2 to 3 pages due tomorrow by 12pm Central time

TAKING THE STRESS OUT OF

CONVERSATIONS

We all get caught in conversations

fraught with emotion. Usually, these

interactions end badly-but they

don't have to, thanks to a handful of

techniques you can apply unilaterally.

by Holly Weeks

W E LIVE BY TALKING. That's just t h e kind of ani-

maJ we are. We chatter and tattle and gossip and jest. But sometimes-more often than

we'd like-we have stressful conversations, those sensi- tive exchanges that can hurt or haunt us in ways no other kind of talking does. Stressful conversations are unavoidable in life, and in business they can run the gamut from firing a subordinate to, curiously enough, receiving praise. But whatever the context, stressful conversations differ from other conversations because of the emotional loads they carry. These conversations

112 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

JULY-AUGUST 2001

Taking the Stress Out of Stressful Conversations

call up embarrassment, confusion, anxiety, anger, pain, or fear-if not in us, then in our counterparts. Indeed, stressful conversations cause such anxiety that most peo- ple simply avoid them. This strategy is not necessarily wrong. One ofthe first rules of engagement, after all, is to pick your battles. Yet sometimes it can be extremely costly to dodge issues, appease difficult people, and smooth over antagonisms because the fact is that avoidance usually makes a problem or relationship worse.

Since stressful conversations are so common-and so painful-why don't we work harder to improve them? The reason is precisely because our feelings are so en- meshed. When we are not emotionally entangled in an issue, we know that conflict is normal, that it can be re- solved - o r at least managed. But when feelings get stirred up, most of us are thrown off balance. Like a quarterback who chokes in a tight play, we lose all hope of ever mak- ing it to the goal line.

For the past 20 years, I have been teaching classes and conducting workshops at some of the top corporations and universities in the United States on how to communi- cate during stressful conversations. With classrooms as my

People use all kinds of psychological and rhetorical mechanisms to throw their counterparts off balance. These "thwarting tactics" take many forms - profanity, manipulation, shouting- and not everyone is triggered or stumped by the same ones.

people in difficult situations are always unique. Yet nearly every stressful conversation can be seen as an amalgam of a limited number of basic conversations, each with its own distinct set of problems. In the following pages, we'll explore how you can anticipate and handle those problems. But first, let's look at the three basic stressful conversations that we bump up against most often in the workplace.

"I Have Bad News for You"

laboratory, I have leamed that most people fee! incapable of talking through sensitive issues. It's as though all our skills go out the window and we can't think usefully about what's happening or what we could do to get good results.

Stressful conversations, though, need not be this way. 1 have seen that managers can improve difficult conver- sations unilaterally if they approach them with greater self-awareness, rehearse them in advance, and apply just three proven communication techniques. Don't misunder- stand me: There will never be a cookie-cutter approach t o stressful conversations. There are too many variables and too much tension, and the interactions between

Delivering unpleasant news is usually difficult for both parties. The speaker is often tense, and the listener is apprehensive about where the conversation is headed. Consider David, the director of a nonprofit institution. He was in the uncomfortable position of needing to talk with an ambitious researcher, Jeremy, who had a much higher opinion of his job performance than others in the organization did. The complication for David was that, in the past, Jeremy had received artificially high evalua- tions. There were several reasons for this. One had to do with the organization's culture: The nonprofit was not a

confrontational kind of place. Additionally, Jeremy had tremendous confidence in both his own abilities and the quality of his aca- demic background. Together with his defen- sive response to even the mildest criticism, this confidence led others-including David- to let slide discussions of weaknesses that were interfering with Jeremy's ability to de- liver high-quality work. Jeremy had a cutting sense of humor, for instance, which had of- fended people inside and outside his unit. No one had ever said anything to him directly, but as time passed, more and more people were reluctant to work with him. Given that Jeremy had received almost no concrete crit- icism over the years, his biting style was now entrenched and the staff was restive.

In conversations like this, the main chal- ' ' lenge is to get off to the right start. If the

exchange starts off reasonably well, the rest of it has a good chance of going well. But if

the opening goes badly, it threatens to bleed forward into the rest ofthe conversation. In an effort to be gentle, many people start these conversations on a light note. And that was just what David did, opening with, "How about those Red Sox?"

