And you might be making these mistakes too

Joan leading the Clinic at Harvard, Fall 2024

I spent a few weeks in October back on Harvard’s campus for various negotiation programming. While there I had the privilege of auditing a few lectures from some well-respected negotiation professors and celebrating my professor and mentor’s 30th teaching anniversary.

All of this was after running the 12th iteration of the Negotiation Coaching Clinic, the flagship program at the Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Collaboratory at the Harvard Kennedy School that I co-founded.

Joan leading the Clinic at Harvard, Spring 2024

I’ve learned and processed much and plan on writing a series of blog entries to encapsulate my time there this fall.

The first is this post - three mistakes that I see Harvard students repeatedly making. I write about this because it’s not just Harvard students - I see this in my external clients over and over again.

So I write it here, in hopes that you, the reader, will start reflecting on whether you’re making the same mistakes and if so, hopefully make some adjustments.

A Narrow Focus on Numbers

People focus on the numbers a LOT

Perhaps my sample is a bit biased because the Clinic I run at Harvard is housed within the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Most of the Clinic participants are studying public policy or public administration and are required to take courses on economics and statistical analysis in order to graduate. This education focused on quantitative analysis leads students to this as a default.

But a narrow focus on numbers is not exclusive to these Harvard students. I see this a lot with my external clients. They often come to me focused on compensation within a job offer or a promotion, unhappy with their salary or that they weren’t granted a raise in the most recent performance cycle.

Joan leading the 12th Clinic cohort at Harvard

I’ve also been asked by people - whether potential clients or businessmen who want to evaluate my efficacy as a negotiation coach - how much of an increase in compensation I help my clients achieve.

Don’t get me wrong - compensation is important, quantitative data is important, and being able to have clear metrics for success is important.

But what I have found is that people are overly focused on the quantitative, and often deprioritizing or completely forgetting qualitative data in the process.

They forget about the qualitative data along the way.

In the Negotiation Coaching Clinic I lead at Harvard, we have a simulation that we run each time. In these simulations, students read role information and then perform these roles while applying the negotiation frameworks they learned in their classes.

This particular simulation requires them to agree on both a quantitative outcome (a dollar amount to pay for a car repair) and a qualitative outcome (repairing a relationship that had gone sour between the mechanic and the customer who were long-time friends).

The students who participate in this simulation are often so focused on getting the best dollar amount in their final deal that they often neglect the importance of the relationship that is so essential for the long-term sustainability of the deal.

Similarly, my external clients get seduced by lucrative job offers and ignore the red flags like the manager’s poor communication skills or signs that the culture of the organization is toxic. Case in point, my client Nikita.

A Case Study: Nikita

One client, let’s call her Nikita, was feeling some financial stress with her upcoming wedding and she was swayed into accepting a job offer with high pay.

In our coaching sessions, she had described to me the ongoing conversations with her soon-to-be manager who reacted defensively and gave some attitude to her when she asked completely legitimate questions about the role and the compensation.

I warned her that this was a red flag, that he was likely going to be a difficult manager to work for. I encouraged her to speak to others in the organization and she reported back that they were vague or described him as “eclectic” or “takes some getting to used to.”

I discussed with Nikita how this is often thinly-veiled code and that it was highly unlikely that people were going to outright tell her he was toxic. I encouraged her to consider how working with such a person would take a toll on her mental health.

Given the lucrative nature of the offer and the financial pressure she was feeling, Nikita decided that she could “deal with the stress” but less than a year later, she was in my inbox wanting to make her next career move because her manager was stressing her out and she was incredibly unhappy in her role.

Just because you can’t measure it doesn’t mean it’s not important

I’ve felt the pressure of this over-emphasis on quantitative data since my time as a teacher in the Bronx.

I started my seven-year teaching career as a Teach For America corps member and joined the corps during a time when there was a huge shortage of special education teachers. I taught students with all types of disabilities - dyslexia, dyscalculia, intellectual disabilities as a result of traumatic brain injuries, behavioral disturbances, etc.

It was also a time when the education reform movement was trying to instill more data-driven teaching practices within classrooms. We were constantly assessed as teachers based on our students’ test scores.

But I felt that this movement fell short when working with students with disabilities - it often failed to acknowledge the reality of certain disabilities - that even with modifications to our teaching, some students were not going to be able to get the same test results as their non-disabled peers.

An over-emphasis on the test results made so many of these students feel less valued, less worthy as humans. But the truth was that all of my students, no matter their disability, had an inherent worth and so many positive traits apart from academics.

My students were artistic, athletic, poetic, kind, curious, charismatic, and so damn funny! - traits that we weren’t measuring quantitatively which often meant we as a school community were failing to celebrate these characteristics.

On the other end, I’ve had students who were earning high test scores but I worried about their ability to function as a member in society because of their angry outbursts and trauma-driven behavior.

