[From Bruce Nevin (2000.10.29.2112 EST)]
Bill Powers (2000.10.29.1543 MST)
I must add that like all role-playing situations in which one has control
of all the imaginary players involved, negotiations like this probably work
a lot better in books than in real life.
In the story I quoted they are not imaginary players. Or at least I believed Fisher and Ury when they said that their examples are fairly faithful transcripts of actual events. If believing them is an issue, there is a substantial case history since then, where there is no question about imaginary players.
I can't speak to the hard-core adjuster you encountered, other than the truism that individuals do vary, on both sides of the conflict. Tom's best alternative was Small Claims Court. Maybe you felt you had none.
Here's another example from Fisher & Ury. I scanned this and then decided it wasn't needed. I hope I don't violate copyright by quoting so extensively.
Getting them to play: The case of Jones Realty and Frank Turnbull
The following real-life example of a negotiation between a landlord and tenant should give you a feel for how you might deal with a party who is reluctant to engage in principled negotiation. It illustrates what it means to change the game by starting to play a new one.
The case in brief. Frank Turnbull rented an apartment in March from Jones Realty for $300 a month. In July, when he and his roommate, Paul, wanted to move out, Turnbull learned that the apartment was under rent control. The maximum legal rent was $233 a month - $67 less than he had been paying.
Disturbed that he had been overcharged, Turnbull called on Mrs. Jones of Jones Realty to discuss the problem. At first, Mrs. Jones was unreceptive and hostile. She claimed to be right and accused Turnbull of ingratitude and blackmail. After several long negotiating sessions, however, Mrs. Jones agreed to reimburse Turnbull and his roommate. Her tone in the end became friendlier and apologetic.
Throughout, Turnbull used the method of principled negotiation. Presented below is a selection of the exchanges that took place during the negotiation. Each exchange is headed by a stock phrase that a principled negotiator might use in any similar situation. Following each exchange is an analysis of the theory that lies behind it and its impact.
"Please correct me if I'm wrong"
.................................................................
TURNBULL: Mrs. Jones, I've just learned-please correct me if I'm wrong - that our apartment's under rent control. We've been told that the legal maximum rent is $233 a month. Have we been misinformed?
.................................................................
Analysis. The essence of principled negotiation lies in remaining open to persuasion by objective facts and principles. By cautiously treating the objective facts as possibly inaccurate and asking Mrs. Jones to correct them, Turnbull establishes a dialogue based on reason. He invites her to participate by either agreeing with the facts as presented or setting them right. This game makes them two colleagues trying to establish the facts. The confrontation is defused. If Turnbull simply asserted the facts as facts, Mrs. Jones would feel threatened and defensive. She might deny the facts. The negotiation would not start off constructively.
If Turnbull is genuinely mistaken, asking for corrections beforehand will make them easier to accept. To tell Mrs. Jones that these are the facts, only to learn he is wrong, would make him lose face. Worse yet, she would then doubt all the more anything else he says, making it difficult to negotiate.
Making yourself open to correction and persuasion is a pillar in the strategy of principled negotiation. You can convince the other side to be open to the principles and objective facts you suggest only if you show yourself open to the ones they suggest.
"We appreciate what you've done for us"
.................................................................
TURNBULL: Paul and I understand you were doing us a personal favor by renting us this apartment. You were very kind to put in the time and effort, and we appreciate it.
.................................................................
Analysis. Giving personal support to the person on the other side is crucial to separating the people from the problem - separating relationship issues from the substantive merits. By expressing his appreciation of Mrs. Jones's good deeds, Turnbull in effect says, "We have nothing against you personally. We think you're a generous person." He puts himself on her side. He defuses any threat she may feel to her self-image.
Praise and support, moreover, imply that the person will continue to deserve them. After being praised, Mrs. Jones now has a slight emotional investment in Turnbull's approval of her. She has something to lose and as a result may act more conciliatory.
"Our concern is fairness"
.................................................................
TURNBULL: We want to know that we didn't pay any more than we should have. When we're persuaded that the rent paid measures up fairly to the time spent in the apartment, we'll call it even and move out.
