What If They Won’t Play? Use Negotiation Jujitsu
Rabia Mustafa* and Sharafat A. Chaudhry**
Chapter 7 of the book ‘Getting to Yes Negotiating an Agreements without Giving in” is all about the situation when the other party is not willing to play. At that time, the best way is to use the technique Jujitsu
Talking about interests, options, and standards may be a wise, efficient, and amicable game, but what if the other side won’t play? While you try to discuss interests, they may state their position in unequivocal terms. You may be concerned with developing possible agreements to maximize the gains of both parties. They may be attacking your proposals, concerned only with maximizing their gains. You may attack the problem on its merits; they may attack you. What can you do to turn them away from positions and toward the merits?
There are three basic approaches for focusing their attention on the merits.
The first centers on what you can do. You can concentrate on the merits, rather than on positions. This method, the subject of this book, is contagious; it holds open the prospect of success to those who will talk about interests, options, and criteria. In effect, you can change the game simply by starting to play a new one.
If this doesn’t work and they continue to use positional bargaining, you can resort to a second strategy that focuses on what they may do. It counters the basic moves of positional bargaining in ways that direct their attention to the merits. This strategy we call negotiation jujitsu.
The third approach focuses on what a third party can do. If neither principled negotiation nor negotiation jujitsu gets them to play, consider including a third party trained to focus the discussion on interests, options, and criteria. Perhaps the most effective tool a third party can use in such an effort is the one-text mediation procedure.
Negotiation Jujitsu
If the other side announces a firm position, you may be tempted to criticize and reject it. If they criticize your proposal, you may be tempted to defend it and dig yourself in. If they attack you, you may be tempted to defend yourself and counterattack. In short, if they push you hard, you will tend to push back. Yet if you do, you will end up playing the positional bargaining game. Rejecting their position only locks them in. Defending your proposal only locks you in. And defending yourself sidetracks the negotiation into a clash of personalities. You will find yourself in a vicious cycle of attack and defense, and you will waste a lot of time and energy in useless pushing and pulling.
If pushing back does not work, what does? How can you prevent the cycle of action and reaction? Do not push back. When they assert their positions, do not reject them. When they attack your ideas, don’t defend them. When they attack you, don’t counterattack. Break the vicious cycle by refusing to react. Instead of pushing back, sidestep their attack and deflect it against the problem. As in the Oriental martial arts of judo and jujitsu, avoid pitting your strength against theirs directly; instead, use your skill to step aside and turn their strength to your end. Rather than resisting their force, channel it into exploring interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and searching for independent standards.
How does “negotiation jujitsu” work in practice? How do you sidestep their attack and deflect it against the problem? Typically their “attack” will consist of three maneuvers: asserting their position forcefully, attacking your ideas, and attacking you. Let’s consider how a principled negotiator can deal with each of these.
Don’t attack their position, look behind it. When the other side sets forth their position, neither reject it nor accept it. Treat it as one possible option. Look for the interests behind it, seek out the principles that it reflects, and think about ways to improve it. Assume every position they take is a genuine attempt to address the basic concerns of each side; ask them how they think it addresses the problem at hand. Treat their position as one option and objectively examine the extent to which it meets the interests of each party, or might be improved to do so.
Don’t defend your ideas, invite criticism and advice. A lot of time in negotiation is spent criticizing. Rather than resisting the other side’s criticism, invite it. Instead of asking them to accept or reject an idea, ask them what’s wrong with it. Examine their negative judgments to find out their underlying interests and to improve your ideas from their point of view. Rework your ideas in light of what you learn from them, and thus turn criticism from an obstacle in the process of working toward agreement into an essential ingredient of that process. Another way to channel criticism in a constructive direction is to turn the situation around and ask for their advice. Ask them what they would do if they were in your position.
Recast an attack on you as an attack on the problem. When the other side attacks you personally—as frequently happens—resist the temptation to defend yourself or to attack them. Instead, sit back and allow them to let off steam. Listen to them, show you understand what they are saying, and when they have finished, recast their attack on you as an attack on the problem.
Ask questions and pause.
Those engaged in negotiation jujitsu use two key tools. The first is to use questions instead of statements. Statements generate resistance, whereas questions generate answers. Questions allow the other side to get their points across and let you understand them. They pose challenges and can be used to lead the other side to confront the problem. Questions offer them no target to strike at, no position to attack. Questions do not criticize, they educate.
Silence is one of your best weapons. Use it. If they have made an unreasonable proposal or an attack you regard as unjustified, the best thing to do may be to sit there and not say a word. If you have asked an honest question to which they have provided an insufficient answer, just wait. Silence often creates the impression of a stalemate that the other side will feel impelled to break by answering your question or coming up with a new suggestion. When you ask questions, pause. Don’t take them off the hook by going right on with another question or some comment of your own. Some of the most effective negotiating you will ever do is when you are not talking.
Consider the One-Text Procedure
You will probably call in a third party only if your own efforts to shift the game from positional bargaining to principled negotiation have failed. The problem you face may be illustrated by a simple story of a negotiation between a husband and wife who plan to build a new house.
Story of a Negotiation
The couple is negotiating a house design, with the wife wanting a two-story house and the husband wanting a modern one-story ranch-style house. They ask each other questions, leading to a fixed plan. They ask an architect to prepare sketches and detailed plans, eventually settling on a compromise. The husband agrees to reduce the garage’s length and the wife gives up a back porch. This is a classic case of positional bargaining. If a third party can help, they can separate the parties from the problem, direct the discussion to interests and options, and suggest an impartial basis for resolving differences. The one-text procedure is a process designed to enable a third party to do this.
The architect uses the one-text procedure to understand the interests and needs of the couple, rather than asking about their positions. He develops a list of their interests and asks each spouse to criticize the list and suggest improvements. The architect then presents the best possible plan, addressing key concerns. The spouses critique each draft collaboratively, helping the architect refine his recommendation. After several iterations, the architect presents the best plan, suggesting acceptance. Each spouse makes a single yes or no decision, knowing exactly what the outcome will be. This one-text procedure simplifies the invention of options and joint decision-making.
The third-party proceeds by inventing an option, often writing it out as a single text, which he or she then asks all parties to criticize. In response to the criticism, he or she revises the draft until a final version emerges. Throughout the process, the third party uses questions and constructive listening to gather information and ensure all parties feel heard and considered. This method leverages the collective expertise and creativity of all participants while focusing on interests rather than positions. The goal is to create a mutually acceptable solution, if not ideal, for all parties involved.
The essence of the one-text procedure is to keep the negotiation process focused on identifying and addressing the underlying interests of the parties. It ensures that the parties work collaboratively rather than adversarially, fostering an environment where they are more likely to reach an agreement that is satisfactory to all involved.
Deliberately invent a list of possible agreements, not one by one but as many as possible. Select the most promising. Ask for criticisms. Select the best and finalize it.
Continue…
* The writer is a Linguist and Senior Research Fellow at the School for Law and Development
** The writer is an Advocate, an internationally accredited Mediator, and the author of Law and Development.
