The Walk in the Woods is named for the 1982 saga of two Cold War nuclear arms reduction negotiators. Delegations from the United States and the Soviet Union were meeting outside Geneva, Switzerland. Paul Nitze led the US delegation and Yuli Kvitsinsky led the Soviet delegation. Facing a desperate impasse, the two sides called a break. As the story is told, Nitze and Kvitsinsky bumped into one another outside the pastoral retreat center and together agreed to take a walk—as it were given the location—in the woods. The conversation opened with discussion of the impasse and its complexities. It continued to stories about their backgrounds, careers, and families and eventually reached the topic of their mutual desire to overcome the impasse.
As the walk progressed, the two distinguished men shared their concerns and objectives, some of which were divergent. Yet they also came to realize that their positions on other issues were actually quite similar. They eventually achieved an understanding for what the escalating arms race meant for their countries, the world, and the future. They realized that it was in both national interests to reach an agreement. With that, they explored steps to realize significant mutual force reduction, noteworthy given Nitze’s reputation as a hardliner on the Soviets. Concluding their walk, they settled on options and solutions to break the impasse, which they brought back to their delegations at the conference center. Though their agreement was subsequently rejected by Moscow and Washington, the discussions were immortalized in a Broadway play and came to exemplify the advantages of personal bargaining and interest-based negotiation.
By design, our Walk enhances the transparency and efficiency of the negotiation process and ultimately the buy-in and satisfaction of stakeholders. This method systematically expands the range of interests and objectives incorporated into agreements and solutions. When caught in conflict, this structured, four-part progression for renegotiating working relationships is a guide for those with a stake in both the process and its outcome.
The Walk serves as a detour from the normal course of discussion. In typical problem-solving, parties rush to argue the relative merits of their preferred solution: “My plan is better than yours.” “My demand is more legitimate (stronger) than yours.” The conversation becomes polarized. This heightens adversarial sensitivities and tendencies.
This detour is analogous to the walk taken in Geneva. It starts the negotiation process differently. The first step is for the group to define the problem and understand how it is perceived differently by each of the parties involved, a process similar to the “Cone-in-the-Cube” discussed earlier. This wider perspective ensures that each participant feels heard. It opens them to hearing others. The intent is to deescalate tensions. The focus turns more to solving the puzzle and not winning the battle.
The Walk is a transparent process for understanding problems from multiple perspectives and then—based on the reframing that results—finding responsive solutions as a joint enterprise. The process itself readies participants to discover fresh perspectives. As important, it reduces debate over solutions that ignore the fundamental interests of those around the table.
The Walk in the Woods has four distinct and sequential steps to guide stakeholders from the problem toward solutions: (1) self-interests, (2) enlarged interests, (3) enlightened interests, and (4) aligned interests. Each step entails a specific negotiation activity and outcome that motivates and prepares negotiators for the action required in the next step. At each step, it is useful to record what is being said on a whiteboard in order to capture the array of interests and ideas put forward. Before going into depth, we next provide an overview of the logic.
The Walk in the Woods
The Walk starts with stating self-interests. Each party describes the problem with a focus on their own interests—what they hope to accomplish, what they believe is fair, and their concerns, motives, principles, fears, and values. Participants are encouraged to listen to one another actively and genuinely.
Next is the enlarged interests step, during which people look first for points of agreement among the self-interests each has expressed. Then they turn to the points of disagreement. Most often, because principles and values align, agreements outnumber disagreements. This realization reframes the discussion, stimulating the search for solutions that resolve differences.
During the enlightened interests step, the parties are encouraged to think creatively, inventing new ideas and possibilities to resolve their disagreements. We often find that many of these new ideas had not occurred to anyone prior to the Walk. The group assembles a list and then distinguishes between feasible options and those with less potential.
The aligned interests are the focus of the final step of the Walk, which is devoted to solution-building, bargaining, and gives and gets. The parties come to an agreement that reflects overall shared interests and motives, thereby generating buy-in for the negotiated outcome. They build it so that all will have an investment in its success. Not every point is resolved, though the positive experience of realizing common interests and coming to terms on some disagreements generates momentum and prepares the ground for future work together. Resolved conflict breeds the potential for further collaboration.
If you are leading or facilitating a Walk in the Woods, your most important tool is the question. At each step, questions prompt the discussion, and the responses encourage further questions, all in the interest of discovering common ground and solutions for complex problems.
The Walk in the Woods in Practice
We have facilitated hundreds of Walks with a wide variety of groups. These negotiations are generally governed by a nondisclosure agreement, so with the following case, the descriptive details are changed to preserve the identities of the individuals and organizations involved. The issues and outcomes, however, are real. We place you in the role of facilitator.
