CHAPTER 17
PUTTING THE PUZZLE TOGETHER
(Reaching Closure)
You’re in the final stretch. Now it’s time to put the puzzle together.
In the beginning, the parties have concentrated their efforts on building the relationship. They have not rushed into substantive negotiations, but rather have taken ample time to help people feel included in the process. They are clear about their intentions and have come to agreement about the process they will use. The parties then agree on a statement of the problems they need to resolve. In contrast to typical business negotiations, people stay in the Green Zone and don’t get rigid or positional about their favorite solutions. Instead the parties focus on understanding the interests of both sides.
The parties have each developed a contingency plan in case they can’t reach a mutually acceptable solution. If they can’t reach an agreement that’s better than their contingency plans, they won’t agree to a deal. They engaged in a joint effort to invent a large number of options that meet as many mutual interests as possible. Parties will be firm about getting their interests met, but stay flexible about how they are met.
The next step is to mold those possible solutions into a workable agreement. It will depend a lot on factors such as the size of the group, the type of dispute, time pressures, and the authority of the negotiators to reach final agreement. For example, if the conflict is limited to the two decision makers, it might be as simple as discussing all the potential solutions. Then one person might take the lead by saying something like this:
Well, after evaluating all of our options against all of our interests, I think a solution that meets our interests and seems fair might be … (spells out the proposal). How would that work for you?
They then have a proposal on the table they can work from.
It may take more discussion to insure that they meet as many interests as possible. All the while, parties will be comparing any proposal to their contingency plans. When they find a solution they are happy with, they check for both clarity and commitment. That can be as simple as restating the agreement and a handshake, or a written agreement.
The opposite of that is a large group with many constituencies, and representatives who lack the authority to reach a final agreement. We’ve worked with disputes such as large multiparty bankruptcies and disputes involving international airlines, governments, and regulatory agencies where each step of the process took months, because both of the complexity of the issues and the number of relationships involved.
Steve Barber,1 one of the leading consultants on the use of Interest-Based methods, was an early proponent on the West Coast of Interest-Based negotiation. He routinely works with large multiparty disputes. A number of his cases have involved from fifteen to forty parties and have taken years to reach agreement.
USING A STRAW DESIGN TO REACH CLOSURE
A method that’s effective in a group situation is to first review and discuss all the options to clarify any questions, eliminate duplication, and eventually eliminate those possible solutions lacking any obvious merit or support. The next step is a thorough discussion of how various options meet the interests of each side and fall within objective criteria. Each party should independently be reviewing all possible solutions against their contingency plans.
Typically, during the discussion about how the options meet interests, a pattern starts to develop and a vague outline of a possible agreement begins to emerge. When that happens, we usually suggest that one party or a subcommittee of both parties fashion a package called a straw design. It’s called a straw design because it’s not cast in concrete. Criticism cannot hurt a straw design. It’s only made of straw and can easily be changed.
Once a straw design is complete, it is presented to the group. But the group isn’t asked to approve or reject a proposal at that time, but rather is asked for feedback about how the straw design can be improved to better meet the interests of the parties. That feedback is incorporated into the proposal and a new design is created. That new straw design goes through the same review process, not for approval, but for suggestions for improvement until people are happy with it or it’s apparent that it’s as good as it is going to get. Only then will negotiators seek a commitment.
For large groups working with complex issues and strong constituencies, this may be a lengthy and time-consuming process of meeting, then taking time to report the straw design back to constituencies, getting feedback from constituencies, then meeting with the negotiations group to revise the straw design based upon the feedback.
BOX 17-1
A Straw Design as a Closure Tool2
When to use a straw design:
After a large number of possible solutions have been Invented, clarified, and evaluated against the Interests of all the stakeholders.
After the list of possible solutions has been reduced by eliminating clearly unworkable or undesirable solutions.
When there appears to be a predominance of support for a particular solution or combination of solutions.
How to make a straw design:
An Individual or subcommittee Is selected to draft a proposal that:
Addresses Identified Interests of stakeholders.
Falls within any agreed-upon criteria.
Incorporates possible solutions developed by the group as a whole.