Naturally Jeremy got the wrong idea about where David was heading; he remained his usual cocky, superior

Holly Weeks is an independent consultant and the president ofWritingWorks and SpeakingWorks in Cambridge, Massa- chusetts. She also teaches at the Radctiffe Institute of Harvard University in Cambridge.

114 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

Taking the Stress Out of Stressful Conversations

self. Sensing this, David felt he had to take off the velvet gloves. The conversation quickly became brutally honest, and David did almost all the talking. When the mono- logue was over, Jeremy stared icily at the fioor. He got up in stiff silence and left. David was relieved. From his point of view, the interaction had been painful but swift. There was not too much blood on the floor, he observed wryly. But two days later, Jeremy handed in his resignation, tak- ing a lot of institutional memory-and talent-with him.

"What's Going On Here?" ofren we have stressful conversations thrust upon us. Indeed, some ofthe worst conversations-especially for people who are confiict averse-are the altogether unex- pected ones that break out like crackling summer storms. Suddenly the conversation becomes intensely charged emotionally, and electricity flies in ali directions. What's worse, nothing makes sense. We seem to have been drawn into a black cloud of twisted logic and altered sensibilities.

Consider tbe case of Elizabeth and Rafael. They were team leaders working together on a project for a major consulting firm. It seemed that everything that could have gone wrong on the project had, and the work was badly bogged down. The two consultants were meeting to revise their schedule, given the delays, and to divide up the dis- couraging tasks for the week ahead. As they talked, Eliza- beth wrote and erased on the white board. When she had finished, she looked at Rafael and said matter-of-factly, "Is that it, then?"

Rafael clenched his teeth in frustration."If you say so," he sniped.

Elizabeth recoiled. She instantly replayed the exchange in her mind but couldn't figure out what had provoked Rafael. His reaction seemed completely disconnected from her comment. The most common reaction of some- one in Elizabeth's place is to guiltily defend herself by denying Rafael's unspoken accusation. But Elizabeth was uneasy with confrontation so she tried appeasement. "Rafael,"she stammered,"rm sorry. Is something wrong?"

"Who put you in charge?" he retorted."Who told you to assign work to me?"

Clearly, Rafael and Elizabeth have just happened into a difficult conversation. Some transgression has occurred, but Elizabeth doesn't know exactly what it is. She feels blindsided-her attempt to expedite the task at hand has clearly been misconstrued. Rafael feels he's been put in a position of inferiority by what he sees as Elizabeth's con- trolling behavior. Inexplicably, there seem to be more than two people taking part in this conversation, and the invisible parties are creating lots of static. What childhood experience, we may wonder, is causing Elizabeth to as- sume that Rafael's tension is automatically her fault? And who is influencing Rafael's perception that Elizabeth is taking over? Could it be his father? His wife? It's impossi-

ble to tell. At the same time, it's hard for us to escape the feeling that Rafael is overreacting when he challenges Elizabeth about her alleged need to take control.

Elizabeth felt Rafael's resentment like a wave and she apologized again. "Sorry. How do you want the work di- vided?" Deferring to Rafael in this way smoothed the strained atmosphere for the time being. But it set a prece- dent for unequal status that neither Elizabeth nor the company believed was correct Worse, though Rafael and Elizabeth remained on the same team afrer their painful exchange, Elizabeth chafed under the status change and three months later transferred out ofthe project

"You Are Attacking Me!" Now let's turn our attention t o aggressively stressful conversations, those in which people use all kinds of psychological and rhetorical mechanisms to throw their counterparts off balance, to undermine their positions, even to expose and belittle them. These "thwarting tac- tics" take many forms-profanity, manipulation, sbout- i n g - a n d not everyone is triggered or stumped by the same ones. The red zone is not the thwarting tactic alone but the pairing of the thwarting tactic with individual vulnerability.

Consider Nick and Karen, two senior managers work- ing at the same level in an IT firm. Karen was leading a presentation to a client, and the information was weak and disorganized. She and the team had not been able to answer even basic questions. The client had been patient, then quiet then clearly exasperated. When the presenta- tion really started to fall apart, the client put the team on the spot with questions that made them look increasingly inadequate.

