by Roger Fisher
Check Also with Your Gut Feelings
There is no need to be overly suspicious of everyone with whom you interact. In fact, becoming highly suspicious of others will almost certainly reduce your ability to gain the negotiating power that comes through affiliation. Nevertheless, you do want to guard yourself. Before making an important decision, rely not only on your reasoning mind but also on your feelings.
Wherever a possible decision came from—a friend, an ad, or a TV commercial—your gut feelings can offer you a lot of helpful information as you decide. This is likely to be true whether you are thinking of buying a new car, taking a new job, firing somebody, or taking on a new associate. And you often can learn a lot by getting in touch with just how your body feels when thinking about such important decisions. Consulting others can be a big help, but you can also learn a lot by asking yourself how you feel. Relax, take your time, and start considering such questions as:
• How am I feeling about becoming committed to this decision? (Scared? Happy? Confident? [long pause] Feel your feelings.)
• If I said no, how would I be feeling tomorrow morning? (Relieved? Disappointed? Frustrated? [long pause] Close your eyes; check your gut.)
• If I now said yes, how would I be feeling tomorrow morning? (Does such a decision feel right? Why?)
The distinction between what you think in your head and what you feel in your gut is useful, but it is not always as clear cut as our language suggests. For example, if you conclude that for you to do something would not feel right, are you looking only to your own personal emotional reaction to that conduct, or are you reacting to what you anticipate might be the critical views of a friend or colleague? The more closely you are affiliated with someone, the greater the risk that your feelings about an action you might take (for example, clothes you might wear) would not be your own internal emotional reaction, intuition, or gut feelings but rather your guess of how a person with whom you are closely affiliated might feel. When you are checking with your gut or your intuition to learn how something would feel to you, you may need to be careful not to substitute someone else’s presumed feelings for your own. By using your head and your gut, you protect yourself from being manipulated by affiliation, and you improve the quality of your decision.
SUMMARY
With enhanced affiliation, working together becomes easier and more productive. There are two qualities to affiliation:
• Structural connections: These are links you have with someone else based upon your common membership in a group. You can strengthen structural connections by finding links that you have in common with someone or by creating new links.
• Personal connections: These are the personal ties that bond you with another. By talking about personal matters, you can reduce the personal distance between you. But make sure to give people plenty of space, too.
CHAPTER 5
Respect Autonomy
Expand Yours
(and Don’t Impinge upon Theirs)
Stop reading this book. (Now!)
Although you may want to put this book down anyway, you almost certainly object to being told. And rightly so. By telling you what to do, we have impinged upon your autonomy—your freedom to make and affect decisions.
Each of us wants an appropriate degree of autonomy. If a police officer walks up to you right now and handcuffs you, the handcuffs restrict the use of your hands. The handcuffs impinge upon your autonomy, even if there is nothing you want to do with your hands right now.
The greater the autonomy we exercise, the greater the risk that our actions will be perceived by another person as impinging on their autonomy. A case in point involves “Elizabeth,” a seasoned corporate lawyer, who recalls a negotiation that she thought was going to be a “simple, consensual buyout”:
I arrived at O’Hare Airport accompanied by two legal associates for our first meeting with John, the lawyer for the other side. He was alone. And he appeared surprised and apparently quite upset to discover that I had brought two young lawyers with me.
“I understood,” he said, “that this was going to be a preliminary meeting between just the two of us to get acquainted and to make plans based on the suggested agenda I sent you. We’re clearly facing a long negotiation.”
“But,” I said, “my two associates are the ones who have prepared our preliminary draft of a final agreement. I do want them here for our discussion.”
“Draft of a final agreement!” he exclaimed. “That seems awfully pushy. You bring your team with you, and they bring a draft agreement? All this before you and I even meet? In any event, my wife is expecting the two of us for dinner tonight, and we will be able to talk then.”
“Dinner? Sorry, I didn’t know that and have made other plans.”
“Then I’ll call my wife and tell her that dinner is off,” he said. “Let me invite you to meet with me now, one-on-one, in the two-person Airport Conference Room B that I reserved just upstairs. We can then consider whether or not to expand that meeting to include your two colleagues.”
“Sounds like a plan,” I responded.
“Well, of course,” he said, “I don’t know whether a larger room is even available now.”
Obviously, this negotiation did not get off to a good start. Apparently, neither negotiator had thought about who could appropriately make what decisions without involving the other. Even in trivial logistical matters, emotions can quickly get stirred. Usually this is not because someone made a wrong decision, but because a decision was made without consulting the other person. As a negotiator you should be ready for trouble if the decision you made that affects the other can be responded to with:
“I did not agree to that!”
“I was not consulted!”
“I was not even informed!”
