Harvard’s Sheila Heen Reveals Why We’re All Negotiating the Wrong Way

Hey, I'm Kwame Christian, and you are about to step into the world of Negotiate Anything, the number one negotiation podcast in the world, where we teach you how to make difficult conversations easier while getting more of what you want in the process. Each episode is packed with practical tips and strategies from the experts. We delve into negotiation, conflict resolution, and leadership skills that are crucial in both business and in life. Whether you're closing a deal, managing a team, or navigating personal relationships, Negotiate Anything provides you with the tools you need to succeed. Our conversations are real, relatable, and most importantly, rooted in practicality. So if you're ready to transform your conversations and elevate your negotiation skills, join me on Negotiate Anything. Subscribe and listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you love to listen. Let's make every conversation a winning negotiation. Sheila, thanks for joining us today.

It's total pleasure to be here.

Yes, it is our pleasure to have you, my friend. So how would you get us started? By telling us a little bit about yourself and what you do.

Oh, golly, how do I describe what I do? So I wear several different hats. Probably the easiest one to describe is that I'm a professor at Harvard Law School. We where I am responsible for the negotiation teaching curriculum and negotiation just became required for graduation at Harvard Law School so that we're expanding the program and expanding courses and seats in those courses, which has been really fun. On the side. I write books and I also run a consulting firm called Triad Consulting where we do work with clients both for profit and nonprofit, trying to equip leaders to have better conversations and make better decisions.

Incredible. And listeners, my friend Sheila here is is quite humble. Here we are talking to the queen of negotiation, in my opinion. And that is a high honor coming from somebody who graduated from the Ohio State University. We don't give that the to that many people, even though with Queen it's not grammatically correct. But we'll keep it.

Okay.

I'm really excited to have you and today we're really celebrating the third edition of your bestselling book, Difficult Conversations. Can you tell us about that?

Thank you for asking about it because it's been a project that has been in process for a few years, in fact, and it's probably a little bit overdue. So Difficult Conversations came out in 1999. We issued a second edition. The 10th anniversary edition came out in 2010, which just suggests we can't count. And for that edition, we didn't really touch the text. We just added 10 questions. People ask about Difficult conversations to the backs. That was about 60 pages of new content. And so now we're in 2024, and it was feeling like we were pretty overdue for an update, partly because it should reflect what we've learned since, partly because the examples, some of them were starting to be a bit dated, or it had become clear over time which examples were getting pushed back or weren't as clear as we wanted them to be. So for the third edition, we really took apart the whole book again and reexamined every word. We rewrote certain chapters. So for those who are familiar with earlier editions, the framework and main messages remain stable. And although I advocated for us to flip the order of two of the chapters, the Blame to Contribution chapter and the Impact Intent chapter, I actually teach it in the other order now. And I think it's a little easier to explain if you explain contribution first. What are we contributing to the problem? And then explain why did we do what we did? Like, why was it that we contributed to the problem in that way? So I teach it in that order now, although the book has it in the opposite order. And I advocated that we flip the chapters, My co authors successfully persuaded me mostly that that's just going to be a headache for people assigning the book, like if people have different versions of it. So anyway, we. And then the last thing I should probably say about the third edition is that we also really reexamined two kinds of things. One is, what are the limits to this approach? Like, when doesn't it make sense to listen to someone else and understand work, to understand their perspective, perhaps? And then the second was that we spent six months pretty intensively working trying to figure out what we think about power and the role of power in difficult conversations. So we totally rewrote questions. I think it's 4 and 5 at the back of the book, which are all about power. And we probably wrote, you know, 300 pages worth for the 10 pages that made it into the book as we tried to figure out what we thought. So that's a little bit of a walking tour through the third edition.

Incredible. Okay. There's so much to explore here. And I think for me, one of the most fascinating things is the fact that this was really a groundbreaking piece of literature when it came out. And to see that we have stuck to it and then continued to hone it and change it and tweak it, that's exciting for me because it shows a lot of depth and nuance, but still within the. The same parameters of the Initial book. And so that gives us a lot of room for exploration. And since you spoke about blame versus contribution, I think we should just go ahead and start there because that can. Just understanding that concept alone before even getting into the skills can completely change relationships and interactions. So can you give us a bit of background there?