The draft proposal is given back to the group for review with the following guidelines:
There Is no ownership or sponsorship of the draft proposal. It Is made of “straw” and criticism cannot hurt It.
Criticism Is sought out, but must be given along with suggestions for how to Improve or cure any problems noted In the criticism.
Input Is recorded or submitted In writing.
Those assigned to draft the proposal Include the feedback In the next draft. The process Is repeated as many times as necessary until a solution Is reached. If agreement Is not reached, participants should review various methods of “getting unstuck” listed In box 17-3.
A VISION OF SUCCESS
There is no surefire, cookbook approach to reaching closure. It involves juggling emotions, facts, histories, hopes, fears, and potentials and most of all, relationships. It does help to have an individual to shepherd the process and carry a vision of success for the group. There are as many different styles of reaching closure as there are individuals.3 What we offer below is a brief description of the process Jim tends to use.
When Jim was mediating complex disputes, as the discussions progressed, he would begin to get a visual image of a settlement that looked like a jumble of puzzle pieces. Each piece of the puzzle was either an individual interest of a party, one of the bits and pieces of their relationship, or some outside pressure. A puzzle piece might be something that one person needed to say to another person. Maybe it was a specific interest that needed to be met. Perhaps it was an issue that needed more resolution. Sometimes it was an image of an outside pressure such as a local politician or other visible leader holding a press conference to set a tone of reconciliation or threaten government intervention.
In his mind, he would create visual images of the various puzzle pieces fitting together. Some pieces would not fit and they would have to be reshaped. Maybe someone wasn’t yet ready to let go of a past hurt, so that would require reshaping that piece of the puzzle, perhaps by orchestrating an apology or by helping someone let go of the issue through their own personal growth, or through the power of forgiveness. Sometimes puzzle pieces could be reshaped by helping a voice be heard or a truth be spoken that had been kept silent for too long. Sometimes pieces didn’t fit because they lacked fairness or a sense of justice, so that’s where time and energy needed to be focused. More often that not, it simply took creativity and a lot of perseverance to help parties sculpt pieces that met their needs and brought resolution to the problem and reconciliation to their relationship.
As the puzzle started to take shape in his mind, he would try to gain preliminary acceptance, piece by piece, of the solution he envisioned. He would ask questions like “If we could figure out a way to solve the problem of X, would that make your claim to Y moot?” As small pieces fit together and larger sections of the puzzle started to materialize, Jim would encourage the parties to visualize a final solution. Once parties started imagining success, it was usually just a matter of time until the optimal solution appeared to everyone. Then it was a process of articulating the solution and documenting it so that everyone had the same understanding of the agreement and commitment to it.
A DOZEN WAYS TO GET “UNSTUCK”
No methodology guarantees success. Sometimes in spite of everyone’s best efforts the parties get stuck and reach an impasse. That can be because the interests are incompatible and it’s time to consider letting go of a possible agreement and instead implementing contingency plans. Before you reach that point of giving up and moving on, however, it is worthwhile making every effort to break the impasse. Here are twelve helpful tools and processes to help you break an impasse and get back on the track to an agreement:
Jointly review the interests of all parties and any shared vision of success. Sometimes simply reminding parties of their interests and what success would look like and feel like is enough to get things moving again.
Look for undiscovered interests. It may seem as if the proposed solution is doing a good job of meeting all the interests that have been expressed, yet someone is still reluctant to agree to the proposal. This is a sure sign that undisclosed or undiscovered interests are not being met. Sometimes that is because the party may not be aware of the interests. Probing questions such as “Why doesn’t this proposal meet your needs?” or “What need is not being met by this proposal?” can help reveal the interests that are not being met.
Other times, a party may be unwilling to be open about the undisclosed interest. This is a more difficult situation and it raises a Red Zone flag. We suggest that it be dealt with in a straightforward way, from the Green Zone, without shaming or blaming, but with directness. Something like “We seem to have met all of your interests, yet you are still unwilling to agree to this proposal. That leads us to conclude that there are some other interests that you are not sharing with us. Before we start making up our own stories about this, can you tell us what that’s about?”
