Principle 1 of Principled Negotiation: Separate the People from the Problem

Introduction:

One of the principles or strategies of principled negotiation is separating the people from the problem. This note will discuss what it means to separate people from the problem, why there is the need for such separation, and how the separation is achieved.

What does it mean to separate the people from the problem?

The principle of separating the people from the problem arises from the understanding that in every dispute or transaction, there is a problem affecting the individuals involved. Ideally, the parties or negotiators would address the issue or conclude the transaction without being influenced by emotions (such as anger, frustration, or envy), misperceptions, or communication barriers.

However, in reality, the negotiators are first and foremost human beings, with emotions, different perceptions, and challenges in communication, among other factors. Given this reality, the idea of separating the people from the problem is that a negotiator should strive to resolve the substantive dispute or finalise the transaction without allowing personal emotions, misperceptions, relationships, or other human tendencies to interfere.

Why there should be a Separation of the People from the Problem:

1. Attacks on the Problem = Personal Attacks

First, without separating the people from the problem, comments on the problem may be perceived as personal attacks. For example, a statement like “the kitchen is a mess,” might be interpreted as criticism of someone’s habits rather than an objective observation of the kitchen’s state. This perceived attack can provoke a defensive or hostile response, escalating tensions and hindering effective negotiation.

2. Adverse Effects on Relationships

Second, without a separation of the people from the problem, relationships may be adversely affected when there are attempts to resolve the problem. Often the resolution of disputes or the conclusion of transactions occurs in the context of an ongoing relationship. When a party to a dispute attacks the problem, such an attack, once viewed as an attack on the other party, adversely affects the relationship. Also, when a person feels angry over a situation/problem, such anger may be expressed towards the person associated with the situation/problem in one’s mind. This may adversely affect the relationship between the parties.

Essentially, the reason why relationships should be protected from such adverse effects is that in every dispute, a party often has two kinds of interest. The first is an interest in the substance, and the second is an interest in the relationship. An interest in the substance is why a person negotiates or the problem one seeks to solve through negotiation, such as getting the other party to agree to a lower price, halt nuclear testing, or be your boo. On the other hand, an interest in the relationship is the interest a person may have to preserve his relationship with the other party. For example, a seller who negotiates has the substantive interest of selling an item at a high price to a customer, but he is also interested in developing a long-term relationship with the customer. If an attempt to resolve the substantive issue—such as negotiating a price—adversely affects the relationship, both parties may end up worse off.

3. Adverse Effects on the Resolution of the Dispute

Third, the emotions of people can inhibit an effective resolution of a dispute through negotiation. For instance, anger may cause a person to not want to commence negotiation, make compromises, or listen to the other person, among others. While it may sometimes be beneficial to a negotiation, which is acceptable, it is essential to separate emotions when they are likely to interfere with the negotiations.

Summarily, the essence of separating the people from the problem is to ensure that the problem is effectively solved and a good working relationship is maintained during and after the problem is solved.

How the People are Separated from the Problem:

A separation of the people from the problem occurs when personal or relationship issues that could interfere with resolving a dispute or concluding a transaction are addressed independently of the substantive issues at stake. This ensures that the focus remains on solving the problem itself, rather than allowing emotions, perceptions, or interpersonal dynamics to derail the process.

In the sections that follow, we will discuss how the personal or relationship issues that could interfere with resolving a dispute or concluding a transaction are addressed.

Meaning and Categories of People Problem:

The bundle of personal or relationship issues that could interfere with the resolution of a dispute or conclusion of a transaction is referred to as people problems.

While there are several such people problems, Fisher and Ury [1] advanced that:

To find your way through the jungle of people problems, it is useful to think in terms of three basic categories: perception, emotion, and communication. The various people problems all fall into one of these three baskets.

These categories of people problems, together with how to deal with them, are now discussed.

1. Perception as a People Problem:

A. Meaning:

People think differently and have different perceptions about the same event. These perceptions may reflect reality or simply be false. Usually, each side considers his perception as the reality. This is problematic because what a side considers the reality and the problem may not actually be the reality or the problem.

