Principles of Principled Negotiation

This is the third of a series of posts that I decided to write due to the 64-day student stoppage at the University of Puerto Rico. The first two are found in the following links:

http://jfvrcorner.blogspot.com/2010/06/conflict-and-hope.html


http://jfvrcorner.blogspot.com/2010/06/math-belief-and-hope.html

My first source for definitions is always the dictionary and in this case resorted to the Merriam-Webster on-line. I was looking for the word “negotiation”. Why was I looking for the word? Because a few weeks ago, in the middle of the student stoppage at the University of Puerto Rico, two persons avoided the word “negotiation” or any other derived from that in front of the press. Instead, they referred to the process as “dialogs” conducing to “understandings”. Since those two persons - oh what the heck, the president of the board of trustees and the president of the University - must’ve known better than I do, I decided to be very careful treating the subject to avoid big flaws in technicalities I, as an aficionado on the topic, could’ve made. The first definition in the M-W dictionary didn’t help much, but I decided to follow the link to “negotiating” and there I found the following definitions:

“intransitive verb : to confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter
transitive verb 1 a : to deal with (some matter or affair that requires ability for its successful handling) : manage b : to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise ”

That definition reinforced my concept of negotiation and I felt happy for that, but I still found something missing. I went then to the most popular information source on the Web and here is what I found in Wikipedia:

Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is the primary method of alternative dispute resolution.

Negotiation occurs in business, non-profit organizations, government branches, legal proceedings, among nations and in personal situations such as marriage, divorce, parenting, and everyday life. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiation]

The “dialogue” and the “understandings” mentioned by the presidents seemed to be in that definition and I guess a stoppage happens due to a dispute, doesn’t it? Add to that the fact that it occurs in “non-profit organizations, government branches, ...”, and the University of Puerto Rico is both. All the elements in the definition appear to match the situation. Satisfied?

Well... no, so I decided to dig deeper. My next source was my beloved antiquity; my leather-bound Encyclopedia Britannica from 1988. If you read carefully I didn’t refer to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia because I didn’t want to get into the conflict about what a real encyclopedia is. Some of my closest peers in academia do not consider Wikipedia an authoritative source, so for their benefit I searched high and low for negotiation in Britannica. Guess what?

I couldn’t find negotiation or conflict resolution, so I opted for Britannica on-line [http://www.britannica.com/], which gave me no direct definition but “assorted references” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/408114/negotiation) to a bunch of topics, but no luck with the kind of concept I was looking for. I thought the closest one was related to Diplomacy and I quote what I found:

“the established method of influencing the decisions and behaviour of foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, negotiation, and other measures short of war or violence. Modern diplomatic practices are a product of the post-Renaissance European state system. Historically, diplomacy meant the conduct of official (usually bilateral) relations between sovereign states.”

And in Diplomacy: Diplomatic Tasks…

“Beyond these functions, the ambassador negotiates as instructed. Negotiation is a complex process leading to agreement based on compromise, if it reaches agreement at all. (The object of international negotiation is not necessarily to reach agreement; it is to advance the interests in an ambassador’s charge.)”

Wow! I could not believe my eyes… “The object of international negotiation is not necessarily to reach agreement; it is to advance the interests in an ambassador’s charge.” Would that mean that as long as everybody smiled and shook hands for the picture, someone could be twisting arms behind the scene? I had been born in the crude realm of diplomacy and with no anesthesia!

I decided to walk on friendlier camps, so I followed the link to social interaction but nothing directly related to negotiation. I insisted on on-line resources different from my own personal definition. I wanted to legitimate my views – yes, I’m using another negotiation tactic -, and I found the following two definitions:

General: Bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict. [http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/negotiation.html]

This one seemed to be in my favor, or perhaps with my flavor, but still my ignorance on possible technicalities didn’t let me sleep. My next step was to look for something legal, and I found the following:

1) It is a process by which the involved parties or group resolve matters of dispute by holding discussions and coming to an agreement which can be mutually agreed by them. It also refers to coming to closing a business deal or bargaining on some product. 2) It also means exchange of negotiable instruments such as bills of exchange, cheques etc in exchange of goods, service or money. [http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/negotiation.htm]

At this point I was starting to think that, after all, I was not so ignorant and stopped my search for more support on those technicalities because the online resources seemed to agree with me. If one charitable reader can confirm or deny my view as compared to that of the persons I mentioned in the first paragraph of this post, I would sincerely appreciate getting me out of this merciless doubt, particularly referring to Puerto Rican law.

I don’t pretend to give a treatise or complete lesson on negotiation but, at least, put some of my ideas and knowledge in order so that anyone interested may learn a thing or two about it. Conflict management is a complex, intricate and overwhelming subject. Just to see a list of the diversity of topics visit http://www.mediationworks.com/mti/certconf/bibs.htm.

I want to refer to “Principled Negotiation” to avoid any further uncertainty. Again, I looked for definitions online and found the following, which I’ll quote in a convenient order below:

“Principled Negotiation is an interest-based approach to negotiation that focusses [Sic] primarily on conflict management and conflict resolution. Principled negotiation uses an integrative approach to finding a mutually shared outcome. First published in the book "Getting to Yes", Principled Negotiation is used mostly in North America and is more popular amongst Academics and Mediators than in Business. Principled Negotiation has become synonymous with the more popular phrase "Win Win " - originally taken from Game Theory. Although Fisher and Ury drew from various disciplines in their 1981 book "Getting to Yes" (including NLP), many Mediation Practitioners and Academics have subsequently contributed in answering the challenging question: How can we best achieve Principled Negotiation in many different contexts?” [http://www.negotiations.com/definition/principled-negotiation/]


“Principled negotiation is the name given to the interest-based approach to negotiation set out in the best-known conflict resolution book, Getting to Yes, first published in 1981 by Roger Fisher and William Ury. The book advocates four fundamental principles of negotiation: 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) focus on interests, not positions; 3) invent options for mutual gain; and 4) insist on objective criteria.” [http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/pricneg.htm]

The first quote places principled negotiation in the context of Academics and Mediators, which seems to reinforce my personal opinion that this kind of negotiation would’ve been adequate in the resolution of the conflict that led to a 64-day student stoppage at 10 out of 11 campuses of the University of Puerto Rico. Another point to highlight from that definition is that principled negotiation has become synonymous with the phrase Win Win, which I mentioned in my post http://jfvrcorner.blogspot.com/2010/06/conflict-and-hope.html, that originated in Game Theory, also referred to in my same post.