Seek more clarity of the task by reviewing and reaffirming the nature of the problem. It’s easy to get off task and start trying to solve additional issues that may not have been included in the original problem statement. Just as often, parties find that as they work, the nature of the problem changes. Sometimes parties gain a different understanding of the problem as they start trying to solve it. It can be helpful to check to make sure everyone is still trying to solve the same problem.
Review the problem-solving process being used. Parties are often tempted to skip steps in the process and prematurely rush directly to inventing solutions. Skipped steps will haunt negotiators when they are trying to reach closure. Make sure you’ve taken the time to fully complete each step before moving on.
Review your contingency plan and/or discuss the consequences of a failure to reach agreement. Are you passing up a potential agreement because you do not have a clear understanding of your contingency plan? If contingencies are strong, they can provide good information about how the settlement proposal must be improved to make it acceptable. A review of contingency plans can bring parties back to the reality that they are better off reaching agreement if the contingencies are poor. A discussion of the consequences of a failure to reach an agreement can be sobering. People often underestimate the impact of failure in negotiations. It makes potential implementation of contingency plans much more real, and in many cases that can bring parties back to the table with a renewed sense of purpose.
Review where you have been successful and unsuccessful so far, paying particular attention to patterns that may become evident. Sometimes patterns emerge that reveal information. For example: “All our successful collaborative efforts involve our manufacturing plants in Denver, Santa Fe, and Stockton. Let’s take a look at what we’re doing there that we may not be doing in our other locations.”
Patterns of failures can also be rich with information: “I notice that every single proposal that includes a joint committee review of the design engineering specs has failed. Maybe we ought to find a better way of doing that.”
Do a force-field analysis about getting an agreement. A force-field analysis looks at the forces that are both helping you move toward a goal or an agreement and hindering your movement in that direction. We usually make two lists, one of the hindering forces and one of the helping forces. Then we review what we can do to increase the impact of the helping forces and decrease the impact of the hindering forces. See box 17-2 for an example.
This group decided they couldn’t do anything about orders changing hourly, but that they could increase their regular meetings from once a week to twice weekly, and someone would take notes that would be sent to everyone that same day. They also had a discussion about their failure to return phone calls promptly. Once several people realized the impact of their not returning calls, they made commitments to be more conscientious about that. They also ordered a new message machine for the shipping department to replace the old one, which was broken.
Take time out (a cooling-off period). When people are tired and frustrated, they are not good problem solvers. A little time off for some rest and reflection can bring the mood back to the Green Zone.
Return to inventing solutions using new techniques. Maybe you just haven’t been creative enough in inventing solutions. You haven’t yet found the gold nugget. Return to the solution-building stage of the process and in a structured way use different tools to generate many more possibilities. First return to chapter 16 on inventing creative solutions to review the list of guidelines and possible methods of generating ideas. Then pick out two or three methods that you haven’t yet tried and lead the group in a new creative process.
Try a pilot project. Pilot projects can be a wonderful way to experiment with solutions that might be too risky to adopt permanently. They provide an opportunity to try out something new and see how it actually works without having to make a long-term commitment. An important factor in any agreement for a pilot project is having clarity about what happens at the end of the agreed-upon trial period.
We’ve seen some parties enter into agreements that lack clarity regarding what happens at the end of the trial, and chaos ensues. One party thought that they would return to the old status quo at the end of the trial period unless the parties specifically agreed to continue the new process. The other party thought the new process would automatically continue at the end of the trial period unless the parties specifically agreed to end it and return to the old status quo. Both sides felt betrayed.
Restructure the group. Adding new people to the problem-solving team can help generate new energy and enthusiasm in the process. New people can also look at things afresh and add a new perspective. If some people are particularly good at building bridges and problem solving, you may want to create a subcommittee and let those individuals work in a way that is less hampered by the larger group.
Sometimes some people in groups simply disrupt reaching a solution. Get rid of those people. We want to be clear, however, that we are not suggesting that someone be replaced simply because they disagree with your proposed solution. We are talking about the few individuals who really have more fun fighting than they do getting along. If someone offers no positive energy working toward a solution and does little else than sow the seeds of discontent, you will be doing everyone a disservice to keep him or her involved.
