Stu Kliman was the speaker and he encouraged alliance managers to move from "positional bargaining", where the role of the alliance manager is to claim maximum value from a fixed pie - to "joint problem solving", where the role of the alliance manager is to work together to create and distribute value.
Sound good in theory, why is this so difficult to do in practice?
The ladder of inference
Stu talked about the concept of "partisan perceptions". We each form perceptions based on the data we access (or that we choose to filter). Imagine you have a ladder and you sit it in a pool of data. You then "move up the ladder" by forming conclusions and a point of view based on where you placed your ladder. Imagine that your partner is doing the same thing. Two parties, two different ladders, two different perspectives on the seemingly same situation.
Psychological studies have shown that we each have an operating principle that partisan perceptions exist in "other people", but not in us!
Alliance management is all about managing differences and these differences contribute greatly to partisan perceptions. For example, you partner with a company that that has complementary skills or products. Because of differences in your cultures and business models, they see you as slow and bureaucratic, you see them as arrogant and imprudent. Partisan differences abound.
The best way to break this logjam is to make sure that you are striking a balance between advocacy and intimacy in your alliance conversations.
Advocacy vs. intimacy
Advocacy involves advocating for your position. It's a completely self-centered perspective. Intimacy involves "learning through dialog" - assuming that you are not in possession of all the facts, and engaging in an open conversation with your partner to understand their perspective.
Learning through dialog requires an authentic, genuine curiosity to understand the partner's ladder of inference. You have to climb down from your ladder, see where your partner has planted his ladder, and climb up his ladder of inference to truly understand things from his perspective.
Stu invited us to think about our last difficult alliance conversation and then to "script" the conversation by writing down the dialog (what we said, what they said). He asked us to put an "A" next to statements that we made that were all about advocacy and an "I" next to statements that were about intimacy. Not surprisingly most of us had a lot of "A's" on our paper!
Don't be a "Straight A" student!
When parties get stuck in alliance discussions, it's usually because they were "straight A students" solely focused on advocacy!
Next time you have to have a difficult alliance conversation, make sure you "check your ladder". This is one of the few times in your life when you want to avoid being a straight A student.
Stu indicated that the recording of the webinar should be on their website shortly. You can check for it on Vantage Partner's website.
