Imagine this: Your business department demands critical design changes within a week. The developers claim this is impossible and needs a minimum of a month. The temperature is rising, and accusations of lack of competence and understanding are being made. Sounds familiar? In IT, such conflicts are an everyday reality that can paralyze even the most promising projects.
What will you find in this article?
– Effective FBI Negotiation Techniques in Crisis Situations
– Practical tips on how to resolve conflicts between the business department and developers
– Specific examples of the use of negotiation techniques in IT projects
– Proven methods of building agreement between the parties to the conflict
Shortcuts
Active listening instead of instant solutions
The first step in resolving a conflict is refraining from quick solutions. I know that time is the most valuable resource in galloping IT projects, but sometimes it’s good to stop to understand the basis of the conflict. The FBI uses the technique of “minimal inducements”—short confirmations that encourage the caller to keep talking.
In practice, it’s simple verbal acknowledgments showing the other party you’re listening. Confirmations in question are, for example: “mhm,” “yes,” “I understand,” “aha,” and “continue.” Use phrases that naturally come to mind; they don’t have to be any of the previously mentioned; they should be yours. Most importantly, you should find enough empathy to listen to each party and prepare notes from these meetings. Show both parties that their voice is essential and has an impact on what the final result of the project will be.
Why does this active listening technique work?
You show the other person that their opinion counts and that you are interested in what they say. In addition, by encouraging your interlocutor to continue talking, you gradually take control of the situation, allowing you to find common ground in the next step.
Let’s take a moment to look at an example of a situation in which a negotiator talks to a kidnapper:
Kidnapper: “Nobody understands me! I lost my job, and everything is falling apart…”
Negotiator: “Mhm…”
Kidnapper: “My wife is gone. The children don’t want to talk to me…”
Negotiator: “I understand…”
Kidnapper: “I feel completely alone…”
Negotiator: “Yes…”
In this example, the negotiator uses minimal incentives to allow the kidnapper to express their emotions and frustrations. He does not interrupt does not judge but only gently signals his presence and attention. Research shows that experienced crisis negotiators use this technique in about 66% of active listening cases.
The same technique works great for difficult business conversations, especially when the other party is agitated or frustrated. It allows you to relieve tension and create space for constructive dialogue.
If you decide to use minimum incentives, watch out for the most common mistakes:
Using the exact phrases automatically and repeatedly – then you do not show genuine interest;
Lack of naturalness in reaction – it can be perceived as insincere or manipulative, which will only make the situation worse;
Interrupting the interlocutor’s speech – use interjections only when the interlocutor interrupts the speech;
Using inadequate incentives – incentives are to show that you understand the interlocutor and, in a sense, sympathize with him;
Lack of coherence between verbal wording and body language – you have to listen, not just pretend;
Showing boredom with the conversation or lack of interest;
Trying to take control – wait for the interlocutor to say everything they have to say.
Tactical Empathy
In conflict resolution, the key element is to understand the emotions of both parties. Businesses may feel pressure from customers, while developers are concerned about the quality of the code and the technical consequences of rushing. Tactical empathy is an advanced negotiation tool beyond the traditional understanding of empathy. In this approach, the goal is to understand the other person’s emotions and influence these emotions during the negotiation.
How do we influence the emotions of the other party?
By verbally conveying to the interlocutor that you understand their emotions and motivations. Telling the other person verbally that you know them allows you to build trust and reduce emotional tension, which makes it easier to continue the conversation.
Let’s return to the FBI for a moment. What could an example of a situation in which FBI negotiators use this method look like?
The kidnapper shot several people and is holding hostages. He is in a state of intense emotional agitation and does not trust the services. FBI negotiators face a dilemma – they don’t know if the victims of the shooting will survive, but they know that every minute is worth its weight in gold.
The negotiators decide to provide the kidnapper with information and emotional support by telling him that they understand his agitation related to the fact that he shot several people. Their condition is uncertain, and they assure him that they know his fears and intentions and that he did not want to hurt anyone, but only a coincidence caused the kidnapped people to suffer.
This approach causes the kidnapper to calm down, and a sober assessment of the situation begins to come to the fore, which gives the negotiators further room to negotiate and release the hostages.
Fortunately, we don’t have to deal with kidnappers in projects but often encounter strong emotions. As humans, we do not make rational decisions when we are in strong emotions, so it is worth working on the ability to relieve emotions in others.
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, you can support the other person through active listening. Then, it is worth using the ability to recognize emotions in the other person and name them using phrases such as: “It seems that…” or “It seems to me…” and the like. Use those paraphrasing phrases that are natural to you and confirm the validity of your observations. Before you notice it, the emotions on the other side will subside, and there will be space for understanding.
