Photo by Richard Lee on Unsplash
I chose to analyze this clip from The West Wing. It’s a great example of negotiation going badly, moreover of negotiation styles that Getting to Yes warn us against.
Without including previous footage from the episode, we can only use context clues to guess at how they had gotten to this point. I believe that they most likely use compromise as collaboration seems unlikely in a political setting no matter how effective it would be.
The video opens with a lovely example of informal relationships between the President (POTUS) and the Senator. You can tell by the language they use, verbal and body, that there are commitment and mutual respect to their long-term relationship. The president’s use of “We need to do better” creates a sense of community that collectively moves forward, connecting with other’s personal values.
They may not agree on everything, but they understand that today’s conversation is one of many like it and want to use their capital accordingly. They clearly have shared values or interests as Getting to Yes puts it.
Then the Speaker of the House (SOTH) enters the conversation. His entrance, to me, speaks to a likely high Thomas Kilmann score in competing. In the beginning, he uses a deferential tone and chooses his words carefully, he quickly drops that façade. It’s apparent the role he has cast the POTUS within his story and how he quickly makes himself the villain in the POTUS’ story.
The first line he speaks in the conversation is breaking a commitment already agreed to by all the parties. “Excuse me, Mr. President, there’s been a change.” Not asking but informing. “I know we talked about a 1% cut” establishing that there was already consensus. “It’s going to have to be 3.” He doesn’t take the time to share his story, explain the basis for this decision, who the decision-making parties were, and why the President was excluded. Later he refers to it as an offer, as if he is doing the president a kindness.
The SOTH likely doesn’t have a great deal of social competence with his emotional intelligence. He misreads the POTUS’ sigh as resignation and quickly flashes a smug look before suppressing it.
The body language throughout is fascinating. When first greeting each other, the SOTH makes a smile that looks more like a grimace or restraining bared teeth. While POTUS and the Senator sit down in relaxed positions, the SOTH is leaned forward, already working his hands almost like he’s prepared to lunge just as he does so verbally. When SOTH has declared his point and believes it’s a moot point for the POTUS to argue back, he nods his head as if projecting the agreement that he expects to eventually receive.
The POTUS has pretty steady body language throughout, possibly showing a learned history of restraint. However, his eyebrows give away his shock and frustration when he is questioning the SOTH. Fascinatingly the SOTH only seems to make eye contact at certain points. When he is feeling confident, he doesn’t bother making it. When he is pretending to have regrets, he does make eye contact. The most telling moment though is when he is waiting to see if the President capitulates, showing the real power dynamic is not what he wishes.
He mistakenly assumes that POTUS naturally tends towards compromise and doesn’t see his natural competing instinct until SOTH thinks he has successfully push POTUS into a corner. He didn’t realize the POTUS’ BATNA, that it was better to walk away entirely than salvage the deal.
I’m not sure that they would ever have gotten to a place of agreement but here are some suggestions that could have helped. First off, the SOTH needs to recognize his formal and informal relationship with the President. It’s a unique situation, where you are required to work with people who have completely different beliefs than you. You can’t take your skills to a competitor. If you want this job, you need to learn how to maintain a working relationship for the long haul.
Second, interrupting so soon into the meeting, when they were still reviewing what had already been discussed shows a disrespect for the process. If he had waited until the end and shared that they had just left a conference with his peers and that they were demanding more of him, he may have been able to appeal to the POTUS’ values. At present, it seems like the POTUS values doing the right thing by everyone whereas the SOTH wants to do right by those who think like him.
Third, lose the hard positioning. Providing a set of options could have done wonders for this negotiation. “Mr. President, I know we agreed on 1% but I’m hearing that the budget can’t succeed without 3%. Could we estate the 1% at midnight tonight with a firm public commitment to consider raising it to 3% in 2 months?” He could take it a step further by adding in criteria to agree on such as “During that time, I would like to convene a panel to see what the real-life consequences would be if we do and don’t raise the percentage.”
I was reminded of how important empathy is to being a good leader. How slowing down to ask questions and truly listen to the other party can fast forward a conversation to where it needs to be. I learned about the idea of already knowing what tradables you have and making sure that what you are bringing to the table has value to the other party.
From this video, I learned who in that room I would rather be conducting business with, the Senator instead of the Speaker of the House. I want to develop long term relationships where both parties feel like they will win and lose some but ultimately get what they need because of mutual respect. I want to work on determining what people’s value sets are and what values we have in common. I also want to develop the confidence to say no to a bad deal and walk away. As someone who is primarily a collaborator, I can spend entirely too much time getting people to the table and working too hard to keep them there. Sometimes I need to be the one to walk away.
Citations
Gladwell, M. (2013). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Back Bay Books.
Stone, D., Heen, S., & Patton, B. (2010). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most. New York: Penguin Books.
Smith, D. M. (2008). Divide or conquer: How great teams turn conflict into strength. New York: Portfolio.
Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0: The world’s most popular emotional intelligence test. San Diego, CA: TalentSmart.
Emotional Intelligence 2.0 – Take the Test. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.talentsmart.com/test
Fisher, R., Patton, B., & Ury, W. (2013). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Winnipeg: Media Production Services Unit, Manitoba Education.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.
MarketingMichelle 