Yeah, you bet. Well, so probably one thing I should say is that one of the key insights that we had while working on the book was that in order to understand a difficult conversation, you've got to look at what people are really thinking and feeling, not just what they're saying, particularly in polite cultures and across cultures. Right. And then second, so that we call that our internal voice, which we all have. Second, that if you look at people's internal voices, when we're in conflict with each other or disagree with each other, frustrated with each other, what we're thinking and feeling is very predictable. And that we tend to be preoccupied with the same kinds of things. So it doesn't matter who you're talking to, like your personal life or your professional life or what you're talking about topically, the same kinds of things show up in our internal voices. And one of those things, as we think about our story of what happened, what has happened, what is happening, what we think should happen is blame. When we're in conflict, we all naturally want to know whose fault it is that we are having this problem. And so blame is a feature, either implicitly. We don't quite say it, but it's quite clear that I think that you are the problem, not me. Or sometimes explicitly, like, look, you screwed this up and you're the one who needs to fix it. And it's not always. It's often pointed at the other person, but it's not always pointed at the other person. It's not actually easier if we feel like this is all our fault and we feel guilty for the problem. So the usual advice, I think around blame is, well, gosh, blame usually isn't helpful. Right. It chills conversation. It makes people defensive. In organizations, if you've ever lived in what you would describe as a blaming culture, it means it's really hard on relationships and trust. Like, do I trust you're not going to throw me into the bus? If this doesn't work, it means people are reluctant to take risks. It also, like, people spend so much time trying to avoid the blame and talk about whose fault it is rather than just fixing the problem. So it's a huge drain on morale and productivity. So great. We all. We all would agree with that, from experience, the usual advice is, okay, just don't blame people. And you know, that's seems like good advice, but the problem is that it's still in our internal voices. So we end up having these crazy conversations where it's like, well, you know, I'm not saying this is anybody's fault, but like, if you could not screw that up next time, that'd be helpful. So nobody's really fooled. So anyway, what do you do instead? I think that the, the key is, rather than trying to sidestep blame, to channel that energy into something more constructive. And that's what we refer to in the book as joint contribution. Assuming it's not just either your fault or my fault, or we'll agree to blame somebody not in the room, it's those guys fault, they're the ones who dropped the ball. But instead to assume almost every problem has been produced by things that each of us did or didn't do. And so it's, we each contributed to where we are today. Even if my contribution is, you know, I could kind of see this coming and I probably should have dealt with it earlier, but I was just too busy. So it's not necessarily did something wrong. The fact that I have avoided this or not addressed it until now doesn't mean I did something wrong, but it is part of why it has festered for a while and now it's worse than it was last week or last month. And that if we can shift our mindset just to understanding, boy, what did we each contribute to where we're at today? That's the thing that actually tells us, well, what would we have to change if we want to not make the same mistake or be in the same place, or what do we each need to change if we're going to actually improve the way we're handling this? And so it's aimed not at finger pointing and punishment, which is the underlying underpinnings of blame, but instead, assuming we each did things that may not be blameworthy, they might have been perfectly reasonable. But now, looking back, we realize they didn't help. And the point of this conversation is to try to figure out how to fix it.

Hello, my friends. Before we get back to today's episode, I want to ask you a question. Have you ever wondered how to elevate your team's negotiation game and how you can help the folks on your team have better, difficult conversations? At the American Negotiation Institute, we offer transformative keynotes and workshops tailored to empowerment, empower professionals with top tier negotiation and Conflict resolution skills. Whether it's a keynote for your next event or hands on training for your team, we've got you covered. Don't just negotiate. Master the art with the American Negotiation Institute. Click the link in the description to find out more. Elevate, negotiate, and succeed. Oh, my goodness.

This is.

This is great. And what I love about this is how practical it is, number one, because we can recognize how we can tie the theory to practicality in a meaningful way in the conversation. And then what I realized is that a lot of times, not just in negotiation, but also in life, we get advice from people that essentially come down. Comes down to be less human. Because think about it.

Yeah, yeah.