We easily get offended when others limit our scope of autonomy beyond what we think is appropriate. They may pressure us to acquiesce to their demand: “That’s our final offer—take it or leave it.” They may try to limit our thinking: “Don’t even think about walking out on this deal.” Or they may discourage us from feeling certain emotions: “You shouldn’t feel sad about losing the deal. Just get over it.”
OBSTACLES TO USING AUTONOMY WISELY
If we fail to manage autonomy well, it can stimulate negative emotions in us and in others. Ultimately, those emotions can harm the outcome of our negotiation. Two obstacles stand in the way.
We Unduly Limit Our Own Autonomy
In everyday life, most of us have the autonomy to decorate our office as we would like, to decide what we want to eat for lunch, or to choose our own bedtime. In a negotiation, however, we often are blind to the many ways we can exercise our autonomy. We may limit our own autonomy because we feel powerless to affect change or to influence others. If we are not the final decision maker, for example, what kind of impact can we have on the negotiation? As you will see, there is power in not having authority.
We Impinge upon Their Autonomy
When our autonomy bumps up against the autonomy of another, we may feel as though we are walking through a minefield without a map. A misstep on autonomy can derail an entire negotiation. If the other side’s autonomy feels impinged upon, they are more likely to reduce their trust in us, to reject our ideas whether useful or not, and to invest little effort to implement “our” agreement.
To stimulate positive emotions, then, you will need:
to expand your own autonomy
to avoid impinging on the other person’s autonomy.
EXPAND YOUR AUTONOMY
The power of autonomy primarily rests in our ability to affect decisions. Many of us wrongly assume that without the ability to authorize a decision, we are powerless. And if others lack such authority, we view them as powerless and not worth dealing with. Why negotiate with the junior associate who showed up at the meeting if h
e is not authorized to make commitments? If we are representing a client, why go into a meeting with the other side if we have no authority to make decisions? We may worry that others will see us or our ideas as “weak.”
Do not unduly limit your autonomy. There are powerful ways you can affect a decision even if you do not have decision-making authority. You can make a recommendation to someone, invent options before deciding, and conduct joint brainstorming.
Make a Recommendation
No one but you limits your ability to make a recommendation to someone. If you are disappointed at the way your company is dealing with a problem, develop some useful ideas. Do not constrain your ability to think creatively about problems and about ways to address them. Consider:
• What is the problem that I want to address?
• Who do I want to influence?
• What recommendation can I make?
• How can I get my recommendation to the decision maker?
Invent Options Before Deciding
The ability to affect a negotiation need not depend upon having the authority to make a binding decision. By brainstorming, you can invent possible decisions that might later be made. This is best done if you can talk freely without having to worry that something you say might amount to a commitment. You and others can step “outside the box” of conventional thinking. The fact that you have no authority to make a binding decision gives you enhanced autonomy to generate new ideas and fresh possibilities. Freed from the risk that something you say might limit your authority, you need not worry about locking yourself or a client into a poor decision.
Roger recalls how he expanded his autonomy during the Iran hostage situation:
In the fall of 1979, the United States Embassy in Teheran was seized. Most of the diplomats and other members of the American staff were held hostage for many months. In the spring of 1980, President Carter tried to rescue them by helicopter. The attempt failed.
Shortly thereafter, White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler phoned me and asked me to see what I could do about the hostages. Cutler made it clear that I had no authority to make a binding commitment of any kind. Cutler would be available twenty-four hours a day through the White House switchboard. He obviously recognized that a government official who tried to brainstorm with Iranians would likely be heard as disclosing what the U.S. government was willing to do. Whatever was said by an official could then be interpreted as a bargaining proposal, to which the Iranians could be expected to ask for more.
As a freewheeling professor working through a small, nonprofit, nongovernmental organization, I saw my purpose as trying to generate a package that I might recommend to both sides.
Through a student in Iran, I got in touch by telephone with the Ayatollah Beheshti, head of the Islamic Republican Party, who spoke English fairly well. Beheshti had apparently learned something about me. His manner was surprisingly genial. The conversation was roughly as follows:
ROGER: “What are Iran’s interests? What do you want?”
BEHESHTI: “I’ll tell you what we don’t want. We don’t want the New York courts to have anything to do with our financial claims.”
ROGER: “Who do you want to decide any financial dispute? The Iranian courts?”
BEHESHTI, laughing: “No, not that. How about arbitration at the Hague?”
ROGER: “Do you think Iran will accept arbitration?”
BEHESHTI: “Right now, I will commit Iran to accept arbitration at the Hague. Will you commit the United States to do so?”
ROGER: “As I told you, I have no authority of any kind to commit the United States. If we can work something out, I am prepared to recommend it to the White House. What else does Iran want?”