.................................................................
Analysis. Turnbull takes a basic stand on principle and announces his intention to stick to it; he must be persuaded on the basis of principle. At the same time, he lets Mrs. Jones know he is open to persuasion along the lines of this principle. She is thus left with little choice but to reason with him in pursuit of her interests.
Turnbull does not take a righteous stand on principle backed up with whatever power he possesses. Not only are his ends principled but also the means he contemplates. His ends, he claims, are a fair balance between rent paid and time spent. If convinced the rent paid is just right for the time spent, he will move out. If the rent paid is excessive, it is only fair that he remain in the apartment until the rent and the time spent are in balance.
"We would like to settle this on the basis not of selfish interest and power but of principle"
.................................................................
MRS. JONES: It's funny you should mention fairness, because what you're really saying is that you and Paul just want money, and that you're going to take advantage of your still being in the apartment to try and get it from us. That really makes me angry. If I had my way, you and Paul would be out of the apartment today.
TURNBULL (barely controlling his anger): I must not be making myself clear. Of course it would be nice if Paul and I got some money. Of course, we could try and stay here in the apartment until you got us evicted. But that's not the point, Mrs. Jones.
More important to us than making a few dollars here or there is the feeling of being fairly treated. No one likes to feel cheated. And if we made this a matter of who's got the power and refused to move, we'd have to go to court, waste a lot of time and money, and end up with a big headache. You would too. Who wants that?
No, Mrs. Jones, we want to handle this problem fairly on the basis of some fair standard, rather than of power and selfish interest.
.................................................................
Analysis. Mrs. Jones challenges the idea of negotiating on r, the basis of principle, calling it a charade. It's a matter of will and her will is to throw out Turnbull and his roommate today.
At this Turnbull almost loses his temper - and with it his a control over the negotiation. He feels like counterattacking: "I'd like to see you try to get us out. We'll go to court. We'll 3 get your license revoked." The negotiation would then break off, and Turnbull would lose a lot of time, effort, and peace of mind. But instead of reacting, Turnbull keeps his temper and brings the negotiation back to the merits. This is a good example of negotiation jujitsu. He deflects Mrs. Jones's attack by taking responsibility for her mistaken perceptions, and he tries to persuade her of his sincere interest in principle. He does not hide either his selfish interests or his leverage over her; on the contrary, he makes both explicit. Once they are acknowledged, he can separate them from the merits and they can cease being an issue.
Turnbull also tries to give the game of principled negotiation some weight by telling Mrs. Jones this is his basic code -the way he always plays. He attributes this not to highminded motives - which are always suspect - but to simple self-interest.
"Trust is a separate issue"
.................................................................
MRS. JONES: You don't trust me? After all I've done for you?
TURNBULL: Mrs. Jones, we appreciate all you've done for us. But trust isn't the issue here. The issue is the principle: Did we 1 pay more than we should have? What considerations do you think we should take into account in deciding this?
.................................................................
Analysis. Mrs. Jones tries to manipulate Turnbull into a corner. Either he pursues the point and looks untrusting or he looks trusting and gives in. Turnbull slips out of the corner, however, by expressing his gratitude once more and then defining the question of trust as irrelevant. Turnbull at once reaffirms his appreciation of Mrs. Jones while he remains firm on the principle. Moreover, Turnbull does not just shunt aside the question of trust but actively directs the discussion back to principle by asking Mrs. Jones what considerations she thinks are relevant.
Turnbull sticks to principle without blaming Mrs. Jones. He never calls her dishonest. He does not ask, "Did you take advantage of us?" but inquires more impersonally, "Did we pay more than we should have?" Even if he does not trust her, it would be a poor strategy to tell her so. She would probably become defensive and angry and might either withdraw into a rigid position or break off the negotiation altogether.
It helps to have stock phrases like "It's not a question of trust" to turn aside ploys like Mrs. Jones's plea for trust.
"Could I ask you a few questions to see whether my facts are right?"
.................................................................
