(00:00:05) Good afternoon. I'm Jim uhland senior vice president of corporate relations at First Bank system and a member of the Minnesota meeting steering committee. It's a pleasure to welcome all of you to the Minnesota meeting today. We also extend a welcome to the radio audience throughout the Upper Midwest who are hearing this program live on Minnesota public radio's. Midday program. Minnesota meeting is a public affairs Forum which brings together National and international speakers over 1800 corporate government and Community leaders belong to Minnesota meeting the next scheduled speaker for Minnesota meeting is renowned architect Philip Johnson who will speak on January 14th his title building the city of the future Minnesota meeting is pleased to present today's speaker Roger Fisher and internationally renowned expert in negotiations. He has dealt with questions of public and international law for foreign governments advising governments. Colombia Denmark Iran Pakistan and most recently Central America. He was a Guggenheim fellow in the department of international relations at the London School of economics and currently is on the Harvard Law School faculty. Is the author of getting to you getting to yes negotiating agreements without giving in Also improving compliance with international law and dear Israelis dear Arabs a working approach to peace following. Mr. Fisher's presentation. He will address questions from the audience. Please use the cards at your table to jot down questions for discussion. Tom few Tock assistant director of the Department of conflict and change at the University of Minnesota and our executive director at the Minnesota. Meaning Jane Rasik will move among you to manage the question and answer session. It's now my pleasure to welcome Professor Roger Fisher. Thank you Jim. It's good to be back in the Twin Cities. Go to come back to the Midwest where I was born. It's particularly good to come back on in a week designated as dispute resolution week. It's good to remind ourselves how important it is that we pay attention to the process and not just the the answer we tend to think we're all right. We tend to know the answer. I know I've got the right answer and you think you've got the right answer the question is which one is right for me. The question is how do we deal with the fact that we differ on that and it's not my life has been devoted to the process and in my judgment the results we get depend on the process and we want to have a good process. I said I would talk this morning on negotiating with the Russians and with your spouse. Is there a difference the answer is not as much difference as you think there are obviously some differences. I don't mean to deny that but it is useful for us to look at the similarities to look for a framework of thinking about negotiating ask ourselves questions that apply across the board to different kinds of disputes for too many years. I believe we have thought of diplom to promisee and diplomatic negotiation is one area labor negotiations is another a personal injury cases as one takeovers and business deals settling disputes, whatever they may be as all totally different but as the scientists discovered when they went after the atom if you get to First principles about what's common To matter you get Theory that's more powerful. And if you study the nature of mahogany or the nature of plastic or the nature of linen, if you get down to First principles, we get the kind of Leverage that can help us deal with our differences better the book to it's Jim referred getting to yes is a small paperback popular book much to my surprise law professors. Don't expect to write a book that sells a million copies in 12 languages. Even if the royalties are very modest on paperbacks that still a pleasant surprise, but it was dealing with negotiating a transaction if you start off in the morning. You want it? What do you think about and how do you do it? But we never start on a clean slate who we are negotiating with is almost more important than what we're talking about. If I'm negotiating with my wife or with a Soviet expert on negotiation that makes a bigger difference in my life than than what we're doing so that the status the relationship we have is crucial. now (00:05:16) The relationship is (00:05:17) important the outcome of this negotiation is important and then the process that we use to reach it. Much depends on what kind of relationship we have. We all want good relations. But how many know what they mean by good relations. We say we want good relations with the Soviet Union good relations with Canada, too often. We think that good relations means why don't you give in if you would only agree with me. Our relationship would be fun you bastard at the tone of that we want agreement. Now, sometimes we threatened in order to get it. We will not have good relations until you get out of Afghanistan or if you want this marriage to succeed you better repaint the kitchen a different color threatening approach. (00:06:12) It doesn't really (00:06:13) work very well. That way it doesn't work any better. If you try to reach agreement first and say let's pretend we have no disagreements. Every time a problem comes up will sweep the problem out of the carpet and pretend