Applying FBI Techniques to Localizatio industry challenges

There are movies that whenever they catch me channel-surfing, it's inevitable that I end up watching them until they end. This happens to me with, for example, The Shawshank Redemption or 'Back to the Future,' which I always enjoy remembering the trips in the Delorean of Marty McFly and Doc, and another one that caught me channel-surfing last weekend, which I stayed to watch until the end, is 'The Negotiator.' It is a great movie featuring Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey that explores the world of negotiators.

I have always been greatly intrigued by this world, not just the aspect of negotiating in situations like kidnappings but negotiating in general. I find it fascinating to see how, by asking questions, we can move the conversation in the direction we want.

 The world of Localization, or leading teams, is also a world of negotiation, not on the level of what an FBI negotiator deals with where it's a life-or-death situation. Localization is important, but not to that extent 😊 So knowing that I like that genre of movies and that I enjoy the topic of negotiation, it was only a matter of time before I encountered the wonderful work done by Chris Voss, founder of Black Swan and author of the book 'Never Split the Difference' in the area of learning to negotiate...

At first, I didn't know that Chris worked as a negotiator at the FBI for at least 24 years!

So, learning and deepening my understanding of the negotiation techniques he teaches in his workshops and master classes seemed like a good idea for me to study.

Of all the tools Chris and his coaching team teach, labels and calibrated questions seem the most useful to me. They are part of a framework they call Tactical Empathy. The goal of this framework is precisely to develop empathy and find ways to obtain more information since misinformation and a lack of empathy are obstacles to successful negotiations. So this week's post goes over that, exploring these elements of tactical empathy and seeing how we can apply them to situations quite typical in the localization industry.

But first of all, let's go with a definition of these techniques:

Labeling in a negotiation

 Labeling is a technique designed to validate the other person's emotions or perceptions without agreeing or disagreeing. Labeling involves identifying and acknowledging the counterpart’s feelings by making statements that start with phrases like “It seems like…” or “It sounds like…” This approach helps to diffuse tensions and build rapport by demonstrating understanding and empathy.

Some examples of this would be:

1. "It seems like you're uncomfortable with this proposal."

2. "It sounds like you are really passionate about this issue."

3. "It sounds like something else is bothering you about this."

The beauty of using labels is that the negotiator shows care which can lead to more open and effective communication.

 Calibrated questions

Calibrated questions are a technique designed to give the other party a sense of control while encouraging them to elaborate on their thoughts and intentions. These open-ended questions often start with "how" or "what," which helps avoid simple yes or no answers and instead prompts detailed responses. The aim is to gather more information, encourage collaboration, and guide the conversation toward a desired outcome without being confrontational.

 Some examples of these calibrated questions that are much more powerful than what we can obtain with a typical yes or no response would be...

 1. "How can we solve this problem?"

2. "What are we trying to achieve?"

3. "How does this fit into your plan?"

4. "What is the biggest challenge you face?"

5. "How can we make this work for both of us?"

 These questions are strategic because they make the counterpart think about solutions and engage more deeply in the negotiation process, often leading to more creative and effective outcomes.

My favorite question by far is the one that starts with 'How.'

 If we ask that question in a low tone of voice, even one that denotes certain concern, it's tremendously effective because it encourages collaboration.

 By asking "how," you invite the other party to participate in the solution process. It changes the dynamic from adversarial to cooperative, as we're essentially asking them to contribute their ideas and expertise. Also, when we ask "how," we subtly shift some of the problem-solving responsibility to the other party. This can lead them to consider their demands or positions more carefully and consider practicalities and concessions. 'How' questions are great as they help us:

• to gather important information about the other party’s needs, limitations, and priorities.

• avoids defensiveness;since "how" questions are open-ended and non-threatening, they are less likely to trigger defensiveness compared to direct or closed questions. This will help to create a more open and fluid conversation.

  Now the question is... how could we apply this to deal with typical uncomfortable situations in the Localization industry that every localization professional eventually faces?