Two technology companies, T-Pro and OmniTech, are in the process of a merger. Each has a good reputation and is financially successful. The merger was initiated with hope that the combined entity would be more competitive against larger rivals and therefore able to remain independent while under the same umbrella. Both T-Pro and OmniTech fear being acquired by one of those mega-firms. That fear, and the business crisis it would have created, prompted the merger.
While the respective boards have reached an overall agreement, they decided to let the corresponding business units work out their integration within the general guidelines of the master deal. Encouraging people to determine their own fate is considered more productive than dictating a solution from above. We were asked to help with the integration of the two research and development (R&D) groups. Their expected collaboration was a major incentive for the merger.
When facing disagreement, your first meta-leadership task is getting the right people to the negotiating table: stakeholders who believe they have a say in the matter or who will be affected by its outcome. In this case, each group is composed of six people, and all are invited to the Walk. T-Pro’s R&D unit is headed by Bill, a respected veteran who has been an innovator since the days of mainframe computers. OmniTech’s team is led by Wendy, a whiz recruited right out of university. Bill believes in tight process parameters to keep projects on track. Wendy is a freewheeling rebel whose shop operates with minimal structure. The two leaders are fiercely competitive and have been known to spar aggressively on panels at industry events.
With the parties assembled, the Walk begins. As the facilitator, you open with a welcome and review of what prompted the meeting (the situation) and lay out what it is hoped will be achieved.
You explain that the purpose of this Walk is to build confidence and ultimately trust between the parties. The hope is that they will learn to see one another as something other than an enemy to defeat. You ask, “Do you see a cost to not resolving your issues?” There is general agreement that there is indeed a cost, and that it is best to minimize or eliminate it. You move on to a brief overview of the specific steps coming up: how they work and lead from one to
the next (see the brief description provided earlier). You make certain that everyone understands that whatever agreement emerges from the process will be developed by the stakeholders themselves. If successful, the groups will begin to identify the possibilities and advantages of working together, simultaneously uncovering both motive and incentive for resolving differences.
From the outset, you establish and model the appropriate tone: serious, yet cordial and considerate. To encourage expression of interests, you explain that the Walk is a safe zone of mutual respect and recognition. What people hear and learn is often more important than what they say. Attacks must be avoided. The intent is to inform others at the table in a way that generates understanding and even empathy.
Step 1: Self-Interests
Going from person to person around the table, you ask, “What is your view of the issues being negotiated?” You might also ask, “What do you hope to achieve through this conversation?” Opening statements of three to five minutes are about right. Discourage long, tedious speeches.
A range of issues and interests are raised in the opening phase of this Walk. From the outset, one thing is abundantly clear: each team wants its leader to take charge of the combined unit. Bill and Wendy are symbolic of their distinct cultures.
There are also compensation issues. OmniTech’s engineers and coders receive incentives based on sales once their innovations go to market. T-Pro’s people receive bonuses based on meeting cost and delivery targets for selected projects as well as on patents secured. Each team advocates strongly that their physical space should be the home for the combined unit, even though the companies’ campuses are less than two miles apart in architecturally similar buildings.
There are also differences over how work is assigned. At T-Pro, individuals are assigned to projects based on their experience and expertise. At OmniTech, Wendy believes in letting people choose their projects with the idea that the best ideas will naturally attract the best talent. The issues seem intractable. The sides are far apart.
You should not be surprised to find wide gaps like these on the issues. If there were agreement from the get-go, there would be no need for a Walk. However, through respectful sharing of different perspectives, cracks begin appearing in the defensive walls of each group. You can tell through softening tones and more relaxed body language that the parties are beginning to recognize and appreciate both their commonalities and their legitimate differences. Even though they may not agree with one another, they are talking and beginning to see the logic behind their diverging points of view. The Cone-in-the-Cube analogy discussed here earlier starts to look to them like an appropriate image for the observations and insights deriving from this first step. You might even show the image to make this point more concrete. The participants begin to better appreciate the many perspectives on the problems they face.
Step 2: Enlarged Interests
When the Walk began, it was difficult to imagine that there would be important points of concurrence, and perhaps even many of them. Now is the time to uncover that possibility. You move the conversation to the second step—the enlarged interests phase. “Now that everyone around the table has articulated their interests, let’s look for the points of agreement and the points of disagreement.” There is momentary silence. You write “Agreements” and “Disagreements” in two columns on a whiteboard at the front of the room.
Finally one of the participants speaks up. “Is there anything we agree on? I don’t see it.”
You prompt them. “Quality?” Both teams offer that they value high quality. You write “Quality” on the whiteboard under “Agreements,” and you continue jotting as more points emerge.