there's no problem. That will be great for the relationship. We will avoid it. That doesn't work either nor does it work to back down and say whatever you want? That's it. I had a student we were working with the psychiatrist who's helping us on some of the interpersonal skills. And she mentioned she said, you know, I understand I just marvelous relationship with this guy their relationship was so important (00:06:53) that I was (00:06:54) much more important than any issue. So as soon as I knew what he wanted I gave in on everything instantly in order to preserve the relationship. And then he laughed and Dick chasing the psychiatrist said maybe he wanted a relation with somebody, you know, no one wants a relationship with a dish towel. Maybe you weren't there and you do not get a relationship by pretending. There's no disagreement or by giving in or by trying to dominate it. They're different kinds of relationships economic personal business International. We want different things but one quality of every relationship is we want the ability to deal well with our differences. That's a crucial aspect of any ongoing pattern of interaction the ability to deal well with our differences. That depends on such things as balancing emotion with reason understanding before you judge. If I don't understand your perception of the problem, I don't understand the problem because the problem is you see it differently than I do and partisan perceptions is crucial. It's interesting. If you're a student of this kind of stuff to read the paper and this week on Thursday this past week from Washington and the government we had on adjacent pages in The New York Times discussion of the amnesty now being proposed in Central America one was outraged at the nicaraguans for not having complete amnesty because they were keeping some people simply on the ground that they had committed political offences. The murders that were political purposes on the next page was an attack at El Salvador for having granted amnesty to people who had murdered the marine and kill the American nurses that we Understand why amnesty might not be acceptable. To one side because you're releasing criminals. It would help us deal with the other if you understand doesn't tell us what the answer is but you have to understand Obviously good communication is essential to understanding it's surprising the extent to which we confuse communication with broadcasting communication to be effective is really two way communication the great communicator. I think the president is a marvelous in terms of being able to get ideas across Personable right there, but you don't always get the impression. He's listening very carefully to The Interchange that taking place if you want a good relationship, it requires two way communication what is becoming increasingly known as active listening? Letting people know you've heard them restating it in your own words reliability. We think we want to trust trust is wonderful to have but the answer is not to trust everybody any store that put up a sign saying we trust everybody no questions asked we cash all checks would be out of business. What we really want in a relationship is reliability well-founded trust people who are predictable. It's interesting that we risk our lives every day to people we don't know as we're driving along a highway perhaps at 55 miles an hour in a two-lane road our way and someone is coming 55 miles an hour six feet away from us in the other lane. We rely on them to stay on their side of the road, even though we don't know who they are or what their past record is there was a time in my younger son was three or four. Holy untrustworthy absolutely reliable. He would wake me up by 6:30 every morning no matter what if he promised to let me sleep he wouldn't if he threatened to let me sleep and miss my shuttle. He wouldn't he would wake me up badly reliably. Holy untrustworthy in a relationship. We want to understand we can rely on people to serve their interest and understanding what they are. Those are some of the qualities we're going to need in the relationship and those are common qualities to international relations and to personal relations, I believe. Good outcomes. There's a tendency to think that we want to. win we want to win the negotiations with the Soviet Union. But be careful if someone asks you who's winning your marriage (00:11:37) that may not be a very good question. (00:11:39) Your marriage is in trouble if that's the question you're asking who's winning. It's not going to work very well. Our goal is to satisfy interests of both parties reasonably. To have an outcome. That's as good as we can design to meet their interest dovetail. You don't Jack Sprat could eat. No fat his wife could eat. No lean they disagreed strongly on meat but it worked out very nicely on dividing up the the meat they (00:12:08) had life (00:12:10) depends on differences. They are terrific. We would we know when the stock market if everybody thought it was going to go that stock was worth less or more. The reason you buy and sell is somebody thinks the odds of going up and some of these rods are going down houses wouldn't sell a somebody would rather have the money than the house and someone rather have the house in the money. Don't fight