همه چیز رو کنار هم گذاشتن

7

Putting It All Together:

THE PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL

Eric Holck, an attorney at Google headquarters in Mountain View, California, said the sales and legal teams were not seeing eye-to-eye. “There was disagreement over what we should offer, how much risk to take, whether to concede points, how the negotiation should be conducted,” he said.

It’s a common problem in many organizations. The legal department protects against risk. The sales department brings in the money. So the lawyers put in tough clauses to protect intellectual property and other company assets. The sales department wants the deal done fast for payment: work out the fine legal points later. Arguments ensue. Things take longer. Sometimes customers complain.

But Google, the world’s foremost brand, is about solutions, so the participants in my workshops there embraced the idea of a problem-solving model. In one of the workshops I taught, Eric decided to play the role of a sales rep during a role reversal exercise. He used the process that will be described in this chapter. Eric found that the basic issues between legal and sales were: not enough trust; not enough communication; disagreement over standards; not as much joint preparation.

“I was shocked how quickly my allegiances changed,” Eric said. Before the exercise, he could easily argue the lawyers’ side. But quickly he found himself disputing the lawyers who were role-playing him. He said his ability to deal with sales—and appreciate their perspective—increased considerably after that. He and the other attorneys he’s talked to now attempt to explain more to sales up front about why certain things might be needed. And the lawyers make greater efforts to loop sales in throughout the negotiation process, including collaborating on client calls.

“It doesn’t mean you have to give in more,” Eric said. “But the outcomes are generally better now.”

The best negotiators are problem-solvers. They find new, creative, and better ways to solve both their problems and other people’s problems. They turn problems into opportunities more often than most people do. And that is the key to negotiation success. Because you can’t meet your goals unless you can identify and solve the specific problems standing in the way.

Over a twenty-year period, I have developed a comprehensive problem-solving model. Thousands of my students and clients have used it all over the world. It helps structure negotiations, and provides a checklist of tools. I have included it in this chapter and in a wallet card downloadable from my website, www.gettingmore.com. It organizes the twelve strategies and supporting tools, and puts everything together in one place to help you better meet your goals throughout your life.

The Getting More Model (I call it the Four Quadrant Model in my negotiation class) is essential to getting more. It provides an organizing principle in preparing effectively for negotiations. You can use it by yourself, or you can use it with a team of people.

“The Four Quadrant Model is the most powerful tool I have seen in negotiations,” said Kenneth Odogwu, an executive who took one of my courses. “It is useful in all kinds of situations.” Kenneth said that he used it, for example, to solve a negotiation among Swiss, Israeli, and Nigerian firms over production and distribution of cosmetics in Africa. “It greatly assisted us in setting the stage for the negotiation, and providing a watertight solution that was acceptable to all.” First, here it is:

THE GETTING MORE MODEL

(aka the Four Quadrant Negotiation Model)

Quadrant I—Problems & Goals

1. Goals: short/long term.

2. Problem(s): in reaching your goals.

3. Parties: List. Decision-maker. Counterpart. Third parties.

4. What if no deal? Worst case?

5. Preparation: Time, relative preparation. Who has more information?

Quadrant II—Situation Analysis

1. Needs/interests: of both parties: rational, emotional, shared, conflicting, unequally valued.

2. Perceptions: Pictures in the head of each party? Role reversal, culture, conflicts, trust.

3. Communication: style, relationship?

4. Standards: theirs, norms.

5. Reexamine goals: Why say yes, why say no? For both parties.

Quadrant III—Options/Risk Reduction

1. Brainstorm: options to meet goals, needs. What to trade or link?

2. Incremental: steps to reduce risk.

3. Third parties: common enemies, influencers.

4. Framing: to create a vision, develop questions to ask.

5. Alternatives: to improve/effect deal if necessary.

Quadrant IV—Actions

1. Best options/priorities. Dealbreakers. Giveaways.

2. Who presents: How and to whom?

3. Process: Agenda, deadlines, time management.

4. Commitments/incentives: Especially for them.

5. Next steps: Who does what?

The Twelve Strategies on Which the Model Is Based:

Goals Are Paramount Use Their Standards

It’s About Them Be Transparent/Ethical

Emotional Payments Communicate & Frame

Each Situation Is Different Find the Real Problem

Be Incremental Embrace Differences

Trade Unequally Valued Items Make a List

The twelve strategies are the building blocks for the Getting More Model. You will not need to use all the strategies and the entire Model in every negotiation. You’ll look at the principles and figure out which items to use, based on your goals and the other party in that situation. For a big negotiation, you might go through each step laboriously.

It’s best to outline each step. An oft-quoted maxim in Hollywood is: “If you can’t write your idea on the back of my business card, you don’t have a clear idea of what you want to say.” Let’s go through the Getting More Model, step-by-step.

Steps 1 and 2 comprise about half of what is important: figuring out your goal(s) and figuring out the real problem in meeting your goal(s). The goal is what you want at the end of the negotiation that you don’t have now. The problem is what is preventing you from getting to your goal.

Your first attempt at a goal might be, “I want to go to Chicago for a job interview.” Your problem, or roadblock, might be, “Flights have been canceled due to snow.” However, when you finish going through the Model, you might well realize that your real, underlying goal is not that you want to go to Chicago for a job interview. It is, “I want a job at X firm.” And the real problem is, “They need more information on me to make a decision.” This will open up all sorts of other options that should enable you to find creative ways to deal with the fact that flights have been canceled. Maybe a phone interview would do, or a more detailed résumé, or other information you might prepare for them today. Are there other things that would show them you are a creative problem-solver?

A long time ago I was accepted to Columbia Journalism School, the best journalism school in the country and my longtime goal. The next day I was offered a job at Newsday, one of the best newspapers in the country. I called the dean of admissions at Columbia and asked what I should do. He said, “You idiot! You go to Columbia to get a job at Newsday.” I went to Newsday. As far as the dean was concerned, I had the wrong goal.

You can start your analysis with your goal. Or, if you don’t know what your goal is, you can start with what you think the problem is. But you need to get to the root problem in each case. You do that by continuing to ask yourself “why” until you run out of answers.

For example, “My car is broken” is not, in and of itself, a problem if you’ve got two cars. So a better problem statement would be, “I have no way to get to work today.” Or “I’m going to be late getting to work today because my only car is broken.” The reason to clearly state the root problem is that your goal in this specific instance is not to “fix my car.” It is to get to work. Stating the problem in this way opens up other options: taking the bus, calling a taxi, calling a friend, taking the day off, and so forth. A clear statement of the problem will help you to come up with clear options of how to fix it.

Step 3 is to identify the key parties in the negotiation. You must identify the decision-maker, as well as the people with direct influence over the decision-maker. If you leave any required parties out, they may become upset because you didn’t consult them. Are there hidden third parties who might become involved?

Step 4 helps you figure out what happens if you can’t make a deal. Some people like to use the acronym BATNA, or Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. But this term too often leads people to be too willing to walk away without achieving their goals, because they focus on the best option. If you want to review walkaway options, use WATNA, or Worst Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. It shows the risks of not achieving an agreement. Better yet is to think about all the other alternatives, from best to worst, and the likelihood of achieving each. You want to be realistic.

Another less useful term is “bargaining range,” described as the range between the most the buyer will pay and the least the seller will accept. Good negotiators can change the bargaining range—for example, by trading items of unequal value. They can focus on intangibles, come up with creative framing, and use some of the other creative tools from this book to change the situation. Most people assume the bargaining range is fixed and centers on money. That isn’t true; it’s only a starting point.

Say a buyer will pay up to $325,000 for a house and the seller won’t accept less than $300,000, the initial bargaining range is $300,000 to $325,000. That will change if the seller agrees to a deferred payment on part of the price, offers to help finance the loan, or throws in the furniture.

Step 5, preparation, cannot be stressed enough. If you are not prepared, you are like an amateur race-car driver in the Indianapolis 500: you will encounter more crashes. If the other side is unprepared, they may be overly emotional, less focused on their goals, less creative, etc. You may have to help them get prepared. You may need to help them calm down.

This may seem counterintuitive. But Getting More is intended to be a transparent process, not a manipulative one. You can even give a copy of the Getting More Model to the other party. If both parties know about the concept of trading items of unequal value, they will both get more. It may take more time to get them prepared, and you may have to revise your time frame. But it is often the difference between reaching a deal and not reaching one.

This does not mean you should give away the store. But you must leave them with something they will be satisfied with, today and tomorrow. If not, they will retaliate in some way. If they are an employee, they won’t work as hard or as well. Other companies or individuals may try to change the deal, get out of their commitment, or both.

If the other party is a hard bargainer, and they don’t have your needs at heart, you don’t have to help them. In that case, knowing how prepared they are will help you decide how to out-prepare and outmaneuver them. A lot of this centers on how much time and effort you are willing to take to collect information about them and the situation.

Here is a simple example: You want a discount on a flight. You call an airline agent and they swat you aside. You should realize that they do this kind of negotiation all day long. So if you are going to negotiate with someone like that, you need more than a wing and a prayer. You have to prepare more.

Quadrant I sets the stage on which you will negotiate. It helps you develop basic information. A significant part of Getting More, however, concerns Quadrant II—analyzing the situation—that is, the pictures in the head of each party.

Step 6 comprises needs and interests, broadly: rational and irrational (or emotional) needs, long-term and short-term needs, shared and conflicting needs, and so forth. Your “goals” are what you want at the end of the negotiation. Your “needs” are why you want it. For example: You want to spend the holidays with your family. Your problem is you have to work. Your needs are to make your children happy, give them presents, spend quality time with your family, make a special dinner with your spouse. If you know that your family wants to spend time with you when you are not hassled, and they care more about spending quality time with you, then various other options open up, including postponing the celebration a few days. The more you know about yourself and the other party, the more needs you can identify, and the more you have to trade.

Steps 7 and 8 are related. “Perceptions” refers to how the other person views the world. Use role reversal. What are they thinking and feeling? What are the pictures in their heads? Step 8 refers to how this manifests itself in your conversation or communication with them. What is their style? Are the other person’s perceptions affecting your ability to communicate effectively?

Step 9 is about standards. What are their stated standards? What other standards would they accept?

After completing Quadrant II, stop and take stock. Reexamine your goals (Step 10). Why do you think the other person will now say yes or no to your goals? You may have to adjust your goals if your analysis shows them to be unrealistic.

By the time you have finished going through Quadrant II, you will have a list of issues to address. You need to develop options to solve them, and then prioritize everything. This brings us to Quadrant III, options and reducing risks. Step 11 consists of brainstorming options, either alone or with your colleagues. Don’t let people cavalierly shoot down options they don’t like. It will stifle the creative process.

Studies show that some of the best, most innovative ideas follow some of the silliest suggestions. Even an ill-formed idea can spark a great idea in someone else. So don’t criticize anyone else’s idea until everyone runs out of ideas. Write them all down on a piece of paper, whiteboard, or blackboard. Look them over—smart, stupid, contradictory or not. As Nobel laureate Linus Pauling said, “The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas.” Start with items you can link to other deals or relationships. The more you can do this, the stronger an option will be.

A British study in 2006, “Why Bad Ideas Are a Good Idea,” found empirical evidence that bad ideas prompt creative processes that produce good ideas. “Bad is the new good,” it suggested, especially in technology. This is exactly opposite to what many people seem to think. Ideas that are different, or suboptimal, are often criticized, when they can be the grist for better solutions.

The next three steps (12, 13, 14) will help you improve your decision-making process in choosing the best options and prioritizing your approaches. Can you reduce the other party’s perceived risk by making your proposal more incremental—that is, suggest a series of smaller steps? Which third parties are important, both to support the deal or to avoid?

Can you frame or package the information in ways that are more persuasive to the other person? Something that gives them a vision? For example, “6 and 6 program,” that is, 6 percentage point profit rise in 6 months. Or, “party for smarty,” the child gets more party time for good grades.

Step 15, the last item in Quadrant III, has to do with improving your alternatives to reaching an agreement, or changing the power balance. A powerful third party, for example, can change the balance of power if they join or support you.

As noted throughout this book, the use of power in a negotiation is fraught with risk. Seeing a negotiation in terms of gaining power over the other side sets up a conflict situation. If they perceive you as trying to grab power over them, they may well have an emotional response—as in “I don’t care if I undermine the negotiation, I’m going to get even with you.” Once you play the power card, the relationship is usually over.

I can’t say it enough: While the tools in this book will give you power, they should be used selectively and constructively so that extreme reactions are not provoked. You should be sensitive to the needs of everyone along the way.

The last steps in Quadrant IV, actions, help you pick your best option(s) and turn them into commitments for all parties.

Step 16 is picking the best options. These are the ones that the other party will most likely accept, that appear the least risky, that move you toward your goals, that would be supported by third parties, and that create a vision of the future.

It is important to decide how to present your proposal, which is Step 17. This depends a lot on your audience. Some people need only two or three lines in an email. Others want a binder. Some want to talk it out face-to-face in a meeting. Others want a Word file. If someone has to go through your proposal in a format unfamiliar to them, it will take energy away from their focus on the proposal. They will become less interested sooner. They may dismiss it for reasons that have nothing to do with the proposed ideas themselves.

I once wrote a 109-page memo on environmental liability in property transfers and submitted it to a partner at the law firm where I worked as a summer associate. The partner’s assessment was that the memo was too short, because it did not include enough case references.

Later that summer I worked for an investment bank. I submitted a two-page strategy memo on an $800 million merger between two utility companies. The managing director said the two-pager was too long: CEOs would not read more than a page. You have to know your audience. Presentation is a more important part of persuasion than most people realize.

Next, you need to figure out the process that will be used to consider your proposals. This is Step 18. If criteria need to be set by which success will be measured, make sure you are involved in setting that criteria. Using the wrong criteria can hurt in achieving your goals.

Step 19 focuses on commitments. It is imperative that you get a commitment from the other person or party in the way that they make commitments, as noted earlier. Otherwise, you will have just wasted your time. Spend the necessary time on this. Are you sure that everyone is fully committed? How do you know? What incentives and penalties are provided for?

Many perfectly good negotiations fail to produce the desired results because of poor follow-up. That is the purpose of Step 20. What’s the next step? What’s the deadline? Who is going to do what? Without these things, people shuffle off and many of the options are forgotten.

The more you put yourself, psychologically and strategically, in the negotiation before it begins, the better off you will be during the negotiation, and afterward. In fact, that is what this entire Model is about: learning as much as possible about the negotiation before you get there. I will address conducting the negotiation itself in Chapter 16.

Clients and students have found the Getting More Model to be deceptively powerful. When you use it, at least three things will probably happen. First, you’ll discover the problem you start with is usually not the real problem. There often will be some underlying problem lurking behind the obvious. When the real problem emerges, you will be better able to find the solution.

For example, Rhonda Cook at SEI Investments, a major financial management firm, thought the problem was that a client kept asking the company to do work not included in the contract. But after going through the Model, she discovered the real problem: “SEI contracts are too vague.” This is what caused perceptions to differ between SEI and some of its clients. The fix was to write clearer contracts.

The second thing that will very likely happen is that you will find more options for solutions than you thought you had. Even experts in a field, when they use this Model, find new ways of thinking about goals, problems, and solutions.

A technical program manager at a major technology company did not want to pay higher prices to a major supplier. But the company was cutting its volume with that supplier. Using the Model and doing role reversal, the manager found out that the supplier would not raise prices if the supplier could be introduced to some of the company’s other divisions.

“It’s very hard for suppliers to penetrate major technology companies,” the manager said. “By offering introductions elsewhere, we broadened the deal.” The supplier essentially traded actual cash in holding prices the same today, in return for introductions, an intangible: the possibility of broader future business with the technology giant.

The third thing that will happen is that you will have a much better idea of the pictures in the heads of all concerned, how they differ, and what you should do about it.

A woman in one of my executive programs could not get her daughter to call in when she was out late. Her daughter wouldn’t even discuss it. The mother thought the daughter was irresponsible. Then we went through the Model and the mother played the daughter. The mother realized that her daughter thought the only problem was the unreasonableness of her mother. Now the mother knew how to start a discussion with her daughter: “So tell me how you think I’m unreasonable.” You will get many other new ideas, too, including how to frame things better, how to get commitments, and how to be incremental. Overall, the breadth of new insights that come from this Model can be profound.

One of the first ways I used this Model in an important setting overseas was with the Lithuanian science sector in 1993, soon after the country’s independence from the former Soviet Union. Some colleagues and I were assisting the science sector in commercializing former Soviet science in the West. We had a room full of people: the minister of industry, the head of the science sector, and dozens of scientists and officials.

We were scheduled to meet for the day. The purpose of the meeting was for the various groups involved to try to find effective solutions. We had already assigned the problems, and I had just finished going over Problems and Goals at about 10:00 A.M. Suddenly, the country’s chief scientist stood up and wagged his finger at me. “We’re not in school!” he scolded in English, with a thick Russian accent. “We don’t do this!” Much of the rest of the room chimed in, “Da, da” (Yes, yes).

Now that was a problem. I had a mutiny against our process by a hundred Lithuanian leaders in front of a minister. There were long-term implications for all of our work in the country (which was sponsored by the U.N.). At the least, I needed to persuade them to stay in the room and work through our model, even if the day was shorter. There were benefits to be gained for the country.

But the most credible guy in the room was insulted. He felt he was being treated like a schoolboy. He needed an emotional payment. “All right,” I said, “that’s fair.” I could hear a sigh of relief from one of my U.N. colleagues behind me.

Then I needed to keep them involved in the process long enough to get them to see the power of the Model. So I slowed things down; I became very incremental. I said, “It’s time for a coffee break. Why don’t you have coffee and pastries with your assigned groups, and just start on the beginning of Situation Analysis, Quadrant II? When the coffee break ends, if you don’t like the process we’ve laid out, you can leave and never come back.” Having coffee and pastries was a small step, so people were willing to go along with it. How could the chief scientist oppose a coffee break? And what I asked them to do was such a small step that it would be impolite not to do it.

At six o’clock that evening, almost eight hours later, we could not get them out of the room. Finally, the cleaning staff kicked us all out. The group generated so many ideas during that one day that it took the country three years to implement them.

Working through the Model, however, during a negotiation uses only half its potential. The other huge advantage comes from doing a simulated negotiation with it beforehand.

The idea is to try to replicate what the negotiation is going to look like when you later actually sit down with the other party. It is highly unlikely that the other party is going to say before the negotiation, “I know you’re preparing to negotiate with me. So why don’t I come over and help you prepare?” Using the Getting More Model is the next best thing. Run through the negotiation with another person or team as it might occur. It will provide you with insight as to what might happen. You’ll be amazed at just how much information you will come away with. The person who “owns” the problem plays the role of the other side to get further insight into how to persuade them.

The point of the negotiation simulation is not necessarily to obtain a result—although results and additional options are useful. The point is to see what the process will look like. What do good and bad openings look like? What should be said, and in what way? What shouldn’t be said?

For example, we once had a negotiation simulation in which someone made a suggestion, whereupon someone on the other side reflexively said, “Drop dead.” Everybody realized that if that suggestion were made during the real negotiation, the deal would probably fall apart. So we made sure that suggestion was not made in the real negotiation.

Jennifer Morrill, a San Francisco attorney, said that when she was at Yahoo! she was having trouble with an advertising client. “They wanted more control over the look and feel of their content posted on the Yahoo! site than we were prepared to give them,” she said. So she played the role of the client in a simulated negotiation. She found that the real problem had nothing to do with the content on the web page. “It was lack of trust dating from the beginning of the relationship,” she said.

The client was afraid Yahoo! would steal its customers. So when the actual negotiation occurred, Jennifer was able to articulate the client’s fears. The client thought she was a mind reader. She was able to allay the client’s fears enough to have a discussion and solve the problem.

In conducting a negotiation simulation, you need at least two people negotiating each side of the problem; otherwise, it’s harder to brainstorm. (You can have as many as four people on each side, or eight people total. After that, it gets a bit unwieldy.) Remember, this is a two-party negotiation. So you have to have a specific person on each side to negotiate with. Also, while each side has one spokesperson, everyone should be able to speak up. In a real negotiation, that is not optimal. But in a brainstorming session like this, the point is to get as many ideas out as possible.

You can do a simulation with more than two parties. Don’t attempt that until you’ve really got the Model down. Otherwise there are too many variables. Two parties is optimal, or a series of two-party negotiations.

In the simulation, the owner of the problem must play the other side. That is, in the simulation, the problem owner must make the best case possible against himself or herself. This kind of role reversal makes the problem owner stand in the shoes of the other party and really try to understand their perceptions.

In other words, the problem owner prepares as the other side would prepare. The problem owner, assisted by at least one other person, negotiates as the other side would negotiate. At the same time, others prepare and play the role of the problem owner. The problem owner essentially gets to see himself or herself negotiate. This is what Sharon Walker, whose mother was dying of cancer, did, as described in Chapter 1.

Often, you’ll discover great insight about the effect of the problem owner’s arguments on the other side, and what arguments might better be used.

Make sure everyone has the same facts; give a brief background for everyone beforehand. Then the sides separate physically (out of earshot of each other) and go through the Getting More Model, answering each item from the point of view of the role they are playing. It should take forty-five to ninety minutes to go through the checklist properly, and answer all the questions.

This will be hard for some problem owners. But as the Tom Hanks character said to the Geena Davis character in the baseball movie A League of Their Own after she wanted to quit: “It’s supposed to be hard! It’s the hard that makes it great!” After preparing, both sides should come back together again and negotiate the roles they just prepared. Don’t be a fly on the wall. Don’t lapse into philosophy. Stay in character and make the best case you can for your side. This will give you a sense of the dynamic that is likely to occur when you are in the real negotiation. Do it for at least forty-five minutes, although you can do this for hours if you wish.

After the negotiation is over, reflect on what happened. Talk to the other party about what happened. Show each other your preparation notes. Ask what worked and what didn’t. What insights did you glean that can be used in the real negotiation?

Finally, you need to turn this into a plan on how to conduct the real negotiation. Write up all the notes in one consolidated Getting More Model for the owner of the problem. Now, instead of thinking for a few minutes about the other person’s perceptions, you will have the ideas of several people who have spent ninety minutes on it, thinking deeply about both parties’ needs, about the standards to use, the options available, and so forth. The result will be a much richer preparation.

Remember, the problem owner doesn’t need people who are experts; he or she just needs a fresh pair of eyes. This is because most of negotiation is about the people and process, not expertise.

I once prepared a six-person corporate negotiating team for a $300 million negotiation. We enlisted thirty other people who were not involved in the negotiation. We divided the group into six teams of six people each. We put one member of the actual negotiating team on each of the six teams.

Then we ran six simultaneous negotiations with the same set of facts. We spent the whole day on it. The results were terrific. The negotiating team got a lot more perspective and ideas. They discovered a lot of issues that had not previously surfaced. They were much more prepared.

You can take as little or as long as you wish on this: fifteen minutes, or all week. Each moment you spend makes you more prepared. In 1993, just after the fall of the Soviet Union, I assisted the prime minister and twenty-eight ministers of the newly independent Latvia in organizing their first popularly elected government since the Russian Revolution of 1918.

The government officials had asked for a three-day session at a retreat outside Riga, the capital city. As I approached the main meeting lodge at about 9:00 A.M. on a Friday, I could already hear people screaming at each other.

One big area of dispute involved government subsidies. The agriculture minister thought that much of the available money should be used to grow wheat. Wheat is made into bread, which feeds the populace and, as an export, brings in foreign exchange.

But the defense minister thought much of the subsidy should be used to buy arms. Latvia was a bit unstable after the fall of the Soviet Union. Without a strong defense, the government could be overthrown, the defense minister argued.

I told the group that this dispute was a very good topic for discussion. Everybody got a big emotional payment and calmed down. I then said that I had a really good way to deal with this. However, I needed a specific commitment from everyone, including the defense and agriculture ministers, to my being in charge of the process.

They were not totally clear on where I was going with this. But since I was respected enough that they had hired me for a weekend, they made the commitment.

“Okay,” I said, “we’re going to have a debate in front of the group between the agriculture minister and the defense minister.” There were cheers. “The subject is subsidies. And also anything else you want to debate over.” The agriculture minister and the defense minister each strode to the front of the room. They were flushed with the anticipation of battle.

“There’s only one process rule,” I said. “Each of you has to debate the other side’s position.”

Pandemonium broke loose. “No! You can’t do this! I won’t!” the two ministers said, one by one. Half of the other ministers laughed with delight. The other half took sides.

“Didn’t you say I was in charge of the process?” I said. “Didn’t everyone in this room make a solemn commitment?” (Standards and commitments!) “But, but …” the defense minister said. “I can’t do it!”

“Of course you can,” I said. “You know each other’s positions cold. What you don’t have is that you don’t feel each other’s perceptions. You have to feel it. You have to perceive it deeply to find an agreement.” I promised that it would be worthwhile. I reminded them that they hired me for my process expertise. I told them we didn’t have to do it for more than an hour, maybe even less. Grudgingly, they agreed.

I asked each of them to prepare separately, helped by whichever other ministers wanted to help them, and gave them a simpler version of the Model. We started with five-minute opening statements. Then we had a negotiation. I wrote up the various points they were making on flip charts. Various other ministers called out points for the two debaters to make.

After about an hour, we ended the debate. I went over the points they had made, which I had written down. After a break, I said the two sides needed to meet and figure out what their proposals were, based on what had come out during the debate.

Then the two ministers met again in front of the group, this time in their own roles. I told them to figure out a reasonable agreement, based on what they had just been through. As one could imagine, they developed stepped goals and provided subsidies to meet each incremental goal. They agreed to check frequently against the targets. Priorities were set.

The two ministers told me and the group it was the best experience they had solving problems in all their years as government officials. But, as I’ve said throughout Getting More, it was not rocket science.

Thousands of problems, professional and personal, have been solved in and after my courses using this Model. One woman at Columbia Business School insisted that her learning team use it to solve a dispute with her husband over birth control methods. And it was resolved.

A potential client of Heidi Vanhamme, an investment banker, refused to accept the fee schedule in the bank’s engagement letter. By putting herself in the client’s shoes, Heidi realized it was not about fees but about performance. The client wanted to make sure they got value for their money.

“We put in a performance-based, incremental fee schedule,” she said. This reduced the client’s perceived risk. As value to the client increased, the consulting firm’s percentage rose. “We were able to understand their real reasons,” she said. All this was just from the role reversal exercise before the negotiation.

The Model also reveals the weaknesses in one’s own position. “We found out that we were not taking as much risk as I had thought,” Heidi said. “The client wanted us to take more risk.” She added: “We found the holes in our story.” With such information, you can start the negotiation by asking more specifically about the other party’s perceptions, what is likely bothering them, and subjects they might consider more important to discuss.

The Model is especially good for identifying the overall process that led to the problem. If you fix your problem, but you don’t fix the process that led to the problem, you will have another problem next month with the same bad process.

If one of the radios breaks on an airplane that is part of my airline, I know the maintenance department will fix it. That’s not my concern. I want to know why a radio broke in flight. I want to see if there is some generic process I need to fix. If I don’t do that, I’m likely to have a flat tire next month, a propeller problem the month after, and a cylinder problem the month after that. I need to find the process that led to the problem.

The Model will also help you figure out who is the right counterpart. For example, both Stryker and Synthes, producers of high-quality hip and other joint replacements, are favored by many doctors for the quality of their products. But hospital purchasing departments, which want to buy more cheaply, have cut into their margins by turning to lower-quality competitors.

Using the Model, the companies discovered they should be getting doctors to negotiate for them with their own purchasing departments. The doctors should be talking about product performance and longevity, not the price of a hip component.

“We are going to use this process all the time now,” said Ben Pitcher, director of the health care division at Stryker.

Years after John Marotta took my course, he wrote to me, saying his wallet had been stolen. He asked me to rush to him another laminated Model checklist card, claiming it was the most valuable thing in his wallet. “I use it religiously,” said John, the CEO of a medical device company in Denver. “It’s more important than my credit cards.”