“What else? How about product releases?” They share that they work hard for product releases with few bugs. Each team prizes breakthrough innovation and finds it gratifying to leap ahead of a larger, more established competitor. Both appreciate commercial success, even though only OmniTech’s team is directly rewarded for it. Each team also acknowledges that the merger is happening whether they like it or not. They have three options: find a way to get along, look forward to a tension-filled existence, or leave to find new jobs.
It turns out, however, that they already agree on a lot. While disagreements remain, they look quite different in light of these profound points of consensus. Individuals from one side are echoing and amplifying what those on the other side are also saying. The initial basis for common ground is being formed.
This exercise in finding agreement reframes the parties’ understanding of what they are negotiating. They started the Walk with “unidimensional/me for me” and “two-dimensional/me against you” mind-sets, a contest in which everyone is out for themselves. In the enlarged interests step, this mind-set is transformed into a more encompassing, multidimensional “us together” view of what they face. Achieving this view is the intention of reframing.
Once the parties are exposed to the interests of others around the table, the newly acquired information reshapes their understanding of both the process and the possible outcome of their negotiation. They recognize that many of their interests and motivations overlap. With that realization, they discover the possibility of finding agreement that can advance their shared motives, values, and interests, prompting a new understanding of what they are negotiating about. This reframing opens the possibility that the Walk will lead to unanticipated opportunities.
Points of agreement almost always outnumber points of disagreement, and that is the case here. You write the issues in contention on the whiteboard: location, leadership, and incentive structure. Though significant, those disagreements look quite different—less important and more resolvable—when seen in the light of the newly minted and enlarged points of agreement. The reframing process is complete when the parties discover a fresh perspective on the shared problem and a renewed energy and hope for finding a resolution.
Once this reframing is achieved, all sides are encouraged to explore shared solutions rather than simply scheme to overcome the other party. It is a breakthrough moment, and the change in the negotiating tone propels the parties into the next step Here they build on the shared perspectives and new confidence they are establishing together.
Step 3: Enlightened Interests
Moving now to the creative step of the Walk, the tone of conversation is significantly changing. Meta-leadership and interest-based negotiation, at their best, are methods for finding and taking advantage of opportunities by exploring new options and discovering innovative solutions. Imaginative thinking requires concerted effort. Why?
People accumulate a mound of “baggage” as their lives and careers progress: biases, sour experiences, resistance to change, competitive impulses, and downright stubbornness. Time constraints and pressures compel the path of least resistance and acceptance of less desirable outcomes. Organizational incentive structures often reward selfishness over collaboration. All these factors obstruct imaginative problem-solving and obscure creative possibilities. Innovation requires abandoning habitual blinders.
Just as listing points of agreement and disagreement was a useful exercise during the enlarged interests step, an exercise to encourage creative problem-solving, and practice mini-deal-making, is at the heart of the enlightened interests step.
You go up to the whiteboard where the “Agreements” and “Disagreements” are preserved for all to see. You lay the ground rules for the enlightened interests: this is a “No-Commitment Zone” for creativity. No one should fear that he or she is expected to do something just because it is raised in this step of the Walk. You instruct the parties to brainstorm, encouraging as many creative ideas as possible. You ask questions that open with phrases such as, “What if you tried…?,” “Imagine that…,” and “Would you be willing to consider…?” There is to be no commentary, editing, judging, or disagreement about what is being said. You seek to uncover no-holds-barred ingenuity.
Perhaps because of the inherent creativity and ingenuit
y in a group of product developers, the brainstorming is robust. This crowd enjoys problem-solving. You record their new ideas on the whiteboard to be referenced during the subsequent analytical process.
It becomes clear that while the two groups are competitive, they also admire each other. Some of Wendy’s people long for a bit more structure, while some of Bill’s want more time in the sandbox to experiment.
One of Bill’s engineers proposes a two-stage system in which projects can be developed to a certain point in a loosely structured way and then be moved into a more formal process once they have gelled a bit. People will be able to volunteer 25 percent of their time to work on phase 1 projects, and then be assigned to subsequent projects for the balance of their time. If phase 1 works as planned and the best talent brings the best ideas forward, being assigned won’t feel like conscription. Heads nod around the table.
A proposed bonus structure drawing on both of the current models emerges: 50 percent to be based on commercial success, 25 percent on delivery and budget targets, and 25 percent on patents secured. They agree that this structure balances short- and long-term measures and aligns their work with the overall objectives outlined in the master merger agreement.
Building on this positive momentum and nascent trust—and still in the no-commitment zone of the enlightened interests step—Wendy takes a leap. “How much longer do you want to do this, Bill?” she asks. He pauses to consider her question. “Two or three years, I suppose,” he replies. “I would like to do some teaching before I retire, perhaps in some part of the world that really needs to develop technical expertise.”
You're It Page 24