Common Sense Ideas for Becoming the Career Star You Are Meant to Be

Today is Friday, so this post is on interpersonal competence.

Interpersonally competent people think win-win.  They see the world as a non zero sum game.  Simply put, in a zero sum game, there is a winner and a loser.  In a non zero sum game, no one has to lose, everyone can win.  When you think win-win, you are thinking mutual benefit and showing respect to the other person.  You negotiate fairly, with an open mind.  You’re willing to compromise in an effort to find a solution that suits and benefits everyone. 

Over the years I have learned an important point about thinking win-win.  It’s pretty simple.  Instead of focusing on where I disagree with another person, I focus on where I agree with him or her. 

This is a small, but powerful mindset shift.  Here’s why. When you focus on where you disagree with another, you begin to find fault with everything he or she says.  When you focus on where you agree, you begin to find hidden gems in everything he or she says.  Focusing on where you agree allows you to jointly build an agreement that is beneficial to everyone.

Read on...

Let me give you an example of how focusing on agreement instead of differences could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue.  This happened in professional hockey in North America a few years ago. 

The contract between the National Hockey League and its Players Association was up at the end of the 2004/2005 season.  At that time, the owners were feeling that players’ salaries had gotten out of hand.  They wanted to find a way of managing expenses.  They proposed a salary cap (meaning that each team could spend only X dollars total for all of the players on its roster).  The Players Association was completely opposed to a salary cap. 

Negotiations dragged on through the summer months.  By the time the season was ready to start, the two sides still had not reached an agreement.  The start of the season was postponed.  Finally, the entire season was cancelled.  Everybody lost – the owners, the players, the TV stations and networks that carried hockey, not to mention the fans.

The salary cap was the main sticking point.  The owners insisted that they must have a salary cap.  The player said “no way”.  All discussions focused on both sides reiterating their point about the salary cap – becoming more strident the longer the dispute went on.  In short, both sides focused on where they disagreed.

Interestingly, both sides had a point on which they agreed.  During separate press conferences at the end of every unsuccessful negotiating session, both the owners’ spokesperson and players’ spokesperson would say the same thing: “we want to do what’s best for the game”. 

Not a bad starting place for resolving differences.  In my book, a cancelled season was not in the best interest of the game.  The point being that while both sides said they wanted to do what was best for the game, they didn’t act that way.  Had they negotiated from a place of agreement – do what’s best for the game, instead of disagreement – salary cap vs. no salary cap, I believe they would have reached an agreement.

OK.  That’s an example of ignoring the advice to focus on where you agree, not disagree with another person.  Here’s a positive example.  Many years ago, I wanted to buy a house.  I wanted to buy one specific house.  The owner wanted to sell the house, and he wanted to sell it to me (probably because I was the only one showing any real interest).  However, I had recently started my business and just moved to Denver.  I had yet to establish a track record as a self employed consultant, and I had no long standing relationships with local mortgage lenders.  I couldn’t get a loan. 

I went to my bank (who I assumed wanted to lend me money if they could justify the risk) and said, “if I can convince the seller to do a lease with an option to buy, will you lend me the money after two years?”  They said, “yes, as long as you meet our income criteria.”  I had already booked enough business going forward that I knew I would comfortably meet their income standards.

Now, all I had to do was convince the seller to go along.  I went to him and explained my situation.  I offered a deal where I would rent the house for two years.  At the end of the two years, I would buy the house for his current asking price.  Half of the money I paid him in rent would be applied to the down payment on the house. 

This suited me as my issue was not cash flow, but a lack of a track record as a self employed individual and a relationship with a local lending institution.  It suited him because he wanted to get out from the burden of his monthly mortgage payments.  It suited the bank, as I would meet their lending criteria at the end of the two year period.  It was a win-win-win.  I bought the house and enjoyed living there for several years.

It was a win-win-win because I focused on the points where everyone agreed.  I wanted the house, the seller wanted to sell it to me, and the bank wanted to lend me money if I could establish a track record.

The common sense point here: look for places where you agree with another person.  Build on them to resolve differences.  If you do this, you’ll become a more interpersonally competent person.  And interpersonal competence is a key to becoming the star you are meant to be.

That’s it for today.  Thanks for reading.  Log on to my website www.BudBilanich.com for more common sense.  Check out my other blog: www.CommonSenseGuy.com for common sense advice on leading people and running a small business.

I’ll see you around the web, and at Alex’s Lemonade Stand.

Bud

PS: Speaking of Alex’s Lemonade Stand – my fundraising page is still open.  Please go to www.FirstGiving.com/TheCommonSenseGuy to read Alex’s inspiring story and to donate if you can.