getting kicked out, we don't share what we know. We don't share our own opinions. We don't really stick up for ourselves. And that's the same. The same in families. So we have to have this solid foundation to have that discussion, and that we have to really be thinking again. Are we clear about what we're trying to accomplish here? Are we having multiple conversations at the same time? And in a family, you almost always are, right? Especially if you're talking with your children, there's a level at which you're talking about power and status and autonomy. At the same time, you're talking about what's the best thing to do here, what would get a. What would get us the best outcome? And I think the. There's no better antidote than sunlight for this to just, again, be explicit when it's happening. Say, like, I want to give you, you know, as much freedom as we possibly can. I'm really just saying I don't think it's a good idea for you to, you know, get this bone piercing through your nose. That that's probably going to be something you're going to regret in the long run. Right. And to just make it explicit that, like, hey, I'm on the same page, that the goal here is to grow happy, healthy, independent children. And I. And I want to do that. I just really think this one thing is not a good idea. Can we, you know, maybe slow down and have a conversation about it?

What I love about this is how simple this is. And also recognizing the thing that often makes it difficult is that when we need to be the smartest, we're the dumbest. Just psychologically speaking, when you think about the fear response that we feel, we feel tension, pressure, anxiety, whatever it happens to be, then our body's filled with cortisol, our amygdala gets flooded, and we are not cognitively at our best. And if we can just take the time to remember these fundamentals in these conversations, it'll make the conversation so much easier. I mean, how many times when we're in a conversation with our family member do we actually take the time to zoom out wide enough for. To get to the point where we can look down on the problem and say, hey, we agree on the majority of this and it's usually not the goal that we disagree with. It's usually either the tactics or the strategy. And then we can have an explicit conversation about the different directions we want to talk about. But if we can just start with a little bit of positive momentum, saying, hey, I love you, I care about you. We want the same thing you to have as much freedom and autonomy as possible. The difference is this one thing. Let's have a conversation about that. That'll just change the whole tenor of the interaction.

Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, I think the other thing I think we, we should be adding to this is starting by listening, right? Not to assume that the, the other person has exactly the same thing in mind. And so if you feel yourself, if you feel that cortisol flooding your, your body and you know, other, other hormones that are triggering this threat response, to just ask a question as a way to take a pause, say, you know, hey, what do you think? How, how are you feeling? You know, how. What are you hoping we're. We're going to get to or how, how do you think we can resolve this and that by asking the question, you know, you do buy yourself some time. And that so many times in, in organizations I've seen this be the sort of hidden ingredient that, that goes underappreciated. So one of my very first studies was about team coaching. And I was looking in a consulting firm. I have them nominate the very best coaches of teams, the leaders who were really good at coaching teams. And I also, unbeknownst to them, had them nominate some people who were not such great team coaches. And I interviewed these people and sort of compared what these great team coaches were doing to what these not so great team coaches were doing. And I was expecting that I was going to see something that was like these people had these amazing diagnostic skills that they could walk into a room and look at a group and go, oh, I know what's wrong with you. But no, the, the thing that separated the great coaches from the not so great coaches is the great coaches walk into a room and ask a bunch of questions and they would find out what, what was going on. And they spent a lot more time and attention doing that. And they really listened to the answers. And the not so great coaches would come in and assume that everybody shared their diagnosis of the problem and start trying to solve it.

So brilliant. And you know, when I again bringing it back to family, I think about the times where I have been at my Best versus at my worst as a father. And a lot of times when I'm at my best, I'm just asking questions. And the, the. And Kai would parent himself. You know, you ask the right questions, they lead themselves to the right answer, and then they feel really empowered. And I just say, hey, good job. And that's really it. And the. You're so right. It's so funny how frequently the solution comes down to curiosity, just taking the time to ask questions. Because in negotiation, we understand negotiation is an information game. The more information we get, the better we'll be in the negotiation. But just even as a defensive tactic, I don't know what to say next. I should probably ask a question. And a lot of times we make the mistake of saying, okay, I'm not sure what to say next. Maybe I should start preaching, teaching, or criticizing somebody. And it doesn't. It's not helpful. You don't like doing it, they don't like receiving it. And then we take several steps backwards. If you could just take that pause and ask a question and give them the floor and shine the spotlight on them. It checks so many boxes. And one of the hidden boxes is that if you're asking a question, usually you're not making a mistake.