about differences understand them. Learn them see how we can deal with them don't we don't have to agree on everything whether fat is better than lean promoting agreement. There may not be what we want. We want an option that can elegantly have it happened to both legitimacy. Everybody wants to be treated fairly. I find legitimacy is a very powerful strong. Consideration if I buy a television set the price looks reasonable. I'm happy with it until I discover that everybody else is getting 20% off just by asking for it. And that makes me very unhappy indeed. I was telling some people only capitalist morning a I first learned the importance of legitimacy. I was asked to speak in Chicago and debate somebody on the role of morality and the arms race or negotiation and I said, what's the honorarium and this Minister said we're not offering an honorarium, but will cover your expenses and I kind of grown and he said but your stepmother promised you would come and so I said, oh hell, okay, I'll be there and I came to the dreary occasion awful and it was no I said I shouldn't have come in about 60 people in a South Side Hotel dreary room and a debating Charlie wolf of the Rand Corporation. I said Charlie. I don't know why I do this. He said I know why I do it. It's the money. I summon the minister over and I said just a minute. I recall asking you about an honorarium. He said yes, I spoke very carefully I said we were not offering an honorarium. However, I had a thousand dollars in the budget but you you idiot agree to come for nothing. You know I said then I talked to mr. Wolf and his mr. Wolfe said his principal was never to come for less than the most the committee had in its budget. And since I had two thousand dollars in the budget still the only sensible thing to do was to give it to Him. Well now I knew I was speaking for nothing. But I was ripped off it was outrageous to debate somebody on a duet program where he's getting mm. I'm getting nothing and it wasn't when I said I knew I was doing it for nothing after that. I quickly about the principles of my own you'll be pleased to hear most favored nation principles and things like that. No less than you pay anybody else but fairness is crucial. I do a lot of speaking for nothing. But boy when I discover that I'm asked a debate someone on Canadian television. Once they said we thought you doves did it because you believe in it the Hawks all insist on getting paid it no principles become important fairness as measured by some external standard. In fact getting to yes suggested in negotiating you really want to use a process that relies on external standards argue about what the house is worth. Not what you will or won't pay as well what it's worth is measured by neighboring. Sales tax assessment rental value You can disagree about that but you'll get better answers if you discuss what the answer ought to be rather than starting off and saying I won't or I (00:15:56) will bargaining (00:15:59) is not necessarily good idea. There has to be a quid pro quo. If I go to the store and buy a pair of shoes, they expect money for it. But if in the family we said we won't do what we ought to do. I won't do it I ought to do unless you do something. I won't, you know, I will cut the grass. What are you going to do? Let's bargain this out. It's (00:16:18) a it's a lousy problem solving (00:16:20) method. I was talking to some Auto Workers earlier this year and they said, you know week some years ago. We got these rules established that we made a mistake there really awful rules in the contract. But we can't give them up unless we get something for them and since the rules hurt us more than the company the company won't give us anything to proposing the rules. Therefore. We still have these rules on the books that we don't like poor problem solving approach you some standards what other companies do and so forth. Finally commitments want to be well-crafted undertaking should be thought through. Handled, well, not just a result of compromise between statements but designed to solve the problem lawyers think they're good at this but too often at least in the Congress on the conference committee. They simply compromise. All right, we'll take paragraph 1 from the Senate version paragraph 2 from the house fairs and we'll go through and it does not solve the problem. We're now in the in these u.s. Soviet negotiations dealing with the SDI Strategic Defense Initiative offensive defensive weapons problem. We have a treaty the ABM Treaty which draws a line between some kinds of permitted research permitted activities in some kinds of military deployment, which is prohibited. There are different interpretations of that treaty now on the table and there are new technologies like lasers that make it very hard to fit the prior definition. (00:18:00) If (00:18:01) we work out a solution that we want to be understood you don't want to say well we will only use military devices appropriately that they're not cause an undue threat of any circumstances. We don't want to sweep that problem under the rug want well-crafted answers. We're looking for some results that will draw an intelligible line between one activity and the other a line that is militarily significant scientifically valid practical and reasonably