Negotiation and Conflict Resolution 101
We seem to be deluged with a host of hotly contested issues: US - China relations following the Biden - Xi meeting. The continuing war in Ukraine. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli demonstrations. Another shutdown threat on Capitol Hill. A slow COVID-19 recovery. Border security. A fentanyl crisis. Daily cyber threats and attacks. Gun violence. Abortion. And the list goes on. Unfortunately, we’re witnessing an increasingly toxic ‘us vs. them’ climate here, where many of our nation’s top public and private sector leaders seem to relish in intense arguing. Just watch a video of the recent intense argument between US Senators Markwayne Mullin (Missouri) and Bernie Sanders (VT), during the near-fist fight between Mullin and Teamsters President Sean O'Brien on Capitol Hill and you'll know what I mean.
When will our US political and corporate leaders learn to compromise, rather than squabbling constantly? When will they roll up their sleeves and achieve well thought-out, long-term agreements over often-divisive topics for their constituents and clients? When will they stop taking pleasure in hearing themselves argue loudly, and then posting these debates on TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit and other social media platforms?
When they enroll in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution 101. Here, they’ll take part in live, case study-based negotiation simulation exercises, based on divisive, real-world issues. These intense, "Intellectual Outward Bound" classes train participants how to become active listeners, how to separate the people from the problem at hand and focus on the issue at hand, and how to achieve mutual gains. They also learn how to improve their skills of communication, comprehension, compromise, creativity, collaboration and cooperation, or what I call “the vitamin C’s to prevent more effectively the cancer of conflict."
Negotiation and Conflict Resolution 101 is based on lessons I learned from Robert Aussman's analysis of conflict and cooperation through game theory, as well as Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD), the core principles of the best-seller Getting to Yes, and the popular board game Risk. During live dispute resolution exercises, focusing on a variety of real-world conflicts, I require participants to play the roles of, argue on behalf of, and defend the positions of, people involved in these conflicts. In this time-tested way, they learn how to walk in the shoes of others, as they're forced to defend the interests of others. By being forced to assume the roles of real-life foes, they learn to analyze carefully and understand profoundly the wishes, desires, and goals of their adversaries, in order to understand others’ points of view more effectively.
How does the Negotiation and Conflict Resolution 101 exercise work?
First, participants learn how to triangulate a divisive issue. To demonstrate this, I draw a large triangle. Next, I draw 2-slightly overlapping circles at each of the 3-points of the triangle, with each pair of circles appearing partially inside and outside of the triangle. These 6-circles, in 3-pairs, represent each of the 6-people or parties included in the conflict resolution case study. The overlaps in the 3-pairs of circles represent the perceived common ground or overlapping interests of the parties, when they begin to negotiate over specific issues they will discuss.
Next, I draw a Target Corporation-style bullseye in the middle of the triangle, made up of three concentric circles, one slightly larger than the other. These 3-circles represent the 3-important issues over which the 6-parties will be debating during their negotiations. The innermost circle represents the most important issue (circle A), followed by the 2nd most important issue (circle B) and the 3rd most important issue (circle C).??
(An informational video on the ‘triangulation’ theory on the YouTube channel:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZJ6KK_CwBY&t=2s)
To demonstrate just how this works, I’ll explain a recent case study that was researched and created in collaboration with a talented Georgetown conflict resolution research assistant, Jack Gasdia, and edited by cybersecurity expert Keith Salustro, President of Security Best Practices, and me. It's called Fueling Chaos: An Emergency Response Simulation Exercise Based on the Colonial Pipeline Company (CPC) Cyberattack.
The 6-Emergency Response Simulation Exercise participant roles include:
And the 3-critical issues that will be negotiated include:
(An informational video on the ‘triangulation’ theory can be watched on the YouTube channel:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZJ6KK_CwBY&t=2s).
Preparation for the Exercise
For the live exercise, 6 or more people are needed, so that each party is represented by at least one person. Ideally, at least 18 people are involved, so that each of the 6-characters is represented by teams of 3-or more participants each. To prepare participants well for the simulation exercise, I provide in-depth background information focusing on the CPC cyberattack, including the link to an informational video about the attack, and a comprehensive glossary of important terms that can be used during the negotiations.
Next, I assign each of the participants to play one of the 6-character roles, rather than allowing them to choose their own roles, being certain that all case study characters are represented equally. For example, if there are more than 6-participants, there must be 1-player for each of the 6-characters, with the additional characters being represented by 2 or more players each. Hence, if doing this exercise with a group of 20 people, there will be 3-participants at each of the 6-tables, for a total of 18, with the 2-additional participants placed at 2-other characters’ tables.