Yeah, absolutely. And I mean, I think that's. That's hitting again on how similar negotiation and groups really are. Right? That all these things we're talking about parenting and, you know, down. Speaking of similarities, my daughter's name is Kaya. So we're. It sounds like our kids have very similar names here that, that, you know, we're seeing different individuals within a group that's got this big, you know, goal of caring for one another, of being there, being there for one another, of loving each other. Still has a bunch of little individual goals where they have things that are maybe not consistent with the collective, where group members disagree about what we should be doing and that then we have little mini negotiations within the group to resolve those differences. And that's exactly the same thing that's happening in work teams. It's just that in work teams, often we don't bother that too often we, you know, nobody quite cares enough to, you know, have this potentially conflictual conversation. And often it's because we lack psychological safety. Often it's because we give groups really dumb tasks that don't need doing and. Or that the group members don't know why they're doing right. That we have task forces and committees who then issue a report and they don't know what happens to the report. Right. They don't know what the, the impact of that is. And it's no wonder that people don't bring their best to these situations because we're not structuring the work. Well, we're not setting goals that are inspiring to them. We're not giving them work that's meaningful. And then we're often putting too many people in the room. And I would say the, you know, we talked about the complexity of groups and why they seem so complex at work. But man, they seem so complex because we put too many people in them and they become complex when they don't need to be.

Okay, Colin, I don't know, man. You're full of brilliance on this topic. If you haven't yet, you should write a book on it. Listener. That's a joke. And so this is so interesting because, and this is not like one of the, like a, like a politically correct DEI type of point that I'm making. I'm talking about just in general. A lot of times we have this, this mentality that if we have more brains in a room, we could lead to higher level decisions. We want to be as inclusive as possible. Well, it touches on this person touches on that a little bit. So maybe we should just bring them in. And you're right, the more people are who are in the dynamic, the more complex and unnecessarily complicated the dynamic becomes. So how do we find that Goldilocks zone of not having too few, to the point where it seems exclusive and you're not getting the highest quality decision, but not too many, where we're overcomplicating the process, how do we figure out how many people is, is the right amount of people for this particular discussion.

So this is one of the few things where research, I think actually gives a pretty clear answer. So the number of people that we should be shooting for when we're trying to make a decision or do anything meaningful, do any kind of meaningful work in teams, is about 4.5. Now 4.5 is a tough number to put into practice, obviously. So I think it's better to think of it as four or five, or you can even expand that out to three to seven people. And that comes from two different lines of research. One is just about group performance. To say on average, when do we see kind of performance decrements based on the number of people in the group? And that below 3 and above 7 are where we tend to see those decrements in performance. But then there's also a great study by my Mentor Richard Hackman, who asked people just in the groups in your life, how, how many people are there in them and do you feel like it's too big or too small? And this line, these lines of too big and too small cross at about 4.5. So it seems like people are unlikely to say that a group of four or five is either too big or too small. They feel like it's just right. And that makes a lot of sense when we think about when are we going to have a 30 minute or an hour long meeting and everyone's going to actually have real meaningful input, they're going to be able to say what they think, we're going to have a discussion, we're going to know what everybody thinks in this group and we're going to be able to actually like do some real work. And if you think about the groups where that's possible, it's usually again in this three to seven range that if we've got a group of 20 and an hour long meeting, there's no chance, right? Like we're, we're not, we don't have a chance of really listening to each other, knowing what everybody thinks and using their input to come to, to a better decision. And then you keep going down from there and say, well, what if there were 10, well, 10 who got an hour long meeting? You know, you got a chance but you know, I wouldn't, wouldn't bet on us succeeding in that. But if you say, well, now we've got five people, it's like got an hour long meeting. Yeah, we're, I'm going to know what everybody thinks at the end of an hour if we've got five people in the room. And that comes from this idea of dyadic relationships, right? Like we want everybody to know what everybody else thinks and that the bigger the group gets, the lower the chances of that get. And so the real rule is to try and stay in this three to seven zone and then really only add people if you absolutely have to. That adding people shouldn't be the default. You have to be in an organization where it's okay to say, actually we don't need you to come to this meeting, that you can skip this one. We're going to be talking about stuff that you don't need to be there for, but we'll send you an update afterwards. And in the best organizations, they create a culture where again, you know, the membership in these things isn't just about politics. It's not about, you know, trying to appease factions by adding them to the group. It's about really getting the right knowledge and skills in the room to do the work that needs to be done to make the decisions that we need to make.

