How To Win Arguments

Goldratt-TOC Ltd

How To Win Arguments

3

1 What is my need?

What do I want?

What is their need?

What do they want?

5 What is our joint objective?

4

2

I don’t know who will win but it won’t be me

Goldratt-TOC Ltd

© John Tripp 1994 - 2009 T 441764679756 www.goldratt-toc.com

Goldratt-TOC Ltd

How To Win Arguments Obnoxious Stubborn Illogical If you have ever been in a discussion and started to think that the other party is obnoxious, stubborn, and illogical then you were probably having an argument or negotiation that was not going as you would have liked. If you find this happens too often for you then this paper will be of value and of interest. We have all experienced similar situations. The funny thing is that just about the same time we are feeling that the other person is obnoxious, stubborn, and illogical, they are feeling the same things about us. Often these situations do not end well, one party is left unhappy with the out come. Many people just accept this saying that there is always a loser in every argument. This does not have to be the outcome. Lets look at such a situation and use it to illustrate a process that can used to create a much better outcome for both parties. Please read the excerpt below from our new book, you join the story as Peter enters Paul’s office. Peter has called a short meeting so he can put an opportunity to his boss.

The Argument Peter knocks on Paul’s door and enters quietly without waiting for Paul to say come in. Peter takes a seat opposite Paul at his desk. Paul saves what he is doing on his Macbook air, closes the screen, and looks up at Peter indicating by doing so that Peter can begin. “Paul, MacKey Co my supplier for controllers are for sale and we have a great opportunity to buy them at a knock down price. We need them and we will make a killing”. Paul says “Hang on what are you talking about. I am not sure we need any more companies just now”. “But Paul you do not understand we can make a huge killing here, these kind of opportunities do not come up very often.” “Peter”, Paul says, to stop the enthusiastic outpouring, “What is the logic for this acquisition ?” “Paul ever since we have been dealing with MacKey they have been struggling to make enough money. The owner Michael Woolly has always been moaning about the difficulty of making money. Over the past few years more and more of his customers have been shifting their business to low cost countries. He has decided to sell up, and with the profits at the level they are now we should be grabbing this opportunity.” “OK Peter, so it sound like you have seen an opportunity, but there are thousands of opportunities coming up every day all around the world, we do not need this. You are already busy with your current operation, you do not have the time to take on any more. I do not want to take this business on. I am not going to support or approve this.” “What! Paul this is ridiculous, we can easily cope with Mackey and they can do other work for us, which will spread the overhead over more product and make them very profitable. You are not making any sense. We are in business to make money. We have to take opportunities like this when they come along.” Paul interrupts. “NO I have made my decision - I do not want any more discussion. We have a strategy and a plan we are not going to jump on just any idea that comes up.”

How To Win Arguments

Tuesday, 20 January 2009 © John Tripp 1994 - 2009

page 1 of 5

Goldratt-TOC Ltd Peter obviously hurt jumps up and begins to walk to the door. “Right Paul if that is the way we are going to work together I will have to consider what my future is here.” Paul, realising he may not have dealt with the situation as well as he could have, calls out to Peter but Peter slams the door and storms back to his office.

Dealing with the Outcome Paul realises he has a problem, Peter is a good manager and he needs his support and cooperation to run the business. Paul decides to analyse the situation and try to find a way to repair the damage done. He feels this is an opportunity to use a technique he saw presented a couple of weeks ago at a TOC seminar. Problem is Paul cannot remember exactly how to use the process, then he remembers that the presenter said there was a simple tool that he could download from their website. Paul opens his Mac again, still childishly pleased at how quickly it jumps to life as soon as the screen is lifted. As soon as the wifi has connected to the server Paul logs onto www.goldratt-toc.com clicks through to the day to day conflict tool, pays a small fee via credit card on PayPal and downloads the tool. Five minutes later and he is ready to start. Paul quickly fills in the 5 boxes in the template called a cloud although he had to think quite hard about box 3 and 4.

