Hugh Grant

I’ve thought this email over a lot, I wanted to get it just right

by

Picture the scene:

A man, wearing a pastel flower-print shirt and unmatching shorts, runs down the street after a stylishly dressed woman.

HIM: Um, look.

She turns around.

HIM: Sorry. I just… um, well this is a really stupid question, particularly in view of our recent shopping excursion [they had just been shopping together for the woman’s wedding gown]… but ah… I just wondered… if by any chance, um… ah… well obviously not, because I’m just some git who’s only slept with nine people… but I just wondered… I really feel… um… in short, to recap in a slightly clearer version… in the words of David Cassidy, in fact, while he was still with The Partridge Family… I THINK I LOVE YOU. And I just wondered if by any chance you wouldn’t like to… um… ah… um… no… no… no, of course, not. I’m an idiot. He’s not. Excellent, excellent. Fantastic. Lovely to see you. Sorry to disturb. Better get on.

The man turns to leave.

HER: That was very romantic.

The man turns to face her again and winces.

HIM: Well, I thought it over a lot. I wanted to get it just right.

That’s a scene from the 1994 movie Four Weddings and a Funeral. The man in the scene is played by Hugh Grant, in his typical 90s role as a boyishly charming uber-Englishman.

I bring this scene up because over the last few days, I’ve been talking about denial. When people are faced with a situation… or realization… or personal characteristic that they find unacceptable… and so they take various evasive maneuvers.

Such as for example, making a joke out of it.

That’s what’s happening in the last line of that scene above. Hugh has just put his heart on the line, he’s been tacitly rejected, and he’s made a donkey out of himself.

​​What better way to put it all behind than with a bit of irony?

Vilaynur Ramachandran, the neuroscientist whose book got me thinking about denial in the first place, says that denial explains why so much of humor deals with sensitive topics like sex and death.

​​And I guess it explains 90% of the life work of Woody Allen.

So the conclusion is, when you hear people making a joke out of something… well, um… ah… to put it more concretely, in the words of Eric Idle in fact, while he was still with Monty Python… WHEN YOU PURSE YOUR LIPS AND WHISTLE, IT MEANS YOU’RE CHEWING ON — but of course. How silly of me. Sorry, terrible. You must already know what I’m getting at. And you wouldn’t perhaps want to… but of course not. No. Excellent. Excellent. Lovely to see you. Better get on.

The one-word fix for rock-solid negotiation mindsets

by

Continuing from yesterday’s discussion of negotiating lessons from Bridget Jones’ Diary:

I promised that a single word can transform a self-serving (and therefore ineffective) mission-and-purpose statement (ie. negotiation goal) into one that is rock-solid.

Let’s quickly revisit the 3 options from the scene in Bridget Jones’ Diary that illustrates this situation.

The scene: Hugh Grant’s character tries to win Bridget back.

Original version:

“I want to get Bridget back because if I can’t make it with her, I can’t make it with anyone.”

Not good, because completely self-serving and without regard to what Bridget wants. Sure enough, Bridget rejects this offer in the actual movie.

Second, a Jim Camp-style version:

“I want to help Bridget see and decide that she will be happy in a new relationship with me, because I am a changed man.”

Better, but in my opinion, still focused too tightly on the goal of winning the negotiation (ie. winning Bridget back).

Like I wrote yesterday, it’s too easy to transfer the first kind of mission-and-purpose statement into this second version, by pretending to care about what the other side wants.

So what’s the fix for this?

Simple.

Use the word “whether”:

“I want to help Bridget see and decide whether she will be happy in a new relationship with me, now that I am a changed man.”

It seems like a small change, but the effects in mindset — and how you negotiate — can be dramatic. (At least, they were whenever I took this attitude in various negotiations.)

Suddenly, you are not focused on trying to get to your pre-determined goal.

Instead, you are calmly and patiently working with the adversary to reach a solution that will last.

Does this work in real life to actually achieve your desired outcome?

Sometimes.

Sometimes not.

It depends on what Bridget (or your adversary) really wants, and how vividly you create the vision of her being happy and of yourself as a changed man.

And yes, there is a real chance that even if you do everything right, the negotiation will still fall through. Bridget might decide that she doesn’t believe you, that she’s been hurt too many times, that she in fact loves someone else now.

Nonetheless, by genuinely allowing yourself the chance to be rejected, you increase your chances of success as well, by negotiating with less neediness and more focus on what the other side wants.

Now of course, this whole discussion ignores the cruel realities of male-female relations, and the fact that many women find selfish and pushy men attractive.

But still, taking this attitude in negotiations — whether romantic or business — is likely to attract the best partners into your life, and to create negotiated solutions that last for the long term.

A failed coup for Hugh

by

I was just on the English seaside, and, along with a few friends, I decided to revisit an English classic:

Bridget Jones’ Diary.

One scene sticks out.

Daniel Cleaver (played by Hugh Grant) is talking to his ex-girlfriend, Bridget Jones (played by Renée Zellweger).

Daniel is a bit of a cad — he cheated on Bridget and left her for another woman.

Now he’s back.

And after getting into a fight with Bridget’s new beau, he tries to win Bridget over with the infinitely romantic line:

“If I can’t make it with you, I can’t make it with anyone.”

To which Bridget bites her lip and says,

“Mm… that’s not a good enough offer for me.”

“Let me tell you what I want from this negotiation…”

I’m just re-reading Jim Camp’s Start with No.

Camp makes a big deal about negotiators having a “mission and purpose” statement, defined and written out for every negotiation, regardless of how small or informal.

So for example, in the case above, Daniel Cleaver apparently wrote out the following mission and purpose before heading over to Bridget’s:

“I want to get Bridget back because if I can’t make it with her, I can’t make it with anyone.”

“Wrong!” says Camp.

Daniel has made a classic negotiating mistake: he set his mission and purpose in his own world.

That won’t work. You can’t focus on what you want because your ultimate goal is to get the other person to make a decision. And you can only influence her indirectly.

That’s why you have to make your mission and purpose set in her world — not yours.

Daniel wants Bridget to take him back. So Camp would advise Daniel to change his mission and purpose to something like:

“I want to help Bridget see and decide that she will be happy in a new relationship with me, because I am a changed man.”

Better, right? He now has a fighting chance.

But here’s the trouble.

I feel that this second type of mission and purpose statement still doesn’t go far enough.

I feel like it’s too easy to change the first type of M&P into the second type:

I want something -> I want to help my adversary see and decide that what I want is also the best for them

This kind of lame mission and purpose can create all sorts of problems.

For example, not trying to understand your adversary as well as you should.

Or not building enough vision in her mind.

Or even getting needy.

All three of these are cardinal sins in the Jim Camp system of negotiation. So I’m surprised he didn’t think of them when talking about the mission and purpose statement.

The good news is it’s easy to fix this mission & purpose problem. In fact, the fix requires just one word.

Even though this fix is simple, the effects on how you negotiate — and how you’re perceived by the adversary — can be enormous.

But I’m still tired from my trip. So I’ll cover all this, including the magic M&P word, in full detail tomorrow.