Beyond Reason

by Roger Fisher

  5. Decide what to do with the ideas.

  • Nominate deciders to whom these options might be recommended.

  • Enlist volunteers to convey ideas to deciders.

  • If some participants are themselves deciders, ask their advice: “Is there something we could do that would make it easier for you to say yes?”

  The underlying question—which of the divorcing parents has the autonomy to make decisions about their child—is likely to stir up strong emotions. The chance of ending up with a tolerable divorce for the parents and the child is likely to depend on the parents’ spending enough time together, or perhaps with a mediator or facilitator, to conduct joint brainstorming.

  Of course, the wife or husband can skip this complex brainstorming and simply go to court and request the terms of a divorce. A busy judge may use his or her autonomy to grant the request within a few minutes—often to the financial and emotional detriment of everyone, except perhaps the lawyers and the taxing authorities. The ex-spouses, their children, and their lawyers can now argue for years over issues that might have been settled more wisely and less expensively through joint brainstorming.

  In other situations, members of some organization or group have little intrinsic authority or have left what they had at the door. During joint brainstorming, they may want to devise ways to communicate their recommendations to a particular decision maker. Participants may decide to write a memo, jointly or alone, or they may decide to share suggestions orally with decision makers.

  Caveat: A Great Deal of Autonomy Can Be Overwhelming

  Sometimes the problem is not that we lack autonomy, but rather that we feel overwhelmed by having too many choices and too many decisions to make. Viktor Kremenyuk, a Soviet expert on negotiation, was having lunch with Roger at a Cambridge restaurant. The waitress handed our Soviet colleague a long and complicated menu:

  “Would you like to order?”

  “Do you have a special? Fine. I’ll take it.”

  “How would you like the meat? Medium, well done, or rare?”

  “Medium is fine. Thank you.”

  Thinking that he had finished the task, Kremenyuk turned to conversation with Roger. The waitress then asked:

  “How would you like the potatoes? Baked, mashed, or French fries?”

  “Baked potato, please. Thank you.” Again, he tried to resume the conversation with Roger.

  “Do you want a salad?”

  “Yes, thank you.”

  “What kind of salad—Caesar salad, Cobb salad, or the house salad?”

  “House salad, please. Thank you.”

  “And what kind of dressing would you like on the salad.”

  “Whatever you have, thank you.”

  “Oil and vinegar? Russian dressing? Blue cheese?”

  “Whatever you suggest, thank you!”

  “Whatever you want.”

  “All right. The blue cheese. Now where were we, Roger?”

  As the waitress walks away, Kremenyuk exclaims: “Being on per diem, I am paying for this meal. Even my friends wouldn’t make me work so hard for my food. In Moscow, when I order the special, I get the special.”

  With autonomy, as with each of the other core concerns, we want to feel an appropriate degree of satisfaction. More autonomy is not always better. We can be overloaded with decisions to make.

  DON’T IMPINGE UPON THEIR AUTONOMY

  Too often, when we do have decision-making authority, we fail to include in the decision-making process those people who will be impacted by our decision. By excluding others, we risk impinging upon their autonomy—and having to deal with their consequent anger and resentment.

  Negotiators are often wholly unaware of the emotional impact of their unilateral decisions. We would be taken aback if the other side simply announced, “Our next meeting will be in my office on Thursday at 10:00 A.m.” They are focused on the merits of the decision and ignore the process by which that decision is made. The other side’s office might in fact be the best place to hold a meeting. They may feel more confident and open in their own office; and for us it means we can leave whenever we want. What is upsetting is not the content of the decision but rather how it was reached. Were we included or excluded from the process? The answer to that question is likely to affect not only how we feel about the decision but also how we feel about working with the other person.

  Consider the situation of Roger and his wife, Carrie, as they drove north to Vermont to attend a friend’s birthday bash. As they set out, they stopped to buy flowers as a gift for their hosts. They bought two expensive plants. The cashier pointed out that there was a special bonus that day of a dozen roses at no charge with any purchase of $25 or more. Roger proposed that if she rang up the two plants as two separate sales, he could get two dozen free roses. She agreed, rang up the plants as two separate sales, and Roger got two dozen free roses.

  He stayed to pay the florist for the plants as Carrie took the roses across the street. On her way to the car, she met by chance some good friends who helped her carry the flowers. When Roger joined them and offered to relieve the friend of the bunch of roses she held, he learned that his wife had given her a dozen of “his” roses. He smiled and said “Great,” but felt irritated.

  Back on the highway, Roger tried to figure out why he was so irritated by his wife’s decision. It was perfectly reasonable to give the flowers to their friend. If consulted, he would almost certainly have thought it was a good idea. But he had not been consulted, and in his view the two dozen roses were clearly a result of his initiative and his work negotiating with the clerk. Carrie had unilaterally decided to give half of them away without considering that he might have had a plan for them himself.

