Attacking people instead of creating
solutions to problems gets “nasty and brutish.” Focus on the problems and not
the people!
Remember, if I am a young American
student, I want to fight to save my Pell Grant -- and I care less for/about
Medicare. If I am an older American, I want to fight to save my Medicare
coverage -- and I care less for/about a young American student’s Pell Grant. If
I am a American woman who believes my rights will be taken away by policies the
Tea Party puts forward and/or supports then I am going to focus on social
issues that ensure my rights as a woman in this country are protected. If I am
a gay person, I would fight to have DOMA repealed. If I am a person whose child
is in need of long-term medical care, I would fight to keep coverage. If I am a
woman at high risk for breast cancer, I would fight to have preventive medicine
as a part of my coverage. If I am a male providing for my family for food,
shelter, education and healthcare, and I feel as if I can no longer afford to
care for my family in an effort to pay to care for those outside my family, I
am going to fight to severely cut spending and lower the amount of taxes I must
pay to the Federal government.
Most people are fair. How we define
“fair” may differ person-to-person or party-to-party. But what we can agree on
is neither EXTREME is fair, by any definition. This country is not one of rich
or poor (at least it should not be), nor is it a country of white or black,
male or female, gay or non-gay, Republican or Democrat. This Democracy is a
country for ALL.
When we find ourselves seated beside someone
from another moral matrix or political mindset, we shouldn’t just jump right in
until we’ve found a few points of commonality or established a bit of trust.
And when we do bring up issues of morality, we must show a sincere expression
of interest. We’re all stuck here for a while, so let’s try to work it out. We
should all focus on the problems, not the people. Talking about common interests, options
for mutual gain, and fair standards may be a wise, efficient, and amicable game
of negotiation, but what if the other side won’t play?
While you try to discuss common
interests, they may state their position in unequivocal terms. You may be
concerned with developing possible agreements to maximize the gains of both
parties. They may be attacking your proposals, concerned only with maximizing
their own gains. You may attack the problem on its merits; they may attack you.
What can you do to turn them away from
dug-in positions and toward the merits?
There are three basic approaches for
focusing their attention on the merits:
1) What you can do. You yourself can
concentrate on the merits, rather than on positions; it holds open the prospect
of success to those who will talk about interests, options, and criteria. In
effect, you can change the game simply by starting to play a new one. If this
doesn’t work and they continue to use positional bargaining, you can resort to
a second strategy
2) What they may do. It counters the
basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct their attention to the
merits. This strategy is called negotiation jujitsu.
3) What a third party can do. If
neither principled negotiation nor negotiation jujitsu gets them to play
fairly, consider including a third party trained to focus the discussion on
interests, options, and criteria. Perhaps the most effective tool a third party
can use in such an effort is the one-text mediation procedure. The first
approach is the preferred approach -- principled negotiation.
If the other side announces a firm
position, you may be tempted to criticize and reject it. If they criticize your
proposal, you may be tempted to defend it and dig yourself in. If they attack
you, you may be tempted to defend yourself and counterattack.
In short, if they push you hard, you
will tend to push back. Yet if you do, you will end up playing the positional
bargaining game.
- Rejecting
their position only locks them in.
- Defending
your proposal only locks you in.
- And
defending yourself sidetracks the negotiation into a clash of
personalities.
You will find yourself in a vicious
cycle of attack and defense, and you will waste a lot of time and energy in
useless pushing and pulling. If pushing back does not work, what does? How can
you prevent the cycle of action and reaction? Do not push back. When they
assert their positions, do not reject them. When they attack your ideas, don’t
defend them. When they attack you, don’t counterattack.
Break the vicious cycle by refusing to
react. Instead of pushing back, sidestep their attack and deflect it against
the problem. As in the Oriental martial arts of judo and jujitsu, avoid pitting
your strength against theirs directly; instead, use your skill to step aside
and turn their strength to your ends. Rather than resisting their force,
channel it into exploring interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and
searching for independent standards.
How does “negotiation jujitsu” work in
practice? How do you sidestep their attack and deflect it against the problem?
Typically their “attack” will consist of three maneuvers, asserting their
position forcefully, attacking your ideas, and attacking you.
Let’s consider how a principled
negotiator can deal with each of these. Don’t attack their position, look
behind it. When the other side sets forth their position, neither reject it nor
accept it. Treat it as one possible option.
Look for the interests behind it, seek
out the principles that it reflects, and think about ways to improve it.
An example: In 1970, an American lawyer
had a chance to interview President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt on the subject
of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He asked Nasser, “What do you want [Israel’s Prime
Minister] Golda Meir to do?” Nasser replied, “Withdraw!” “Withdraw?” the lawyer
asked. “Withdraw from every inch of Arab territory!” “Without a deal? With
nothing from you?” the American asked incredulously. “Nothing. It’s our
territory. She should promise to withdraw,” Nasser replied. The American asked,
“What would happen to Golda Meir if tomorrow morning she appeared on Israeli
radio and television and said, ‘On behalf of the people of Israel, I hereby
promise to withdraw from every inch of territory occupied in 1967: the Sinai
Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights. And I
want you to know, I have no commitment of any kind from any Arab whatsoever.’”
