allPM.com :: Brinkmanship Article by Kate McLeod

Brinkmanship Article by Kate McLeod

Published on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 08:59 PM

Webster’s on-line dictionary defines brinkmanship as follows:

The practice, especially in international politics, of seeking advantage by creating the impression that one is willing and able to push a highly dangerous situation to the limit rather than concede.

Perhaps the most famous example of brinkmanship in recent history is the Cuban Missile Crisis. For seven days in October, 1962, President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev faced off over the installation of weapons on a secret Soviet base in Cuba. In the opinion of some military analysts, this was the closest we have ever been to igniting a nuclear war. As famously stated by Secretary of State Dean Rusk: “We're eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked�?.

Matters of war notwithstanding, why do we engage in this one-upmanship behaviour? I see this constantly in the workplace. Of course, it is not always obviously threatening. It can take the form of offhand comments, or actions that are contrary to the corporate direction. Sometimes it is what it is: “If you don’t do X, I will be forced to do Y.�?

As I write this, the largest public service union in Canada is poised for strike action. Such action would paralyze the workings of our Federal government. Conventional bargaining, negotiation and conciliation were unsuccessful. The last strike by this union in 1991 left bad feelings that are still alive and well today. I’m not interested in exploring the merits of union organizations; I’m interested in why the communication so often fails in situations such as this.
What inevitably happens is that the strike occurs, disrupting normal operations. The ripple effects are numerous and far reaching whether a strike is in the public or private sector: product and service delivery is interrupted, invoices are not paid, consumables are not consumed, suppliers and sub-contractors feel the pain. The striking workers lose pay; personal debt may increase. The wage increase is often offset by the amount of pay lost during strike action. Those who cross picket lines are sometimes shunned. In the case of the Canadian government, the workers are usually legislated back to work and the contract determined by the employer without negotiations.

It’s pretty much a lose-lose situation for all concerned. If you have ever experienced such a situation on a project team, you know how devastating it can be for morale. It should be avoided at all costs. I thought that it might be a good time to review the methods of communication that help us to get people to follow our preferred course of action, without making them feel like they have given up something in the process.

In the text that follows, I am referencing concepts and ideas articulated by Vijay Verma in Human Resource Skills for the Project Manager, © PMI, 1996. Of all Project Management textbooks I bought over the course of two years while studying for my Project Management Certificate, this was by far the most useful, insightful, plain-language explanation of aspects of human behaviour in Project Management.

Verma dedicates three of the seven chapters in this book to conflict and negotiation, obviously recognizing both as critical aspects to overall project communication. The style of negotiation that is closet to brinkmanship is called “firm competition�? by Verma. This takes place when the negotiator uses his position or power to extract gains that are to his benefit. In this strategy, “…people may become very aggressive, bluff, threaten the other party, or misrepresent their intentions. “ In this method, people are willing to risk their relationships. [p. 157] Obviously this is not the optimal method to use on your project team.

I fail to understand why people use this approach at all. I don’t react well when I am put in an impossible, lose-lose situation, so why would I expect anyone else to? There’s a lot of wisdom in the old adage, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.�? It is possible to treat people with respect and still be firm on your needs. You don’t have to concede everything, but you may have to concede something.

The approach I favour when I know that my client/staff/boss is not going to be entirely happy with a certain situation is this: I ask, “What would be your ideal outcome, if you could have it turn out any way you wanted and there were no barriers?�? Then I try and see how close I can come to this ideal, maintaining a balance of all stakeholders’ needs and desires. Verma calls this type of negotiation an “interactive negotiation strategy�? and states that it “…should be based upon the interests and priorities (associated with both substantive outcome and relationships) of both parties.�? [p 157]

Verma also recommends separating people from the problem: “Put yourself in the other party’s shoes and separate the substance of the negotiation from the relationships and personalities involved. Give credit for good advice and ideas of others and develop a proposal consistent with their values and fair to both parties�?. [p. 146] Raise your hand if this is as difficult for you as it is for me, especially that part about removing personalities from the mix. I am a creature subject to emotions, and if someone has burned me in the past, I will not be willing to go above and beyond the call of duty for them in the future.

Having said that, as a manager I try not to let personalities come into the mix, but sometimes in the heat of the moment, I forget. This is a skill that I need to work on, and one way that I attempt to deal with this is by agreeing to take the suggestion under advisement, and get back to the person within the next day or so. This gives me some cooling off time, and psychological distance to consider the issue from a rational, as opposed to emotional, perspective. I often also bounce things off trusted colleagues, who can help me see the issue in logical perspective. This is a form of third party facilitation, which Verma indicates can be a great option in cases where the opposing parties cannot get along.

There’s a very senior manager in my workplace whose approach I very much admire. Not only can he quickly separate the rhetoric from the substance, but he can also articulate the crux of each party’s issues with respect and afford equal weight to their respective arguments. He speaks calmly and listens attentively. This is a person I would definitely want at the table for any critical negotiations. Since that is not really realistic as we play in different sandboxes, the best I can do is take every opportunity to watch him in meetings and to try and adopt some of that behaviour myself.

Negotiating a compromise that leaves everyone feeling good about the experience is difficult at the best of times and extremely stressful when the relationships of the players degrade. The one thing to avoid at all times is the type of brinkmanship I described at the beginning of this article – someone always comes out on the losing end and feels bad about it. If you find yourself on the losing end, the mature way to handle it is to accept that while you don’t agree, you respect that the decision was taken and you will adhere to the outcomes. A close friend constantly reminds me that no matter what happens, I still go home at night to a comfortable home and a loving family. I’m healthy and enjoy pursuits outside of the office. In the grand scheme of things, the current conflict or negotiation doesn’t really matter. The next time you find yourself eyeball to eyeball with someone, try and keep that in mind. I’ll make you a deal: I’ll try if you will.

© 2004 allPM.com

How well does management support newly assigned project managers?