Below is a slight modification of an illustration by Fisher and Ury [1] on how people have different perceptions of the same event:

B. Dealing with the Perception Problem:

The following strategies may be adopted to deal with the perception problem.

i. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes:

Here, it is important for a negotiator to try and see things from the perspective of the other party. Doing so will enable the negotiator to appreciate what the other party perceives as reality. According to Fisher and Ury [1], in putting yourself in the shoes of the other party,

…you should be prepared to withhold judgment for a while as you “try on” their views. They may well believe that their views are “right” as strongly as you believe yours are. You may see on the table a glass half full of cool water. Your spouse may see a dirty, half-empty glass…

By putting yourself in other people’s shoes, you understand events from their perspective. For instance, in our illustration above, if the landlady puts herself in the shoes of the tenant, she may appreciate that with the rising costs of living, the young tenant cannot afford a substantive increase in rent. With this understanding, she may only consider increasing the rent marginally instead of substantially.

ii. Do not deduce their intentions from your fears:

Another way of dealing with the perception problem is not deducing the other party's intentions from your fears. According to Fisher and Ury [1],

People tend to assume that whatever they fear, the other side intends to do. Consider this story from the New York Times: “They met in a bar, where he offered her a ride home. He took her down unfamiliar streets. He said it was a shortcut. He got her home so fast she caught the 10 o’clock news.” Why is the ending so surprising? We made an assumption based on our fears.

Another illustration is that when a woman suspects or fears that her man is cheating on her, she assumes that all the calls he decides to not answer and those that he goes outside to answer are calls with other women. While some may be calls with other women, because men fear men, some may be calls with family, business partners, among others.

iii. Do not blame the other party for your problem:

When you blame another party for your problem, they are likely to perceive it as an attack and will consequently get defensive and resist what you have to say. According to Fisher and Ury [1], they will cease to listen or strike back with an attack of their own. It is thus better to talk about the problem than to blame the other party.

iv. Discuss each other’s perceptions:

Given that perceptions can give rise to conflicts, it is important for the parties to a negotiation to acknowledge their perceptions and discuss them with the other side. Here, each party genuinely discusses with the other party how they see things. For instance, from our landlady-tenant illustration, the landlady may discuss with the tenant that she does not ask him personal questions because she feels same would be intrusive. In return, the tenant may reveal that he would appreciate her asking about his well-being, and her not doing so makes her appear cold and distant.

v. Look for opportunities to act inconsistently with the perceptions of the other party:

If the other party, by virtue of their perceptions, thinks you will act in a particular way under certain circumstances, you must act differently under those circumstances. For example, if a woman thinks her man is a cheat, the man must look for opportunities to show that he is not. This may include not responding to flirty texts from other women, not liking their pictures on X and Facebook, and clearly communicating to other women that he is together with another.

vi. Give the other party a stake in the outcome by making sure he/she participates in the process:

When solving a problem, it is important to not make the other party feel or perceive that a solution is being imposed on him/her. Rather, a negotiator must involve the other party in coming up with the solution. This way, it is mutually acceptable and not perceived as an imposition. In the landlady-tenant illustration, the problem to be solved was the cost of rent. Instead of the landlady unilaterally deciding the new amount of rent and completely ignoring the rising costs of living equally faced by the tenant, she may attempt to find a solution to the problem in consultation with the tenant. The tenant may make concessions, and so will the landlady. The outcome of their discussion is more likely to be acceptable to them than if the tenant perceived that the landlady was simply imposing her will on him.

2. Emotion as a People Problem:

A. Meaning:

Whenever there is a dispute, people feel a host of emotions. This may include anger, joy, sadness, among others. These emotions, if not handled properly, may adversely affect negotiations. According to Fisher and Ury [1],

Emotions on one side will generate emotions on the other. Fear may breed anger, and anger, fear. Emotions may quickly bring a negotiation to an impasse or an end.

