Bargaining with the devil pdf
Bargaining with the Devil When to Negotiate, when to Fight By Robert Mnookin Presented by Prof David Venter Vlerick Leuven Gent Business School We Read for You: August 2012 Your partner in world-class business learning Ponder the following post 9/11 dilemma: Text: Calibri normal font-weight, 28pt • Second level, 24pt Third level, 20pt Fourth level, 20pt The book represents Robert Mnookin’s journey in his quest to answer this vexing question Is negotiation always the best answer?
The protagonists argue: ALWAYS be willing to negotiate ALWAYS seek a solution by way of PROBLEM-SOLVING – explore the interests of the parties with reference to a just solution or conflict You have NOTHING TO LOSE! Negotiation does not imply GIVING UP EVERYTHING IMPORTANT THE CONCESSION: your willingness to sit down with the
other party to explore a possible deal preferable to your BEST ALTERNATIVES The antagonists argue: NEVER negotiate with the devil Do not SELL YOUR SOUL (Faust) The devil is CLEVER AND UNSCRUPULOUS – you are seduced with what you desperately desire, sacrificing your integrity as you are lead down the garden path “I have been
charged by the president to make sure that none of the tyrannies of the world are negotiated with. We do not negotiate with evil: we defeat it“- Dick Cheney Transcend black-white thinking WHITE BLACK Register a plea to think beyond categories Proponents and opponents are both correct depending upon the example they choose Are these two of
the greatest heros? Churchill May 1940 Dark times for Britain France on the verge of capitulation The USA very reluctant to become involved Mussolini offers to mediate between Britain and Nazi Germany Five days of internal discussions and testing of arguments Churchill decrees not to negotiate with Hitler – the devil Nelson Mandela 27 years of
incarceration ANC committed to armed struggle Secret negotiations with the apartheid regime “I decided it was time to initiate negotiations and I did so without asking because I knew what the answer would be.“ Both decisions perfectly defensable and in hindsight sensible How to make wise decisions when there are no categorical answers? The
book offers a framework A wise decisional process involves three challenges: A just ‘’cost-benefit-analysis” Avoiding psychological and emotional traps Weighing ethical and pragmatic arguments Who was right? Which interests are at stake? What are the alternatives if you do not negotiate?
Are there negotiation outcomes that meet the interests of both parties better than their best alternatives? How strong are the chances that an agreement could be implemented? What are the costs of negotiating? Is your best alternative legitimate and morally defensible? A cost-benefit analysis – Mr Spock’s five questions Which interests were at
stake? For the US: defend human lives and avoid future terrorist attacks For theTaliban: stay in power and maintain Islamic law The alternatives to negotiating? For the US: military intervention For the Taliban: guerrilla warfare Were there negotiation outcomes that could satisfy the interests of all the parties that were preferable to their best
alternatives? The Clinton administration made every attempt to close the training camps and negotiate extradition, but the Taliban were unable to deliver Applied to Afghanistan: negotiate or fight?
The Mnookin‘s analysis How good were the chances an agreement could be implemented? Bin Laden’s influence over the Taliban was larger than the inverse What would the cost be of negotiating? Mnookin saw a high cost – the Taliban were no innocent party; they tolerated and suppoted Islamitische terrorists. The Clinton administration had
publicly warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible for terrorist attacks. The credibility of the US vis a vis terrorist groups was at stake. Negotiation under such circumstances could create a dangerous precedent. Was America’s best altenative legitimate and morally defensible? Yes, according to Mnookin. Bin Laden had declared war on
the US, a military response was therefore legally justified MNOOKIN ADVISED NOT TO NEGOTIATE! Applied to Afghanistan: negotiate or fight? The Mnookin‘s analysis Applied closer to home You are the CEO/founder of a high tech organisation. You entered into a joint venture for five years with a Japanese firm to produce your medical prosthesis
and distribute it on the Japanese and Asian markets You explicitly excluded China from the agreement - your partner could not sell any competitive products in China You discover that your partner went behind your back and sold a comparable product in China On confronting your partner, you receive a laconic reaction devoid of an excuse. He sees
nothing wrong in stealing your know-how.
He denies contravening the agreement, stating you do not understand the Chinese market, and fail to appreciate that the royalties you require are too high and should be renegotiated .... You are shocked and feel threatened Your instinct entices you to fight and to take your partner to court But is this a just financial, rational decision?
