Year: 2009

I was surprised that the part of my post about negotiation on Tuesday that drew the greatest number of comments was “It’s a really scummy thing when people do this to you, and it’s just as scummy if you do it to them” in relation to dirty tricks pulled by car dealers (and my advocating that you shouldn’t try to pull dirty tricks back on them).  It was especially surprising, as I’d put a teaser in the post that I expected to get SOMEONE to ask for details about:  “There are ethical ways that you can get a fair deal from a car dealership which are far more likely to work.”  Commenters seemed to be more interested in pulling a dirty trick on a car dealer than on getting a better deal!

Rather than turning the comment section into a back and forth where people repeatedly assert what they feel is “right”, in this post I’m hoping to outline the reasons why I made that statement, and the limitations of the other perspectives offered. I’ll be using this definition of values, morals and ethics in this post.

In “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” Robert Pirsig makes the assertion that ethical codes are used to judge and attack OTHER people, and aren’t used to guide the behaviours of the group itself (as it’s a codification of things all members of the group already understand).  Whether it’s hippies (calling other people “squares”) or Victorians the code’s purpose is to attack.  Hopefully I’ll avoid doing that here.

I find the golden rule (“Do onto others as you would have them do onto you“) to be a fairly good guiding principle that fits well with my values.  I’m a fairly empathic person, and can usually see things from other people’s perspective, such that if I treat someone badly it really makes ME feel like crap.

I’ve jokingly suggested to friends a modification to this rule: “Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.  And assume other people follow the same rule.”  What this twist lets us do is assume that how people treat us is how they WANT to be treated, and allows us to take revenge as long as it’s poetic justice:  we wrong them in the same way they wrong us, but with the deliberate misunderstanding that they desire for this to happen.

A number of comments seemed to base their perspective on similar ideas.  “Car dealers try to pull dirty tricks on customers, so its OK for us to do the same thing to them.”  I think this is the wrong way to approach the situation for a number of reasons.

1. This is how feuds start.  You retaliate against them, car dealers (and their salesmen) justify their actions as saying “see, the customers are doing the same thing to us!” and they start using even dirtier, more unethical approaches.  Eventually the entire marketplace becomes so disreputable that it collapses.  As has been written about before, I think this change is happening for real estate agents, and I suspect car dealerships will increasingly adopt a “no haggle” policy (as Saturn has done) as the Internet allows sale prices to become increasingly easy to determine.
2. This can bleed over into other negotiations you enter where the other person *IS* behaving honourably.  Once you’ve seen that you can use the dirty trick to get a good deal, the temptation will be there to use it more often.  As my friend got used to doing it in real estate deals, and eventually attacked me with the same trick.  “Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will…“
3. It harms YOU when you behave badly.  There’s a group of Internet videos which are of people torturing Tickle Me Elmos (such as dowsing him in gasoline and burning him while he dances and sings).  This doesn’t hurt the doll in any way (it’s not alive), however it DOES harm the torturer.  “The point isn’t whether it’s an issue for the creature. It’s what does it do to us.”  Serial killers usually get started torturing animals, in situations like this I think the toy is clearly a proxy for an animal or something that COULD experience pain.  Whether torturing animals contributes to eventual criminal behaviour or is an early sign of underlying issues is a debatable point, but I think it’s fair to say bad behaviour often leads to more bad behaviour.

jesse made the comment “So what is negotiation but extracting more money from the naive?” which I HOPE implies a misunderstanding on one of our parts.  My view of negotiation is it’s a “dialogue to resolve disputes“.  We’re negotiating with our partner when we argue about who should wash the dishes or change the baby’s diaper, and we’re negotiating with a car dealer when we disagree about the price.  To view negotiation as a method for preying on the “naive” and making their (probably already pretty bad) lives worse to benefit ourselves is a remarkably callous approach to life.  This attitude could result from someone who has been forced into a job that requires them to prey on unsophisticated buyers (and they adopt this attitude so they can live with themselves).  In such a case I think they should immediately quit and find a new way to earn a living as their current profession is causing them significant harm.  If they’ve come to this belief on their own, sadly I think they’re defective as human beings, and I can just about guarantee that there will be unhappiness that results from this in their future.