So we're saying, hey, don't. We don't blame people. But the internal voice is still going to be blaming. And then that subconscious drive will direct the conversation in a way that will be trying to escape blame and still assign blame without seeming as if we're blaming. But. But what we're doing is we're recognizing, all right, this negotiation advice is going to go to humans. So let's embrace that humanity. Recognize that we will still have this energy channeled in this direction. Now let's channel that energy in a productive way.

Yeah. And I think in a way that has a purpose that we both buy and can sign on to. Because sometimes my purpose in having the conversation is like, I really need to confront you and let you know what you're screwing up, because somebody needs to tell you that you're the problem or in what ways you're the problem. And that's not really a conversation you're going to be that interested in joining. So it's no wonder I'm predicting it's not going to go well, because I am. Actually, my purpose is not one that is likely to be successful. My purpose is to tell you off, tell you what's what and what's true or get you to change. And I'm actually not in control of any of those things. Only you are in control of those things. So I'm kind of setting myself up to fail.

Yeah, absolutely. And now let's say we have a listener who. This is new for them. And they say, all right, Sheila, I'm on board now. All right, I'm going to shift from blame to contribution. But the person who I'm talking to unfortunately hasn't read the book and they haven't listened to this episode, and they are blaming me all the time. And so how do I change that dynamic when it seems like the other person doesn't want to play by the same rules.

Yeah, well, so that first thing I would say is it's clear that we both know some of the same people. And you're right to identify that the fact that I can't control the other person also means it feels really risky to take this whole contribution approach. And so counterintuitively, our advice is actually, if you can see what you have contributed to the problem, looking back, taking responsibility and owning your contribution to the problem early and often in the conversation is actually good advice. Why is it good advice? It's not without risk, just to be clear. But first of all, it's relatively rare that the other person is not clear on what you have contributed to the problem. Like, they, they actually have a list of things that you have contributed to the problem. And so it's not, in many cases, it's not that you're telling them something they don't already know. What you're telling them is. I actually also know that. Right. So I might start the conversation by saying, you know, I think we probably should have had this conversation a while ago, and I've just been a little bit distracted, so I just wanted to, you know, mention that I do think we're a little bit behind the eight ball and I'm partly responsible for that. Or, you know, I wish I had said something, you know, when I saw you, you know, at the conference last year, because I. I had a sense that this might be an issue, but I just didn't think to mention it to you. So whatever I'm doing, I'm naming. Hey, there's some things looking back that I wish I had done differently. The reason that that matters is that I am sending you a super clear signal that this is not a conversation about blame. I am, I am inviting you to trust me. You know, in the research, one of the fastest ways to create trust is to do what's called making a statement against interest, which I'm sure you know. So if I admit something or say something that it otherwise wouldn't be in my interest to share, I'm. I'm signaling that I'm being candid and truthful. And then the third is, is that the other big reliable dynamic in the research is reciprocity. If I attack you, you're going to attack me back. If I own my contribution, I'm making it at least a little more likely that you're going to be willing to own yours. And you may not take that invitation in the first round, but that doesn't have to be the end of the conversation. In other words, let's. Let's imagine I own my contribution. And you say, well, I'm just relieved to hear you say that you think this is all your fault, because I would agree with that. And then I can say, look, I do have some things I wish I had done differently. I don't think I can fix this by myself. So if you're not willing to also look at some things that I think would have to change if we're going to go forward and fix this problem, I fear that we're going to be stuck. So I don't have to accept that you keep all the blame on me, and that actually gives me a way to mitigate that risk, because I'm not agreeing with that.

Right. And you're clear about that, too.

And I'm clear.

Yeah, yeah. And I think about this in terms of conversational leadership. So I'm not just trying to be a leader in an organization or whatever the situation might be in the conversation. I want to think about the negotiation principles that could apply and demonstrate those first, and then they would reciprocate. And it can be scary, like you said, but if you blend that vulnerability with the strength of negotiation skills, then you're a lot safer, because what you did in that example is that you protected yourself without being defensive and set a clear boundary. And that is. It's such an artful distinction that can be really difficult to make, but with practice, you can get a lot better at it.

Yeah, that's really well described. And I also think that naming it doesn't have to be accusatory. Right. It can. It can be an invitation like, hey, I. I really think we can make this better. You know, would you be willing to do. Or. I don't know if this is realistic, but. But what if on your side, would it be possible to. And you can name someone else's contribution as a request for change, which implicitly says what you were doing before really didn't help, so do it differently. But you're just exploring options in. In negotiation speak as well.

