Resolving the Government Shutdown Dispute

As the government shutdown enters it's second month, a negotiated resolution does not yet appear to be on the radar.

Here is my January 22nd opinion piece published in USA Today about how to negotiate the government shutdown dispute and move beyond impasse. It provides important "how to" techniques for effective negotiation in tight corners that can be applied to all our difficult negotiations.

Read the article in

Advancing Negotiations that Appear to be Stalled

Introduction
The British diplomat, Harold Nicolson (1886-1968) begins his diary of the 1919 Paris Conference which ended World War I with the following words: “Of all branches of human endeavor, diplomacy is the most protean”. This protean quality is true of negotiation also, which lies at the core of effective diplomacy.

Although negotiation can be simply defined as the process of seeking joint solutions to conflicting needs, the path to get there is often circuitous, bumpy and even treacherous with many twists and turns along the way. An inexperienced negotiator will often lose heart at these challenging moments and give up. The experienced and skilled negotiator will recognize these bumps in the road as part of the protean nature of negotiation and will persevere until a successful outcome has been reached. (For a paradigm example of this sort of tenacity, read “To End a War” by Richard Holbrooke – an account of the 21 day negotiations that eventually lead to the Dayton Agreement and the end of the Balkans war).

In this column I share a story where we successfully broke through what appeared to be a stalled negotiation and how we did it. I hope this inspires other negotiators not to be discouraged by apparent obstacles, but rather to persevere with patience and persistence.

The Stalled Negotiation
I was contacted by a potential buyer who asked me to assist him in negotiating the purchase of a ranch. It was a beautiful piece of land with an enchanting creek running through it. This creek was, in the words of my client, described as “a child’s water wonderland!” It was owned by an older woman who had put it on the market for sale and the potential buyer wanted it badly.

He had put in several offers, progressively increasing the purchase price with each. The seller was resisting any offer the buyer was proposing despite displaying a clear intent to sell. The buyer was left confused and concluded that the seller was greedy, unreasonable and unrealistic. He assumed her motivations to be entirely money driven. The negotiations were at an impasse and appeared to be catastrophically stalled. The buyer faced with this, was at his wits end and about to walk away from this deal, feeling very disappointed not to be able to own the land of his dreams.

Read more -->

Cartesian Logic and the Art of Negotiation

Introduction
Defining negotiation as “making the deal” is a common misconception. The deal is really only the successful conclusion of an effective negotiation process. It is however, the process used to achieve the desired negotiated outcome, which accurately defines negotiation.

An effective negotiation process expands dialogue and develops crucial information around which a deal might be structured. Effective dialogue and productive information development is driven by advanced questioning and strong probing skills.

Negotiation theory draws on various disciplines including psychology, mathematics (game theory), communications, anthropology, sociology and others. I would like to draw on philosophy, specifically Cartesian logic, to introduce you to a simple, yet powerful questioning technique to add to your negotiation quiver.

The Four Cartesian Questions
At the core of Cartesian logic, credited to the French philosopher Rene Descartes, (1596-1650), is a set of four simple questions that are useful in evaluating any action or decision. The questions are (where X is the question or action you are contemplating):

1. What would happen if you did X?
2. What would happen if you didn’t do X?
3. What won’t happen if you did X?
4. What won’t happen if you didn’t do X?

To illustrate how these questions are implemented, consider being faced with the question of settling a dispute rather than going to court. I would apply the Cartesian questions as follows:

Read more -->

Resolving Disputes Without Resorting to Battle

Introduction
When a dispute arose in times gone by, the disputants agreed to fight a duel to settle the score, or perhaps more accurately, to eliminate a disputant (rather a resourceful way of resolving a dispute!). These duels did not involve any conversation, discussion or legal polemics, but were purely based on a match of marksmanship where the better shooter won.

Today we have advanced somewhat by settling these scores in the battle of the courtroom. Although not usually as lethal as the duel, it certainly is still very costly and ineffective for the most part. Moreover, the disputants live another day to file an appeal (a problem which the duel addressed quite well!).

A shortcoming of resolving disputes through litigation, although necessary at times to be sure, is that it only resolves the issues on the mono-dimensional level of legal principles and doctrines.

Disputes, however, are seldom only about the legal strengths and weaknesses, or winner and loser. There are multi-dimensions to a dispute below the surface, which are neglected and remain unresolved in most litigated cases. This means that in litigation, the symptoms of the dispute may be band-aided, but the underlying dynamics are most likely exacerbated. Hence the high rate of appeal.

These below-the-surface dimensions of a dispute can be broadly distilled into three elements: narratives; emotions; and attributions.

In this column, I will explore these elements and suggest ways of putting them to use in resolving differences without resorting to battle.

Read more -->

The Language of Negotiation It's Not Only What You Say, But How You Say It

Introduction
An important lesson that I have learned in my years as a negotiation and mediation scholar and practitioner, and one which has faithfully guided my client work is that how you say something is as important as what you say. The phraseology that you choose and the way in which you frame issues will make all the difference to the success or failure of a negotiation. Many negotiators spend adequate time in preparing data, strategies, comparative pricing, market research and bottom lines, but neglect to invest time in preparing for how they will manage the critical communication aspect of the negotiation.

Effective communication in negotiations bears three hallmarks: Well organized; succinct, clear and cogent; framed as a need to be met or a problem to be jointly solved.

Perhaps a good way to demonstrate this is by first examining a real example of poor communication in negotiations measured against these three elements. We will then translate that content into a more constructive communication that incorporates these hallmarks of effective negotiation language.

An Example of Poor Communication
At the recent breakfast kickoff for the NATO summit in Brussels, President Trump met with the NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. At that breakfast, The President held forth on issues that were of concern to him with regards to the NATO alliance.

(Disclaimer: This is not intended in any way to be reflective of how this author feels about Mr. Trump or the effectiveness of his presidency. This column is not a forum for that in any way whatsoever. The intent is only to extract valuable negotiation lessons for purposes of our own improvement). Below is a transcript of his remarks:

“Germany is totally controlled by Russia. . . "

The President was concerned about two issues in these remarks. Firstly, Germany being “a captive” of Russia because of the energy deal, and secondly, the disproportionate and unfair defense contributions among NATO countries, with the US paying the highest percentage of the largest GDP.

Let us measure the President’s words against our three hallmarks of effective negotiation language: Well organized; succinct, clear and cogent; framed as a need to be met or a problem to be jointly solved.

Read more -->