On this particular day, Nick was not part of the pre- senting team; he was simply observing. He was as sur- prised as the client at Karen's poor performance. After the client lefr, he asked Karen what happened. She lashed out at him defensively: "You're not my boss, so don't start patronizing me. You always undercut me no matter what I do." Karen continued to shout at Nick, her antagonism palpable. Each time he spoke, she interrupted him with accusations and threats: "I can't wait to see how you like it when people leave you fiailing in the wind." Nick tried to remain reasonable, but Karen didn't wind down. "Karen," he said, "pull yourself together. You are twisting every word 1 say."

Here, Nick's problem is not that Karen is using a panoply of thwarting tactics, but that all her tactics- accusation, distortion, and digression - are aggressive. This raises the stakes considerably. Most of us are vulner- able to aggressive tactics because we don't know whether, or how far, the aggression will escalate. Nick wanted to avoid Karen's aggression, but his insistence on rationality in the face of emotionalism was not working. His cool

JULY-AUGUST 2001 115

Taking the Stress Out of Stressful Conversations

approach was trumped by Karen's aggressive one. As a re- sult, Nick found himself trapped in the snare of Karen's choosing. In particular, her threats that she would pay him back with the client rattled him. He couldn't tell whether she was just huffing or meant it. He finally tumed to the managing director, who grew frustrated, and later angry, at Nick and Karen for their inability to resolve their problems. In the end, their lack of skill in handling their difficult conversations cost them dearly. Both were passed over for promotion after the company

" pinned the loss ofthe client directly on their persistent failure to communicate.

Preparing for a Stressful Conversation So how can we prepare for these three basic stressful con- versations before they occur? A good start is to become aware of your own weaknesses to people and situations. David, Elizabeth, and Nick were unable to control their counterparts, but their stressful conversations would have gone much better if they had been more usefully aware of their vulnerabilities. It is important for those who are vulnerable to hostility, for example, to know how they react to it. Do they withdraw or escalate - do they clam up or retaliate? While one reaction is not better than the other, knowing how you react in a stressful situation will teach you a lot about your vulnerabilities, and it can help you master stressful situations.

Recall Nick's problem. If he had been more self-aware, he would have known that he acts stubbornly rational in the face of aggressive outbursts such as Karen's. Nick's choice of a disengaged demeanor gave Karen control over the conversation, but he didn't have to allow Karen-or anyone e l s e - t o exploit his vulnerability. In moments of calm self-scrutiny, when he's not entangled in a live stressful conversation, Nick can take time to refiect on his inability to tolerate irrational aggressive outbursts. This self-awareness would free him to prepare himself- not for Karen's unexpected accusations but for his own predictable vulnerability to any sudden assault like hers.

Though it might sound like it, building awareness is not about endless self-analysis. Much of it simply involves making our tacit knowledge about ourselves more explicit We all know from past experience, for instance, what kinds of conversations and people we handle badly. When you find yourself in a difficult conversation, ask yourself whether this is one of those situations and whether it in- volves one of those people. For instance, do you bare your teeth when faced with an overbearing competitor? Do you shut down when you feel excluded? Once you know what your danger zones are, you can anticipate your vulnera- bility and improve your response.

Explicit self-awareness will often help save you from engaging in a conversation in a way that panders to your

feelings rather than one that serves your needs. Think back to David, the boss ofthe nonprofit institution, and Jeremy, his cocky subordinate. Given Jeremy's history, David's conversational game plan-easing in, then when that didn't work, the painful-but-quick bombshell -was doomed. A better approach would have been for David to split the conversation into two parts. In a first meeting, he could have raised the central issues of Jeremy's biting humor and disappointing performance. A second meet- ing could have been set up for the discussion itself. Han- dling the situation Incrementally would have allowed time for both David and Jeremy to prepare for a two-way conversation instead of one of them delivering a mono- logue. After all, this wasn't an emergency; David didn't have to exhaust this topic immediately. Indeed, if David had been more self-aware, he might have recognized that the approach he chose was dictated less by Jeremy's char- acter than by his own distaste for conflict.

An excellent way to anticipate specific probiems that you may encounter in a stressful conversation is to re- hearse with a neutral friend. Pick someone who doesn't have the same communication problems as you. Ideally, the friend should be a good listener, honest but nonjudg- mental. Start with content. Just tell your friend what you want to say to your counterpart without worrying about tone or phrasing. Be vicious, be timid, be sarcastically witty, jump around in your argument, but get it out. Now go over it again and think about what you would say if the situation weren't emotionally loaded. Your friend can help you because he or she is not in a fiush of emotion over the situation. Write down what you come up with together because if you don't, you'll forget it later.