  Roger concluded that he was upset because his wife had taken action that impinged upon his autonomy. What happened to the roses, he believed, was for him to decide—or at the very least, to be consulted. Once he understood the source of his irritation, his anger dissipated.

  If people can get emotionally upset over something that unimportant, it is easy to understand how a negotiator may become quite upset over any decision that has been unilaterally made by someone else. Such a decision might be about where to meet, when to start, what kind of sandwiches to order for lunch, or when to break for the day. Negative emotions may arise less over the content of the decision than over the fact that one negotiator chose to act unilaterally.

  Always Consult Before Deciding

  Our advice is to keep watching for ways that your behavior may impinge on the autonomy of others. The simplest remedy is to Always Consult Before Deciding—or ACBD for short. Carrie might have held off on giving the roses to their friend. When Roger arrived, she might discretely have asked him, “What do you think about giving a dozen roses to Liz?”

  Consulting another before you make a decision has three important benefits. The other feels included in the decision-making process. You might learn something through the consultation. And you still maintain veto power. Consulting another does not give them the power to choose the outcome of the decision, but rather to provide input.

  Consulting does have a drawback. Roger discussed the meaning of ACBD with his wife and suggested they try to Always Consult Before Deciding. A few days later, she said, “Do you know the trouble with ACBD? It means NGAD—Never Get Anything Done!”

  She was right. There is a balance to be struck between too much unilateral deciding and too much time spent consulting. Some former students have adopted a revised motto that can safely be applied in all but the most urgent crises: Consider Consulting Before Deciding.

  Invite Input from “Invisible” Stakeholders

  Rarely are all stakeholders present at the negotiation table. Millions of constituents are affected by an economic agreement negotiated by two political leaders. Thousands of unio
n members and administrators are influenced by the decisions of a dozen labor and management negotiators. A family of eight vacations at a location decided by the mother and father.

  Trouble may brew if we fail to respect the autonomy of these invisible stakeholders. Without their “buy in,” constituents may speak poorly of an organization, exert little effort to implement their small part of an agreement, or even try to sabotage it. American consumers may not buy merchandise from a company that has negotiated extremely cheap labor from a third world country. Union members may work halfheartedly if they fail to receive the salary increase they expected. Children may resent vacationing if they were not consulted about the place.

  Although a decision may not have an immediate impact on someone’s position, it can affect that person’s life in important ways. An employee may sourly note, “I just took out a second mortgage on my house. If this company is falling apart, my job falls apart with it. Why didn’t the corporate heads let me know in advance! And what am I going to say today to my subordinates worrying about the future of their jobs?” The anxiety and resentment of enough employees can produce an unmotivated workforce and, perhaps, a failed company.

  Thus, it is a useful practice to respect the autonomy of these invisible stakeholders. It would be too overwhelming to negotiate with thousands of constituents or employees. It can even be overwhelming to negotiate a vacation with a houseful of children. You may be able to consult with them, however, and, in any event, you can usually inform them of decisions that are being considered.

  Consulting with stakeholders. Ask stakeholders for their input on decisions that will be made. You might create a system where stakeholders can e-mail their suggestions to a central location, place recommendations in a suggestions box, or call in their ideas to a designated person. Or you might organize a consultation committee of stakeholders. For example, suppose the CEO of a nationwide pharmacy chain is negotiating new store policies with branch executives. Before deciding anything, the CEO might set up a consultation committee that includes a couple of cashiers, pharmacists, marketers, and managers of local stores. The CEO instructs the committee members to solicit from their colleagues input on key issues being negotiated, and then to report their findings to the consultation committee. Several of these committees could be formed across the country. A summary of the recommendations could be forwarded to the CEO.

  With any system, it is unlikely that everyone will offer input. Yet you can create an atmosphere that promotes inclusion in decision making. People can feel that they have a voice in a matter, even if they do not have the final choice.

  Informing stakeholders. You can respect the autonomy of stakeholders by informing them of decisions whenever possible. If appropriate, inform them of decisions you are in the process of making. If this is not feasible, inform them of decisions promptly after they are made.

  For example, the pharmacy chain may need to modify their policies to comply with revised government regulations. Though the CEO of the corporation wisely consults with lawyers and top executives, there may not be enough time to form a consultation committee or to take into account suggestions from every employee. In this case, the CEO may want to change the policy and then, without delay, inform employees of the change and why it was necessary.

  By consulting others, we can tailor our decision to satisfy their interests. And the mere act of keeping others informed of decisions can save governments, families, and companies from the perils of ignoring stakeholders’ autonomy.

  An example: The impact on employees of a merger. Too often top management ignores what is going to happen to the autonomy of their employees.

  The chairmen of two companies met, were persuaded of the overall economic benefit that could result from a merger, and decided to go ahead. They jointly decided who would be chairman of the new enterprise, who would be the chief executive officer, how much each would be paid, how much money would change hands as one company bought the stock of the other, and what the name of the combined company would be. The merger was then announced to the press.