What good is high achievement without character? Don’t we have enough high-achieving, problematic assholes in this world?

All this to say, quantitative data should not be the only focus. I don’t think many people will disagree with me on this point.

So then the question becomes, why DO we focus so much on quantitative data?

My theory is that numbers are discrete, comforting, easy.

Quantitative data often require no defense - the numbers are what the numbers are. It’s easy to rely on them.

Qualitative data, on the other hand, are messy.

Contentment, ease, happiness, reduced stress, satisfaction, healthy relationships, support - these qualitative traits require someone to know themself, and wrestle with their own priorities. Oftentimes, it’s a more difficult defense. It’s amorphous, and can be uncomfortable.

Making high-stakes decisions based on qualitative data requires…(I’m going to use a word that might sound a bit odd)

Participants in the Clinic at Harvard, Spring 2024

…courage.

The courage to take a stance on something that people might question, push back on, and think that you’re being crazy. The courage to wrestle with some messy feelings, and not just do what other people tell you to do.

It’s much easier to focus on the quantitative data and avoid that entire mess. I ask you, have you been doing the same? Is it time (probably overdue) for you to consider the qualitative aspects of your negotiations?

2. Sinister Attribution Bias

When I was a student, we were debriefing a negotiation simulation and a classmate of mine told me that she thought I was a “snake” (in the simulation, not in real life).

She explained that she thought I was lying in the simulation which was incredibly surprising feedback to me. I started to notice a pattern of mistrust from my classmates through various simulations, even when I insisted I was acting in good faith.

Stressful and anxiety-provoking situations can cause us to be less trusting

In academia, this is called “sinister attribution bias”. Sinister attribution bias is a psychological tendency in which people assume that others' actions during negotiations are driven by malicious intent. This can happen even when evidence suggests otherwise.

This bias can significantly derail the negotiation process by fostering mistrust and escalating conflict. For instance, if one party interprets a delay in response as a deliberate tactic to gain an upper hand rather than a scheduling conflict, it may lead to unnecessary defensiveness or hostility.

I noticed the sinister attribution bias amongst the Harvard students who I work with as well as my external clients, and generally in life.

A Case Study: Carol

Last year, I had several friends visit me for my birthday - they were all flying in from different countries and I was thrilled to show them around and plan an itinerary to make the most of their stay. I wanted to make sure their trip was fun since they had invested so much of their time and financial resources to come see me.

I created a Google Form survey of all of the fun activities to do - historical activities such as museums and ancient religious sites, relaxing activities like the spa, and types of food tours we could go on to try local cuisine.

I sent the survey to my friends so I could create a skeleton of a schedule and get ahead of the logistics as they were coming in on different days.

While most of my friends responded with appreciation that I took the time to do this and thought it made a lot of practical sense, one friend in particular, Carol, was non-responsive.

When I nudged her, she told me she needed more time to complete the survey because she was busy and asked me to give her until the weekend. When the weekend rolled around, I nudged her again and I could sense a bit of tension in her response. So I told her not to worry about it and that I’d go ahead and make a draft schedule but we could always revise it later.

There was tension from the moment Carol stepped foot off the plane. She was distracted, in her own head, and defensive. I could tell that she had a particularly heightened level of anxiety. This became a problem because once we had a minor disagreement, it blew up into a whole argument.

She accused me of trying to impose my own agenda on their entire trip and how I rigidly had to do things my way. I was taken aback because I had genuinely created this survey to tailor the trip to their own desires. But no matter how I tried to explain my intentions, she insisted that my intentions were malicious.

She had already decided what my intentions were.

At a certain point in the conversation, I had to say to her, “It seems that you’re pretty intent on villainizing me and there is no productive way forward in this conversation.”

This is a rather extreme example of sinister attribution bias because in most cases, you can ease the tension within longstanding relationships and restore the trust you have with each other. You can do this by explicitly sharing your intentions and giving the opportunity to the other to reality-test whatever assumptions may have made.

Overcoming sinister attribution bias

Recognizing this bias is critical in fostering productive discussions, as it allows negotiators to approach situations with curiosity and empathy rather than suspicion.

By questioning assumptions and seeking clarification before reacting, negotiators can reduce the impact of sinister attribution bias and build more collaborative and mutually beneficial agreements.

If you think that this doesn’t apply to you, think again.

As a negotiation coach, I’m constantly helping people clarify their intentions, reality-test their assumptions, and ask follow-up questions. The vast majority of people think that they are good communicators - and yet they are constantly having misunderstandings!

Think about it - have you ever met someone who says “I’m a bad communicator”? Most people who are unclear in their communication are unaware how unclear they are.

Even the best communicators among us can have lapses in judgment or blips when we’re not at our best.