Absolutely. And it's great because we're, we're seeing how this flows seamlessly into the collaborative model of negotiation.

Totally.

So we're, we're recognizing that the blame game can be a serious challenge. And now we have a specific approach to, to addressing that, and then we just fluidly shift into the collaborative negotiation model.

Yeah, I think that's right. And you're also highlighting that every negotiation is also a negotiation about relationship and about process and so talking about, hey, how did we get where we are? Is partly about the content, but it's also about what process should we use to untangle and change it? And also what kind of working relationship do we want to have as we navigate some tough issues where we're not going to totally agree.

Definitely. And now this. This provides us with a really fun segue into power dynamics, because this can be made a lot more complicated when you sprinkle in the power dynamics that apply. And so first, let's start off big picture. When we're talking about power dynamics in difficult conversations, what does that really mean?

Yeah, that. I'm so happy that you started with that question because I think that we often throw around this word power, and we can be a little bit sloppy in how we use it, or I mean it in one way and you mean it in another, and we're just kind of talking past each other. I think, bottom line, the way that I've come to think about power is power is the ability to make things happen or not happen. Right. But to influence other people in negotiation, world and the world and influence events, decisions, et cetera. And so one way to think about that is that each of us, well, power tends to be very fluid. I might have a lot of influence in one context and very little in another. You know, like as CEO of a company, I can decide, fill in the blank, but I can't get the 2 year old to go to bed and. Or go to sleep. Yes. This is speaking to you. I can tell.

It's turning into a therapy session.

Right? That's right. That's right. So. So power is context dependent and it's also fluid. Right. So you might make a really insightful point that I'm like, oh, I actually hadn't thought about that. Your influence in our conversation just went up because you gave me a new way to think about something that spoke to whatever a frame or value or interest that I have. But that also means that power isn't zero sum, because in being receptive, what the research shows is that if I am open and receptive and curious about your perspective, you're actually more likely to be curious about mine. And so I actually, by being receptive, increase my power with you by being willing to be open to yours. So I'll say one more thing about power. There's just so much to talk about here, which is really your fault, just I want to say, for raising such a complex and interesting topic. But. But one thing that maybe I'll add is that I've also come to think about two kinds of power. There's some. I have some unilateral power in many situations, and then I also have to have persuasive power. So if I'm a member of the city council, I have unilateral power, decision rights to cast my own vote. But if I want you to vote with me, I better use persuasive power. And so we're often using the two in combination with each other, but they are different. And I think sometimes when people talk about who has power in an interaction, what they're focused on is often unilateral. Like, you get to decide this and that. That's one aspect of power. But power comes from a lot of different sources.

Absolutely. And when you start to get deeper into it and you start to see the nuance, sometimes it can be overwhelming, but at the same time, it can be really empowering because you might be able to recognize, oh, I might not have the unilateral power, but I might have strategic leverage in this situation. I might not have power in the traditional sense, but I have information because of my unique experience that I could provide. But at the same time, that power from information will not be utilized or will not be have efficacy in the conversation if the person is not receptive to that information. Which brings it back to that counterintuitive realization that sometimes being willing to listen and adjust appropriately and is one of the best ways to open the door to your path to power, because you're actually creating a scenario where the person would be receptive to what it is that you have to say.

I think that's exactly right. And one of the traps that's easy to fall into is that we think of power as well. Who has more, and if I have less, I'm screwed full stop. And we don't think about both the fact that it's fluid, but also that there are lots of sources of power where I can build my power or influence with you, one of which is just through better understanding you. If I can understand your interests and I have the creativity to see some options that might appeal to you in meeting those interests. Well, I've just persuaded you to sign on to options. Despite the fact that, you know, 10 minutes ago, I felt like I had very little power in this situation. So the negotiation skills of listening and understanding interests and creating options and thinking about what criteria are out there that. That suggest what's fair or legitimate, that I can also use to say, you know, look, if I look at the standards, you know, this is how this is handled in other places and seems like that's how it should be handled here. Well, then I'm not saying you have to agree with me because I'm backing you into a corner. I'm saying, you know, let's look outside ourselves for a reasonable way to resolve this. And that may turn, you know. Right. So there are all these sources of power that we're apt to overlook if we. Particularly when we feel disempowered.

