Interdependence and Cooperation
"All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth." --Aristotle
Negotiation Skills from Getting to "Yes"
by Bruce Patton, Roger Fisher, and William Ury
Benjamin Franklin wrote in his 1750 Poor Richard's Almanac, "There are three things extremely hard: steel, a diamond, and to know one's self." In order to negotiate effectively, you most first understand what you and the other participants want from the negotiations.
Example: a smaller population within a larger nation want independence.
What is the fundamental question which has to be considered for independence? Independence is the ability to act with freedom without requiring support or aid.
Independent nations have several interests: political self-rule, economic control of natural resources, effective security and defense, the right to educate youth in their own language based on their own culture's standards and values.
Many negotiations in public policy and international business are founded on responsibility, connection, and protection.
Realize that every negotiation session will not arrive at a solution
- What is the fundamental question?
- What interests must be met to satisfy the fundamental question?
- Who has the ability to make decisions and take action in this situation?
- "Get curious before you get furious." How can different parties or groups connect with a common vocabulary and understand different points-of-view?
- How can the agreement or settlement be protected going forward?
Example: a smaller population within a larger nation want independence.
What is the fundamental question which has to be considered for independence? Independence is the ability to act with freedom without requiring support or aid.
Independent nations have several interests: political self-rule, economic control of natural resources, effective security and defense, the right to educate youth in their own language based on their own culture's standards and values.
Many negotiations in public policy and international business are founded on responsibility, connection, and protection.
- Responsibility = "respond ability," treat situation as a problem that can be solved through action and begin suggesting courses of action.
- Connection = establish regard and respect between people, businesses, or nations in exchanges going forward.
- Protection = ensure or increase the safety of the living, absence of pain, mitigate or soften losses, decrease or eliminate strife and conflict.
Realize that every negotiation session will not arrive at a solution
- Negotiators make progress when they define responsibilities, strengthen connections, and preserve or extend existing protections.
- Continuing negotiations with patience when it seems no progress is being made builds credibility, creates openings, and increases recognition of details and complexity of the question that is the focus of the negotiation.
Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties. (A wise agreement can be defined as one that meets the legitimate interests of each side to the extent possible, resolves conflicting interests fairly, is durable, and takes community interests into account.)
When negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to lock themselves into those positions. The more you clarify your position and defend it against attack, the more committed you become to it. The more you try to convince the other side of the impossibility of changing your opening position, the more difficult it becomes to do so. Your ego becomes identified with your position. You now have a new interest in “saving face”—in reconciling future action with past positions—making it less and less likely that any agreement will wisely reconcile the parties’ original interests.
1. Lead with presence.
2. Approach with curiosity and care.
3. Focus on what matters to each party.
Conflict resolution is founded on a caring and respectful relationship between the negotiators first. Only after this connection is present can they collaborate on strategies to resolve the matter at hand. To practice conflict resolution, we must abandon "getting people to do what we want" in favor of "create conditions where everyone's needs are met."
Focusing on positions nearly led to unnecessary bloodshed in a dispute between farmers and the national oil company in Iraq after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime.
Displaced farmers in the south of Iraq had banded together, leased arable land from the government, and used their last savings and borrowings to plant crops. Unfortunately, a few months later the farmers received letters calling for them to vacate the land immediately in accord with the fine print of their lease, because oil had been discovered under it.
Displaced farmers in the south of Iraq had banded together, leased arable land from the government, and used their last savings and borrowings to plant crops. Unfortunately, a few months later the farmers received letters calling for them to vacate the land immediately in accord with the fine print of their lease, because oil had been discovered under it.
The oil company said, “Get off our land.”
The farmers replied, “It’s our land, and we’re not leaving.”
The oil company threatened to call the police.
The farmers said, “There are more of us.”
The national oil company threatened to bring in the army.
“We have guns too; we aren’t leaving,” came the reply. “We have nothing left to lose.”
As troops gathered, bloodshed was averted only by the last-minute intervention of an official with an open, fresh perspective without experience in either farming or the oil industry.
“How long will it be before you expect to produce oil on this land?” he asked the national oil company.
“Probably three years,” they replied.
“What do you plan to do on the land over the next few months?”
“Mapping; a little seismic surveying of the underground layers.”
“Probably three years,” they replied.
“What do you plan to do on the land over the next few months?”
“Mapping; a little seismic surveying of the underground layers.”
Then he asked the farmers, “What’s the problem with leaving now, as they’ve asked?”
“The harvest is in six weeks. It represents everything we own.”
“The harvest is in six weeks. It represents everything we own.”
Shortly thereafter an agreement was reached: The farmers could harvest their crops. They would not impede the oil company’s preparatory activities. Indeed, the oil company hoped soon to hire many of the farmers as laborers for its construction activities. And it did not object if they continued to plant crops in between oil derricks.
As illustrated in the example, the more attention that is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties. Agreement becomes less likely. Any agreement reached may reflect a mechanical splitting of the difference between final positions rather than a solution carefully crafted to meet the legitimate interests of the parties. The result is frequently an agreement less satisfactory to each side than it could have been, or no agreement at all, when a good agreement was possible.