The clash of cerebellums

A recent item in BusinessWeek discussed the advantages of studying the psychology of executives - or “targets” - involved in talks regarding large deals. The author (unsurprisingly, a psychiatrist and consultant who specializes in working up psychological profiles of people in negotiations withÂ his clients), made two questionable assertions, and one quite destructive unspoken assumption.

First, he argued that business talks are essentially a psychological process. This is manifestly untrue. Business talks are about the interests of businesses, which can generally be quantified or otherwise assessed from the perspective of the value of the potential investments they are about. The negotiators who engage in them are personalities with individual characteristics that often become bound up in the business discussions, and there is value in understanding this, its possible effects on the talks, and how to work through or around them to a mutually beneficial business resolution. But to characterize them as the essence of the talks is a serious error that can lead to grave consequences. More on that in a moment.

Second, he avows that he can develop an accurate and workable psychological assessment of your negotiating partner based on your reports of your interactions with that partner. This is utter nonsense. All he will be able to create is a fun-house mirror image of this person, distorted by your own psychological tendencies - and, even, insecurities - as your untrained impressions of your “target” are reflected back and forth between you and your putative psychiatrist/consultant. No psychological assessment of a person - certainly not one upon which is to be risked the development of negotiating tactics in a business decision - can be made by any professional psychotherapist based on second-hand reports from an untrained observer. This is a most peculiar assertion to be made so blandly and broadly: treat such products and those who offer them with the greatest skepticism.

Finally, the entire tone of the discussion suggests, as implied by the first assertion, that the relevant factors in these talks are the individuals engaging in them. It is as though the issue at hand is who will win or lose, best the other combatant, or “get it wrong.” It is, in other words, personal; the talks are contests of will or psychological might and endurance between highly coached and prepared individual combatants. The issues at hand receive little or no notice when negotiations are viewed this way.

Stay away from this sort of advice. You are in negotiations in order to achieve a beneficial outcome for your business - all the preparation you can do to help you accomplish that is, of course, valid. But remember what it is about, and never forget that it is most certainly not about you. Truly professional negotiators love to confront partners who fall prey to such nonsense.