Yes. Oh, see, I'm. I am having to use a lot of self control because I just want to keep on going deeper and deeper. But I want to be respectful of your time. So there is one lingering topic that I wanted to explore.

Yeah.

Since writing the book in 1999 and now here, here we are in 2024. I had to check myself there too.

I know, right?

Right. What would you say are the biggest differences in negotiating in the 90s versus negotiating today?

Oh my goodness, that is such a great question. Well, just going back to the revisions that we just worked on. I mean, when we wrote it, email wasn't such a thing. Like we had email inside organizations, but it was not the main mode of communication and negotiation externally. And so partly changes in negotiation have been driven by technology. Right. And how many different platforms and methods and modes do we have? You know, the course we teach now has a segment on how do you choose your forum, not just who should be there and who do I want, you know, do I want to check in one on one on these people with these folks, how do I want to build a coalition or a do my preparation, but also, is this a situation where we should be exchanging emails or texts or we're on Slack or we're, I need to pick up the phone or should we be on Zoom or should I wait to see them in person? And there are so many different modes and some are better than others. So email, text, et cetera are not really dialogue. They're serial monologue. And so if a conflict starts on email or text, it's actually quite challenging to resolve it on email or on text. Often you need to at least pick up the phone or hop on Zoom to have a conversation about it.

And all of our young listeners shuddered in fear.

I know, it's. It's just, it's got. We've gotten so out of the habit. And I think that, I think that, I mean, I, my students are horrified, of course, but I think that they attribute that it was not anxiety producing, you know, for prior generations. And I can tell you from growing up in the 70s and 80s that calling someone was always anxiety producing. It was always like, but what if I say the wrong thing? And what if their mom answers and you know, like I'm supposed to call this employer. It feels really awkward. Like that is just a set of skills that have always been anxiety producing to develop. And it's so much more efficient in terms of just quickly talking through what is the problem that we're trying to understand here and what do you think we should do? So you'll solve something in seven minutes that otherwise is going to take, you know, seven weeks.

Right, Right. Okay. And now this is just a purely selfish Kwame nerdy question here. So for me, when I think about negotiation and conflict resolution, the, the worldview that I have is that conflict, unresolved conflict, is the greatest existential threat to humanity. And for me, that's the hidden agenda with this podcast. And everything that we do with ANI is trying to figure out a way that we can deploy these skills in a way that makes the world a more peaceful place. And so when you look out there, you see what's happening in Ukraine, what's happening in Gaza, and just even domestically here in the United States, there's a lot of unresolved conflict. And so when you think about ADR in general, alternative dispute resolution in general, what role can that play to make the world a more peaceful place?

Oh, there's so many important answers to that. And by the way, I really appreciate you naming that as the, the not any more so hidden agenda, because I do think that it's an agenda that, that I really feel called to as well. And it's a big challenge. You know, I think that the skills that we're talking about are skills that are necessary if humans are going to live with other humans on this planet. And that it's so much easier to talk to other people who agree with you. And that has always been true, which is why, you know, gossip and triangulation happens, you know, starting in middle school and then proceeding through the nursing home, frankly. But, but what's changed, I think in, in the modern era is that that triangulation and talking only to people who agree with you now is global. So we get our news from a point of view that tells it like we think it should be told, that reinforces our views. And I was just reading Cass Sunstein's book Going to Extremes where he cites research that if you take generally like minded folks and they talk to each other about the issue that they're like minded about, they each emerge with more extreme views than they had going in. Because now that I know that you agree with me, well, then we must both be even more right than we thought we were. And I add your arguments and observations to my own, which moves me even more extreme. And that happens on a global scale now. And we're less likely to talk across those divides or if we have relationships across those divides, we avoid the topics where the divide is because we don't want to harm the relationship. And so I think that what we have probably overlooked is that peace is actually really hard work. Roger Fisher used to say, who wrote Getting DS used to say peace is not a piece of paper, pieces of process and pieces hard work. And it is continually, it's establishing the kind of working relationships where we can continually tackle what's next for us to understand and work our way through. And that's not so sexy.