Seek a third party for either process or content assistance. Groups can get stuck in a couple of ways. They may not have process skills to create an agreement. Perhaps they have poor communication skills or lack experience with group facilitation or effective meeting protocols. Perhaps they’re not inventing good solutions because nobody has ever run a brainstorming session before. A facilitator, mediator, or meeting planner can enrich the group’s problem-solving ability by giving them more structure or more effective processes to reach agreement.
Other groups have good process skills but lack experience or expertise with the nature of the problem they are trying to solve. Here it is helpful to bring in an outsider with subject matter expertise: maybe bring in an IT consultant to help set up better communications systems for an alliance. In the school district labor strikes Jim has mediated, negotiators would almost always bring in budget experts because the California school funding process is so bewildering that nobody at the bargaining table (including Jim) had a clear understanding of how much money the district would actually receive the following year.
BOX 17-3
Getting Unstuck
Jointly review the interests of all parties and any shared vision of success.
Look for undiscovered interests.
Seek more clarity of the task by reviewing and reaffirming the nature of the problem.
Review the problem-solving process being used.
Review your contingency plan.
Review where you have been successful and unsuccessful so far, paying particular attention to patterns that may become evident.
Do a force-field analysis about getting an agreement.
Take time out (a cooling-off period).
Return to inventing solutions using new techniques.
Try a pilot project.
Restructure the group.
Seek a third party for either process or content assistance.
CLARITY AND COMMITMENT
What you want to end up with is a compliance-prone agreement: an agreement that people voluntarily, proactively, and wholeheartedly support because they think it is fair. It must reflect both clarity and commitment. It must meet the interests, at least reasonably so, of everyone who has the ability to undermine the agreement.
We see lots of examples where one party to a dispute forces an agreement onto the other side through sheer power. This is not an agreement that will withstand the test of time. A labor-management agreement where that has occurred (i.e., it was forced upon a weaker party with little consideration for the interests ofthat party) will have many more grievances filed over the life of the agreement. It builds resentment rather than relationships and is a breeding ground of passive-aggressive behaviors and sabotage. It will be devoid of the discretionary emotional energy it takes to be wildly successful.
Agreements that lack clarity will also breed disruption. This is why, whenever possible, we avoid around-the-clock crisis negotiation. Agreements reached in a hallway at 4 a.m. after thirty-six straight hours of mediation tend to be as bleary as the negotiators.
Always take the time to review the details of your agreements. Be sure you have a common understanding of all the details as well as a common understanding of what will happen to resolve any disputes that should arise later. Time spent gaining clarity at this stage will speed up your implementation down the road.
BOX 17-4
Compliance-prone agreements require both clarity and commitment.
Commitment should be reflected in some obvious and/or symbolic manner. Shaking hands after clearly restating the agreement is a common and effective method. People remember the gesture and it means something important to most people. If we’re working in a group and are seeking agreement of all the group members, we usually go around the group after agreement is reached and ask for a symbolic indication of their commitment. Usually it is simply asking everyone to say out loud “Yes, I agree.” If anyone says anything other than “Yes, I agree,” such as “Yeah, it’s all right” or “I can go along with that,” we take that as a “No” and have more discussion about that person’s hesitancy to fully commit to the agreement.4
COMMUNICATING TO CONSTITUENCIES
Most people have constituencies, whether they are teammates, stockholders, business partners, managers, union members, voters, family members, or their own internal judges. In communicating agreements to their constituencies they should have two goals in mind. The first is to communicate the substance of the agreement. The second is to communicate it in a manner that cultivates the relationship with the other party, making it easier to resolve future conflicts. Positive communication also increases constituency buy-in, not only to the agreement, but to the long-term relationship as well.
It is an appropriate time to indicate appreciation for the other party and the hard work of all the participants. Hopes for the future of the relations also can set a nice tone, supporting future collaborative efforts.
BOX 17-5
If handled well, every conflict Is an opportunity to strengthen the relationship and make It less likely you will have similar conflict In the future.
We’ve had many experiences where one party to a conflict believes it dominated the other side. Most exhibit the good sense not to flaunt their perceived victory. Others can’t resist and brag to their constituencies that they kicked the other side’s butt. If one side publicly brags about “winning” a dispute, and in doing so humiliates the other leadership, how easy will it be to resolve their next conflict? People too often forget that in any long-term relationship there are an awful lot of next times.