Have you been confronted with the devil? Who is the devil? Your natural reaction Our dualistic desision-making system: Analytic reasoning Concious, analytic, systematic - rational Intuitive reasoning Automatic, self-evident, instinctive – trigger-based Survival Our reasoning and the ‘Devil’ Amygdala – An almond shaped cluster of small structures in
the area of the lymbic system that plays an important role in regulating emotions such as anger, anxiety, love and grief. It is an archaic part of the brain. Emotional highjacks. Fight or flight (survival). Be proactive not reactive! Do not take revenge, go for what you wish. Our instinctive reaction! Negative traps – pro fighting Tribalism Group identity –
we are what we think Demonising The other side not only does bad things, but is bad Dehumanisation The other side is inferior, not even human (racisim) Moralism Convinced of your own view, you are absolutely correct Zero-sum assumption Everything that accrues to the other party must necessarily be bad for you; everything the other party wins
you lose Call to action Missionary leader Universalism All people are equal Contextual rationalising Every behaviour can be unpacked, understood and forgiven based on the external factor Rehabilitation Everyone can change and deserves a second chance Shared mistakes and responsibilities Everyone needs to take note of their share of guilt Winwin The pie can always be enlarged Reconciliation A negotiated solution is always better Peace call The leader calls for conflict to be prevented Positive traps – negotiation The power of NO! Positive traps accompany the anguish of not damaging the relationship, not falling into conflict How do you say no, do you create a boundary that facilitates
saying yes, despite what is truely important What is the “underlying yes” What do you not want? What do you then truely want? Avoiding the traps Each trap clouds our judgement about our negotiation partners Most of us have a preference for one of the traps in the series Our preference is a function of our personal style, rooted in the soils of our
deepest identity and our world view A fighter against unfairness in a hard world in which everyone takes advantage of everyone else at the slightest opportunity There is something good in everyone, this we should focus on We must move beyond the traps in order to arrive at a well-founded analysis The NQ® (Negotiation Intelligence) model Unlock
positions Unlock value Unlock a safety kit The master key Knowledge Skills Attitude Mr Spock on the Joint Venture Interests and possible areas of confluence: definitive tangents Alternative: a lawsuit In China very difficult, In Japan tedious with many risks, In California unlikely as this organisation has never operated there The clash between
utilatarianism and identity What if your analysis tells you to negotiate, but this is inconsistent with who you are; that for which you stand? You are torn between principles and pragmatism Natan Sharansky, a Russian Jew was confronted with a dilemma He stood accused of treason – framed deliberately He was a member of the Zionist movement – his
crime In exchange for a confession and rejection of the Zionist movement, he was offered joining his family after a short imprisonment For nine years, despite forced labour, he persistently refuses to negotiate with the ‘Devil’ The Spock analysis is not simple, but the basis of his unflinching behaviour was “a feeling that as long as you continue to say
no, you are a free person“ – with his mathematical brain he rationalised.... Sharansky vs the KGB Killing Kasztner Rudolf Kasztner Jewish leader in occupied Hungary in WWII He chooses to negotiate with Adolf Eichmann (SS colonel) to save Jewish lives After excrutiatingly difficult negotiations, he “buys” 1648 lives from the Nazi’s He returns to the
war zone to negotiate a new deal with SS officer Becher at the end of WWII He relocates to Israel and is convicted of Nazi-collaboration – did he sell his soul to the Devil? The conviction is overturned, but he is murdered by an extremist A wise but painful choice? Neurologists increasingly understand how emotional decisions are arrived at Often based
on intuitive processes (short cuts) – we see something happen, hear something happen and immediately arrive at a conclusion Short cuts: the biggest enemy of negotiation and conflict Thinking styles can be an impediment (convergent thinking) Leads to assumptions and „self fulfilling prophecies“ Should we throw intuition overboard? No, it’s an
important source of information But, intuition must be subjected to analysis to prevent it being a trap If a contrast remains, a painful decision has to be made A strong preference for pragmatism: a painful choice Painful, because unfairness demands more than utilitarianism – it cries out for satisfying resolution Choosing for pragmatism represents a
choice between seeking compensation for the past and preparing for a better future To move ahead you need to often give the Devil something that the Devil does not deserve – an offer on the altar of pragmatism can be a bitter pill to swallow Thus: Must you always negotiate? – No, but more often than you think or wish The book provides no answer,
but – more meaningfully – a set of questions to ponder to enhance your insight and ultimate choice Mnookin advises to always involve an extreme person in the decision-making process Maintain a strong preference for negotiation to protect against falling prey to the different traps. You thus shift the responsibility for proof to those who do not wish to
negotiate, but fight – compelling them to justify their stimulus for fighting IBM – Fujitsu: Theft of an “operating system“? Other masterly examples San Francisco Symphony Orchestra labour dispute Divorce involving children and accrual Three family members and an inheritance I wish you well in your endeavours to disempower the Devil!