Face-Off Negotiations

Conference room tables come in two basic shapes — rectangular and round. Sometimes the round tables are a bit oval, and sometimes the rectangular tables have gracefully curved sides, but generally, the round ones are round, and the rectangular ones are rectangular. When we use these tables for two-party negotiations, the negotiators often choose a most unfortunate seating arrangement that I call the "face-off."

In the face-off, one negotiating team sits along one long side of the rectangle, and the other sits opposite, along the other long side of the rectangle. If the table is round, the two teams arrange themselves opposite each other as best they can, if possible leaving gaps between the ends of the two arcs separating the teams.

The face-off configuration hampers negotiations. By physically arranging the two teams opposite each other, this configuration sets one team against the other. It's likely that the inclination many of us have to sit near people we know, and with whom we share past experiences and visions of a shared future, leads to this arrangement. But by distinguishing "us" from "them" the face-off configuration can actually make straightforward negotiations difficult, and difficult negotiations impossible.

How can we do something different that might actually facilitate negotiations?

Randomize your own seating

One approach is to discuss the possibility in advance with your own team, and reach consensus about randomizing your own seating. That is, when you arrive, intentionally choose not to sit together as a team.

This can work, The "face-off" seating configuration
hampers negotiations by physically
arranging the two teams
opposite each otherprovided your team is the first to take seats, which is easily accomplished if your team is hosting. It does have the unfortunate and unintended effect of imposing the randomized arrangement on the other team, which can make some of its members uncomfortable.

As host, set out place cards

If the session is being hosted at your facility, you can set out place cards bearing either personal names or team names. This somewhat more genteel approach achieves the intended result independent of which participants sit down first.

Although this method randomizes seating, it also imposes an arrangement on the other team, and that can be a bit off-putting.

Let it happen and call attention to it

A third approach is to just let people sit wherever they want, and then address the seating arrangement if needed.

Letting it happen has two advantages over the two methods above. First, the face-off configuration might not happen. Maybe the participants will sit more or less randomly. Second, by calling attention to the face-off arrangement, and noting its risks, you present the two teams with an opportunity to work out an issue that is probably much simpler than the negotiation itself. They then have a chance to practice solving a problem together, and a chance for a quick victory.

The third approach is an example of a problem solving strategy based on doing nothing, or doing very little. Minimal intervention often works best.  Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Conflict Management:

You and I

In tense discussions, the language we use often contributes to the tension. If we can transform the statements we make about each other into statements about ourselves, we can eliminate an important source of tension and stress.

Hostile Collaborations

Sometimes collaboration with people we hold in low regard can be valuable. If we enter a hostile collaboration without first accepting both the hostility and the value, we might sabotage it outside our awareness, and that can render the effort worthless — or worse. What are the dynamics of hostile collaborations, and how can we do them well?

Ending Conversations

At times, we need to end the current conversation. It's going nowhere, or we have something important to do, or we just don't want to deal with the other person. Here are some suggestions for ending conversations.

Rapid-Fire Attacks

Someone asks you a question. Within seconds of starting to reply, you're hit with another question, or a rejection of your reply. Abusively. The pattern repeats. And repeats again. And again. You're being attacked. What can you do?

Compulsive Talkers at Work: Power

Compulsive talkers are unlikely to change their behavior in response to your polite (or even impolite) requests. In this second part of our exploration, we consider the role of power — both personal and organizational.

See also Conflict Management and Emotions at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming November 20: Paid-Time-Off Risks

Associated with the trend to a single pool of paid time off from separate categories for vacation, sick time, and personal days are what might be called paid-time-off risks. If your team must meet customer expectations or a schedule of deliverables, managing paid-time-off risks can be important. Available here and by RSS on November 20.

And on November 27: Implicit Interrogations

Investigations at work can begin with implicit interrogations — implicit because they're unannounced and unacknowledged. The goal is to determine what people did or knew without revealing that an investigation is underway. When asked, those conducting these interrogations often deny they're doing it. What's the nature of implicit interrogations? Available here and by RSS on November 27.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info

Public seminars

The Race to the South Pole: Ten Lessons for Project Managers

On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough, but to organizational leaders, business analysts, project sponsors, and project managers, the story is fascinating. Lessons abound. Read more about this program.

Here's a date for this program:

• Gardner Village, 1100 W 7800 S, West Jordan, UT 84084: November 21, Quarterly Training Session, sponsored by Northern Utah Chapter of the Project Management Institute. Register now.
   

The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power

Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.

• A recording of a program presented June 29, 2017, Monthly Webinar, sponsored by Technobility Webinar Series. PMI members can earn 1.0 Category 'A' PDU by viewing this program. View this program now.