This is so helpful. And I, you know, I, I'm shocked that there's such a clear answer. But when I, when I thought back as you were saying this to all of the like, conversations, meetings and things that I've had before, I'm thinking you are right. Beyond a certain number, it gets kind of chaotic and performative and this is incredibly helpful. And wow, I'm actually really shocked at the clarity of this because I think it solves so many problems because so it sounds like a lot of the challenges that people have in group dynamics is that they are just, it's really just the structural issue with the way that you're going about doing it. Even if you are the Colin Fisher, you don't know you. It's still hard beyond seven or more people in this, in this room. Right, that's. And that's really empowering too because I think a lot of times that people feel, especially leaders, we take things really hard. There's guilt and shame for things not going as well as we would like. But now we recognize, oh, there's a very simple metric that we can use to structure these conversations completely differently. And just by doing that, it can really increase our level of success. Yes.

Yeah, absolutely. I think, you know, have having smaller decision making meetings, smaller project groups is almost always the first thing I say to leaders and managers. And often they, you know, they really understand it and have kind of an aha moment. But they also kind of hate it because there are so many political pressures that the idea of, oh my God, I've got this team of 15, how am I going to make these decisions? How am I going to communicate this to everybody? And I think when it becomes the norm that says if we're really doing something like we're just voting, yeah, everyone can be there if we're all going to just vote and that's what we're doing. But if we are having a committee, that's a hiring committee, or we're trying to devise a new policy, we don't need all 15 of us in the room and that we know if we have this norm that we're going to have these smaller groups doing important things, that you're going to have your turn when it's most important to you and it's most relevant. But it's when people are afraid that, oh, if I'M not on this one, I'm not in this one meeting. I'm going to be left out in the cold. And that's again our fear of ostracism and the lack of trust that the group has our individual best interests at, at heart, then it's going to be really hard. So it's, it's a simple change that I think everybody can make, but it can be a bigger change than you think to, to change a culture of an organization that's used to having these all hands meetings of 20, 25 people all the time.

Yes. Yeah, that's so interesting because I think at that point then you just say, listen, we're going to make a culture shift. And if you're a leader who wants to make this culture shift, the obvious thing to do is send them this episode.

And read the book. Right, read the book. Even better.

This is great. Okay, let's take a pause here, Colin, for a second because we have a listener question.

Hi Colin. I'm a manager at a fast paced tech company. My team is full of smart people, but honestly, we're not clicking. Our meetings feel disjointed, we default to the loudest voices and no one seems excited to collaborate. It's like we're a group of talented individuals, but not really a team. I've read all the books about psychological safety and running better meetings, but nothing sticks. I know we could do better, but I just don't know what to change. How do I actually get us functioning like a high performing group instead of just a bunch of individuals on Zoom?

Yeah, so it's, it's a great question in that when you, when you have this feeling that everybody's just not adding up to their, their capabilities and you say people are disengaged, the first thing I'm going to look at is going to be do we all know what the goal of this group is? Do we know what we're trying to achieve? And then, okay, if it's clear to us, do we understand why it's important?

Important.

And that that conversation alone can really energize a group to say, oh, I understand what we're trying to achieve and now I understand why it's important, whether it's important to us or whether it's important to me. But hopefully it's both. Right. That in, in the organization. So first we need to look at the goal and then second, as we've been talking about, the key piece of information that was left out here is how many people are on your group and that if you have more people than is necessary to accomplish the task, then it's very likely. Our psychology is telling us to not try as hard as we can. So there's a phenomenon called social loafing that says when I think other people could take care of it, our brain does a very rational thing and it tries to conserve resources and say, well, I don't need to give 100% here because there's lots of other people who could also be given 100%. And, and that's a problem in groups that are too big is that our brain is programmed to go, oh, if I don't need to give 100%, then maybe I won't. So if you can shrink the group, I would say shrink the, shrink the group until you have the kind of minimum viable number of people who can do the task. And then if everybody's really trying hard and you need another person, you can add someone. But it's always better to start a little bit too small than to start a little bit too big. If effort's what we care about, the last thing would be what is the task, right? So it's not just what, what's the goal, but what's the task. And that as we alluded to earlier, there's so many times groups aren't given whole pieces of work, they're given a little piece. They're, they're told to do the analysis, but they're not actually going to get input into making the whole strategy that we're, we're just throwing it over the wall. We're sending it to our superiors, but we don't know what happens to it after that. And that when you're given a task like that, it's really hard to stay motivated. And so these things are the things I would check first before I started saying, like, is this something where we need this kind of rah rah motivational coaching, which can be really effective when we have clear goals, when we have a well composed team, and when we have motivating work tasks in the first place. But if we lack those things, there's a lot of research suggesting that motivational coaching wouldn't work anyway. That these structural factors about groups tend to dominate the effects of intervening in process by trying to coach them up. So check your structure, check your goals, check your composition, check your tasks, and then please report back to us and we'll let you know if there's a next step.