verifiable. Those are not easy questions particularly not for two leaders of governments to work out by themself in family Arrangements. You want the commitments equally clear. I can remember discussions, but I thought you said I could draw on the joint checking account just because the check was that big shouldn't have bothered you, you know, or I must have told you we were going to the Joneses that night or you must not have been listening or we said we might and I just burned it up, you know, but the clarity of Arrangements in in decision making and agreement whether in the family or in the Soviet Union, it is important to have it and the third key Dimension this a process the way in which we do it. Those are the building blocks. What method should be used to get good outcomes? Well one approach is the sort of a face-to-face challenge blame scoring points. It's your fault. Not my fault committee early. I've already reserved the hotel for summer vacation don't change our plans now locking into tactics. We have ordered that equipment. We will never do that. I've told my constituents I will never accept any limit on that but I told the so and so as we were coming That technique as you can guess. Is bad to the relationship produces poor outcomes. The outcomes are not meet our interests. They're not legitimate. They're not carefully (00:20:15) crafted (00:20:17) better approach both with the Soviet Union and with our spouses is to get side by side and face the problem. You're not the problem you and I are looking together at a problem over there put the problem on the wall. I use flipchart paper in my office. I have a white board. I will put anything on the wall so that the topic of discussion is not you or me. That's the subject. We're dealing with over there the scheduling the office Arrangements the work schedule whatever it may be abstract the problem from the people so that difficulties with the problem will not become difficulties in the relationship. Instead of early commitments stay open. Open to persuasion not open to being pushed around not opened the backing down for no reason open to being persuaded and rather than relying on on coercive techniques. Either way rely on persuasion better as measured by external standards. Instead of taking positions. Look behind positions for their interests what they care about. What are you concerned with? How can we meet that interest? It's surprising the extent to which we take negotiations as first you start with the position. My unilaterally determine answer is such and such. What's your answer? Maybe we'll compromise mean these positions. In getting to yes, we told the story of the two sisters quarreling over and orange each one wanted the orange my position is I should have it the others position was she should have it finding like good little girls that cut the orange in half. One sister took her half. She wanted for the fruit. She ate the fruit and threw away the orange peel the other sister wanted the orange peel for baking. She took her half threw away the fruit and use the orange peel for baking not a very good outcome because they did not know why they wanted the orange not understand what your concerns were. What are your reasons? What's your thinking about this and this certainly applies at the international level certainly applies in family Arrangements understanding what their wants needs hopes fears our deal with them. If a solution is going to meet our interests on talk about our interests not about our position not about what I demand or what I won't do (00:22:38) And I suppose (00:22:39) perhaps most crucially in any decision making is separate the inventing process from the commitment process brainstorming from deciding decision making is a funny word because I want one person to be designing the decision to make the fabricate the proposed decision and somebody else to say, okay. It's right or different time or place if we're planning summer vacation plans. Let's not say I want to go to the beach. I wanna go to the mountains. Let's think of how we might do it. What are some possibilities if we took friends, who would they be where we go? Let's we divided it. How would that work out generate a range of options without commitment in more serious negotiations. We put on the wall flip charts say no commitments. No attribution. No precious. This is off the record. This is a brainstorming session. We can come back and discuss later what we're going to do. It's the quality of a decision requires a lot of creative work on Crafting it and then a lot of authority of those who fought to make it we should use our negotiators in Geneva more often for crafting Alternatives instead of saying stand up there and read positions at the Soviets or each other. We say look, can you guys come up with suppose you had a line a kind Reagan's talking about on Star Wars or Russian Lana? What are some other lines that would be practical ways of measuring military activity, but defensive weapons between research in the laboratory and full deployment where some lines that are verifiable militarily relevant than scientifically valid. That would be work. What are some Work out the bugs come back with three or four five lines. Let's look at them and see what we think. What's going to work better