After Math

The student strike finished several weeks ago and I believe it’s time for reflection. This is the fourth and probably the final post related to the student stoppage at the University of Puerto Rico, a topic that caught the attention of the local and international media and has given me an opportunity to reflect on conflict resolution, a long time topic of interest. This complex and long conflict has also served as a great source for specific examples of things that actually occur in conflict: a great learning experience for me, and hopefully for my occasional readers.

I’ll try to apply the four principles of Principled Negotiation to some specifics of the UPR conflict; I barely scratched the surface on my previous post. Anyway, a post or two in a blog do not give enough space for such purpose and besides, I have only some information and rumors that circulated before, during and after the student stoppage. I was not directly involved in the actual negotiations, so I wish someone from each party did this same reflection exercise, but with detailed and direct knowledge of the process. I'll try to stick to the information and filter out the rumors, but I'm only human.

There is a lot we all can learn. Let me start by showing the application of the four principles. The examples, of course, are not exhaustive of all the issues at stake but illustrate my view of the problem from a Principled Negotiation point of view.

1) Separate people from problems: As pointed out in my previous post, people from both parties and their affiliations are completely irrelevant for the negotiation process. What is important is to identify the problems. In my view there is one major problem to be solved and is related to money: the University has a fiscal deficit and has to look for ways to find new revenues or savings. One source of revenue is the tuition and other fees the students pay, and so an increase in tuition and additional fees would be a potential source of additional revenue. But money is tight for the students too, so this kind of measures affects their pockets: a source for conflict. The University administration identified a potential source of savings by imposing restrictions on students getting scholarships and tuition waivers. Again, these restrictions affect some of the students’ economy and thus become a source of conflict.

2) Focus on interests, not positions: The position of the University Administration was to increase tuition beyond the agreements reached a couple of years ago, add extraordinary fees for the following three years and impose restrictions on students receiving both federal government scholarships and tuition waivers. The position of the students was to not accept any tuition fee increase beyond what had been negotiated, extraordinary fees or restrictions on scholarships and tuition waivers. If we focus on their positions, apparently there is no reconciliation. Nonetheless, if we identify the interests of both parties there is good reason for hope. The University Administration interest is to have no fiscal deficit. The students’ interest is to have affordable higher education of at least the same quality as they are used to. Neither the University Administration, nor the students are interested in the University losing money or, even less, going bankrupt. Along the same lines the University is not interested in losing some percentage of the student population who may not afford large fees. We have started to identify common grounds.

3) Invent options for mutual gain: Parties have to look at the problem from different perspectives and at different times: in the short, medium and long term; therefore all the parties with stakes, not only the students and University Administration, have to design action plans that urgently generate new or alternate sources of revenue and savings for the University. For instance, from the time perspective, could it be possible to look at the University’s economy in a period of three years or more so that some fiscal deficit in the first year be managed with excess in the following years when projects and business can start to produce revenues or savings? To mitigate part of the deficit and looking from a fee perspective, could the students manage some tuition fee increase above the current value? Could the students handle a temporary extraordinary fee? How much could they handle? (This is a first step towards setting levels of desire). From a savings perspective, could the University look for savings in energy costs by investing in energy-efficient and power management systems? I, for example, believe that the University wastes energy in cooling empty rooms or keeping the same A/C settings for rooms with few people as when they are full. Could the University achieve some savings in other utilities, water, telecommunications, etc? From a business point of view, could the University identify some sources of income by selling or renting some assets? Could the University leverage the knowledge and expertise of its employees, for example the faculty, to provide services that generate new business, e.g. strengthening consulting, or offering new strategic courses and programs in continued education and training? Could the University generate energy by investing in new technologies, such as renewable energy generation? If Windmar Renewable Energy in Puerto Rico invested in the largest solar park in Latin America (thanks to Dr. Alberto Ramirez for sharing this link with the professors in my Department), couldn’t UPR get bondholders for projects like this one? I believe there is knowledge and expertise for projects like this. I guess it’s a matter of making a business plan. I see not only the University but students benefiting from such enterprises: they provide real-life practices where they can work, learn and be paid, just like the internships and the Coop programs. I don’t claim these are my original ideas and I recently received information that the President of the University had proposed many along the same lines when seeking to be appointed. I’m sure the list can grow much more by engaging the University Community in solving the problem. I’m sure there is plenty of talent in many of these and other business opportunities. UPR would not be the first one. It’s a matter of creating spaces and opportunities in an adequate environment. It’s a matter of putting to practice what we teach in business, communication, administration, planning, project management and other related fields.


4) Insist on objective criteria: Let’s estimate with technical and financial analyses what expectations are reasonable for all parties; after all, the problem is University finances. Let’s talk about feasibility, about timelines, about investments and ROI, about cash flow, about existing expertise and knowledge, about HR, about current infrastructure and assets… Let’s stop using manipulative negotiation tactics and let’s start organizing in task forces the diverse talents available in the University and setting timelines. I have seen in the University very successful inter- and multidisciplinary teams work in research projects; why not for generating businesses for the University. It’s a matter of engaging the University community in a goal that is a win for all. If the problems affect us all, the solutions benefit us all. Let’s talk business: the University being a non-for-profit organization does not imply it being a for-loss organization!

The part I have serious difficulties is finding acceptable Alternatives To Negotiated Agreement. In buying-selling goods or services there may be other providers-customers. In marriage conflicts there is divorce. Someone may suggest there are other universities and other students but I have serious trouble with these alternatives... I’ll leave this as an exercise to the reader and myself.

I listed in my previous post some apparent consequences of the prolonged strike and those consequences seem to indicate that not reaching an agreement has catastrophic consequences for both parties. This is to me a symptom of notorious weaknesses on both sides. My interpretation is that a settlement is a “must”. The choice between agreement and no agreement in this case feels almost the same as choosing between walking both parties a step, however small, away from a cliff, or jumping into the abyss, pushing along all the stakeholders. I will let the reader do the analysis.

Setting the levels of desire regarding student fees require analysis of the finances of the University's and the students. That's beyond the scope of this post. Students could've conducted or continue to carry out a study of their part, while the University looks for other sources of income and savings. That way, all the parties can set realistic bottom-line, aspiration and wish levels.

The strike finished several weeks ago, but I perceive the stoppage time was left to run too long. In long conflicts reproaches tend to plague the process, and resentments arise. In conflict resolution there is a time and there is timing. It’s not a matter of rushing; it’s a matter of keeping as much control as possible so that negotiations really progress; it’s a matter of avoiding the use of manipulative tactics and neutralizing them when they occur. I perceive that not all has been said or done in this particular conflict, but I hope the community at the University of Puerto Rico takes time to reflect on what happened and learn from the mistakes so that, next time around, we take advantage of a crisis to grow and be creative.

After Nash’s paper on non-cooperative games there have been significant advances in game theory, which I claim is applicable to conflict, and models include more features that occur in real life, like limited rationality, incomplete information, and coalitions between players. Models are including dynamic features by incorporating physics and information theories. Still, answers as to what the mixed strategies are for all the players to obtain their best payoff cannot be feasibly computed; but that’s no reason to give in. Math tells us there are one or more equilibria, which speaks of at least one optimum and several suboptima. Principled negotiation provides one possible approach and a set of tools to search for those equilibria.

Finally, I remember reading somewhere that in Principled Negotiation one sees the other parties not as adversaries but as problem solvers. This brings us back to the stable equilibrium I wrote about in Conflict and Hope, but in this case it happens not out of fear but respect. After Math, we are left with our Humanity: our irrationality and our immense reasoning capabilities; let’s use our human nature wisely.