21–30 of 89 posts
This article reminded me of the "four agreements": "Be impeccable with your word. Don't take anything personally. Don't make assumptions. Always do your best." Not lying falling under the first.
It occurred often, but was by far the least favorite item in the toolbox of a negotiator. Many would rather make emotional / moral appeals to the opposing side than lie.
Not because it wasn't effective (in some cases it could be quite effective), but because the results were very unpredictable. Being called out may undermine the rest of their position... or if they stuck to the lie to avoid this situation they may force themselves into defending a non-ideal positions.
It gets worse! There are now a lot more variables for you to consider, as the hitherto rational party on the other side of the table has been forced to question all of your statements. He is now much more likely to miscalculate true statements and positions as being false. You've now turned your negotiation partner into an (effectively) irrational actor.
"The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." — George Bernard Shaw
Truth forces you to confront your own shortcomings - its an opportunity for self-improvement.
If I miss a deadline I could makeup some baloney and lay the blame elsewhere or I can face my own inadequacy and tell the truth.
Its painful to admit I am behind.... but pain is a growth stimulus - it forces me to deal with the shortcoming. Its easier to lie, tell them what they want to hear - but you miss out on the chance for your own self improvement.
Embrace the pain - its growth. What happens when you lift weights? Sore muscles leads to growing bigger muscles. Swing a hammer for a week, leads to blisters leads to growing calluses.
Anyone has a copy of the article that isn't behind a paywall?
I ask because I can't help but group these qualities together. When someone earns my trust from a track record of being honest, I find it hard not to take their word on things.
I guess I equate being honest with having good overall intentions. Is this an innate (human) quality or just wishful thinking on my part?
I spent a lot of time playing Scrabble where winning would not strictly be the aim, goal and objective. Being 'in the zone' and able to repeatedly put down all seven letters and hit the triple word scores would be where I wanted to be.
Sometimes I played against those that might rummage in the letters bag, perhaps to take an extra tile out and have to 'correct' their mistake by returning a less than desirable letter back into the bag. Obviously on detecting such cheating one could call them out and storm off from the table. However this I did not do because I did actually want to win :-) I realised that the time they spent doing things they should not be doing in order to get 'ideal' letters meant that they were not able to focus in the way I could.
Guess who won?
Scrabble was not the only game played. Bridge was another game played quite extensively where there was room for cheating. Again, honesty won out. However, with other card games - played for money - cheating was a viable strategy, no amount of focus on an honest game could help you to win against the guy that had all the aces under the table.
And my point is...
There are some areas of endeavour where telling the truth and being honest will pay dividends. However there are plenty of other areas where those that are less than honest will win.