Nasser burst out laughing. “Oh, would she have trouble at home!” Understanding what an unrealistic option
Egypt had been offering Israel may have contributed to Nasser’s stated
willingness later that day to accept a cease-fire in the ongoing hostilities.
Do not defend your ideas -- instead
invite criticism and advice.
A lot of time in negotiation is spent
criticizing. Rather than resisting the other side’s criticism, invite it.
Instead of asking them to accept or reject an idea, ask them what’s wrong with
it. Examine their negative judgments to find out their underlying interests and
to improve your ideas from their point of view.
Rework your ideas in light of what you
learn from them, and thus turn criticism from an obstacle in the process of
working toward agreement into an essential ingredient of that process.
Another way to channel criticism in a
constructive direction is to turn the situation around and ask for their
advice. Ask them what they would do if they were in your position. “Recast an
attack on you as an attack on the problem. When the other side attacks you
personally— as frequently happens— resist the temptation to defend yourself or
to attack them. Instead, sit back and allow them to let off steam. Listen to
them, show you understand what they are saying, and when they have finished,
recast their attack on you as an attack on the problem.
What can we both do now to reach an
agreement?” Ask questions and pause. Those engaged in negotiation jujitsu use
two key tools. The first is to use questions instead of statements.
Statements generate resistance, whereas
questions generate answers.
Questions allow the other side to get
their points across and let you understand them. They pose challenges and can
be used to lead the other side to confront the problem. Questions offer them no
target to strike at, no position to attack. Questions do not criticize, they
educate. “Do you think it would be better to have teachers cooperating in a
process they felt they were participating in, or actively resisting one they
felt was imposed on them and failed to take their concerns into account?”
Silence is one of your best weapons.
Use it. If they have made an unreasonable proposal or an attack you regard as
unjustified, the best thing to do may be to sit there and not say a word. If
you have asked an honest question to which they have provided an insufficient
answer, just wait. People tend to feel uncomfortable with silence, particularly
if they have doubts about the merits of something they have said. For example,
if a teacher’s representative asks, “Why shouldn’t teachers have a say in
layoff policy?” the school board chairman might find himself at a loss:
“Layoffs are a purely administrative matter.
. . . Well, of course teachers have an interest
in layoff policy, but they really aren’t the best qualified to know who’s a
good teacher. . . .
Uh, what I mean is . .
. .” Silence often creates the
impression of a stalemate that the other side will feel impelled to break by
answering your question or coming up with a new suggestion. When you ask
questions, pause. Don’t take them off the hook by going right on with another
question or some comment of your own. Some of the most effective negotiating
you will ever do is when you are not talking.
If you cannot change the process to one
of seeking a solution on the merits, perhaps a third party can. More easily
than one of those directly involved, a mediator can separate the people from
the problem and direct the discussion to interests and options. Further, he or
she can often suggest some impartial basis for resolving differences. A third
party can also separate inventing from decision-making, reduce the number of
decisions required to reach agreement, and help the parties know what they will
get when they do decide.
At this stage, a third-party learns all
he can about needs and interests and is invited to mediate. Sometimes a
participant acts as mediator...
Let’s say you are a legislative
assistant for a senator who is more concerned with getting a certain
appropriations bill passed than with whether the appropriation is ten million
dollars or eleven. Or you may be a manager trying to decide an issue on which
each of your two subordinates favors a different course of action; you care
more about making a decision both can live with than about which alternative is
chosen. In each of these cases, even though you are an active participant, it
may be in your best interest to behave as a mediator would and to use the
one-text procedure. Mediate your own dispute.
Perhaps the most famous use of the
one-text procedure was by the United States at the Camp David summit in
September 1978 when mediating between Egypt and Israel. The United States
listened to both sides, prepared a draft to which no one was committed, asked
for criticism, and improved the draft again and again until the mediators felt
they could improve it no further. After thirteen days and some twenty-three
drafts, the United States had a text it was prepared to recommend. When
President Jimmy Carter finally did recommend it, Israel and Egypt accepted. As
a mechanical technique for limiting the number of decisions, reducing the
uncertainty of each decision, and preventing the parties from getting
increasingly locked into their positions, it worked remarkably well. The
one-text procedure is a great help for two-party negotiations involving a
mediator. It is almost essential for large multilateral negotiations. One
hundred and fifty nations, for example, cannot constructively discuss a hundred
and fifty different proposals. Nor can they make concessions contingent upon
mutual concessions by everybody else. Combining parts of many different
proposals is also unlikely to produce the best answer, as illustrated by the
old quip that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Multiple parties need
some way to simplify the process of decision-making without diminishing the
quality of the outcome. The one-text procedure serves that purpose.
Fisher, Roger; Ury, William L. (2011).
"Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In." Penguin
Group
In light of YOUR own position, can you find a way to give merit to the reason for another's differing position? Can you listen with empathy and not judgment? It is easy to work with someone who has same or similar views and needs...can you work together with someone who does not?
Thoughts?
