"Power is where power goes." -President Lyndon Baines Johnson
Are you too nice?
Like many leaders, I sometimes wonder: Am I too nice and a pushover — or kind of an asshole? I suspect I land somewhere in the middle, but I doubt I’m the only one who wrestles with this question.
Jewish organizations sit in a tricky spot when it comes to “niceness.” On the one hand, most professionals and lay leaders I know strive to raise the bar on professionalism, which usually means prioritizing data, strategy, and intelligent decision-making.
Yet I’ve lost count of how many times a seemingly obvious best-practice decision was passed over with the refrain, “But we’re a Jewish organization.” I’ve come to understand that what this means is either:
“We can’t make the right decision and still be who we are.”
“Jewish organizations can’t make good decisions.”
That’s an oversimplification — but not by much. At worst, it feels like Jewish leaders are as sophisticated negotiators as Homer J. Simpson:
And, as always, you might be reacting to this opening by triumphantly saying, “Yes! This is exactly what I’ve been telling everyone. Why will no one listen to me?” Just remember: You never know what people say about you…
As such, perhaps it’s better to assume that all Jewish organizations could improve their negotiating skills and strive to do so.
To lead a Jewish organization effectively, you’re negotiating on behalf of a collective. That’s sacred and powerful. But it also means you’re going to have to say “no” — maybe often. And doing that well requires a clear-eyed understanding of what happens when two sides advocate for different needs in negotiations, which brings us to this week’s big idea.
BATNA
Every day, we negotiate.
We negotiate with donors, colleagues, parents, students, children, and even friends. And because professionals and lay leaders
Even when we’re just trying to accommodate someone we care about, there’s still a trade-off in play. They want something. You want something. There is no perfect answer. That’s why you need to understand BATNA.
Short for “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement,” BATNA was introduced by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton in their seminal work, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, which is considered the foundational modern book on negotiation.1
Here's how it works:
Say you’re negotiating a raise. You and your boss agree that one is deserved, but your boss offers less than you want. If you can’t come to terms, what’s your next move? That’s your BATNA — your best fallback option if the current negotiation fails, which Fisher, Ury, and Patton argue is “the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured.”2
If you’ve got a job offer in hand that pays what you’re asking, your BATNA is strong. If not, rejecting your boss’s offer might leave you worse off. As Fisher, Ury, and Patton write, BATNA is “the only standard which can protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would be in your interest to accept.”3
In other words, your BATNA helps you evaluate when to say yes or walk away.
Most people assume negotiation power comes from money or status. But as the authors argue, real power lies in how attractive your alternatives are. “The relative negotiating power of two parties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching an agreement.”4
If Jewish organizations want to overcome the dysfunction that comes from chronic niceness, it starts with recognizing that every difficult conversation is a negotiation — and that good-faith negotiation, more often than not, leads to good outcomes. And when it doesn’t?
That’s where this week’s book comes in.
Hate the Game
If the last section made you a little queasy, you’re not alone.
Because yes, sometimes we get to negotiate in good faith with good people. But not always. Sometimes we encounter people who lie, twist our words, and act like martyrs when they don’t get their way. You know the type.
The world isn’t fair. And if we want our organizations to thrive, we need to get clear on what “winning” means. That’s why I recommend Daryl Fairweather’s Hate the Game: Economic Cheat Codes for Life, Love, and Work.
Dr. Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin and a keen student of behavioral economics, wrote this book to help people see how understanding “the rules that govern games” can transform the way we navigate work, relationships, and more.5 For our purposes, Fairweather offers a sharp lens on what to do when you're in what she calls an “undesirable relationship”6 — a particularly apt description of specific organizational dynamics.
Fairweather urges us to assess both our inside option (what you’re getting from the current arrangement) and your outside options (alternatives you could pursue if the relationship ends). Pretend that the negotiation is like sharing a pie. Using Fairweather’s metaphor:
The inside option is “your share of the current pie.”7
The outside options are “buying a pie from someone else, making your own pie, or eating something else.”8
When someone shows up to a negotiation and demands 100% of the pie—or they’ll leave—chances are they’re bluffing. Most people don’t cut ties after one “no,” especially if it’s a fair and respectful rejection. And if someone does cut ties after a single, reasonable “no”? Then maybe they aren’t the right fit for your organization anyway.
No matter the situation, you cannot negotiate properly unless you fully understand all the options on the table. Perhaps you will get what you want, and maybe you won’t. But if you don’t consider the possible outcomes, you won’t be able to make an informed decision. And while there is not always a “right” decision, an informed decision is often the best decision.
Nice doesn’t mean soft.
Strategic doesn’t mean cold.
The most effective leaders know when to lead with kindness and when to stand firm. If you want to navigate that line with more confidence, it helps to understand your BATNA. And theirs.
Because the real game isn’t about being nice or being tough.
It’s about being ready.
Cheat Codes
$100 Million
The Wall Street Journal has just reported on a secret list of the top AI researchers in Silicon Valley, also known as “the list,” researchers who are allegedly being signed for $100 million by major tech companies.
What I Read This Week
The Dangers of Nonprofit Jargon: I love geeking it out, but I hate excessive jargon. So naturally, I loved this piece in the Chronicle of Philanthropy about how nonprofits need to use less jargon in an era of institutional distrust.
What’s the Future of AI Job Loss?: I think it’s going to be a long time before we understand how the job market changes due to advances in artificial intelligence. However, we need to continue learning, and these pieces in The New York Times and the MIT Sloan Management Review are essential reads.
The Fact Opinion Dichotomy Mess: Does it bother you when someone tries to justify their opinions by including #FACTS? (It’s always in ALL CAPS.) Me too. Well, Bentham’s Bulldog has a great piece on how the divide between fact and opinion is messier than ever.
Historical Tech Tree: This is not an article, but a visual family tree about technological advances over the past three million years. Worth a look and a bookmark for future reference.
Can I Go Sockless In Summer?: Now this is a debate that should inspire fury from all sides! For me, the answer to this question is always “yes,” especially at the Phish concert I’m going to in a few weeks.
For original readers of Moneyball Judaism, you might recall that I did an early issue on a more recent book on negotiation called Split the Pie:
Ibid.
Ibid., 104.
Ibid., 22-23.
Ibid.
Ibid.