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.
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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenlMaljBCYWAqBYBgJner@ChackFeOZvXDwLiLizhAoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Conflict Management:
- Top Ten Signs of a Blaming Culture
- The quality of an organization's culture is the key to high performance. An organization with a blaming
culture can't perform at a high level, because its people can't take reasonable risks. How can you tell
whether you work in a blaming culture?
- What You See Isn't Always What You Get
- We all engage in interpreting the behavior of others, usually without thinking much about it. Whenever
you notice yourself having a strong reaction to someone's behavior, consider the possibility that your
interpretation has outrun what you actually know.
- 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?
- Seventeen Guidelines About Workplace Bullying
- Bullying is a complex social pattern. Thinking clearly about bullying is difficult in the moment because
our emotions can distract us. Here are some short insights about bullying that are easy to remember
in the moment.
- The Discontinuity Effect: What and Why
- Counterproductive competition is more likely in group-group interactions than in one-to-one or one-to-group
interactions. Why does counterproductive competition happen?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming September 26: Congruent Decision-Making: I
- Decision-makers who rely on incomplete or biased information are more likely to make faulty decisions. Congruent decision-making can limit the incidence of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on September 26.
- And on October 3: Congruent Decision-Making: II
- Decision-makers who rely on incomplete or biased information are more likely to make decisions that don't fit the reality of their organizations. Here's Part II of a framework for making decisions that fit. Available here and by RSS on October 3.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmRiFMPNAVzEPZMhZner@ChacrUNZDDfGjAodXBEuoCanyon.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, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
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
- 10 Non-Technical Phenomena That Lead to Technical Debt
- When organizations set about gaining control of their accumulated and newly incurring technical debt, a common error of thinking is that the problem can be addressed by modifying their technical processes alone. That can be effective in cases in which the causes of technical debt are found only in the engineering and IT organizations. But those cases are rare. This program surveys ten examples of organizational phenomena that lead to technical debt and which are not restricted to the engineering or IT organizations. Indeed, many of these phenomena cannot be found in the engineering or IT organizations, or if found there, they have relatively small effects on technical debt. For each of the ten phenomena, we describe how it leads to technical debt formation or persistence, and what can be done to mitigate its effects. Most important, we explain how effective control of technical debt requires contributions from a broad array of organizational roles. Read more about this program. Here's a date for this program:
- 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.