Now fine-tune the phrasing. When you imagine talking to the counterpart, your phrasing tends to be highly charged-and you can think of only one way to say any- thing. But when your friend says, "Tell me how you want to say this," an interesting thing happens: your phrasing is often much better, much more temperate, usable. Re- member, you can say what you want to say, you just can't say it like that Also, work on your body language with your friend. You'll both soon be laughing because of the expressions that sneak out unawares - eyebrows skittering up and down, legs wrapped around each other like licorice twists, nervous snickers that will certainly be misinter- preted. (For more on preparing for stressful conversations, see the sidebar "The DNA of Conversation Management")

Managing the Conversation While it is important to build awareness and to practice before a stressful conversation, these steps are not enough. Let's look at what you can do as the conversation unfolds. Consider Elizabeth, the team leader whose col- league claimed she was usurping control. She couldn't think well on her feet in confrontational situations, and

116 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

Taking the Stress Out of Stressful Conversations

The DNA of Conversation Management

The techniques I have identified for handling stressful conversations all have tucked within them three decep- tively simple ingredients that are needed to make stressful conversations succeed. These are clarity, neu- trality, and temperance, and they are the building blocks of all good communication. Mastering them will multi- ply your chances of responding well to even the most strained conversation. Let's take a look at each ofthe components in turn.

Clarity means letting words do the work for us. Avoid euphemisms or talking in circles-tell people clearly what you mean: "Emily, from your family's point of view, the Somerset Valley Nursing Home would be the best placement for your father. His benefits don't cover it." Unfortunately, delivering clear content when the news is bad Is particularly hard to do. Under strained circumstances, we all tend to shy away from clarity be-

cause we equate it with brutality. Instead, we often say things like: "Well, Dan, we're still not sure yet what's going to happen withthis job, but in the future we'll keep our eyes open." This is a roundabout-and terribly misleading -way to inform someone that he didn't get the promotion he was seeking. Yet there's nothing in- herently brutal about honesty. It is not the content but the delivery ofthe news that makes it brutal or humane. Ask a surgeon; ask a priest; ask a cop. If a message is given skillfully-even though the news is bad -the con- tent may stili be toierabie. When a senior executive, for example, directly tells a subordinate that "the promo- tion has gone to someone else," the news is likely to be highly unpleasant, and the appropriate reaction is sad- ness, anger, and anxiety. But if the content is clear, the listener can better begin to process the information. Indeed, bringing clarity to the content eases the burden for the counterpart rather than increases it.

Tone is the nonverbal part of delivery in stressful con- versations. It is intonation, facial expressions, conscious and unconscious body language. Although it's hard to have a neutral tone when overcome by strong feelings, neutrality is the desired norm in crisis communications, including stressful conversations. Consider the classic neutrality of NASA. Regardless of how dire the message, NASA communicates its content in uninflected tones: "Houston, we have a problem." It takes practice to ac- quire such neutrality. But a neutral tone is the best place to start when a conversation turns stressful.

Temperate phrasing is the final element in this tri- umvirate of skills. English is a huge language, and there are lotsof different ways to say what you need to say. Some ofthese phrases are temperate, while others baldly provoke your counterpart to dismiss your words-and your content. In the United States, for ex- ample, some ofthe most intemperate phrasing revolves around threats of litigation: "If you don't get a check to me by April 23, I'll be forced to call my lawyer." Phrases like this turn up the heat in all conversations, particu- larly in strained ones. But remember, we're not in stress- ful conversations to score points or to create enemies. The goal is to advance the conversation, to hear and be heard accurately, and to have a functional exchange between two people. So next time you want to snap at someone - "Stop interrupting me!"-try this:"Can you hold on a minute? I want to finish before I lose my train of thought"Temperate phrasing will help you take the strain out of a stressful conversation.

