Tips and Answers to Your Questions
The Negotiations Process

Using The Confidence Meter: Gauging a Group's Proximity to Agreement

Our firm was asked to facilitate a series of meetings to discuss a joint venture among three potential partners. The participants had attempted to craft an agreement previously and, for a number of reasons, were not successful. Given the history, there was a lack of optimism surrounding the negotiations, and the possibility of reaching an outcome that all three parties could support and effectively implement seemed daunting.

As consultants, we knew that the perceptions and processes of the past would be brought into the room. Interviewing all the participants in one-on-one meetings, it became clear that we saw possibilities where the clients did not. The challenge was in bringing forward these possibilities in a way that the participants would own them, and in conveying a sense of confidence in both the agreement and in the partnership.

One of the challenges of a facilitator is to monitor both content and process. To assist us with keeping track of the process, we created a tool that we dubbed “The Confidence Meter” — a simple graphic card consisting of a circle with numbers 1-10 printed around the perimeter and a movable dial attached to the center. (See image at right.)

Three meters were mounted on the wall of the conference room, with each meter labeled with the name of one of the three partners. Each group was asked to monitor its own level of confidence in the progress being made toward an agreement. After each discussion / negotiation session, the participants were asked to move the dial to a number that reflected their confidence of success as a result of that session, with the number 10 reflecting the highest confidence possible.

This developed into a very effective instrument during negotiations for several reasons.

1. It made explicit that which was implicit. By isolating confidence as an element of the process, attention was drawn not only to the substance of the agreement, but to the need to maintain confidence in the ability to reach consensus.

2. It identified real obstacles to reaching agreement. The group started to use the metaphor of the Confidence Meter as a way to convey the importance of elements of the agreement. “If we resolve this issue, my confidence goes from a 2 to a 10,” was a typical statement that helped the group move through a particularly difficult issue.

3. It provided a common framework to engage the energy of the group. In a short time, a group can create its own culture, dynamic, vocabulary, and reference points. The Confidence Meter became an element in the creation of a common, unifying culture for the negotiations committee. As a result, it helped build group cohesion.

4. It clarified potential misunderstandings. A member of the negotiating committee made some rather strong and emotional statements that could have been misconstrued as an unwillingness to negotiate further. However, his group’s Confidence Meter remained relatively high. Strongly held beliefs do not necessarily work against successful agreement. The Confidence Meter helped clarify the difference between issues and beliefs that would weaken the chance for agreement, and those that would support it.

We have found that even when we don’t use the actual meters, asking the question, “On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you in our ability to come to agreement right now?” can focus the group and help move the process forward.