The LIFT Blog

By Robert E. Quinn

I have been reading a book called The Power of a Positive No: Save the Deal, Save the Relationship – and Still Say No. The book is written by William Ury, one of the cofounders of the Harvard Program on Negotiation. In the book, Ury tells a story about a session he was asked to facilitate between the leaders of Chechnya and Russia. The objective was to end the war between the two countries.    The vice president of Chechnya began the session with an attack on the Russian leaders.  He accused them of war crimes and indicated they would be tried for their crimes.  He then turned to Ury and said; “You Americans have been supporting the Russians in their war crimes!  And, what is more, you are violating the rights of self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico!”

As vice president continued his attack, Ury’s inclination was predictable:  He was filled with negative emotions.  After all, he was simply there to help.  He felt unjustly attacked, and asked himself, “What do I know about Puerto Rico?” He considered his alternatives.  He wondered if he should, accept the treatment, respond in kind, or say nothing at all. In considering these three alternatives, he was thinking in a very traditional way.    Here we might ask ourselves how we would think in this same situation.

Self-Regulation

Ury did not respond in any of the ways he was inclined to respond. Instead, he regulated his behavior. Self-regulation is the capacity to control our feelings, thoughts and behaviors as we pursue our life goals.  Self-regulation has much to do with our sense of self-efficacy or the belief that we can accomplish a given goal.

In a review of the research on self-regulation and self-efficacy, James E Maddux [1] indicates that self regulation depends on three linked components: our goals, our self-evaluative reactions to performance, and our beliefs about self-efficacy. A summary of these findings include:

• As we set self-regulation goals (such as “I will lose 20 pounds”) we also create performance standards and the motivation to meet those standards.  Because we desire an envisioned outcome, we seek to regulate our feelings, thoughts and behaviors (I will not respond to my desire to eat ice cream).  In the process we monitor and evaluate our progress as well as our ability to achieve that progress (I have not eaten ice cream for two weeks and I believe I can continue to abstain from ice cream for the rest of this diet.)
• Self-evaluative reactions play a key role in self-regulation.  As we evaluate ourselves against our own goals and standards we have emotional reactions (“I feel great about my progress to date”).  These emotional reactions then link back on our beliefs about our capacity to perform (“I can do this”).  The belief that we can accomplish our goal is called self-efficacy.
• Self efficacy loops back on our capacity to self-regulate.  Positive emotions and high self efficacy lead to more adaptive behaviors and then to an even increased ability to self-regulate.  Negative emotions and low self-efficacy lead to less adaptive behaviors and less ability to self regulate.
• The literature suggests several things about self-efficacy and successful performance.  First, self-efficacy influences the goals that are set.  The higher our sense of self-efficacy, the more ambitious we are in the goal setting process.  Second, high self-efficacy leads to perseverance, which tends to lead to increased success, which tends to loop back and increase our self efficacy beliefs.  Third, high self-efficacy is related to the efficiency and effectiveness of our information processing.  When we have high self-efficacy and face a sense of challenge, we tend to remain focused on the challenge and continue the search for desirable alternatives.  If we have low self-efficacy, we tend to focus on own inadequacies and our abilities decline.

This process of self-regulation, then, is critical to success in difficult activities–including activities such as choosing how to respond well to criticism from the vice president of Chechnya.

Responding Well

Ury’s negative feelings, left unchecked, would have led him to close off any other options other than accepting the vice president’s treatment, responding in kind, or saying nothing at all.None of these strategies, though, would have improved trust or addressed the issues underlying the conflict.

Ury went into his own “balcony,” pausing to search for more desirable alternatives. In the process, he changed his negative feelings into positive feelings. He moved his focus from the “reality” of the situation to the “reality” of his emotions.  At this moment, his emotions were more important than situation itself.  He had to change them first.  Once he shifted to positive emotions he could embrace new alternatives.  After negotiating with his emotions first, he said:

“I hear your criticism of my country and I take it as a sign that we are among friends and can speak candidly with each other.  I know your people have suffered terribly.  What we are here to do is to find a way to stop the suffering and bloodshed in Chechnya.  Let us try to come up with some practical steps that can be taken today.”

This response is impressive.  By regulating himself, Ury reframed the attack for himself and for others.  Expectations are changed so the people in the room can now do things that would have been impossible before.  By changing himself, Ury is able to alter the conversation which then changes the relationship between two warring counties.

What did Ury do in his “balcony?” He clarified his purpose and found the courage to create the kind of setting that he knew was necessary to his purpose. Instead of reacting, he stayed focused on the challenge. Instead of being externally directed, that is, concerned about how he might look to the audience, he clarified and acted from his own values.  Such value clarification gives rise courage necessary to be authentic.  He also became other-focused, identifying the needs and interests of his attacker.  He could then honor the feelings of his attacker.  He is also became externally open and invited the others to join him in an open exploration of how to move forward.

Self-regulation has much to do with transformational influence. When we experience negative feelings we can train ourselves to pause and transform those feelings into positive ones.  The transformation of our own feelings can transform conversations, organizations, or even a war between two countries.   We can use self-regulation to enter the lift state and exercise extraordinary personal power.

[1] Maddux, James E. (2002). Self-efficacy: The power of believing you can. In Snyder, C. R. (Ed); Lopez, Shane J. (Ed). Handbook of positive psychology. (pp. 277-287). London: Oxford University Press. xviii, 829pp.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 at 4:05 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.