JULY-AUGUST 2001 117

Taking the Stress Out of Stressful Conversations

One ofthe most common oc- currences in stressful conversa- tions is that we all start relying far too much on our intentions. As the mercury in the emo- tional thermometer rises, we presume that other people automatically understand what we mean. We assume, for in- stance, that people know we mean well. Indeed, research shows that in stressful conver- sations, most speakers assume

cerely by the speaker; neverthe- less, most people automatically reaa by stiffening inwardly, anticipating something at least mildly offensive or antagonistic. And that is exactly the reaction that phrase is always going to get. Because the simplest rule about stressful conversations is that people don't register inten- tion despite words; we register intention through words. In stressful conversations in par-

Of course, in difficult conver- sations we may all wish that we didn't have to be so explicit. We may want the other person to realize what we mean even if we don't spell it out. But that leads to the wrong division of labor-with the listener inter- preting rather than the speaker communicating. In all conver- sations, but especially in stress- ful ones, we are ail responsible for getting across to one an-

The Gap Between Communication and Intent

that the listener believes that they have good intentions, re- gardless of what they say. Intentions can never be that powerful in communications - and certainly not in stressful conversations.

To see what I mean, just think ofthe last time someone told you not to take something the wrong way.This may well have been uttered quite sin-

ticular,the emphasis is on what is actually said, not on what we intend or feel. This doesn't mean that participants in stressful conversations don't have feelings or intentions that are valid and valuable. They do. But when we talk about people in stressful communication, we're talking about communi- cation between people-and not about intentions.

other precisely what we want to say. In the end, it's far more dignified for an executive to come right out and tell an em- ployee: "Corey, I've arranged a desk for you-and six weeks of outplacement service-because you won't be with us after the end of July." Forcing someone to guess your intentions only prolongs the agony ofthe inevitable.

she knew it, so she needed a few hip-pocket phrases- phrases she could recall on the spot so that she wouldn't have to be silent or invent something on the spur of the moment. Though such a solution sounds simple, most of us don't have a tool kit of conversational tactics ready at hand. Rectifying this gap is an essential part of learn- ing how to handle stressful conversations better. We need to learn communications skills, in the same way that we learn CPR: well in advance, knowing that when we need to use them, the situation will be critical and tense. Here are three proven conversational gambits. The particular wording may not suit your style, and that's fine. The im- portant thing is to understand how the techniques work, and then choose phrasing that is comfortable for you.

Honor thy partner. When David gave negative feed- back to Jeremy, it would have been refreshing if he had begun with an admission of regret and some responsibil- ity for his contribution to their shared problem."Jeremy," he might have said, "the quality of your work has been undercut-in part by the reluctance of your colleagues to

risk the edge of your humor by talking problems through with you. I share responsibility for tbis because I have been reluctant to speak openly about these difficulties with you, whom I like and respect and with whom 1 bave worked a long time." Acknowledging responsibility as a technique-particularly as an opening-can be effective because it immediately focuses attention, but without provocation, on the difficult things the speaker needs to say and the listener needs to hear.

Is this always a good technique in a difficult conversa- tion? No, because there is never any one good technique. But in this case, it effectively sets the tone for David's dis- cussion with Jeremy. It honors the problems, it honors Jeremy, it honors their relationship, and it honors David's responsibility. Any technique that communicates honor in a stressful conversation-particularly a conversation that will take the counterpart by surprise - is to be highly valued. Indeed, the ability to act with dignity can make or break a stressful conversation. More important, while Jeremy bas left the company, he can still do harm by

118 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

Taking the Stress Out of Stressful Conversations

spreading gossip and using bis insider's knowledge against the organization. The more intolerable the con- versation with David has been, the more Jeremy is likely to make the organization pay.

Disarm by restating your intentions. Part ofthe dif- ficulty in Rafael and Elizabeth's "What's Going On Here?" conversation is that Rafael's misinterpretation of Eliza- beth's words and actions seems to be influenced by in- stant replays of other stressful conversations that he has had in the past. Elizabeth doesn't want to psychoanalyze Rafael; indeed, exploring Rafael's internal landscape would exacerbate this painful situation. So what can Elizabeth do to defuse the situation unilaterally?

