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.