Alexandra Carter 

Carter, A. (2020) Ask For More: 10 Questions to Ask to Get What You Want Simon andSchuster: London

This book purchase was spurred by one of those TED talks by the Author talking about her canoe trip as a metaphor for negotiation – negotiation being more about steering rather than confrontation. In much the same vein as Gavin Kennedy, or Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Fisher & Uri), Alexandra Carter focuses on gathering information, about asking questions and listening, rather than digging your heels in the ground and repeating your demands louder.

While such texts do emphasise discovering what the other party wants, it is often assumed that you already know what you want for yourself. Carter does not make this fundamental assumption, and though she devotes half the book to discovery of the other party, she also allocates the first half to the discovery of the self. She calls these two aspects the mirror (examining the self) and the window (examining the other) and poses the same five basic questions of both sections.

The mirror

As the metaphor of the mirror suggests, this section is about self-reflection. Many people think that negotiation starts when you sit down at the table with the other party. This labours under the assumption that you are already clear about what you want. Often, however, this is not so and hinders talks. The mirror section, then, is about ensuring that you do know, and this is achieved through asking yourself the set of five open questions.

The window

On the other hand, the window is about looking outside yourself when you are in that meeting or negotiation. The same five open questions are put to the other party in order to fully understand their concerns and needs.

The questions: Your turn in the mirror

Carter poses the same 5 questions: first to yourself, then to the other party. She also offers troubleshooting tips when the answers don’t come easily.

1. What is the problem?

This is a question about the thing I want to solve – a solution that serves my needs. Continuing with the negotiation as steering metaphor, defining the problem indicates a clear destination and suggests a roadmap of how to get there. Persisting with the question digs out the underlying issue or reveals the bigger picture. Discovering what you are really trying to achieve, even before considering any solution, means that you don’t go down the rat-hole of solving the wrong problem. In a similar way to NLP’s well-formed outcome, the way the situation is defined affects how it is considered and approached: many problem statements are less than helpful. A backward looking statement in the negative (of what you don’t want) is rigid, On the other hand, a positive statement of what you want to have in the future suggests possibility. Going further, turning that into a “how” type question shifts emphasis towards finding a solution.

2. What do I need?

That there is a problem is an indication that a need is not being met, the solution therefore, is action in service of that need. Such needs, values and aspirations often evade us, yet it is our needs, not demands, that drive negotiation. Carter goes into Maslow along with tangible needs and those that are intangible; important values such as respect, reputation, success, security, and so on. Her posing of the open question “can you say more?” is reminiscent of Grovian Clean Language, in that it digs deeper into what the issue is really about. A negotiation about money may belie a deeper need that is more fundamental than just the money itself. Such peering in the mirror may expose internal conflicts, resolution being a negotiation with the self, before any other. Furthermore, certain needs that may seem selfish or not socially acceptable, yet they are drivers of behaviour – gnothi seauton! Another NLP-like question is “What would that look like?” This question of having a sensory representation converts some intangible needs into something concrete.

3. What do I feel?

Traditional wisdom has it that feelings are unproductive, irrational, and of no relevance in negotiation. But, in reality, feelings are ever present and feelings do impact abilities. Anger, frustration, anxiety, overwhelm, guilt, and fear are common, and it is important to acknowledge these to yourself, otherwise they will fester. Recognising negative feelings allows you to turn them around by asking ‘what would help me to eliminate that feeling?’ Examining feelings also has the potential to unveil more positive feelings like empathy, or finding the fun in human interaction or generating ideas. 

4. How have I handled this successfully in the past?

We all have cognitive biases, one of them is remembering previous failures while forgetting the many previous successes that have occurred, and a tendency to turn mountains to molehills, which is hardly a solution focused state of mind. By reminding ourselves of our previous successes then this puts the next negotiation into context: that there have been successes in the past. OK, those solutions might not have been precisely the ones required for the presenting problem, but they might be generalisable in some way, and above that, this reflection primes conducive emotions for facing that negotiation.

5. What’s the first step?

Any large task can seem daunting on the face of it. To chunk down into more bite size tasks reduces this sense of overwhelm. Identifying and tackling a small first task builds momentum, and that one step alleviates the feeling that you need to know all the answers now. Another revealing question, known as “reverse thinking”, is ‘what is the worst step I could take’?

Practice

I have tried this in, what might not be a conventional negotiation over money or something, but rather, in eliciting requirements. It does fit in well, as an overall framework, with such as SPIN selling framework, and with such as the meta-model of NLP offered by the Structure of Magic. It’s only 5 simple questions to remember really, of which I can write in my notes in preparation for a meeting. Even in such “non-negotiations”, it does bring out the other party, rather than me just blabbing, and it does seem to make for better rapport and better communication.

Cliology: So What?

Ask For More is ostensibly about negotiating, or as Carter has it, steering. I would put such under the rubric of influence, which cliology is very much related. The key distinction of Ask For More is looking in the mirror; it is about developing a clear sense of self-awareness and of what you want. Cliology, on the other hand, emphasises “holo-fluence”: the recursive pattern of influence that is contracted throughout a population (“holo” as whole, might be preferential to “meta” in prefixing “-fluence” ie. flow). While cliology, embracing engineering principles, is an act of will, and directed to some desired outcome, it is instrumental. It more or less makes the assumption that the intent is already well-formed and its concern is more on how to spread actionable information. 

In terms of influence then Ask For More, the Window section, is more about direct communication with another, and likely to be on a one-to-one basis. It is concerned with the first step, getting over that hurdle. It does not consider getting the other person to pass on the negotiation down the chain. To make the ideas in Ask For More recursive, then that would necessitate passing copies of the book (or persuading the other to buy it) and having them recommend the book to others. However, while the making of a meme here would be a difficult call, the ideas are complementary to cliology as the “first steps” may invoke a “patient zero” scenario.