That was a great answer. And I agree. I think going back to that point, peace is hard work. I think that's something that we have to really absorb because I think there is this glorification of being right, whatever that happens to mean. And so we say, well, if we just carry the truth, which really is our truth, that should be enough. And then what I'll do is if they don't accept my truth, I'll use the truth as a cudgel.

I also think that that being right is such a dopamine hit, right? So it's so much more fun to be right or be affirmed that I'm right than it is to be like, oh, shoot, maybe I'm wrong about this. That actually introduces complication in my day today that I really didn't need. Or maybe there's something I wasn't understanding about this, or maybe I owe somebody an apology. That's rarely good news, that realization, even, as in fact it is good news for us in the relationship and in our lives. And I think that that's the challenge, which is it both requires skills that you're doing an amazing job of democratizing, but also it involves an ability and willingness to tolerate the stuff. The learning part that is the less fun learning. Once we then integrate it, we're like, oh, actually I learned something new that was pretty cool. Like, now that it's resolved, now I get the dopamine hit. Because now actually we talk through something and our relationship's actually stronger for that.

Incredible. Now, given the time, I think this is an important thing to consider. Now, let's say there are leaders who listen to this Podcast. If there is one piece of parting wisdom that you would want to share with them, if they want to make their organization or community more peaceful place, what would that be?

I think it's role modeling. I think what we need from our leaders is not, you know, the clever tweets and the bracing pep talks. I think it's showing us what it means and it looks like to be open to learning and to be walking the talk of curiosity day in and day out, even with the people that we consider enemies. You know, the Harvard Negotiation Project is best known for what is sometimes referred to as win, win negotiation. And we have issues with that term just because I think it's often misused or misunderstood, but it's usually contrasted with win, lose. And I actually think in many of the places of the world that we're talking about today, we're in a lose, lose. And that it's going to take a lot of foresight, skill, and hard work to turn that around. And we're perfectly capable of it. We have done it in the past, historically, but it's in the depths of darkness often that people step forward to say, we have to learn something and do something differently if we're going to turn this around. I actually think that this is a really beautiful time where people are stepping forward in many of their communities to actually think we've got to change how we're approaching this and reach across to get help from each other to do that.

Incredible. Sheila, this has been a masterclass. I really appreciate you joining us today. And before you go, remind the listeners about the. The new edition of the book and how they can get in touch.

Yeah. So the third edition of Difficult Conversations has a totally different cover. Who. Who the heck knows why it's blue and white? You may have the purple one. It came out in August of 2023. And to get in touch, Triad Consulting Group, more easy to find online triadconsultinggroup.com beautiful. We have a page. Actually, we have. I stepped on your line. We do have a page on the website called Help Yourself and it has some free resources to get you started. And thank you so much for this podcast. As I mentioned to you before we started, I teach an advanced negotiation course at Harvard Law School and assign one of the episodes from this podcast podcasts. So I love the work that you're doing and just keep it up, man.

Thank you so much. That means a lot to me. Thank you. And thank you for joining us. This has been amazing.

Absolutely. It's an honor to be invited.

Wait, wait, Wait, wait, wait. Now, before you sign off, I have something to tell you that I've never told you before. Just kidding. I've told you before, but you should listen to it again. I want you to know about Negotiate Anything Premium. Imagine all of the things that you love about our traditional feed, plus so much more. I know you like our traditional feed because you're at the end of the episode. And with Negotiate Anything Premium, you'll get more bonus content you've been asking for, more of the expert insights that you can't get anywhere else, and more exclusive behind the scenes access into every conversation. Are you ready to get more of what you want out of your life, career and every conversation? With Negotiate Anything Premium, you'll have access to more high level, custom designed content and insights giving you the tools you need to negotiate higher salaries, better deals and better relationships in your life and career. Once I had a listener share that Negotiate Anything helped her to negotiate a $53,000 raise. Could this be you? What would that mean for you? Your life? I've seen firsthand the impact this model has had on my life and the lives of my corporate clients, and I am confident that it can do the same for you. Are you ready to negotiate more of the best things in life? Click the link in the show notes to learn more. I'll catch you later.