This is great. And again, I love how, how concrete this is because essentially you've given you, you're like the team doctor. You've given them a prescription for success. And let's break down some of the mechanics of making sure you have the right team composition. So let's say the person says, you know What, I've got 20 people on this call. And now I recognize why these calls never go so well. And so now you say, I want to get it to that three to seven group size. Okay. Now, because there has been a lack of psychological safety in the team or organization, there are going to be people who may start to assume negative intentions in that act. Oh, I'm getting cut off. I'm getting cleaved from the herd. Right. How does that leader communicate this in a way that doesn't trigger, or at least makes it less likely to trigger those types of emotional reactions?

So I think you have to count on that. That's going to be someone's first reaction. If you've had a group that doesn't have a lot of psychological safety and that you have to plan on a little bit longer discussion if you're really trying to change that. Because I'm sure you've encountered the psychological research before that says, unfortunately for our brains, bad is stronger than good. So, you know, if, if people are afraid, they feel threatened, they feel angry, that sticks in their memory, that sticks with them longer. And you're going to have to do four to five times as much as you otherwise would if that bad thing had never happened. So you, you do have to strap in for not just an announcement that this is going to be. Be a change, but to have a session where you're going to express what you're trying to achieve by this change, that we're going to have these smaller groups because, you know, that's the way we're going to have real conversations. We're all going to be able to get more input in the long run this way, and that's going to make us more effective and efficient and it's actually going to be more enjoyable. But. And I would just call it out. I recognize some people are going to wonder why I'm on this, this team and not this team, this, you know, this task, this task force and not that task force or this committee and not that committee. So let's talk about that. Here's how I'm proposing to make those decisions. These are the criteria I'm going to use. And I would say those criteria should ideally be about what are the knowledge, skills and perspectives we need to do this task. But also we can't ask the Same person to do everything over and over and over again. And that we also want to be developing people. We want people to be stretching people into new roles, goals. And so we want to have a mix of people who we, we're really confident have this expertise and some people who maybe are stretching into a new area. And I'm gonna, you know, propose that, but I'm also going to have a way that you can express your preferences about which ones you're going to be on. And I'm not going to promise I'm going to make everybody happy, but I am going to promise you that I'm going to listen and if you have a problem with it, that I would like to have a conversation about that and we can see what we can do and that over time we're going to find a way to make this work. But that, you know, so that we're having this longer conversation where you're opening it up, you're saying, here's my proposal, here's what I'm intending to do. How does that sound? What are your concerns? What are some ways that we can lessen those concerns and view it as a collective problem solving where it's us against this problem, not a competition among different team members for status and power?

Brilliant. That is very, very helpful. And then I want to cycle back to one of the points that you mentioned at the beginning of your response, which is first of all asking ourselves that self check question of do we know if everybody has the same goal? And then let's say we are not quite sure. Now this seems simple, but it's pretty complex because let's say we're in a group of 11 people because we haven't realized that we need to pare it down a little bit. And then if you're a leader and you say, hey, this is the goal, is everybody on the same page? A lot of people just say yes because they don't want to look dumb. They, they don't want to share. And then a lot of times, let's say if you have the group and you say, hey, person A, what do you think the goal is? Person B, what do you think the goal is? You might run into that other psychological study with ash line studies where people just start saying, oh, like the first three people said the same thing. I better say the same thing too. So how do we really know what somebody's goal is within the group?

So I mean, I think the, if we're, if we're trying to make sure that we're pulling that out of them. It can be a process, right, that we, that we just. Sometimes we also don't know in that first meeting what, how our individual goals fit into whatever somebody's presenting us with. And that's something we're going to discover. And the. I like to view all teamwork as a learning task. It's that anytime I'm working with a different group of people or on a different task, I assume it's. There's something about this that I don't know how to do. And so we're going to conduct these small experiments. I'm going to say, this is what we're going to try first, but I'm going to put in a deadline by which we're going to reflect on how that's working and that if you're really not sure that everybody's on the same page, you want to make those time horizons much shorter. So say, here's the goal I think we're doing. Does that make sense to everybody? And everybody's just nodding along and saying yes. Then I've got my doubts then that, that everybody's as engaged as they should be. And I'm going to set that time horizon where we reflect on this and say, how are we doing? And that if you still see this disengagement, again, that's a sign there's something wrong with either the goal or the task. Because if we're, if we've got the right skills, if we've got a team that's about the right size and we're still not motivated there. Well, it's like, well, do we really have. Have the, you know, this goal nailed where people understand why it's important? Do we have people who are buying into the, you know, underlying purposes of these teams and, and organizations and the other. Other advantage of these smaller teams is that, you know, we can switch it up. If somebody's like, yeah, I'm really not interested in that, in that I don't care what our procurement policy is going to be, and I don't want to be on the Procurement Policy Committee. That's, like, cool. You know, don't, don't be. That's. That's all right. Well, we'll find someone else. Whereas if everybody's on that committee all the time, that's when you create these norms of disengagement. Right? Like, oh, of course, some, some of the 11 of us aren't going to care about this. And so we're going to be checked out, but then it becomes okay to be checked out in the meeting. And you want. You don't want it to be okay to be checked out in a meeting. You want that to be a rare exception. Not the way every meeting goes in your organization.

