Do Less, Be More - Lessons from Young American Leaders Program
I did not expect the Young American Leaders Program at Harvard Business School’s class on negotiation to profoundly connect to the work we are doing with We Belong Here but it did.
The Young American Leaders Program was a crash course in cross-sector collaboration, equity, and negotiation, featuring speakers on the front line of civic engagement such as former Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick; Mayor of Saint Paul, Melvin Carter, and Jennifer Musisi, the first appointed Executive Director of the Kampala Capital City Authority (akin to our mayors/city managers). Together we reviewed case studies on topics like Amazon’s HQ2 proposal and Pittsburgh’s relationship with Uber and Autonomous Vehicles.
Our instructor, a lecturer from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard named Robert Wilkinson, boiled our most common conception of negotiation down to it’s essence: two people on opposite sides of the table trying to get the better of each other. This scenario is so familiar to the way we think about the world.
Wilkinson then challenged us to question why negotiation needs to play out in this way. He argued that this form of negotiation was actually the most uncreative way to get to an agreement, because of how it pits negotiators as opponents wrestling over their respective positions.
When we approach any type of negotiation, we commonly introduce our positions. I want X number of credits for Y value of services. Then we work to slice this small pie of fixed positions into something that resembles a compromise.
What we may not realize is that, by starting with a high and low position, we are intrinsically minimizing the possible outcomes from the get-go!
So how do we find a more creative alternative? A part of this is to go beyond positions to understand the deeper interests relevant to each party.
A good example of this was shared by Mr. Wilkinson regarding the Camp David Accords which brought together the United States, Israel, and Egypt during President Carter’s administration. One of the major topics of contention was the future of the Sinai Peninsula between Egypt and Israel. Through two different battles/wars, Israel had taken and occupied the peninsula which previously belonged to Egypt.
When both sides were convinced to discuss their interests as opposed to their positions, they quickly realized that a bigger pie could be created and deeper solutions could be explored.
Israel’s interest was security. Egypt’s interest was sovereignty. They quickly struck a bargain that created a bigger pie. They agreed that Egypt would take back control of the Sinai Peninsula but would keep it free of armed forces/bases in perpetuity. This would give Egypt back a part of their land that had strong cultural significance while Israel was given a very large threat-free border between them and Egypt.
But how do you move a negotiation centered on positions to one that values interests? It turns out that asking questions is key. This is how we get from a mindset of opposing positions to a more expansive conversation about everyone’s interests: by asking questions and being curious. By not going in with an outcome, but instead leading with the relationship first.
Ask yourselves, how often do you make statements in rooms of power? How often do you ask questions? Why are your positions so important to you and why don’t you address your deeper interests?
I wonder if we can…
Say less, ask more.
Posture less, listen more.
Do less, be more.
In this way, I believe we will reach much more imaginative and impactful solutions for all of us. In this day and age, how can we not at least attempt to change the fundamental way we’ve been engaging with each other?