Interest-Based Mediaion

Re-printed with permission from the Interaction Newsletter

As practitioners of interest-based negotiation, we take for granted that the jargon we all use means the dame thing to all people. this phenomena is most evident in the area of "interests." When we say "interests", we have come to assume everyone means the same thing.

Our definitions for our own terms, this one in particular, tend to be quite simplistic. We say that an interest is an expression of a need or want. But theoretical explanations and practical application are different. Even a quick analysis shows our inconsistencies: we say interests are needs or wants, but we also say positions are wants. What's the difference, then, between a need or want - and indeed how can a "want" be both an interest and a position?

Theory is easy, practice is hard. Theory is pure, practice is muddy. Theory is meant to be revisited and challenged - according to the experiences found in practice.

Is it any surprise, then, that many students, even after completing training, still do not grasp what we thought were the basics? It is easy at that point to simply look for someone to blame; either the student's lack, the instructor's or the organization's.

Although someone may be lacking, it could be more helpful to frame the problem another way: what contributions can we all make to a more cohesive pedagogy? How can we revisit what we are saying in theory?

UNPACKING JARGON

I see a whole profession that could benefit from revisiting constantly what we mean by the words we use. Spending more time clarifying what we mean we all bring to our field's jargon" can result, I believe, in a more cohesive pracitice in interest-based negotiation, both in the classroom, and in our communities. In this article, I would like to take us through one such exploration, pulling back the layers on one of our favourite ways of explaining interests are CHEAPBFVs. That is, interests are the concerns, hopes, expectations, assumptions, perceptions, beliefs, feelings and values that we all carry with us.

I'd like to propose that only one letter in the CHEAPBFV list is actually an interest: the V for values. I would also like to suggest that all the other letters are, instead of interests, actually only tools to help us uncover interests; the prompts we can use to pose the questions that will help us to pull out values. This clarification is important if we're all to understand what we are negotiating when we say we do "interest-based" negotiations and for what we do when we attempt to positively reframe disputants' "interests."

Let's look at each letter of the CHEAPBFV acronym in turn..

CONCERNS

Concerns are all the things we are worried about - all the things we don't want to happen. A person's concerns are expressed in the negative; we say an interest must be expressed in the positive. A concern is the picture of all we don't want; we say an interest is an expression of what we do want.

One can conclude, then, that concerns may not be "interests" per se, but rather a way to uncover interests, a sign that an interest lurks near by, a signal to shift the "negative" to the positive. Concerns are a question we ask to illicit interests - not interets themselves.

If concerns are not really interests, what is the "positive thing we probe for?

HOPES

Hopes look promising as interests, after all - they are positive, which is a start.

Looking more closely at hopes, however, we can discover it is still difficult for this to capture what an interest is exactly, because we can easily call one party's preferred solution a hope: "I wish he'd get his dog to stop barking"; "I wish she would get a job", "I hope I get (my solution/my way...)".

So, when we peel back one layer of meaning, hopes aren't quite giving us the elusive "definition" of what an interest is.

Upon further reflection, however, we may get closer to what we mean by interests by describing hopes as dreams. Take a minut now to try to plug in your own solution when you say "My dream is..."

It seems a bit more difficult to do, doesn't it? The language of dreaming, by its very nature, tends to lift us higher, give us a wider perspective. And isn't a wider perspective. And isn't a wider perspective helpful in seeing new ways to approach an old problem?

Hopes then, when we take time to peel back the onion of meaning, are close to what we mean by interests, but not quite. Talking about hopes, and especially using the language of dreams, are a way to pull out interests. But what are the items that are being pulled out?

EXPECTATIONS

Expectations are helpful to uncover as they can add clarity to a situation ("I didn't know you thought that!"), but are they explictly "interests"? No. "I expect you to clean your room" (position). Expectations are, perhaps, more like concerns - a way to uncover interests, a sign that an interest lurks near by, a signal to transform a piece of information into an "interest". So we continue to search for interests...

ASSUMPTIONS

Assumptions are similar to expectations, except that assumptions are hidden from view. I expect peace and quiet; I assume you realize I do.

Another manifestation of us not all meaning the same things when we use the same language is evident even with what word stands for "A" - some trainers call the "A" aspirations (even if that is the case, aspirations are similar to hopes and so, are also not interests).

PERCEPTIONS

Perceptions can be defined as beliefs, and so are actually a duplication in the CHEAPBFV list. Sometime "priorities" stand in for this "P" - but again priorities are more a tool to rank the importance of something rather than an actual interest.

BELIEFS

OK, beliefs sound bedrock - have we found the elusive interests yet? I can "believe" you should shut your dog up - but unless I change that into something more neutral and broad, it's still expressed as a narrow position (my solution).

So, we continue to ask: what is the actual interest I am negotiating?

FEELINGS

These are important! Again, however, feelings are not interests, but the most obvious signpost for the level of importance we attach to things. Big feelings equal big importance.

VALUES

So, what really is an interest, anyway? I wonder if we come closest to understanding interests when we think of them as values. Values are things like financial security, peaceful and quiet lifestyle, community-mindedness. We feel strongly about values. We want to hang onto our values. We "need" our values.

Values and principles are very similar. These are our touchstones for what we really need in an agreement. It's not that I really need a job in Ottawa; I need advancement and growth (principles/values I have). These values/principles will need to be reflected in any agreement I sign. Once I realize why I wanted that job so much, I will be more ready to let go of my attachment to that particular way of solving the problem (i.e., getting the Ottawa job).