(Note: I have done this 6-character negotiation exercise countless times with well over 100 participants, and it still works well. I divide the large group of participants into 3-4 smaller groups, each representing the 6-character scenario. Then, I have these several smaller simulations occurring in one or more rooms, at the same time.)
Just prior to the negotiation exercise, the 6-teams get together at 6-separate tables, and I hand out 5-page confidential instructions to every participant, depending on their characters. In the Colonial Pipeline 6-character role-play exercise, each person, or small teams representing each of the 6-characters, will receive only the confidential instructions regarding the character whose role they will assume. For 20-minutes, they study the biography of the character they will be representing, and that character’s stances on each of 3-issues that will be debated during the negotiations. And it is important to remind them that they not let their personal beliefs take a front seat to the character's stances on the issues. Like talented actors, they must begin to prepare for playing their roles well, even if they do not believe in some or all the positions on these issues. By beginning to walk in the shoes of others.
The Intense Negotiation Exercise Begins
2-Minute Summary Statement Development and Delivery to the All Participants
Immediately after studying and understanding the characters' positions, each of the 6-groups must author together a short summary of who the character is, and what that character’s positions are on the 3-issues. As a facilitator, I take notice of which participants volunteer to write the group’s summary during discussions, and who seems to dominate the discussions. Body language is important to observe, also: Are the participants showing interest in the discussions, physically leaning in as they take part? Or are they disconnected from the conversation, with their arms and / or legs crossed, appearing as if they are not playing an active role in the discussion?
At the end of the 20-minute breakouts, I ask one representative, chosen from each of the 6-groups, to offer the introductory summary of the character's positions on the 3-issues. These can last no longer than 2-minutes each, and they are presented one at a time, in the order decided upon by me as the facilitator. At this point, it is interesting to observe whether, during the delivery of these summaries, the spokespersons remain seated, stand up, or walk around the room while presenting summaries. I also observe how the presenters speak: loudly, in a very calm manner, or almost whispering, so that all participants must pay close attention.
(Note: The only way that these pre-negotiation meetings can last longer than 20-minutes – which is often the desire of the participants - is if the majority of the group agrees by a quick vote if it is necessary to have more time. If this is the case, the 6-groups must choose only 1-representative from each group to come forward and – together - negotiate with the facilitator over exactly how much more time will be allowed. I ask the group of 6-representatives to discuss the time amongst themselves first, and prior to having the group speak with me, so they all agree on how much more time is needed. Then, while all 6-character representatives remain there, only one of them may negotiate more time with the facilitator, while the other 5 observe. This is another example of how to teach participants to think on their feet about refining their negotiation skills and reaching compromises more quickly and effectively.)
Live Negotiations Rounds 1 – 5: Allowing the Character Representatives to Meet in Pairs, Changing the Pairs in Each New Round of Negotiations
As a facilitator, I then divide the 6-characters into 3-teams of 2-characters each, or what I call "3-negotiation pods”. The assigned pairs of characters must quickly decide exactly where they will negotiate. Will they agree to move their tables and chairs together? Or will one character’s members invite – or insist that - another character’s representatives come to their table? Or do they agree to meet somewhere in the middle?
By dividing the 6-groups into 3-pairs, participants learn to break down the negotiation task, by having only 2 of the 6-characters represented in each pod, rather than having all characters negotiate at one time, in a large group. These paired rounds last for a minimum of 15-minutes each, and they allow the characters’ representatives to negotiate with each of the 5-other characters one at a time. Hence, 5-rounds of negotiations are required for the 6-characters to meet with the other 5 groups.
I also teach participants how to hone an important negotiation skill: BATNA. Introduced by Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In co-authors Roger Fisher and Bill Ury, BATNA is the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. This acronym is defined as “the most advantageous alternative that a negotiating party can take if negotiations fail, and an agreement cannot be reached. In other words, a party’s BATNA is what a its alternative is if negotiations are unsuccessful.” If parties are paired up in each of the 5-negotiation rounds, and they cannot reach agreement over the most critical first issue (A), I teach them that the BATNA is to close the argumentative discussion over this issue, and to move on to issue B, and then to issue C, looking for agreement or common ground on one of these issues, before revisiting discussions over issue A.
(Note: During the 5-rounds of paired negotiations, the participants may also request more time for their negotiations. If a majority does feel that more time is needed, each of the 3-negotiation pods must choose only one representative to come forward, to negotiate more time with me. This teaches otherwise intransigent participants to agree on something quickly, in this case, who they will send from their 2-party group to negotiate more time - showing them that agreement is possible. When the 3 representatives approach me, I ask them to negotiate amongst themselves, and then have only one member of their small group to negotiate more time necessary with me, while the other 2 watch. Again, this provides participants with constant rapid negotiation training, in large or small groups.)
