Improv/Nego #5: Do you know who I am ? Strategic ambiguity at its best

Know the negotiation game: arm wrestling or liar poker?

Improv/ Nego: the art of improv, the science of negotiation

Watch this video! https://youtu.be/2NfuniN0Sdg In addition to being utterly funny, this short ad (one minute-long) tells us a lot about negotiation and improvisation altogether. It’s our one minute crash course on improv/nego of the day!

Action takes place in a traditional classroom where a written examination is about to end. When the examiner says “time!”, students rush to hand in their copy on the examiner’s desk. All but one busy scratching a lottery ticket. When he is done scratching, he brings his copy to the examiner only to see the latter refuse the copy. “Too late. You failed” says the examiner. Startled, the student asks one question : “Do you know who I am?”. When the examiner replies “I have no idea”, the student, wasting no time forcefully places it in the middle of the pile of copies. Then, with a smirk on his face, he grabs the examiner’s apple and leaves the room biting happily in the fruit.

What does this ad say about negotiation ? About improvisation???A negotiation analysis tells us?why?the student behaves in such a way. He purports to change the power imbalance between him and the examiner. To succeed, he needs to move cautiously and carefully assess the allocation of information, as we will see shortly. The student is a deft strategist. Looking at the story from the standpoint of improvisation tells us?howthe student will achieve his goal. His overall behavior, his careful audacity, his perfect timing and the precision of his words all account for his success. The student is a brilliant improviser. His stage presence outshines that of the examiner who loses all power in a pivotal moment when he misinterprets the student’s questions.

What’s the name of the game: arm wrestling or liar poker??To be sure, negotiation is often compared to a game. But what is the name of this game? Because the parties are not playing at the same game. The examiner thinks their interaction is an arm wrestling game. He is wrong. The student quickly understands he is playing a liar poker game. And he is right.

?

1. The negotiation rests on 2 key issues: the power imbalance and the allocation of information. The 2 issues are intertwined.?The struggle between the parties is short, intense, brutal. It’s a power struggle. One wants to hand in his copy, the other refuses to accept the copy. This is not a win/win negotiation. It’s like a boxing match between two punchers looking for an immediate knockout. The goal is not to reach an agreement, to settle but to win.

1. La négociation entre l’examinateur et l’étudiant repose sur deux points clés : le rapport de force et la répartition de l’information. Les deux questions sont étroitement liées comme nous allons nous en rendre compte. La??confrontation est brève, intense, brutale. On est dans le rapport de force. L’un veut remettre sa copie, l’autre la refuse. On n’est pas dans du gagnant-gagnant. Cette négociation ressemble à un combat de puncheurs à l’issu duquel il y a un gagnant et un perdant. Le but n’est pas de s’entendre mais de vaincre. Par K.O.?

The examiner is openly in a contest of will.?He believes he is in a position of strength. He knows it and for the most part in the ad, his attitude reflects the power imbalance. He has authority, he is the time-keeper and he decides whether or not to accept a copy and his decision cannot be questioned. In essence, he acts as if he was god. He is arrogant because he knows he has all the power and the student can only surrender.

The student decides to assess allocation of information before waging a war with the examiner.?He is clearly not in the same state of mind as the examiner. He is patient and he avoids committing prematurely to a course of action. He needs to check a key information first.

The student needs to elicit information from the examiner without him noticing anything.

The student is far more subtle than the examiner. In order to change the power imbalance, he needs to know more about the examiner. Specifically, he needs to find out if the examiner can identify him. He wants to know if the examiner can trace back his copy to himself if he decides to forcefully insert it in the stack of copies sitting on the examiner’s desk. Collecting information when negotiating is strategic in the sense that it is a source of power when it is concealed but it is also a sign of weakness if it becomes noticeable. Hence the search for information must remain covert.?

The allocation of information in negotiation boils down to one key question: who knows what??In fact, this general question leads in turn to additional questions such as: “how much do I know?” “how much does the other side know?” “Does he know that I know??? ??Does he know that I don’t know”, “Am I aware of how much/little I know?”, “how can I know if knows that I know”, “how can I elicit information on his part without him noticing”. The student excels at this game. When the examiner refuses his copy, he asks one strange and ambiguous question: “Do you know who I am ?”