That's what we're going to see next.

Using labeling techniques to make our stakeholders reconsider the situation

 Scenario 1 (very short time for LQA)

Due to tight deadlines, our stakeholders have suddenly reduced the time allocated for Localization Quality Assurance (LQA) from 14 days to just 2 days.

We are concerned about maintaining the app's quality under these tight timelines. To address this without appearing accusatory, we could use a labeling question to acknowledge the pressure the stakeholder is facing while subtly highlighting the risks to app quality. For example, we might say: "It seems like you're under a lot of pressure to meet this deadline. I understand that speeding up the process is important, but could we explore what might happen with the app’s quality if we compress the LQA phase like this?" This approach helps open a dialogue about the potential impact on the app's quality without directly challenging the stakeholder’s decision.

Labeling " "It seems like you're under a lot of pressure to meet this deadline. I understand that speeding up the process is important, but could we explore what might happen with the app’s quality if we compress the LQA phase like this?"

 Scenario 2 (no budget for new headcounts)

In this scenario, we need an additional headcount for our Localization project, but no budget is available to accommodate this request. To address this challenge, we can use a labeling question to acknowledge the budget constraints and encourage a discussion about the potential consequences of limited resources on project timelines and overall quality. By framing the issue this way, we open up a dialogue that focuses on finding a mutually agreeable solution, emphasizing the need for additional resources while understanding the financial limitations.

"It sounds like we are working within tight budget constraints. I see the challenge here, but could we explore how the lack of resources might impact our project timelines and overall quality?"

 Scenario 3 (using Google Translate instead of professional localizers)

In this scenario, our stakeholders opt to use machine translation using Google Translate to save on costs, avoiding the investment in professional localization services. Our concern is that this approach might compromise the quality of the translations, potentially affecting user experience and harming the brand's reputation. A labeling question to express these concerns subtly and prompt a discussion about the potential long-term impacts of prioritizing cost over quality might be

"It seems like we're focusing on efficiency and cost savings with machine translation. Could we explore how this might impact user satisfaction and our brand's reputation if the quality falls short?"

 Calibrated questions

 Now, let's look at the calibrated questions and see some examples of how to use them.

 Scenario 4 (Explaining localization is worth it)

 In this scenario, our stakeholders do not recognize the value of localization; they believe it isn't worth the investment. We want to shift their perspective and demonstrate how essential localization is for competing effectively in international markets. To address this, we can use calibrated questions such as "How do we see our product competing in international markets if the localization is not aligned with local cultural and language expectations?"

 Scenario 5 (stakeholder is only interested in reducing the price of localization)

In this scenario, our stakeholder is primarily concerned with reducing costs. A question to prompt the stakeholder to consider the potential trade-offs between cost-cutting and maintaining high-quality standards might be, "What could be the long-term impact on our customer satisfaction and market share if we prioritize reducing costs over ensuring quality in our localization efforts?"

 In a scenario where a stakeholder is focused solely on reducing costs, a calibrated question can help them consider the broader implications of such a decision on the project's overall success.

 Of course, with just one question, we will not get what we want right away. We must see this as a series of questions and conversations that help us move the needle in the right direction. We can combine labeling with calibrated questions and then another labeling until, little by little, we see that our stakeholders are open to other possibilities.

In summary

 In conclusion, effective negotiation techniques such as labeling and calibrated questions are essential in high-stakes FBI negotiations and can be profoundly effective in the localization industry. By employing labels, we acknowledge and validate the emotions and perceptions of others without necessarily agreeing, fostering an environment of empathy and understanding. Meanwhile, calibrated questions empower us to extract more detailed information and encourage collaborative problem-solving. These techniques help us navigate the typical challenges faced in localization, such as compressed timelines, budget constraints, and the trade-offs between cost and quality. Integrating these strategic communication tools into our daily interactions can enhance our ability to advocate for quality and efficiency in localization projects

@yolocalizo