Final Round of Negotiations: Focusing on the 3-Issues in a Different Way
After completing the 5-rounds of 3 issue-based negotiations in pairs, all participants return to their groups' tables, to plan for the final round of negotiations, that will last for a maximum of 20-minutes. In this final round of negotiations, the 3-pods are no longer 2-character based. Instead, each of the pods represents one of the 3-issues being discussed and debated. Hence, participants at their 6-character tables must quickly assign 1/3 of their group to attend each of the 3 issue-focused discussions. Hence, each issue-focused table will include members of all 6-characters’ teams, not just 2 as in the previous rounds.
In this separate the people from the problem exercise, participants learn to focus on only one of the 3-issues they have been discussing in the prior rounds of negotiations, with 5 other characters present. Here, I instruct participants to ‘separate the people from the problem’ as debates become issue-focused rather than 1-character vs 1- character focused. And in this round of negotiations, like all previous rounds, the only way that more than 20-minutes may be taken for this important, 3 issue-focused negotiation round, is if all issue-focused tables send up one negotiator each, and we compromise over how much more time is needed.?
450-Word Summary of Recommendations
In the final round of negotiations, each of the 3 issue-based negotiation groups must assign one transcriber to take notes on a laptop, just as they did when devising their individual characters’ summary statements at the beginning of the negotiation exercise. Then, each of the 3 groups must create a 600-word (250-word X 3) document stating the specific actions that the group feels must be taken to prevent future cyberattacks. If the 3-groups need more time, we negotiate once again. Once completed, the three separate position papers are consolidated into one document at the end of the negotiation exercises, called the Cyberattack Prevention Action Plan. The simulation ends when this new Action Plan is signed by all participants, and we determine who this will be emailed to including board members, executives, shareholder and potential investors.
Post-simulation debriefing
During post-exercise debriefing, participants reflect on what they learned during their case study-based negotiation and conflict resolution. They share how they've learned to study their adversaries well, prior to negotiations, by getting to know who they are, what they believe in, and how they think and act. They discuss how they've improved, very quickly and effectively, their observation, analysis, inference, critical thinking, problem solving and creative collaboration skills, too. And then I discuss some important ideas with them.
First, I remind participants that the hands-on exercise is not just about the outcome of creating an Action Plan, which is important. It is also about improving their negotiation skills through live, real-world issue simulation exercises. They learn to be active listeners, allowing other people to speak first, before calculating quickly and effectively their response(s) to their idea(s) or concerns. They learn that experiential negotiation training teaches participants to practice separating the people they are negotiating with from the problem or issue they are discussing. They learn to focus on the issue at hand as a problem-solving team, rather than as a pair or group of rivals arguing in an us-vs.-them manner. They learn how the exercises also teach them to move from perception to perspective, a skill that US intelligence officers perfect before working with potential or real adversaries in the field. And I remind them that they can use these newly-honed skills very quickly and effectively, both professionally and personally, in board rooms, C-suite offices and dining rooms during, for example, heated Thanksgiving table discussions.
And at the very end of the exercise, people discuss how they can use this same, Game Theory and Prisoner's Dilemma-based 6-character / 3-issue triangulation-based model to develop their own, new case studies moving forward. They learn work with their employees and executive teams, to devise other conflict resolution-focused case studies that are and will be important to them.
*****
For over 30 years, I’ve refined and employed this high-energy, role play-based approach to conflict resolution with thousands of adults and adolescents in the US and abroad.?Participants have included political and military leaders, diplomats, corporate and non-profit leaders and their employees or customers, landlords and tenants, educational administrators and their teachers and students, and even parents and their own children. ?
My negotiation team and I continue to develop new case studies based on this triangulation theory, and to offer in-person and on-line workshops to thousands of people around the world, using this tried-and-true method. Moving forward, and with the help of brilliant interns from such fine educational institutions as Georgetown, the Tufts Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, the US Military, Naval and Air Force Academies, we are building more case studies every day, on a variety of topics, and in multiple languages, so that people can hone their negotiation and linguistic skills at the same time.
Are you ready to transform the way you negotiate over and resolve real-life global, national, and local (or what I call glo-nation-ocal) challenges? Take Negotiation and Conflict Resolution 101 today.
******
Carl F. Hobert
Author, Raising Global IQ: Preparing our Students for a Shrinking Planet (Beacon Press)
Author, Whose Jerusalem? A Role-Play Exercise Based on the Israeli-Hamas Conflict (‘Race to the Top Funding’ from the US Department of Education)
Co-author, Understanding and Defusing Russia’s War in Ukraine: A Role-Play Exercise
Editor, Fueling Chaos: An Emergency Response Simulation Exercise Based on the Colonial Pipeline Cyberattack
Copyright ? 2023. All rights reserved.