What does CARP have to do with managing anger?

So firstly I should clarify that I am not talking about the fish species, carp. Rather, CARP is an acronym that explains a method of anger management developed by Robert Bacal. The aim of CARP is to help complaint handlers, or anyone who deals with cranky people, to defuse complainant anger and refocus them on resolving their issue. So I know you're all dying to know ... what does CARP stand for?


Control

This is about getting the complainant to stop and listen. You need to let them know that their anger is not going to control you or your interaction with them. Be assertive, but not aggressive or passive.


Acknowledge

Deal with their feelings first. It's important that the complainant knows that you empathise with their emotional state of mind and situation. Where it will not encourage unreasonable complainant conduct, give them an opportunity to let off steam and vent their emotions. Venting can help them feel like they are being listened to and understood.

Venting should be timely, usually not lasting more than two to five minutes. The complainant should be able to settle down and discuss their matter in a calm manner after being given such an opportunity.

Echo what they are telling you to show that you are listening. This usually involves repeating the last few words or their key words. This can be done by backtracking (e.g. 'so you are saying ...') or paraphrasing (ie defining what you believe they said and meant).


Refocus

Make the transition from their emotions to their issues of complaint by refocusing the conversation. Ask questions about facts and repeat the complainant's issues in your own words.


Problem Solve

This is about getting down to business - telling the complainant what can and cannot be done, what will and will not happen, and focus on possible solutions to their issues.


I hope this is helpful to all of you who have to deal with complainant anger!

A point to note: the order of CARP is very important. It's particularly important to leave problem solving to the end. If you try to problem solve or refocus too quickly you are likely to find yourself explaining the same thing over and over again, because the complainant will persist in wanting to explain their story. If this happens, go back to acknowledging their feelings and emotions and work your way back down the acronym!

If you would like some more information on CARP, click here.

Top Negotiation Stories of 2012

Harvard's Program on Negotiation recently published an article on what they considered to be the top ten negotiation stories of 2012. 

The stories range from negotiations in the media industry to the recent concern regarding America falling off the fiscal cliff. In addition to being an interesting read, the article also considers what key lessons can be learned from each of these significant negotiations. 

The key lessons that I took from the article were:

• In the flush of hammering out a deal that appears to create synergy for everyone involved, negotiators sometimes neglect to consider how their agreement could affect outsiders, an oversight with ethical and legal implications.

• When a conflict looms, it can be tempting to try to make unilateral decisions on key issues for fear that negotiation with the other side will be a dead end. This strategy may pay off in the short term, but it’s important to factor in the long-term cost of a backlash.

• Don't underestimate the potential value of adapting to your counterpart’s negotiating style in international negotiations.

• When dealing with untrustworthy counterparts, it can be worthwhile to negotiate a “test” agreement within which you make only a few concessions, but be sure the consequences of reneging are explicit to the other party. Prepare for the potential consequences of a broken deal, including damage to your reputation.

• Examine factors such as your interests, the other side’s interests, your alternatives to the negotiation, the shape of a potential deal, the various costs you might incur, and the likelihood that you can successfully follow through on a deal.

• Establish ground rules and policies before a crisis hits to make sure that you are playing on a level, fair field.

• In their most important negotiations, business negotiators would be wise to spend a great deal of time thinking about what would happen in the event of impasse in the current negotiation—and looking for ways to make their BATNA better.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

Preventing Disputes

Conflict, it seems, is everywhere. We humans are a fickle bunch and we tend to hold differences of opinion about all manner of topics. This is fine, great in fact, when people listen to those differences of opinion with respect, courtesty and an open-mind. Unfortunately, this does not always occur and that's when conflict break out.

Experience has shown me that being mindful of how one communicates is particularly helpful in reducing the likelihood of a dispute occurring. It seems the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) of Australia agrees as they have outlined some tips to keep in mind when communicating with others to prevent differences of opinion or a conflict. NADRAC suggests to:

LISTEN:

• for what you have in common with the other party. This is a good place for you and the other people involved to start looking for an outcome
• for what the other party needs or is concerned about. Respond reasonably to what they are saying
• check with the other party involved to make sure you have understood them.

ASK QUESTIONS:

• that start with 'How can we ...' or 'What possibilities are there for ...'
• to try to find out what is important to the other party involved. For example, you may ask 'Why is that important to you?'
• about how the other party would like to move forward.

RESPOND:

• after listening well
• using 'I think', 'I'd prefer', or 'I wonder whether' as opposed to 'I want' or 'I have decided'
• by making suggestions for an outcome that meets the other party's needs and that you can accept
• by speaking for yourself only.

AVOID

• reacting to demands or threats
• asking questions that accuse, such as 'If that's the case, why did you tell me that ...'
• saying 'You did ...' or 'You are ...' as this can been seen as blaming
• saying 'Obviously'
• making assumptions about what the other party has said. Always check your understanding to ensure it is correct. 

To visit NADRAC's website, click here.