The second definition states the four fundamental principles of this kind of negotiation. I’ll explain them briefly and try to give some examples, including some from the conflict over the fiscal deficit of the University of Puerto Rico between students and the administration.

1) Separate the people from the problem: It means that it doesn’t matter who we or the other parties’ people are or what affiliations they have. In principled negotiation what is relevant is the problem to be solved. In the particular problem at the University of Puerto Rico (UPR), who the president of the Board of Trustees, the University or the General Student Council are, or what their political or any other affiliations are was irrelevant; after all they have a term in their positions and eventually someone else will be appointed or elected. Negotiation should’ve centered on how each party could contribute to solve the fiscal deficit foreseen for this and the following three years or so.

2) Focus on interest not positions: There is an interesting example from the book “Getting to Yes” [Fisher, R. Ury, W. and B. Patton. Getting to Yes. 2nd Edition. Penguin Books. 1991], in which two men quarrel in a library over whether a window should be open or closed. The librarian enters and she asks to one why he wants the window open [his position]: “to get some fresh air” [his interest]. She asks the other man why he wants the window closed [his position]: “to avoid a draft” [his interest]. After thinking one moment she opens a window in the next room, bringing fresh air without a draft [the solution]. In this example there is one additional ingredient, the librarian, who acts as a mediator. In the case of UPR, the position of the Administration in one of the issues was to set extra fees and increase tuition. The student’s position was to not accept any extra fee and keep the current tuition fee conditions negotiated a couple of years ago. In this particular problem the interest of the University is to solve the fiscal deficit and keep the University sustainable. The student’s interest was to continue having an affordable higher education. Of course there were some other issues at stake but my idea is to illustrate this principle.

3) Invent options for mutual gain: In the library problem the option invented was to open the window in other room which solved the problem by identifying the interests of both parties. I won’t enter into details of the UPR problem to not extend this post. Again, my idea is to illustrate the principle. The reader that is aware of the UPR conflict can invent her or his own options.

4) Insist on objective criteria: Just like in Nash’s theory parties or agents are searching equilibrium since in such state everyone maximizes its payoff. Objective criteria are sought through reasoning so as to approach the rationality needed in Nash’s theory.

In principled negotiation parties also analyze alternatives to a negotiated agreement, i.e., actions that might be taken if no agreement is reached. A normal practice in analyzing these alternatives is for each party to make a list of actions that can be taken in case of no agreement. I leave as an exercise to any UPR reader to make such list in the case of the student stoppage.

What actions could the UPR Administration have taken in case of no agreement?

What actions could the students have taken in case of no agreement?

After the stoppage finished, there are some important lessons to be learned from what actually happened. The actions I list below are related to the Alternatives To Negotiated Agreement for both parties:

- The communications from CES (Puerto Rican Council for Higher Education) to UPR regarding the potential loss of the license to operate;

- The Probation Status on UPR accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) which is the institutional accrediting agency;

- Potential loss of eligibility for federal government funding according to the communication from the Department of Education of the United States;

- Delay in academic term completion and student graduation;

- Risk of losing admission to graduate schools or job offers to graduating students;

- Delay or cancelation of summer session, including the Coop program, Summer Practicum required for some programs, and summer internships, among others;

- Deterioration of University facilities due to lack of maintenance.

This list can be enlarged by the reader and actions assigned to one party, the other, both or to third parties. Once a list of actions is completed, the next step is for each party to improve those that can be improved and select the best one. This is known in Principled Negotiation as Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement, or BATNA. On the other end, select the Worst Alternative of the list or WATNA for short. Preparation for negotiation includes estimating one’s own and the other parties’ BATNA and WATNA.

These alternatives are important because the BATNA establishes the power that each party has in the negotiation process, while the WATNA provides information about weaknesses. Both set the stage for a realistic negotiation and help establish the limits of what is being negotiated [http://www.mediate.com/articles/notini1.cfm].

The last step in the preparation is to establish the “Degrees of Desire”:

Wish: The best result out of the negotiation that you can imagine;

Aspiration: a reasonable level you can achieve in the negotiation; and

Bottom line: The very least you can live with; the point where you are willing to walk away.

Based on the BATNAs and WATNAs, each party should clearly establish its degrees of desire and estimate the other party’s for each issue at stake. The Wish and Bottom line establish a region for each party’s negotiation. The overlap of these regions is known as the settlement/bargaining/contract zone [http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=drcn]. Somewhere in this region a settlement point for the dispute is located, and, I would argue, that in this region the Nash’s equilibrium is also located (see the figure below for a depiction of the contract zone).

Whether each party in the UPR conflict ,or the mediator that intervened at the end used this approach is not known to me, although I believe, based on what I could observe, it wasn’t used. Anyway, this post, the longest or one of the longest in my blog, is quite insufficient to cover conflict management or negotiation. As said before, this is a complex and overwhelming topic, but my idea was to show very basic information about negotiation with two purposes in mind: 1) To motivate people toward this fascinating subject; and 2) to serve me as a pressure release valve during the student stoppage.