TURNBULL: Could I ask you a few questions to see whether the facts I've been given are right?
Is the apartment really under rent control?
Is the legal maximum rent really $233?
Paul asked me whether this makes us parties to a violation of law.
Did someone inform Paul at the time he signed the lease that the apartment was under rent control, and that the legal maximum was $67 lower than the rent he agreed to?
.................................................................
Analysis. Statements of fact can be threatening. Whenever you can, ask a question instead.
Turnbull might have declared, "The legal rent is $233. You broke the law. What's worse, you involved us in breaking the law without telling us so." Mrs. Jones would probably have reacted strongly to these statements, dismissing them as verbal attacks intended to score points.
Phrasing each piece of information as a question allows Mrs. Jones to participate, listen to the information, evaluate it, and either accept or correct it. Turnbull communicates the same information to her but in a less threatening manner. He reduces the threat still further by attributing a particularly pointed question to his absent roommate.
In effect, Turnbull induces Mrs. Jones to help lay a foundation of agreed-upon facts upon which a principled solution can be built.
"What's the principle behind your action?"
.................................................................
TURNBULL: I'm not clear why you charged us $300 a month. What were your reasons for charging that much?
.................................................................
Analysis. A principled negotiator neither accepts nor rejects the other side's positions. To keep the dialogue focused on the merits, Turnbull questions Mrs. Jones about the reasons for her position. He does not ask whether there were any reasons. He assumes there are good reasons. This flattering assumption leads the other side to search for reasons even if there are none, thus keeping the negotiation on the basis of principle.
"Let me see if I understand what you're saying"
.................................................................
TURNBULL: Let me see if I understand what you're saying, Mrs. Jones. If I've understood you correctly, you think the rent we paid is fair because you made a lot of repairs and improvements to the apartment since the last rent control evaluation. It wasn't worth your while to ask the Rent Control Board for an increase for the few months you rented the place to us.
In fact, you rented it only as a favor to Paul. And now you're concerned that we may take unfair advantage of you and try to get money from you as the price for moving out. Is there something I've missed or misunderstood?
.................................................................
Analysis. Principled negotiation requires good communication. Before responding to Mrs. Jones's arguments, Turnbull restates to her in positive terms what he has heard to make sure he has indeed understood her.
Once she feels understood, she can relax and discuss the problem constructively. She can't dismiss his arguments on the grounds that they do not take into account what she knows. She is likely to listen now. and be more receptive. In trying to sum up her point of view, Turnbull establishes a cooperative game in which both are making sure he understands the facts.
"Let me get back to you"
.................................................................
TURNBULL: Now that I think I understand your point of view, let me talk with my roommate and explain it to him. Can I get back to you tomorrow sometime?
.................................................................
Analysis. A good negotiator rarely makes an important decision on the spot. The psychological pressure to be nice and to give in is too great. A little time and distance help separate the people from the problem.
A good negotiator comes to the table with a credible reason in his pocket for leaving when he wants. Such a reason should not indicate passivity or inability to make a decision. Here, Turnbull sounds as if he knows exactly what he is doing, and he arranges to resume the negotiation at a given time. He shows not only decisiveness but also control over the course of the negotiation.
Once away from the table, Turnbull can check on points of information and consult his "constituency," Paul. He can think about the decision and make sure he has not lost perspective.
Too much time at the table may wear down one's commitment to principled negotiation. Returning to the table with renewed resolve, Turnbull can be soft on the person without being soft on the problem.
"Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasoning"
.................................................................
TURNBULL: Let me show you where I have trouble following some of your reasons for the extra $67 a month. One reason was the repairs and improvements on the apartment. The Rent Control Examiner said it would take about $10,000 in improvements to justify an increase of $67 a month. How much money was spent on improvements?
I must admit it didn't seem like $10,000 worth to Paul and me. The hole in the linoleum you promised to repair was never fixed; neither was the hole in the living room floor. The toilet broke down repeatedly. These are just some of the defects and malfunctions we found.
.................................................................
