There is much talk these days about polarization. Agriculture is no exception. Whether it be on production methods, product branding, breed preference, or “Beyond” meats, the list goes on. We seem to get entrenched in our position and have difficulty seeing another’s viewpoint.
Concepts used in major negotiations apply to both small and large conflicts. An expert in this area is negotiation expert William Ury. He co-founded the Harvard Program on Negotiation and is well known for his book Getting to Yes. He has been involved in many high-level negotiations over the years, such as the Cold War, the Middle East conflict and the Columbian civil war.
Read Also
A strategic approach to risk on the ranch
Given the increase in the value of livestock and the market volatility, we need to cover our risks. First,…
Ury’s principles and examples are not just for high-level major negotiations. Many of the points can be applied in our daily lives, particularly in our family businesses.
He states that any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria. It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. It should improve, or at least not damage, the relationship between the parties.
There are four principles of effective negotiation:
• Separating people from the problem.
• Focusing on interests rather than positions.
• Generating a variety of options before settling on an agreement.
• Insisting that the agreement be based on objective criteria.
Identifying underlying interests will help uncover commonalities related to the basic human needs of security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition and control over one’s life.
Ury cites a story of two people quarrelling in a library. One wants the window open and the other wants it closed. They argue back and forth but cannot come up with an agreeable solution. The librarian comes in and asks each why they want it open or closed. One answers to get fresh air and the other to avoid the draft. She comes up with a solution to open the window in the next room, providing fresh air and not creating a draft. The librarian was able to consider the interests of both and come up with another option altogether.
There is widespread concern currently for the environment. But divisions occur when considering how to best take care of it. As agriculture producers, we feel the responsibility of stewarding the land to the best of our ability, with a close connection to it. Others are critical of our approaches. Information may be part of the solution. Sharing stories and practices on social media can invite sharing of knowledge and forming relationships. Of course, this same tool can also be used destructively, and we should be mindful of that.
A useful tool for generating options is brainstorming. Anyone who has been in my workshops or holistic management courses may have experienced this approach. Often, we use it to generate ideas for creating income or cutting expenses. But it can be used for just about any question you can come up with.
There are some basic guidelines. Firstly, we are trying to generate as many ideas as possible. There is no judging, evaluating or criticizing. That comes later. We want to tap into creativity and piggyback on others’ ideas. Have a warm-up session to get the ideas flowing. It can be helpful to have it as a competitive, timed event. Participants are often surprised at how many ideas a group can come up with.
Along with brainstorming, Ury outlines steps for inventing options.
• Step 1: Problem. What’s wrong? What are the current symptoms? What are disliked facts, contrasted with a preferred situation?
• Step 2: Analysis. Diagnose the problem. Sort symptoms into categories. Suggest causes. Observe what is lacking. Note barriers to resolving the problem.
• Step 3: Approaches. What are possible strategies or prescriptions? What are some theoretical cures? Generate broad ideas about what might be done.
• Step 4: Action ideas. What specific steps might be taken to deal with the problem?
When humans are involved, so are emotions. People need to see themselves as working together to solve the problem, not against each other. For this reason, Ury suggests people sit in a semi-circle facing a whiteboard or flipchart and not on opposite sides of the table.
He also believes that anger is essential, but how it is deployed is the key. “Anger is fuel, and it can be used constructively or destructively,” he says. Another guideline Ury suggests is that only one participant is allowed to be angry at a time. It is alright for people to diffuse their anger following certain guidelines.
In a crisis, there can be breakdowns or breakthroughs. It is often little things that shift the outcome one way or another. Many times, it begins with us. Can we shift the way we look at the world?
Three overarching steps Ury recommends are going to the balcony, building a bridge and considering the third side. Firstly, going to the balcony and trying to get a high-level view of the situation; get a perspective and ground ourselves. Then working to form a bridge between the two parties. Lastly, defining the third side, coming together as a whole.
Another important concept of Ury’s is to develop the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. This involves inventing a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached, improving some of the more promising ideas and converting them into practical alternatives. Then, selecting the one alternative that seems the best.
He states that “The most any method of negotiation can do is to meet two objectives. First, to protect you against making an agreement you should reject, and second, to help you make the most of the assets you do have so that any agreement you reach will satisfy your interests as well as possible.”.