Elizabeth needs a technique that doesn't require her to understand the underlying reasons for Rafael's strong reaction but helps her handle the situation effectively. "I can see how you took what I said the way you did, Rafael. That wasn't what I meant. Let's go over this list again." I call this the clarification technique, and it's a highly disarming one. Using it, Elizabeth can unilaterally change the confrontation into a point of agreement. Instead of arguing with Rafael about his perceptions, she grants him his perceptions-after all, they're his. Instead of arguing about her intentions, she keeps the responsibility for aligning her words with her intentions on her side. And she goes back into the conversation right where they left off. (For a fuller discussion ofthe discon- nect between what we mean and what we say, see the sidebar "The Gap Between Communication and Intent")

This technique will work for Elizabeth regardless of Rafael's motive. If Rafael innocently misunderstood what she was saying, she isn't fighting him. She accepts his take on what she said and did and corrects it. If his motive is hostile, Elizabeth doesn't concur just to ap- pease him. She accepts and retries. No one loses face. No one scores points off the other. No one gets drawn off on a tangent.

Fight tactics, not peopie. Rafael may have baffled Elizabeth, but Karen was acting with outright malice to- ward Nick when she fiew off the handle after a disastrous meeting with the client. Nick certainly can't prevent her from using the thwarting tactics with which she has been so successful in the past. But he can separate Karen's character from her behavior. For instance, it's much more useful for him to think of Karen's reactions as thwarting tactics rather than as personal characteristics. If he thinks of Karen as a distorting, hostile, threatening person, where does that lead? What can anyone ever do about an- other person's character? But if Nick sees Karen's behav- ior as a series of tactics that she is using with him because they have worked for her in the past, he can think about using countering techniques to neutralize them.

The best way to neutralize a tactic is to name it. It's much harder to use a tactic once it is openly identified. If Nick, for instance, had said, "Karen, we've worked to-

gether pretty well for a long time. I don't know how to talk about what went wrong in the meeting when your take on what happened, and what's going on now, is so different from mine," he would have changed the game completely. He neither would have attacked Karen nor remained the pawn of her tactics. But he would have made Karen's tactics in the conversation the dominant problem.

Openly identifying a tactic, particularly an aggressive one, is disarming for another reason. Often we think of an aggressive counterpart as persistently, even endlessly, con- tentious, but that isn't true. People have definite levels of aggression that they're comfortable with - and they are re- luctant to raise the bar. When Nick doesn't acknowledge Karen's tactics, she can use them unwittingly, or allegedly so. But if Nick speaks of them, it would require more ag- gression on Karen's part to continue using the same tactics. If she is at or near her aggression threshold, she won't con- tinue because that would make her uncomfortable. Nick may not be able to stop Karen, but she may stop herself.

People think stressful conversations are inevitable. And they are. But that doesn't mean tbey have to have bad res- olutions. Consider a client of mine, Jacqueline, the only woman on the board of an engineering company. She was sensitive to slighting remarks about women in business, and she foxmd one board member deliberately insensi- tive. He repeatedly ribbed her about being a feminist and, on this occasion, he was telling a sexist joke.

This wasn't the first time that something like this had happened, and Jacqueline felt the usual internal cacoph- ony of reactions. But because she was aware that this was a stressful situation for her, Jacqueline was prepared. First, she let the joke hang in the air for a minute and then went back to the issue tbey had been discussing. When Richard didn't let it go but escalated with a new poke-"Come on, Jackie, it was a Joke"-JacqueWne stood her ground. "Richard," she said, "tbis kind of humor is frivolous to you, but it makes me feel pushed aside." Jacqueline didn't need to say more. If Richard had continued to escalate, he would have lost face. In fact, he backed down: "Well, I wouldn't want my wife to hear about my bad behavior a second time," he snickered. Jacqueline was silent. She had made her point; there was no need to embarrass him.

Stressful conversations are never easy, but we can all fare better if, like Jacqueline, we prepare for them by de- veloping greater awareness of our vulnerabilities and bet- ter techniques for handling ourselves. The advice and tools described in this article can be helpful in unilaterally reducing the strain in stressful conversations. All you have to do is try them. If one technique doesn't work, try an- other. Find phrasing that feels natural. But keep practic- ing-you'U find what works best for you. ^

Reprint ROIO7H

To order reprints, see the last page of Executive Summaries.

JULY-AUGUST 2001 119

Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009

Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for

the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material

in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may

not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any

other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on

learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning

management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content

available through such means. For rates and permission, contact [email protected].