Start with interests, constraints, and restraints

Cooperation, collaboration, and negotiation are all inherently difficult tasks. They are difficult because at their core, they all require you to take multiple parties and find a way to work together.?

Even when you are working to accomplish the same mission as those other parties, there are challenges abound. I learned that point very quickly as a young aircraft maintenance officer where there were never enough aircraft and supplies to satisfy everything that the pilots wanted to do. There I was, a 24-year-old officer going back-and-forth with operations officers and commanders well above my rank about why they can’t use a particular aircraft or fly a specific mission set. This would usually elicit accusations that we maintainers were being obstinate or failing to do our jobs. What I quickly learned is that it is very easy to reach an impasse even when you have a common mission.

Then, as I became an intergovernmental negotiator, these issues became more acute. At that point, we’re not even on the same team—we’re on opposite sides trying to find some agreement despite different laws, policies, approaches, and objectives.

What has enabled me to enjoy any success whatsoever in these situations has been an approach that starts with interests, constraints, and restraints; that is, the wants and needs at play; the things that must be done; and the things that cannot be done.

Before any engagement, big or small, I consider these things. What is it that I want to get out of this? What is it that I can offer? What is it that I cannot offer? What are the things that I am absolutely not able to do even if the other party was willing to give me everything that I wanted? When I’m done thinking about those things for myself, I then consider it from the perspective of the other side.

Going back to my time as an aircraft maintenance officer, this approach was essential. Rather than get in unproductive arguments with the flying squadrons, I would explain my interests which were generally to enable the mission, to provide safe and well-maintained aircraft, and to preserve the long-term readiness of the unit by keeping the aircraft fleet healthy. The pilots would then explain what they needed to accomplish for their training or real-world missions. We would then go over what options were available given maintenance requirements and aircraft availability. When we hit points of disagreement, I would explain why we could or couldn’t do something based on regulations, supply limitations, or competing mission requirements, and they would do the same based on their individual aircrew qualifications or range availabilities. In most cases, we could collaborate in finding ways around those constraints and restraints to accomplish what needed to be done, but even when we couldn’t, we at least had mutual understanding and appreciation for why that was.

In intergovernmental negotiations (or dealings with any external organization), information exchange on interests, constraints, and restraints is even more important. You will start with far fewer puzzle pieces in hand, and it is your responsibility to fill the in the gaps where there is incomplete information. There are two ways to do this.

The first is by asking questions. This sounds elementary, but some practitioners forget that the best way to understand the other side’s interests is by simply asking them, “What outcomes are you hoping to achieve?” From there, use follow-up questions to get the full picture of their wants and needs, and try to ascertain which of those interests are indispensable (meaning they absolutely need it), desirable (a high value interest that they can manage without), or disposable (a ‘nice-to-have’ that is not of too much importance to them).

Determining the other side’s constraints and restraints through questions can be more difficult. Those questions can sometimes put the other side on the defensive where they feel you may be questioning their capabilities rather than trying to understand their position. They may also yield bad information because the other side may not be explicitly conscious of the answers, so you end up getting ‘shoot-from-the-hip’ responses that may not be well-founded.?

Thus, the second way of getting information on interests, constraints, and restraints is labeling. Labeling is a method of stating what appears to be true based on your research, observations, or the information the other side has provided. This works because if you have labeled the circumstance correctly, the other side will affirm it and feel understood; meanwhile, if you have labeled it incorrectly, the other side will generally be quick to correct you.?

Here’s an example. Let’s say you are working with a host nation government on bringing in new aircraft but they are balking on the timing of the announcement. The other side isn’t explaining why the timing has to be later than you want it, but you suspect it has to do with an election happening near the base. You could say, “It seems that you would like the aircraft to arrive at this base no later than this date, but the arrival cannot be announced until after the local election has finished.” In that statement, you have labeled their position and the potential constraint. If the reason for the delay is the local election, the other side will likely affirm that point, but if it is something else, they will almost always jump at the chance to correct you and offer an alternative explanation.

As with anything, this approach takes practice, but it is one you can use in any situation where there is another party involved. Trying to decide where to go to dinner with your family? Ask what type of food everyone wants (their interests), the budget for the dinner (a constraint), and the food that is absolutely off the table due to preferences or dietary restrictions (the restraints). Whether you are purchasing a car, trying to get an office mate to help out on a project, or engaging in intergovernmental negotiations, you can apply this approach. Over time, you will find that by starting with interests, constraints, and restraints, the things that were once difficult about achieving cooperation become much more manageable.