My favourite Jerry Seinfeld joke is:

“According to most studies, people’s number one fear is public speaking. Number two is death. Death is number two. Does that sound right? This means to the average person, if you go to a funeral, you’re better off in the casket than doing the eulogy.”

Like most people, I always *HATED* having to speak in public.  I come by it honestly:  my mother tells a story where she had to give a class presentation in high school and she was so nervous she went to her family doctor and tried to get tranquilizers.

In large part BECAUSE so many people are uncomfortable speaking to a group, it can be a valuable skill in just about any occupation (it’s rare and therefore valued).  My father was middle management at a factory and, within the union and within management, people who could stand in front of a group and yack for a few minutes would often be promoted far beyond their intelligence or ability should have allowed.  A neighbour of ours was always willing to get up in front of a group to give an impromptu speech and despite being lazy he moved up the ranks at the post office (he went from being a letter carrier to travelling around doing training at various regional offices).

If you’re looking for a skill to develop that could help you with your career advancement, without knowing anything more about your situation I’d bet that public speaking would be a good choice (it’d be hard to go wrong with writing or sales either).

I’m not a gifted orator (by any means), but I’ve gone from being petrified at the idea of speaking to a small group to being able to give technical talks to over 100 people.

Step 1:  Realize most people feel the same way you do

I think the first step in developing public speaking skills is to realize that almost everyone is very nervous speaking in public.  It’s not something that you either have or you don’t, it’s a skill that most people who give talks have developed over time.

I’ve given up on learning a second language or a musical instrument.  I’ve tried (and failed) repeatedly at both and I just don’t have the aptitude (or enough interest / dedication).  Conversely I’ve known a large number of people who have dramatically improved in their speaking skills while I’ve known them, despite initial reservations.  I’ve never known anyone who kept working at speaking in public and DIDN’T improve.

Step 2:  Find a place to practice

Unfortunately this is a hands on skill.  You can’t master it by reading about it.  Talk in public every chance you get.  Create chances to speak in public by signing up for drama (if you’re still in school) or auditioning for a play.  If there’s a group in your area, join Toastmasters or the Dale Carnegie public speaking course.

By nature I’m a raging introvert.  In high school I realized that being shy and unwilling to talk to groups would severely hold me back in life, so I acted in the school play one year (2 whole lines baby!) and started a school newspaper (and assembled and managed the staff).  After a year of doing both of these I was more than willing to throw myself in front of a group and say something.

Step 3:  Get feedback

I’m a big believer that to improve at any skill you need feedback (or the ability to accurately evaluate your own performance).  Toastmasters and the Dale Carnegie course both have this feedback built in (and a good director of a play may give some useful feedback).

Step 4:  Accept the nervousness

Realize that for many people (such as myself) speaking in public will always be a fairly nerve-wracking experience.  When I’m presenting to a graduate course (about a dozen people) I get butterflies and have to go to the bathroom every 15 minutes beforehand.  I have been complimented repeatedly on my presentations, so in spite of nervousness, it’s possible to do a good job.  I get SOME satisfaction from giving a decent presentation or talk, but the nervousness doesn’t disappear.  I think it’s good for us to push ourselves outside our comfort zone at times, so this doesn’t prevent me from accepting opportunities to talk in front of a group.

Step 5:  Continually improve

There are always ways to improve at anything you do.  If you’re the best in the world at something, you can still keep getting better at it.  Sometimes you’ll be satisfied to just use the skills you’ve developed (it takes time and effort to improve), but for the things that are really important to you, it’s possible to keep getting better.  The way to do this is to be reflective about your performance, consider ideas for improvement from others or generate ideas for improvement yourself and TEST them.

Are you comfortable speaking in public?  How did you develop this skill if you are?  What is holding you back (besides fear, you chicken 😉 ) if you aren’t?