Remembering that everything we say or do will send a message, it is better to say something like “We faced many difficult problems and worked together very hard to reach an agreement that meets the interests of both parties as best we could.” If handled well, every conflict is an opportunity to strengthen the relationship and make it less likely you will have similar conflict in the future.
BOX 17-6
You can’t predict what will happen because more than one set of expectations and desires Is Involved. The best you can do Is to work from the Green Zone, remaining nondefensive and authentic, listen well and tell your truth In an accountable way, and follow the steps of the Interest-Based method that you have just learned.
Exercise 17-1
Interest-Based Action Plan
Now that you’ve learned the Interest-Based method by following along In the book, using it as a planning tool on one of your own real problems or conflicts, it’s time to put it into practice with the other parties involved. Once you start the process, it will be difficult to predict and control exactly what will happen. More than one set of expectations and desires will be involved that will influence the process. The best you can do is to work from the Green Zone, remaining non-defensive and authentic, listen well and tell your truth in an accountable way, and follow the steps of the Interest-Based method that you have just learned. The following points are a few things you should consider as you put the Interest-Based method to work on your real issue:
Who are the people that need to be involved?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
How and when will I contact them?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
How can I best explain my intentions about the problem and about the relationship?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What can I do to help the others feel included in the decision making?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Is there anything I can do to help the others feel more significant, competent, and likable?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A RECAP OF THE INTEREST-BASED APPROACH
Once you start the process, we suggest you follow the steps as closely as possible. Here’s a brief recap of the method:
Set the tone and discuss the process. Be open and direct about your intentions regarding problem solving as well as your intentions about the relationship. Try to reach agreement about what process you will use to resolve the issues.
Define the problem. Jointly develop a statement of issues that need to be resolved together.
Discuss the interests. Gain understanding of the underlying interests of all the parties involved in the dispute. Interests are the wants, needs, or desires that underlie the issues that need to be resolved.
Know your contingency plan. What will you be able to do on your own without the help or permission of the other side if you can’t agree on a resolution? Is there any way you can improve your contingency plan?
Invent creative solutions. Work together to create a large number of potential solutions to meet as many interests of all the parties as possible.
Reach clear commitments and compliance-prone agreements. Evaluate possible solutions against interests and contingency plans. Narrow the possible solutions and reach closure. Communicate to any constituencies in a manner that builds the relationship.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Reaching closure is the final step in the process. No process, including the Interest-Based method, can guarantee success. If, however, the steps have been followed faithfully, your chances of reaching a positive agreement are dramatically increased. Parties have dealt with inclusion issues, been clear about their intentions, and agreed upon process issues. Then they agreed on the problem statement, which is a list of issues to be resolved by the parties. They have developed contingency plans that they can implement on their own if the parties can’t reach agreement. They have also worked jointly to generate a large number of possible solutions to solve the problem.
Now the job is to carefully review all the possible solutions and measure them against the interests of the parties and their contingency plans. Any solution will have to be better than the contingency plans of both parties or they shouldn’t enter into it. Once the options have been thoroughly discussed, patterns and possibilities for settlement tend to appear.
A party or a subcommittee can review the discussions and try to form a package that is known as a straw design. The group is asked for feedback to improve the straw design and then it is revised. The process is repeated until everyone is happy with the proposal or it is clear that it’s as good as it’s going to get. Then commitment is sought.
If groups get stuck, box 17-3, “Getting Unstuck,” provides a dozen effective tools and processes for helping them break an impasse.
Compliance-prone agreements require both clarity and commitment. When an agreement is reached, it should be reviewed for clarity. Take the time necessary to fully understand the content of any agreement. Once there is clarity, make sure there is commitment. We prefer requiring everyone in the room to indicate their commitment to supporting the agreement.
Finally, any resolution should be communicated in a way that not only gives the substance of any agreement, but also cultivates the relationship. This signals to constituencies the significance of the relationship, increasing buy-in, not only for the particular agreement, but for the relationship as well.