Analysis. In principled negotiation you should present all your reasons first before offering a proposal. If principles come afterwards, they appear not as the objective criteria which any proposal should satisfy but as mere justifications for an arbitrary position.
For Turnbull to explain his reasons first shows his openness to persuasion and his awareness of the need to convince Mrs. Jones. If he announced his proposal first, Mrs. Jones probably would not bother to listen to the reasons that followed. Her mind would be elsewhere, considering what objections and counterproposals she could make.'
"One fair solution might be . . . ."
.................................................................
TURNBULL: Given all the considerations we've discussed, one solution seems to be for Paul and me to be reimbursed for the amount of rent we paid in excess of the legal maximum. Does that sound fair to you?
.................................................................
Analysis. Turnbull presents a proposal not as his, but as a fair option which deserves their joint consideration. He does not claim it is the only fair solution, but _one_ fair solution. He is specific without digging himself into a position and inviting rejection.
"If we agree . . . . If we disagree . . . ."
.................................................................
TURNBULL: If you and I could reach agreement now, Paul and would move out immediately. If we can't reach an agreement, the hearing examiner at the Rent Control Board suggested that stay in the apartment and withhold rent and/or sue you for reimbursement, treble damages, and legal fees. Paul and I are extremely reluctant to take either of these courses. We feel confident we can settle this matter fairly with you to your satisfaction and ours.
.................................................................
Analysis. Turnbull is trying to make it easy for Mrs. Jones to say yes to his proposal. So he starts by making it clear that all it takes for the problem to go away is Mrs. Jones's agreement.
The trickiest part of the message to communicate is the alternative if no agreement is reached. How can Turnbull get this across - he wants her to take it into account in her decision - without upsetting the negotiations? He bases the alternative on objective principle by attributing it to a legal authority - the hearing examiner. He distances himself personally from the suggestion. Nor does he say he will definitely take action. Instead, he leaves it as a possibility and emphasizes his reluctance to do anything drastic. Finally, he closes by affirming his confidence that a mutually satisfactory agreement will be reached.
Turnbull's BATNA - his best alternative to a negotiated agreement - is probably neither staying in the apartment nor going to court. He and Paul have already rented another apartment and would greatly prefer to move out now. A lawsuit would be difficult, given their busy schedules, and even if they won, they might never be able to collect. Turnbull's BATNA is probably just to move out and stop worrying about the $335 overpayment. Since his BATNA is probably less attractive than Mrs. Jones thinks, Turnbull does not disclose it
"We'd be happy to see if we can leave when it's most convenient for you"
.................................................................
MRS. JONES: When do you plan to move out?
TURNBULL: As long as we've agreed on the appropriate rent for our time in the apartment, we'd be happy to see if we can leave when it's most convenient for you. When would you prefer?
.................................................................
Analysis. Sensing the possibility of a joint gain, Turnbull indicates his willingness to discuss ways of meeting Mrs. Jones's interest. As it turns out, Turnbull and Mrs. Jones have a shared interest in Turnbull moving out as soon as possible.
Incorporating her interests into the agreement not only gives her more of a stake in it but also allows Mrs. Jones to save face. On the one hand, she can feel good about agreeing to a fair solution even though it costs her money. On the other, she can say that she got the tenants out of the apartment early.
"It's been a pleasure dealing with you"
.................................................................
TURNBULL: Paul and I do appreciate, Mrs. Jones, all that you've done for us, and I'm pleased that we've settled this last probIem fairly and amicably.
MRS. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. Have a nice summer.
.................................................................
Analysis. Turnbull ends the negotiation on a final conciliatory note toward Mrs. Jones. Because they successfully dealt with the problem independently of the relationship, neither party feels cheated or angry, and neither is likely to try to sabotage or ignore their agreement. A working relationship is maintained for the future.
Whether you use principled negotiation and negotiation jujitsu, as Frank Turnbull did, or a third party with the one-text procedure, the conclusion remains the same: you _can_ usually get the other side to play the game of principled negotiation with you, even if at first they appear unwilling.
Bruce Nevin
···
At 04:03 PM 10/29/2000 -0700, Bill Powers wrote: