Walk a Mile in My Shoes

Imagine this:  you are in a heated negotiation, getting nowhere, battle lines drawn, stalemated.  You tell your point of view; your business partner tells you his.  You say you understand his point of view; he says the same about your point of view.  Neither of you believe the other is telling the truth.  Is this negation doomed?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Now imagine amping up the tension by laying out 80 million dollars on the table, the negation is about how to split it.  Does calm ensue?  No.  Do tempers flare?  Yes.

Some years ago, a new psychotherapy technique was invented by Dr. Jacob L. Moreno, a psychotherapist.  It was called psycho-drama. The theory is based on the fact we have different “people” residing in our psyches.  Our mother, father, brother, sister, uncle, aunts, cousins; in other words, an entire host of people we have interacted with over the years, whose influence on us continues to impinge long after those interactions have taken place.  Even after they are long dead.  For people who are in emotional trauma, it was found to be helpful if they took on the role of one of these ancestors’; the therapist took on the role of the patient. The result was a rapid increase in insight on the part of the patient regarding his/her behavior.  This insight often led to lasting behavior change.  Why did this technique work?  Because a fundamental shift occurred in the patients thinking.  He was forced to act out the role of his ancestor; in doing so he discovered the rationale for their behavior.  Rather than acting as a victim, he could now understand the other side of the story and forgive the assumed transgression. Because a sense of understanding had transpired.   And clinical research has found the freeing qualities of forgiveness.

Back to the negotiation, of which I had the privilege of mediating.  Eighty million dollars on the table is indeed a lot of money.  The parties, Joe and Mike, had stalemated, yet to not continue would result in a monetary penalty to both parties. The tension was palpable.  I recalled Moreno’s research and decided to try a different technique.   I asked Mike to assume the role of Joe; and asked Joe to assume the role of Mike.  They looked at me suspiciously. I then asked them to continue the negotiation, but in their new roles as the other person.  They told me I was nuts; I asked them to humor me, reminding them of the penalty and my fees.  They agreed to try.  At first, they were a bit stilted in their role play.  However, after time they got into it, and arguing quite coherently and cogently their opponents view.  After about fifteen minutes, I asked them to stop and discuss what they had learned.  Each party felt a greater degree of understanding regarding the other’s position.  They went beyond the “active listening” approach; indeed, they became that person for a small period of time.  And did quite well in assuming their “alter-ego.”  I then asked them to resume their negations from their own self.  And something remarkable occurred.  The stalemate was broken, and the two parties moved into problem solving.  There was still much to be discussed and developed.  However, the emotional intransigence which prevented shared reality necessary to work jointly on a problem that affects both parties was now removed.

In my work as a consultant in high conflict scenarios, I have often seen negotiations break down because of unbridled emotions.  These emotions often encourage us to create scenarios where we are the victim, and therefore lash out to prevent being victimized.  And the other party is thinking the exact same thing.  It is only after the emotional bomb has been defused that true negotiation can occur.  Quite simple, win/lose negotiations do not work.  They may work in the short term, but the other party will always carry a grudge that s/he has been taken advantage of and will often find a way to avenge.  It is a battle that