The norms of disengagement should be a term that terrifies leaders. My goodness, you're so right. This is powerful. And listen, I could talk to you all day about this, but I want to make sure we can get Simone in here too, because I know he's got something percolating. Simone, you want to hop on?

Yeah.

I have a question, but not about how a manager has to act, but more like, if you're the least powerful person in the group, can you change it within? I mean, I have a friend, and I'm going to share a story about a friend, that she was a new hire in a group, and she had to be the main operator of a new project. She was developing a learning program.

So.

Everybody was giving her instructions. People managers, mid managers, many people were giving him her instructions. So she was doing everything and trying to find a way to do what all they were asking for. But then when the project was done and they had to present the project to the manager, they forgot to say that she did it. So they were all taking credits. And she was like, oh, my God, but I did that. But I am a new hire. So she was sort of introvert. And she felt like, okay, I can't do anything. But she cannot just quit, you know, because she needs to work, she needs the. The salary. So what can she do in that situation?

Yeah, it's really hard if an organization or a group doesn't value newcomers appropriately. And I mean, obviously newcomers are such a wonderful opportunity for learning and renewal in groups, and that the best groups recognize that. They're saying, like, you know, over time, groups have these conformity pressures. We're going to think more like. And that when we get someone new, that's the opportunity to really get these fresh perspectives, to pierce this bubble that we've been living in. So hopefully people really value that. And I hope if you're a leader who's listening and you. You encounter this situation from the other side, you go out of your way to give credit to newcomers, to the people who are lowest on the totem pole. Those are exactly the people who need to be lifted up the most. Now that obviously, that doesn't answer your friend's question at all. So the. The most powerful thing I think you have at your disposal as a newcomer is the fact that you have an excuse not to understand how things work and why things happen the way they did, and that when you use that to your advantage to ask seemingly dumb questions, but questions that may, you know, pierce this consensus and the. The assumptions we have about how things work around there, that can be so powerful. So for your friend, the first question I would ask is, hey, I heard you presented this to the boss, you know, and that my name didn't come up. Can you explain to me sort of why. Why that happened or how maybe if I want to get mentioned next time, how I can do that and that by just asking that question now, you may find out that it was unintentional and the person didn't do that on purpose, but. Or you may find out that actually there was a reason they were thinking and there is some kind of unspoken norm that she was unaware of that now they're going to tell her about it might be a bad norm, but. But there, There may actually be be an answer to that question. But either way, by questioning how things are done and just saying, hey, this thing happened and I didn't understand it, can you explain to me why that happened the way it did? And, you know, if you want it to happen different, to say, you know, hey, I would love it next time if I can be part of that. Can you tell me how? Now, now we can start to have this conversation. So I think that for people who are not the formal leaders, for people who don't have a lot of power in a group, questions, again, are your secret weapon. But questions that are specifically about the goals, norms, and assumptions of the group are the most powerful tools you've got. Where you say, why do we do it that way? What are we supposed to do? Like what. What are we even doing here? Those are really powerful tools and that I encourage everybody to use them whenever the. The situation arises.

If you've made it to the end of this episode, you're now part of our negotiation community. Every conversation, every deal, every tough negotiations shapes the world that we live in. And the more we grow together, the stronger our community becomes. If this episode gave you something valuable, don't let it stop with you. Share it with someone who needs it. A friend, a co worker, or anyone looking to take more control of their conversations, their careers, and their lives. Every time we bring somebody new into this space, we make the negotiation a tool for real change. And if someone shared this with you, take a second to acknowledge that they see you as part of this journey and as someone who belongs in this community. Let them know you appreciate it. This is how we build something meaningful. We do it by looking out for each other. So if you haven't already, join us, subscribe, stay connected, and help us to grow this movement. Because when we become better negotiators, we. We create better outcomes for ourselves and for others. Hit, subscribe and share this with someone. And let's keep building together. I'll catch you in the next one.