3

1 Ensure we Maintain focus

Do not invest in MacKey

on our core activities

5 Peter and I have a good working relationship

Run my own operation profitably

4

Invest in MacKey

2

To build the cloud Paul answered 5 straightforward questions. 1. What is it that I want? [Do not invest in MacKey] 2. What is it that Peter wants? [Invest in MacKey] 3. Why do I want it - what ned am I trying to satisfy [Ensure we Maintain focus on our core activities] 4. What need is Peter trying to satisfy? [Run my own operation profitably] 5. What are we trying to achieve together what is our common goal? [Peter and I have a successful and good working relationship] Paul had no problem answering question 1 and 2, it was more difficult to say exactly why he did not want to buy MacKey and it was more difficult still to put himself in Peter’s mind and verbalise why Peter was so keen to buy MacKey. Having made a first draft paul was impressed with the new view of the situation. The conflict was clear but even more important the needs, the things they skirted around whilst arguing were crystal clear. It was also becoming clear why Peter got so upset. Paul had challenged Peter’s view of his self worth, he had made it absolutely clear to Peter that he Paul ran his operation not Peter. Paul soon became less impressed with his work. Having a clearer understanding of the situation did not change his view of what was the correct action nor did it resolve the issue with Peter. Paul decided he needed to go further with the process. How To Win Arguments

Tuesday, 20 January 2009 © John Tripp 1994 - 2009

page 2 of 5

Goldratt-TOC Ltd The next stage in the process explained that in a conflict it was important to move the discussion from the wants (box 1 and 2) to the needs and the objective. The only way to do that was to understand why he claimed that the only way to achieve 3 was through the action written in 1. The process suggested how to surface the reason or as it termed them the assumptions that enable Paul to link the things written in box 3 and 1. [3) Ensure we Maintain focus on our core activities] < [1) Do not invest in MacKey] The key assumption that Paul surfaced was: In order to Ensure we [Peter] is able to Maintain focus on our core activities we should not buy Mackey now because it will require too much attention from Peter considering its size relative to his overall operation. Paul was pleased with this assumption because it proved he was correct. There is no way Peter can continue to run his operation effectively if he takes on MacKey, he will be too busy making it profitable. It then dawned on Paul that all he was doing was making the situation even harder - he was proving himself more and more correct. Paul looked further into the process, and he was reminded, by the guidelines of what the guy leading the seminar had warned, that to resolve a conflict it was necessary to understand the other parties point of view better. It was not going to be resolved by proving oneself right! The process recommended that Paul try to surface the assumptions that Peter was making on his side that enabled him to link box 4 and 2. [4) Run my own operation profitably] < [2) Invest in MacKey] Paul came up with the following list by thinking back over the arguments that Peter had put forward and by thinking about any potential positives even if he himself did not believe it. This is Paul’s short list of the strongest assumptions. •

MacKey is worth much more than it will cost owing to having such a long standing low profits history.

•

He can make it profitable relatively easily by adding work that is currently purchased from other suppliers now.

•

It will not distract him from achieving his current operations goals.

•

I have to grow my business profitably.

•

I will be able to improve the supply of other items by owning MacKey.

Having read the assumptions now clearly in front of himself, Paul began to feel that maybe Peter’s proposal was not so bad. Without Peter pushing, Paul was able to take a cool look at the situation again. It still presented some serious challenges, but Paul realised that Peter is a very capable manager. He should have had and shown that he had more confidence in Peter’s ability to make judgements. Paul still felt that the situation was not ideal and it is not what he would do. But if Peter had taken account of all of Paul’s concerns and had still concluded that it was worth the risk of buying MacKey then Paul considered, for the first time, that he should check his own assumption. Paul paused he had taken 30 minutes to do all this thinking, what was the next step? How could he recover the situation with Peter and still achieve his need - to ensure Peter was able to maintain his focus on his core operation. What did the process suggest now? Reconvene the meeting and present the analysis in a specified way. Paul thought about the recommended process. 1.

Present and agree the objective -

2.

Present and agree Peter’s side of the conflict and

3.

Only after Peter’s side is completely agreed present my side.

