Separate the People from the Problem: Interests [ARR]
Annie's Reading Room
Focus on interests, not positions
Interests define the
problem. Reconciling interests rather than positions works for two reasons.
First, for every interest, there usually exists several possible positions that
could satisfy it. Reconciling interests rather than compromising between
positions also works because behind opposed positions lie many more interests
than conflicting ones.
Behind opposed
positions lie shared and compatible interests, as well as conflicting ones.
We tend to (incorrectly) assume that because the other side’s positions are
opposed to ours, their interests must also be opposed.
But if that’s not true, how do we identify interests to find
a reasonable solution?
Ask “Why?” Put
yourself in their shoes, or more directly, ask your partner in negotiation. “If
you do, make clear that you are asking not for the justification of this
position, but for an understanding of the needs, hopes, fears, or desires that
it serves.”
Ask “Why not?”
Think about their choice. Ask yourself, why hasn’t the “other side” accepted
your offer? “What interests of theirs stand in the way? Analyze the
consequences as the other side would probably see them, of agreeing or refusing
to make the decision you are asking for.” An example list of consequences as
they might see them:
Separate the People from the Problem: Interests |
“Impact on my interests
·
Will I lost or gain political support?
·
Will colleagues criticize or praise me?
Impact on the group’s interests
·
What will be the short-term consequences? Long-term
consequences?
·
What will be the economic [political, legal,
psychological, etc] consequences?
·
What will be the effect on outside supporters
and public opinion?
·
Will the precedent be good or bad?
·
Will making this decision prevent doing
something better?
·
Is the action consistent with our principles? Is
it “right”?
·
Can I do it later if I want?”
Realize that each side
has multiple interests. “Thinking of
negotiation as a two-person, two-sided affair can be illumination, but it
should not blind you to the usual presence of other persons, other sides, and
other influences.”
The most powerful
influencers are basic human needs. It is easy to think that the heart of
most negotiations is money. However, there are most likely many other critical
needs as stake such as “security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging,
recognition, and control over one’s life.”
Make a list. To
sort out the interests on both sides, it may help to write them down as they
arise. Furthermore, it may stimulate ideas on how to meet those interests.
Talking about interests
Make your interests
come alive. “It is your job to have
the other side understand exactly how important and legitimate our interests
are. One way to do that is to be specific, and ask the other side to, “Correct
me if I am wrong.” Part of the task of impressing the other side with your
interests lies in establishing the legitimacy of those interests. You want them
to feel not that you are attacking them personally, but rather that the problem
you face legitimately demands attention.”
Acknowledge their
interests as part of the problem. “People listen better if they feel that
you have understood them. They tend to think that those who understand them are
intelligent and sympathetic people whose own opinions may be worth listening
to. So if you want the other side to appreciate your interests, begin by demonstrating that you appreciate theirs.”
Put the problem before
your answer. “If you want someone to listen and understand your reasoning,
give your interests and reasoning first and your conclusions or proposals
later.” If you give your proposal first, the other side will most likely stop
listening while they are busy formulating their rebuttal.
Look forward, not back.
Two people will often fall into a pattern of discourse that resembles a
negotiation, but really has no purpose whatsoever. You might be thinking, “They can’t treat me
like that. If they think they are going to get away with that, they will have to
think again. I’ll show them,” instead of thinking about the potential solution.
The question “Why” has
two different meanings. Instead of asking them to justify what they did
yesterday, ask, “Who should do that tomorrow?”
Be concrete but
flexible. Having thought about your interests, you should go into a meeting
not only with one or more specific options that would meet your legitimate
interests but also with an open mind. An open mind is not an empty one.
Be hard on the
problem, soft on the people. You've heard this one before. Although it may
not be wise to commit yourself to a position, it is wise to commit yourself to
your interests. This is the place in negotiation to spend your aggressive
energies.
A psychological technique, called cognitive dissonance,
holds that people dislike inconsistency and will act on eliminating it. By
attacking the problem, and at the same time giving the other side positive
support (i.e. “I don’t believe you are an insensitive person, Mr. Jenkins), you
create cognitive dissonance. To overcome this dissonance, he will be tempted to
disassociate himself from the problem in order to join you in doing something
about it.
Now that everyone at the table (hopefully) understands each
other’s interests, it’s time to come up with a solution to fit those interests.
Next week, we will begin to discuss how to invent options for mutual gain.
Comments