  Most mergers fail, as did this one.

  Although the chairmen had correctly estimated the potential economic benefit of combining the two companies, they had failed to take into account the emotionally charged issues generated by such a merger. Of course, they had the autonomy to explore those issues, to brainstorm options, and to take preemptive action. Yet they failed to use their autonomy wisely.

  If the chairmen had consulted widely, they could have learned a lot. Autonomy was important at all levels of both organizations. The grades and pay scales of the two companies did not match. The two companies had markedly different internal cultures in terms of formality, dress codes, keeping office doors open or shut, and the use of first names. All these features raised issues of great importance to employees. About those issues and others, employees on both sides could have been consulted. Many could have been involved in the process of dealing with such differences. As it was, their autonomy and their emotions were ignored. The resentment of a great many employees over that merger led to its demise.

  To Establish Decision-Making Guidelines, Use the I-C-N Bucket System

  We are often at odds about the “right” amount of autonomy each of us should have in affecting and making a decision. The autonomy of a boss, a spouse, a partner, or a counterpart in negotiation can be protected by sorting decisions to be made into three “buckets.” The three buckets are to Inform, to Consult, or to Negotiate, or I-C-N for short.

  Some years back, a partner in a small, Cambridge-based negotiation consulting firm was asked to take on the role of managing partner. The firm had a dozen partners and another dozen employees. Given the high number of partners, the question was soon raised about the managing partner’s decision-making autonomy. What guidelines should the firm establish about the managing partner’s authority to make decisions?

  For a couple of weeks, the managing partner kept a record of the many decisions with which he was faced, and then he had a meeting of the partners. The managing partner ran through the kinds of decisions he and the firm had to make and the partners each held up one, two, or three fingers to indicate into which bucket a decision of that kind should go. What startled the partners was that there was almost no disagreement as to which issues fell into which bucket.

  Bucket 1: Inform. These were thought of as small decisions that the managing partner could make on his own and then simply inform the rest of the organization. These were decisions like buying new furniture and hiring office staff.

  Bucket 2: Consult, then decide. Into the second bucket went significant issues that the managing partner had authority to decide but only after consulting other partners. Just who he consulted was up to him, but he was expected to consult partners who were likely to have views on the subject. It might, for example, be a decision of the firm to take on a potentially unsavory client like a tobacco company. After deciding, he would promptly inform partners of the decision.

  Bucket 3: Negotiate joint agreement. Into the third bucket went those big decisions where the managing partner had to negotiate and obtain agreement of a majority of the firm. All partners wanted to participate in “big decisions” such as making new partners or moving the firm’s office to a new building.

  The three buckets can come in handy for labor-management negotiators and others who work together over time and face similar decisions again and again. The process also helps those who work together to keep from stepping on each other’s toes without being paralyzed by the need for constant consensus.

  Even in an organization of only two people, such as a personal relationship, the bucket system can help with decisions ranging from handling money to making social plans. As Dan recalls:

  I planned to surprise my wife by taking her to a French restaurant to celebrate our upcoming wedding anniversary. Saturday arrived, and I revealed my plans to Mia, who had a s
urprise for me. She had already planned a girls’ night out with a few of her friends but had not informed me. We were both disappointed as plans for a romantic evening quickly crumbled.

  We discussed ways to avoid this kind of grief in the future and decided to use the bucket system to answer a few key questions:

  On what days of the week can we make plans on our own? [bucket 1]

  On what days should we consult with the other before making plans? [bucket 2]

  On what days should we decide plans together? [bucket 3]

  We decided to do as we each would like on weekdays, to consult before deciding on weeknight plans, and to negotiate weekend plans.

  The bucket system also can be useful in dealing with money issues. For one member of a couple to make a unilateral decision to spend what the other considers a lot of money is almost certain to stir up emotions—usually negative. Dividing such financial issues into buckets can help. (“Let’s neither of us buy anything that will cost more than $100 unless we both agree on it.”) Brainstorming together in advance of buying big items can eliminate many of the most troublesome money issues. Yet, the simplest and most basic rule about protecting autonomy is probably CCBD—Consider Consulting Before Deciding.

  BACK TO CHICAGO: WHAT TO DO WHEN AUTONOMY IS IMPINGED

  Remember Elizabeth, the corporate lawyer who flew to Chicago to work out a routine business deal? We were introduced to her quandary at the beginning of this chapter. She found herself clashing more and more over autonomy with John, which created tension from the outset. What advice might we give her to deal more effectively with autonomy?

  In the Moment

  Elizabeth is doing her best to sustain a working relationship with John during this unexpectedly stressful interaction. She is listening to him rather than becoming sullen and quiet, walking off, or accusing him of being obstructive. She has disclosed the fact that she wants to include her two associates in the interaction and that she has alternative plans for the evening. Nevertheless, her interaction with John appears to be spinning out of control. They are both reacting to what the other is saying. Misunderstandings and distrust are piling up.