Beheshti outlined a number of issues that would have been difficult subjects for a U.S. diplomat to discuss without the usual rhetoric. In talking with me, however, the real interests beneath the positions came out.
BEHESHTI: “Sanctions must be ended.”
ROGER: “Ouch. Give me some good arguments that I can use with the U.S. government to recommend ending sanctions.”
BEHESHTI: “First, we have been punished enough.”
ROGER: “Well. President Carter could say that, but there is no clear standard for how much punishment would be ‘enough’ in this case. I will need more arguments.”
BEHESHTI: “Well, to continue sanctions risks destabilizing the whole area.”
ROGER: “Please explain that point. Why is that so?”
BEHESHTI: “Don’t you understand? Doesn’t your government understand?”
ROGER: “I don’t know what the United States understands, but I don’t understand. Why do sanctions risk destabilizing the region?”
BEHESHTI: “To import or export items contrary to the sanctions, officials on one or both sides of the border have to be bribed. And the longer bribery of officials goes on, the more we and our neighboring governments lose control over the boundary areas.”
ROGER: “That’s a good argument. Give me one more.”
BEHESHTI: “Let me think. Oh, if the United States fails to end sanctions when the hostages are released, it will never have a better excuse for doing so.”
ROGER: “I like that point. I will certainly use it with the White House.”
By making clear that while he had access to officials in the White House, he had no authority to commit the government of the United States to anything, Roger’s autonomy to explore interests and generate a possible political package was expanded. He could talk freely without the risk that his remarks would be taken as a commitment nor understood as revealing some hidden position of what the government might be willing to do. By playing an unofficial role, he was better able to generate the substance of a possible agreement than he would have been if he had had the authority to make a binding decision. At the same time, his unofficial role made it easier for Beheshti to talk without making government-to-government commitments.
Separating inventing from deciding can be useful in almost any negotiation. If Kate and Steve are going to buy a new car for him, they may decide to have Steve go alone to look over various cars, sit in them, and drive one or two that he likes best.
Steve realizes, however, that a dealer may try to pressure him into buying a car. The dealer may want to run a credit check, give him a sales pitch, or find out how much he is willing to spend. Wisely, Steve makes clear to the sales personnel that he does not want to make a final deal without his wife. He and his wife will have to decide together. He expands his autonomy to explore cars without excess pressure, and buying a car turns from being stressful to being fun.
Now Steve and Kate move from exploration of options toward commitment. Steve informs Kate about the cars he liked. He checks the Internet on the cost of these new cars to the dealership, while she calls a few other dealerships to find out their sale prices. They weigh the pros and cons of each car and of the dealer’s treatment toward Steve. At the least, a good relationship with the dealer is important if there are any car troubles.
They then go off to the nearest dealer who is offering the desired car at a low price. Here Kate and Steve explore a package deal including extras, price, and delivery date. If they agree with the dealer on a reasonable package, they exercise their autonomy to make a firm commitment—and buy a car.
Conduct Joint Brainstorming
A third way to expand autonomy is to conduct joint brainstorming. In this process, you and the other party explore options without deciding, refine those options, and then decide among them. Whether you are negotiating a business transaction or a government policy, if you want to give joint brainstorming a try, follow the five steps on Table 7.
Even in emotionally heated conflicts such as divorce, joint brainstorming can help. For a couple with children, a divorce is likely to involve a mix of difficult questions and strong emo
tions. Perhaps the clearest example is when a husband and wife who have children are negotiating custody issues in an amicable divorce. The autonomy of each spouse is very likely to bump up against the autonomy of the other. A checklist of open issues includes decisions about visitation times, household rules, medical and dental needs, religious upbringing, and which school to attend.
TABLE 7
FIVE STEPS FOR JOINT BRAINSTORMING
1. Decide who should participate.
• Select six to a dozen people with knowledge on the subject and differing points of view.
• Include some who have access to a decision maker.
• Invite each participant “in their personal capacity”—not as a representative.
• If participants hold strong views on the topic, consider getting a facilitator.
2. Explore interests.
• Participants on each “side” jointly draft their best estimate of the other side’s interests.
• Each side shares their list and invites feedback and “corrections” from the other.
3. Invent options without commitment.
• Make clear: “Nothing said at this stage is a commitment.”
• Each participant generates ideas that might satisfy important interests of everyone.
• Welcome wild ideas. (They might stimulate better ones.)
• List all ideas on a flip chart for everyone to see.
4. Refine options
• Everyone nominates ideas that might best meet the interests of all.
• The group selects a shorter list of options that deserve further consideration.
• The group sharpens those ideas into operational possibilities.
• They simplify each idea until the word “yes” is a sufficient and realistic response.