Surfacing interests
Over the past six months, I’ve completed key coursework towards becoming a Qualified Mediator. The mediation approach I am learning revealed a lot about the dynamics of conflict and communicating, and also brought me back to my initial exposure to interest-based approaches and win-win thinking.
More than 20 years ago, I was part of a Negotiating Sub-Committee responsible for bargaining on behalf of about 300 members of a professional association. The story went that the previous CEO was extremely frustrated with the bargaining process, and was reported to have lamented aloud, “There has to be another way [to bargain].” The organization subsequently invested in Interest-Based Bargaining (IBB) training for all members of the negotiating teams at that time.
I came onboard after the training investment had occurred. When I arrived, the group was semi-willingly and semi-reluctantly following the practices of interest-based bargaining. I was new to the table and the pracice. IBB practices were different from traditional bargaining. They were fairly simple - and rather uncomfortable. It was tempting to revert to traditional practices. However, sources of tension are sources of learning.
What we did taught me a lot:
Seating: All members sat around a table in alternating formation, each member flanked by two members of the ‘other side’, versus the two ‘sides’ sitting across the table from each other.
My learning: The way the physical space is set up influences the conversation and outcomes. What’s uncomfortable initially can deeply benefit the emergence and flow of ideas. It broke apart our ability to commiserate and it interrupted the face-off posture assumed in other approaches.
Check-in and check-out: A roundtable check-in and check-out process at the beginning and end of each meeting (i.e. ‘how are you arriving?’ and ‘how are you departing?’) were the process bookends in every bargaining meeting. Sounds simple, but there was tension in checking in. It almost seemed wasteful of our meeting time. It took me time to recognize the palpable energetic transition that happened as we ‘opened and closed the group container’ each meeting.
My learning: Checking in and checking intersect with a driving tension to just ‘get going’ and ‘get things done.’ That process of checking in - of arriving more fully - humanized us, and influenced our bargaining process. We were people, not sides. The practice of checking-in and checking-out is core to how I design conversations, reinforced in many facilitation and hosting practices. A long series of bargaining sessions was a convincing inflection point.
Surfacing interests: The early stage of the bargaining process required each bargaining group to identify, on paper, unique interests (those held by one group) and joint interests (those interests held by both groups) - and then to link our bargaining process and decisions to the interests.
My learning: Identification of interests opened avenues to get from win-lose into win-win solutions. I have never forgotten this. And it came around full circle in my mediation training over the past 6 months. Having our interests more fully seen and activates options and solutions that are indiscernible when interests rest below the surface.
Data sets: Establishing agreed-upon data sets that would act as reference points during the bargaining process was critical.
My learning: A strong foundation of data enables better decisions. Having an agreed-upon set of info quelled emotional reactivity and exaggeration in the bargaining process. Costs were transparently known. Impacts were calculable. Hidden motives and distortions were averted.
Loonie jar: Setting up group norms, which for us, in that bargaining round, included a ‘loonie jar’ requiring members to pay a dollar for comments that were perceived as insults or passive-aggressive criticisms. The loonie jar gave us a way to name conduct that countered our norms. And the purpose of the loonie jar would be to buy a jug or two of beer at the end of a bargaining process in what would be a ratified agreement.
My learning: Norm-setting is intentional work. Having a way to name offside behaviours was helpful many times in the bargaining process. There were many moments when the possibility of reaching an agreement felt far, far away, but the loonie jar kept meeting-to-meeting conduct in check.
Longer-term wisdom:
These practices were an initiation for me in ways that still serve many situations, in work and life:
Slow down to speed up
It brought palpable tension to spend several meetings to develop norms, to establish agreed-upon data, and to surface and share unique and common interests rather than just ‘jumping in and bargaining.’ The pay-offs came when we reached agreement in ways that were demonstrably aligned with our respective and collective interests. Reaching an agreement was an accomplishment.
This tension is present in almost every meeting, strategic planning session, leadership offsite, and project kick-off. Pace matters, and slowing down is a helpful tool.
Building the group container builds possibility
The arrival experience shapes the rest of the experience. Be intentional. Activate voices.
Practice makes progress
The uncomfortable practices introduced through IBB all had value - but we had to endure the discomforts and act our way into new ways of bargaining.
Win-win thinking emerges from intentional surfacing of interests
Our interests - our deep values - drive us. Learning to surface those, in ourselves and in others, is worthwhile. Win-win solutions take longer, but typically ‘stick’ better.
These core learnings resurfaced and were consciously reinforced during mediation training. Even in complicated, conflict-ridden situations, it is possible to create the conditions for parties to listen, share perspectives, surface interests, and build understanding. These build a path towards generative, win-win solutions.
