Borrowing from and modifying
the concepts found in Difficult Conversations (details
below), it seems when engaged in
settlement negotiations, parties are operating at many levels (visibly and
in their own mind):
- What happened? (e.g., whose version of history is better or worse
interpretation of the "truth," can we objectively assess the
past events in this matter? etc)
- How to I feel about what happened?
- With whom am I negotiating? (e.g., fully cooperative
partner, cooperative antagonist, strident antagonist, opportunist,
unethical negotiator, etc.)
- What does this conflict say about me (my
company or institution)?
- What is a fair resolution of our dispute?
Strong feelings and differences about any of the first four questions
make Question #5 very difficult to agree upon. Can the parties engage
in a productive discussion and exchange that clarifies the first four
questions (for each party and jointly) so that we can move to the idea of
a fair resolution.
Although party representative often state that the dispute is purely
one of economics, practice and outcomes demonstrate that there is much
more behind the conflict than merely money or assets.
Concept sources: Difficult Conversations,
Stone, Patton & Heen, Penguin, 1999; Raiffa, Art & Science of
Negotiation, 1982
|
|
|