What is the true meaning of that question ??Why ask such a question to the examiner? Is he supposed to know all the students? Is he therefore supposed to know this student in particular? Have they met in the past? Are there reasons for the examiner to recall specifically this student? Either the question has a literal meaning and it is hard to understand why the student asks such a question to the examiner. Or the question has a metaphorical meaning, i.e. it is a veiled threat like “my father is a prominent figure in our community, influential, prestigious, wealthy, powerful and he can make or break your career as a teacher/examiner so you better accept my copy”… Maybe the student is arrogant enough to threaten the examiner. We need more information, we would like the student to follow up on his statement so that the examiner (and us as well) will understand where he is heading at/what is in the back of his mind.

In the ad, the examiner fails to notice the ambiguity of the question.?With conspicuous contempt, he answers that he has no idea who the student is. Remember that the examiner strongly believes he is in a position of strength. He is obsessed with power. His answer is actually a show of force : he does not know who the student is, he could not care less, a powerful person like the examiner does not need to know who is in front of him. Period.

The question conceals actually a trap.?This question?is not about power, it is about … information! The student is not trying to change the power imbalance by suggesting he has more power than an “ordinary” student, he is not trying to suggest he has power by proxy. No, actually the student’s question must be taken at face value. He is not bluffing, he is not suggesting anything, his question carries only one meaning, its litteral meaning: “do you know me” as in “can you identify me and link me somehow to my exam copy” ?

What is the examiner’s mistake??He is so much into a power trip that he interprets the question through these lenses only. This is a classic example of?projection. He projects onto the student his perception, his prism, his thirst for power. He is convinced the student’s only objective is to reverse the power imbalance by suggesting that he has more power than the examiners thinks. He focus on the symbolic meaning f the question and fails to reckon with its litteral meaning. The examiner is even eager to let the student know he is nobody to him. He thinks it plays in his favor. Sadly, the examiner is about to lose all the power he held but he does not know yet. Power, initially in the hands of the examiner belongs now to the student.??Soon, he will make it clear enough.

The examiner fails to understand the real meaning of the question.?He does not even try to understand. What could he have said instead? “Why ? Why this question?? Why do you want to know if I know you?” The examiner will pay a dear price for his lack of curiosity. The short interaction with the student lasts only seconds but it has a huge impact on the power imbalance, a complete role reversal/overhaul actually. The powerful becomes weak and the weak becomes powerful. Power now rests with the student.

The student proves tenacious, creative and shrewd.?All through the ad,?he pursues relentlessly the same objective, i.e. hand in his copy. He does not take no for an answer and never gives up. He also very creative. He comes with the insane idea of slipping his copy inside the pile of copies on the examiner’s desk blatantly?in front of the examiner! But he is also shrewd. He understands that his plan will fail if the examiner is able to identify his copy and trace it back to him. Anonymity is key/vital to ensure the success of his plan. He needs to find a way to ensure that he remains anonymous without allowing/letting the examiner see clearly in his little game. He needs to ask the question without arousing suspicions.

The student’s creative genius leads him to frame the question in such a way as to appear deliberately pretentious. The examiner, being himself arrogant, falls for it and rushes to gain the upper hand. The examiner’s answer is clearly in sync with this interpretation. When he retorts “I have no idea who you are”, he really means “you are nobody to me”. Where the student’s question is factual, the examiner’s response is symbolic. Unfortunately for him…

?

If information is power, then power has just changed hands.?Now the student is in control because he has the information he needed. He?understands?that the examiner does not know him. Now the road is clear to plant the copy in the middle of the stack. The examiner cannot trace it back to him, therefore he cannot punish him. The examiner’s powerlessness has just been exposed. The student grabbing the examiner’s apple is a symbol of this brutal reversal of fortune.

?

2. The student improvises with much flair.

It is difficult to tell exactly at what point the student starts thinking about planting the copy in the stack. Clearly, the examiner’s arrogance has to do with it, it fuels the student’s audacity and triggers his somewhat off-limits response.

This brief interaction is mesmerizing. On one side, there is the examiner, arrogant and not very friendly, the kind of person you love to hate. He shows no empathy whatsoever vis-à-vis the student. He is completely indifferent to the student’s fate. He even says without holding anything back?: ??you failed??. On the other side, you have the student. At first, you think he is arrogant. Then you quickly find out he is just smart.