And keep in mind that sinister attribution bias can happen in both directions - you can have that bias as you evaluate others’ intent, and you might also be underestimating the bias when they evaluate yours.

3. Assuming that negotiations means being aggressive

The third, and most common mistake I see from the Harvard students, is assuming that negotiations always have to be aggressive in nature.

In my workshops when I ask folks what they envision when they hear the word “negotiation”, the most common vision is men in suits sitting around a conference table, in a high-stakes negotiation. The atmosphere is tense, they’re banging their fists on the table, making demands and threats.

When I ask workshop participants what feelings come up when they hear the word “negotiation”, the majority of responses are negatively-connotated words like “anxious,” “tense,” and “afraid.”

This is because so many of the examples of negotiation that we see in the media have to do with high-stakes situations with aggressive behavior (think: Wolf of Wall Street, Succession, etc.).

It also has to do with people’s narrow definition of a negotiation - focusing on formal situations revolving around money or contracts.

The definition of negotiation that I use is “two or more parties trying to come to an agreement.” This can include:

negotiating with your toddler on eating their peas,
with roommates on a cleaning schedule for the apartment,
or with friends on what shared appetizers to order for dinner.

Not all negotiations are high-stakes, full of tension, and not all involve aggressive behavior.

When the Lizard brain takes over, we can get aggressive.

The Harvard students I work with get this wrong all the time. Even when they’re learning more productive ways of negotiation in their formal coursework, they get into a simulation and start defaulting to behaviors that they’ve seen on TV.

When the simulation starts going south, they resort to making demands, raising their voices, telling the other person they’re being unreasonable, threatening to walk away from the deal.

When we debrief the simulations, the students who pride themselves on being analytical and logical people are often surprised by their own behavior and how agitated they quickly became in what was “just a simulation.”

I, too, am guilty of this.

When I was a student in the advanced negotiation course, my classmates elected me “Toughest Negotiator”.

I couldn't help myself. After seven years in the Bronx (voted the meanest borough in New York City), my default protection mode was to get very loud, and use wild arm gestures to make myself physically larger in a space.

I wasn’t afraid to physically lean into someone much larger than me to deliver my threats.

A Black classmate of mine chuckled at me during the simulation debrief and called me “an African queen bee” (he meant it as a compliment).

This is because when we feel threatened, the Lizard brain is taking over and we are in survival mode. No human is immune to this, and it often takes a lot of training and practice to grow a more sophisticated negotiation skillset to override our instinctive survival mechanisms.

But what veteran negotiation educators know is that most negotiations are more likely to have successful outcomes when coming from a point of shared interests, asking more questions rather than making demands, and creating a positive, productive tone over an aggressive one.

Many more negotiations can have successful outcomes with a smile on your face

In fact, positive negotiations can often strengthen a relationship rather than damage it. So many negotiations can end with better outcomes when avoiding aggressive behaviors.

This is especially true for women because of gender bias and stereotypical expectations of women’s behavior. (If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, sign up for my free webinar here to learn more.)

My most successful negotiations, including the time that I asked for a $20,000 raise, had been when I had a smile on my face the whole time. I was able to be firm and communicate what I wanted, while maintaining a warm and soft tone.

In my most successful negotiations:

Instead of banging my fist on the table, I put a gentle hand on their shoulder.
Instead of making demands, I asked questions to better understand what was important to them.
Instead of a gruff “no,” I gave an apologetic, “ugh, I’m so sorry that I can’t do that.”

All this to say, negotiations do NOT have to be aggressive. And once you realize that, you can stop avoiding more negotiation conversations and be a more effective and sophisticated negotiator.

(Keep reading to learn how!)

Anyone can learn to stop making these negotiation mistakes

Too often I hear “I’m a bad negotiator” as if it’s a trait that you’re born into. It’s not. (Read more about this in my blog post, “Cultivating a Growth Mindset and Why It’s Important in Negotiation”.

I’ve had the privilege of walking with many of my clients on their negotiation journeys and witnessing their evolution as negotiators - it’s such a gratifying experience as a coach.

However, I have to warn that listening to a podcast or two and dabbling in negotiation will not get you the results you seek. Learning to be an effective negotiator requires intention and practice - but the transformative results will be SO worth it.

How to become an expert negotiator

If you’re interested in learning more about building your own negotiation skillset, want to improve your communication skills and have peace of mind knowing that you’ve negotiated strategically, sign up for the priority waitlist of the Advanced Negotiation Intensive. I only offer this program a few times a year and spots are limited.

For those who prefer to DIY your learning, check out my mini-online course, the Fundamentals of Negotiation for Women EXPRESS to learn the fundamentals in 90 minutes or less.

Remember, learning to negotiate is the only way to ensure you’re being treated and compensated fairly so don’t hesitate to build this skillset.

Three Negotiation Mistakes that Harvard Students Keep Getting Wrong