Calibrated questions
One of the main goals in negotiations is to get the other party to talk. During the conversation, we want to learn about hidden motivations and need to refer to specifics in further conversation instead of spinning in circles looking for a solution.
Let’s see how an FBI negotiator can use this technique when talking to a kidnapper who is holding hostages in a bank.
Starting a conversation
Negotiator: “What would happen if this situation ended safely for everyone?”
Hijacker: “I want a safety guarantee!”
Negotiator: “How do you envision these guarantees?”
Developing the dialogue
Negotiator: “What is most important to you right now?”
Kidnapper: “I don’t want to go to jail!”
Negotiator: “How can we work together to ensure your safety when you leave the building?”
A key moment
Negotiator: “What would have happened if we had released the hostages first?”
Kidnapper: “How do I know you won’t shoot me?”
Negotiator: “How can we prove that we will keep our word?”
This sequence of calibrated questions:
Allows the kidnapper to maintain a sense of control
It encourages him to look for solutions on his own
Reduces emotional tension
Builds trust between parties
As you can see, the key is to use the phrases “how” and “what.” These phrases make it virtually impossible for the other party to give simple “yes”/”no” answers; instead, they encourage longer statements and even reflection on one’s needs and motivations.
How might these questions sound in the context of the project:
– “How can we secure code quality with faster deployment?”
– “What is critical from a business standpoint?”
– “How can we break down changes into smaller, safer stages?”
Finding solutions is just as important as opening the other party to talk. These types of questions engage in finding a solution and build an atmosphere of cooperation instead of confrontation. Maintaining collaboration between all project stakeholders is crucial for the project’s success.
You may be wondering the difference between calibrated and open-ended questions. Open-ended questions can start with words such as “what,” “where,” “when,” “where,” or “why.” They give the respondent complete freedom of speech, and this is not what we want to solve the conflict. Our goal is to keep the interlocutor focused on a specific goal, i.e., finding a solution, and here, the use of the words: “how” and “what” is of fundamental importance.
Building a shared perspective
A project team usually has a common goal: to deliver the product within the expected time and of predetermined quality. Unfortunately, in the turmoil of design, we often forget about this common goal.
How do we build a shared perspective when things get heated in the project?
It is a good idea to start by listening to both sides, including drawing out each party’s hidden needs and motivations. This is the first step in building an agreement. Knowing the hidden goals and motivations, you need to look for points of contact that will allow both parties to feel that they can achieve their goals through cooperation. If the information obtained does not show common ground, or we do not see it, we can always refer to the goal of the project, which is superior and indeed constitutes a point of contact. Sometimes, such an appeal allows you to move on and look for elements common to both parties.
In the search for a common perspective, it is worth using the following questions:
What should the key functionality look like to give value to the customer?
What are the technological limitations?
How do we measure the success of a project?
Let’s take a look at how the FBI uses this technique:
The FBI is moving away from the traditional, objectified treatment of interrogated people. Instead of using terms such as “witness” or “suspect,” the term “client” is used, which helps to build an atmosphere of mutual respect.
The interrogated person is treated with dignity. The interrogator refrains from his opinions and interpretations and does not use intimidation or vulgarism. This builds an atmosphere of trust and reduces the interrogator’s emotional tension, making it easier to obtain key information from him.
Time and Expectation Management
The FBI knows that time pressure can be both an obstacle and a negotiation tool. It is a powerful negotiation tool, and research shows that 80% of decisions are made by parties in the last 20% of the available time. Most people don’t tolerate time pressure, and time is usually the most valuable currency in projects.
However, playing for time comes at a price: increased stress and emotions. It can also lead to decision paralysis, loss of trust in the project team, and bad decisions.
In my opinion, time and expectations management is a very delicate matter. It’s good to communicate the amount of time available and, if necessary, the need for a flexible approach to expectations and scope of work. However, it’s not worth using time as currency in negotiations if emotions are red hot.
How can time pressure be used to negotiate a project’s scope in IT?
Let’s assume that the project expanded the functionality of an already existing system. After agreeing on the scope and date of delivery of the new functionalities to the client, the client returned to the project team with further functionalities that he would like to receive simultaneously.
Usually, this client approach is a source of nerves for the project team, but you can use the client’s request to prioritize individual functionalities. Time cannot be stretched, but we can manage the functionality’s implementation order. Thanks to this approach, the client has a chance to say what they care about most, and the project team can focus on what is most important to the client instead of doing everything at a dizzying pace, which will undoubtedly affect the quality of the functionalities delivered.
Summary
FBI negotiation techniques can significantly improve communication and collaboration in IT projects. The key is understanding that conflict doesn’t have to be destructive. It can be an opportunity to find better solutions.
And what is your experience with conflicts in IT projects? Share your thoughts in the comments! If you think this article can help others – share it on your social media.