It seems to me that "values" (or think of them as principles) are the end product we're searching for - using our CHEAPBFV tool. If interests are fundamentally values, then we have "arrived" when we've finally uncovered the core values that are driving all our concerns, hopes, expectations, assumptions, perceptions, beliefs, and feelings.

If we're clear that values is what we're searching for, once we've found them we can further analyze them. For, although many of us share the same values, many of us share only similar values that may need to be further explored and sorted out. And many of us put different priorities on different values, which may also need to be expressed and understood.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REFRAMING

A direct implication of not really knowing what interests are impacts reframing.

Reframing highlights interests because the formula we use to reframe requires us to plug in interests. The formula we all know is: "So, what's important to you is interest". This formula presupposes we are all well grounded in interest identification, so we can plug in the interest. And there's the rub?

It is in using this formula that it becomes most evident whether we are clear, as a practicing community, about what an interest is. I say this because this is the one clear cut time that we are required to identify "interests" obviously. And I know we are not all clear.

I've observed as a coach over the last few years, watching hundreds of students, that most students, after being given lovely textbook theoretical definitions of interests, proceed to plug in almost anything into the "interest" formula (positions, paraphrases, etc). And I've observed similar pitfalls in trainers.

Here's a summary of the three most common pitfalls I've seen, resulting from our lack of clarity about what an interest is:

PITFALL #1: "REFRAMING" A POSITION

Without having a clear idea of what an interest is, many people reframe a position. This is a problem as it can very easily lead to further entrenchment.

What makes this pirfall particularly tricky is that many people think they are reframing an interest when they are, in fact, reframing a position.

We (sic)to be more self-aware about this particular practice. One of my self-awareness experiences happened when my husband drove me to one of the conflict resolution classes I was taking at the time. We had a discussion outside the classroom about finances and just before I left I said: "You think I should give the topic up." He did the classic "Yeah" (the sign we learn that tells us we've done good!) and I felt crummy. I went into class and within a few minutes we were all dissecting the encounter. Turns out - I gave him back his position, and boy did it feel good to him. Did I feel I was advancing the discussions productively? Yes, initially, superficially. But did it actually help advance our discussions productively? No. If I hadn't had the good fortune of that analysis soon after the experience, I would never have known what I did wrong.

We receive training in distinguishing between a position and an interest as a theoretical exercise, but not much repitition, practice or feedback about doing it in situ.

PITFALL #2: "REFRAMING" A PARAPHRASE

Another pitfall that arises because we are not sure what an interest really is happens when people repeat back a whole bunch of information and believe they are reframing. For example, I have heard many role players get geared up for some reframing, and proceed to summarize the discussions. Great paraphrasing, but that wasn't a reframe.

The problem here is not as glaring as with "reframing" a position, as paraphrasing itself serves a useful function (helping the other person feel understood.

Parties may not get further entrenched, but then again they may not get further ahead either. Ever get that feeling the conversation is going around in circles? You may be paraphrasing, with no conscious search for a tangible interest driving your conversation.

People need more self-awareness and in situ feedback about doing this as well.

PITFALL #3: THINKING REFRAMING IS EASY

Another implication of not knowing what an interest really is, is not realizing that reframing is actually an advanced skill - it seems easy to get on the surface. How many of us think we get it because we can repeat back the formula itself? ("So, what's important to you is...") Many of us think we've got years of communication courses under our belt, so of course we can reframe.

Reframing not only requires the ability to understand what an interest is - (which is, as we've seen, elusive at the best of times!), but also the skills to find them.

Finding interests involves: - listening deeply,
- sifting through emotions/feelings and other information presented to us in a conversation,
- Finding some emotional "hot" spots as cues to the level of importance to the other person,
- Exploring the emotional hot spots to defuse emotion,
- Analyzing the information presented, originally entangled with the emotion,
- Finding the underlying need,
- Translating the information presented into more productive language (turning negative into positive interest),
- Feeding it back to the other person to check out your hunch.

When to use reframing is also complex. Reframing can serve a multitude of purposes.

One of the most easily overlooked is that reframing, quite simply, makes it easier for us to get our point across and to listen. reframing helps us do this by: expressing our differences positively (what I need) instead of negatively (what I don't need). This decreases tension between the conversants. Reframing is misunderstood and its complexities not fully appreciated.

In summary, when we try to highlight an interest in reframing, we are actually searching for a party's values. When we've found the values, we reframe those: "So, contribution is important to you." It is only after we realize we have reframed a value that we can then begin to unpackage and clarify what the value means to one party - or both (as appropriate). "So, what does contribution mean to you..."

The more I question what an interest is, the more I realize that the quest for that answer is even more elusive than it seemed as first. Reflection brings complexity - and I certainly don't have all the answers. My hope is this journey has shown that we may all mean different things when we say "interests" and that talking about what we may mean can help bring more clarity to our search for how best to approach "interest-based" negotiation. I also hope that this analysis will stimulate more members of our community to wrestle as I have with the underlying causes of conflict, and to become more open to the myriad of possible explanations for human motivations and "interests".

In the future, it would be refreshing to see our whole community constantly revisiting and making clearer the practical implications of our simplest theories. Perhaps then the question: "What really is an interest anyway?" will be seen as invitation to dialogue, and not a sign that someone doesn't get it.