How To Win Arguments

Tuesday, 20 January 2009 © John Tripp 1994 - 2009

page 3 of 5

Goldratt-TOC Ltd Paul could see the sense of this process and recognised the warning about the reaction peter would have when Paul presented his side. Paul considered he was ready. Paul picked up his phone and decided not to ask Angela (his secretary) to call Peter and request him to drop in for a chat, but to call himself, and to start the resolution of the conflict by showing his respect for Peter. Peter answered the Paul’s call almost immediately. He must have been sitting waiting for the phone to ring. “Peter,” Paul said, “I am concerned that you may feel bad about the way our meeting went earlier. I feel I could have handled it better. I have spent some time thinking your idea through and would like to discuss it further if you have time now.” Peter said he had time and would come directly over. Paul presented the cloud analysis to Peter in the recommended way, which was not as easy as he expected, he had to fight the temptation to short cut the whole thing and just tell Peter what he thought he had decided. Paul realises though that this would be just giving in and giving up on his need. Paul established the objective (box 5) by saying “Peter I feel it is important that we have a good working relationship and I want to help achieve this. I want to work with you to create a successful profitable growing company.” Peter said so did he, making it clear that he felt this was obvious. “Good so In order for us to achieve a good working relationship you feel you must be allowed to run your own profitable operation” Peter said, “Yes, but with my objectives its not just that, its more I must be allowed to grow my own operation profitably and in order to do that I must take good opportunities when they crop up and MacKey is a very good opportunity.” Paul says strongly that he agrees. After a few minutes more discussing Peter’s view of his side of the cloud (his side of the earlier discussion) Paul and he agree that they understand each other. Paul then raises the issue of his needs in the relationship. “Peter do you agree that I have a responsibility to ensure we are able to focus on our core business?” “Of course,” says Peter, “But my taking on MacKey will not impact that.” “Good,” says Paul. “We agree that this is an important need and this is why I said this morning I would not support buying MacKey.” Peter jumps in before Paul can finish - “I’m disappointed, I though you had called me back in to say you had reconsidered and everything you have said up to now conformed this I’m…” Paul jumped in - “Now wait. I am not saying that. I am explaining my understanding of the situation and the discussion we had earlier. I do not want us to start arguing again over whether we should or should not buy MacKey. Lets agree the important things here and then see if we can find an amicable way forward.” Paul says, “We agreed just now the objective and our individual needs, these are the most important things agreed? Lets work together in a more systematic way to ensure these are achieved and lets understand better why we feel that to achieve the needs we must take the two conflicting actions. First of all, lets understand why I have said we should not buy Mackey in the light of my need. Lets surface the assumptions underlying my link between 3 and 1,” Paul says, pointing to the 5 box diagram, “Maybe we can find a way to cut the link, which would mean I did not need to take action 1 to get my need in 3.” Paul and Peter work on the assumptions for about 20 minutes and agree on two changes that mean that Paul will achieve 3 even if MacKey is purchased by Peters group. In addition, Peter explains the actions he is going to take to ensure that if he proceeds with the purchase, that he is not too involved in the detailed work needed to manage the MacKey situation. At the end of the meeting both paul and Peter are feeling very positive about the situation and they both feel that they have strengthened their relationship. Paul has won and Peter has won.

How To Win Arguments

Tuesday, 20 January 2009 © John Tripp 1994 - 2009

page 4 of 5

Goldratt-TOC Ltd

Dealing With The Day To Day Conflicts. This passage illustrates how one might deal with an argument to achieve a better outcome than either party might have expected. Many of you may feel that this is just a story, but it is not. First, consider if there is a need for such a process. Do you see people having day to day conflicts and arguments in your organisation? Do you see the outcome in damaged relationships, lower morale, and productivity? Do you see how many good ideas get thrown away? Typing a question about winning or resolving arguments into a any online search engine will return a very big list pages and sites discussing or suggesting ways to deal with this issue. However, a very large number of these are offering guidelines on how to deal with a conflict, how to compromise. We have not found any yet that provide a process for dealing with each conflict. The process you have just seen illustrated was developed by Dr Eli Goldratt and refined by a number of people notably, Oded Cohen, Mike Dinham others and myself. In addition to teaching the process to customers, my area of focus has been on producing simple tools and self teach processes to enable anyone to use the process as and when needed. To understand the background, logic or validity of the process or just to download the simple tool that will enable you to use the process please visit our web site.

Trying to WIN usually results in at best win lose. Often lose - lose.

How To Win Arguments

Tuesday, 20 January 2009 © John Tripp 1994 - 2009

page 5 of 5