The student’s repertoire of soft skills.?The student starts observing the examiner with much attention. He is in active listening mode, and he quickly identifies the psychological??profile of his counterpart: someone rigid and aggressive, full of himself. With no time to think, he comes up instantly with a strategy. He then frames his message with extreme precision. The fact that the message is ambiguous does not contradict the fact that it is precise because the ambiguity is deliberate on the part of the student. The message carries both a litteral and a metaphorical/figurative meaning, the student is really concerned about the former but he makes sure the examiner focuses on the latter. Paradoxically, being precise means for the student to be ambiguous!

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????The student is bold, rebellious and transgressive.?When the examiner refuses to take his copy, the student openly disregards the examiner’s decision. He challenges the examiner’s authority first by asking a question and then by inserting his copy in the pile. This act of disobedience is a mix of transgression, audacity and courage. It is actually quite impressive. Not many of us would have done the same? What would be your approach? Rebellious, begging for an exemption or compliant ?

?

Think in a blink.?When the examiner refuses to take his copy, the student has no time to think. He must act in a split second. It’s now or never. His decision-making process is supersonic. No time to prepare, no time to think it over, no time to rehearse. His ability to come up instantly with a scenario is compelling. Adrenaline is running high and he is full on. This is what amazes me the most. He is able to come up instantly with a creative solution in order to solve an unexpected problem, i.e. the examiner’s abrupt refusal to take his copy.

??Do you know who I am ? ??Here, you see the student’s genius into action. This sounds like a purely rhetorical question, actually it sounds more like a power statement : “I have leverage, clout, connections and you better realize it now before I kick your butt.” So the question sounds like a not-so-subtle reference to an underestimated power which could adversely impact the examiner’s career even though the student is concerned only by its literal meaning.

The examiner embraces the metaphorical meaning of the question?because he sees the interaction as an arm-wrestling contest. Therefore he interprets everything along these lines, according to such a prism. He does not shy away from conflict, to the contrary, he cherishes confrontation, it provides him with an opportunity to flex his muscles and to wield his power. He wants the student to surrender, he does not try to convince but to coerce, his goal is not be liked but feared. Winning is not enough to the examiner, he wants the student to also feel embarrassed.

The student focuses on the literal meaning of the question.?His only intention is to gather information, not make a power statement. “Do you know me?” strictly means “Can you identify me ? Can you trace my copy based on my ID?”.?

What makes the student so confident that the examiner will focus on the metaphorical meaning only??He understands from the start the psychological profile of the examiner: rigid, authoritarian, not inclined to negotiate, arrogant and self-centered with no empathy. Clearly this man is obsessed with power. He sees everything through the prism of power. In his mind, the words “you failed” mean not only that the copy was rejected because it was turned in late but also that the student’s question is a futile and botched attempt to change the power imbalance.

?

A word on the apple.?Why the student grabs the examiner’s apple before leaving the classroom is open to debate. My son believes that by doing so, the student shows panache and brio, he completes his victory by a symbolic steal, it’s like the cherry on the pie. Maybe. I tend to disagree with this version. I see only a gratuitous and vexing attempt to humiliate the examiner who has already lost the game. It is like adding humiliation to defeat, insult to injury. There is a third explanation according to which the game is not over.

He who laughs last laughs best. Yet a third scenario is possible.??The game might not be over if the apple was poisoned by the examiner who anticipated the whole story and the fact that the student might be tempted to steal the apple as a trophy. Knowing that, hours before the incident, perhaps the examiner inserted some medical substance (not necessarily arsenic, a powerful laxative will do the trick) in the apple. In such case, the examiner was only seemingly defeated and he actually got the last laugh. That would explain why the examiner seemed strangely passive when the student stole the apple. Maybe he knew better than fight to get the apple back. What do you think ?

Improv/Nego, the art of improv, the science of nego.?Ultimately, we have a nice ad?for Improv/Nego, an emerging field of interest which combines the behavioral skills of Improv with the methodological skills of negotiation, stage presence with process expertise. The negotiation between the examiner and the student is a brutal, mesmerizing and intense power struggle. The student’s improvisation is brilliant with all the right soft skills at play: active listening, acute observation, precision in framing a message with carefully chosen words, audacity and instant creativity without forgetting the right dose of transgression.

Final word.?Congrats to the student, smart and cunning and to the examiner, a magnificent villain we love to hate!?Both are welcome in our improv/nego classes!

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????