B. Dealing with the Emotion Problem:

i. Recognise and understand the emotions of the other party and your own emotions:

You can only solve problems associated with negotiation if you recognise that emotions exist and have an effect on the negotiations. More importantly, you can only solve the emotion problem by identifying the set of emotions the other party brings to the negotiation table and those that you bring to the table. By listening to the other side, you can get a sense of their emotions. After doing so, you must prepare to handle those emotions, particularly the behaviours that are caused by the emotions. For instance, by recognising that the other party has come to the negotiation table angry, you may resolve to not act in a way that further infuriates them.

ii. Make emotions explicit and acknowledge them as legitimate:

Beyond just recognising the emotions and acting in a way that recognises their emotions, you may deal with the emotional problem by talking to the other side about their emotions and your emotions. According to Fisher and Ury [1], such a discussion frees the parties from unexpressed emotions and allows them to work on resolving the problem.

iii. Allow the other side to let off steam:

Sometimes, people just need to express their anger, frustration, and other emotions. They may do this by yelling, crying, talking about their grievances, or being alone. It is important to allow the other party to release these emotions and only engage them when they are in a position to engage.

iv. Do not react to emotional outbursts:

When the other party lets off steam, it is essential to not react to those outbursts. For instance, if the other person starts shouting, it is essential to not react to those outbursts. If you were to react and equally start shouting, the dispute may be worsened.

v. Use symbolic gestures:

When people are being emotional, a note of sympathy, a statement of regret, a hug, among others, may produce a constructive emotional impact on them.

3. Communication as a People Problem:

A. Meaning:

At the heart of negotiation is communication, a back-and-forth exchange between the parties. There are three problems with communication:

1. Negotiators are not talking to each other. This is contemporarily called the silent treatment. The negotiators may instead talk to third parties to get those third parties to side with them.
2. Even if one negotiator talks to the other, that other person may not be listening. This is because while one person is talking, the other may simply be busy thinking about what to say after the one talking is done talking. They think of arguments and responses instead of listening.
3. Third, a party may misinterpret what the other party says.

B. Dealing with the Communication Problem:

i. Listen actively and acknowledge what is being said:

There is a distinction between hearing and listening. Whereas hearing is the passive perception of sounds, listening is an active process that requires focus and attention. A person who listens seeks to understand and appreciate what is being said. According to Fisher and Ury [1],

Listening enables you to understand their perceptions, feel their emotions, and hear what they are trying to say. Active listening improves not only what you hear, but also what they say. If you pay attention and interrupt occasionally to say, “Did I understand correctly that you are saying that ... ?” the other side will realize that they are not just killing time, not just going through a routine. They will also feel the satisfaction of being heard and understood. It has been said that the cheapest concession you can make to the other side is to let them know they have been heard.

It is not just important to listen, but also important to let the other party feel that you are listening. Questions such as “if I understand you correctly, you are saying that xyz?” will let the other party appreciate that you are listening.

ii. Speak to be understood:

When speaking to the other party during a negotiation, use language and words that aid the other party to understand you.

iii. Establish confidential means of communicating with the other party:

Sometimes, the presence of third parties may hamper communication. In the presence of third parties, a party to a dispute may be more interested in not appearing weak or wrong before the third parties and, instead of listening when you speak, may be thinking of new ways to counter your arguments and appear strong.

iv. Speak about your, not about them:

When you speak about the other party in a negotiation, it is easy for them to feel attacked and consequently begin thinking of ways to defend themselves. Instead, you may speak about the effect of their actions on you. So, for instance, instead of saying, “You broke your word,” you say, “I feel let down” [1].

v. Speak for a Purpose:

Sometimes, parties to a dispute may overcommunicate (talk too much). In the process, thoughts that should have been left unsaid are expressed. This could further worsen the dispute.

Conclusion:

In negotiating with another person, several factors may affect the negotiations. These factors are mostly human tendencies, traits, and predispositions. For effective negotiating, it is important to separate these factors from the substantive issue. This separation, in addition to ensuring an effective resolution of the substantive issue, also ensures that the relationship between the parties is maintained. In total, there are three problems that should be separated and addressed during a negotiation: the perception problem, the emotion problem, and the communication problem.