too often we argue in principle Star Wars are good Star Wars or bad whereas, you know, there's no way of stopping a scientist in his lab from working with the pencil on the one hand and there's no deployment of fully and Design Systems is the prospect for a decade under anyone's theory on the other hand. The question is where for how long do you draw a line? That's not a task that well resolved by taking positions. Summerlin in major family decisions. Should we buy a new house where schlitt be don't take positions. Look around. Look at some possibilities see what they cause see what they are consider the options, but the countries like think about the commuting think about what's there look at those it'll be easier to decide and you'll decide much better if you separate the inventing from the deciding in business. I've tried to persuade in some businesses very much the ought to have a young executive his job is to go around production marketing Finance Labor Relations him generate a good answer. He's prepared to recommend no authority to commit anybody just go around with the draft and say what's wrong with this what interest of yours is not protected. I'm in charge of seeing if I can come up with a recommendation that will be better tend to get better decisions by separating inventing. That's what mediation can do one of the important things of dispute resolution is have a third person who can do that without committing anybody they can run around and try and generate answers. They can talk confidentially with groups of all kinds and produce a good recommendation and then get support for it. We also want to talk about what we should do rather than what we will or (00:26:16) won't. (00:26:20) How do we build a kind of relationship we want our goal was understanding effective communication reliability being open to persuasion. How do you get there from here? I find it fascinating because we want a mutual relationship. We would like Mutual understanding two-way communication reliability on both sides leading to trust and we would like the kind of openness to reason on both sides. But a strategy for building a relationship turns out to be very difficult if I take the Golden Rule to access. I say I will do everything I would like you to do I would like you to accept my opinions as controlling. I'll accept yours. I would like you to yield me. Therefore I'll yield to you I would like you to trust me therefore. I will trust you. It's too risky and it won't work on the other hand. If I go the other way with reciprocity and say tit-for-tat I will do to you whatever you did to me. I will be as bad to you was I think you're being bad to me. If you're being emotional. I will be emotional if you're not understanding me. Why should I try to understand you if you're not listening to me while I listen to you Etc that condemns this even worse? (00:27:38) It (00:27:38) turns out I believe that the best kind of relationship is one that is unconditionally (00:27:44) constructive. (00:27:46) I do those things and only those things that are good for the relationship and good for me whether or not be reciprocated. If you are being (00:28:01) emotional (00:28:03) if you were acting from anger, I will still be rational. You can visualize this with a child no matter the kids having a temper tantrum. The best way is to be rational not to have a temper tantrum back if you fail to understand me, it's still important for me to understand you and it costs nothing understandable. I'll be I'm less likely to make mistakes if I understand what you're trying to do what's going on? (00:28:31) if you are not listening to me. (00:28:37) I will still help by listening to you. I may learn something. I've just saying it lunch or the four-year-old is running out of the kitchen. Don't tell me to shut up. He may know something. You don't know maybe the kitchen's on fire, you know, just don't be so certain just because he's not listening to you. Maybe you are listen to (00:28:54) him. (00:28:56) Even if they seem to be deceptive, I will neither believe them nor deceive them back. I will be reliable. Even if they're trying to coerce me, I will try to persuade them (00:29:10) now. There's no (00:29:13) cost. The only cost I'm giving up as a chance of tricking you in the short term if I want to working relationship. I can tell you right now short-term deception is not a good way to build an ongoing relationship one lie in a hundred may damage your credibility for the next hundred because they don't know which one is which one you could be honest about non. But you're not talking about a woman lawyer can tell her husband. Look there's a lot to do with the officers confidential. I can't even tell you the name of some of our clients. I will tell you that what to the office is confidential I can disclose the area of Nan discussion that's perfectly possible. But that's quite different from lying and creating deception. Now the simplest if I had to boil it down the wisest rule for building a relationship to lead to the kind of negotiating want to have both with the Soviets and within our families. It would be a CBD always consult before decided always consult before deciding on a matter that's going to affect the other party. That shows I'm going to respect you right to differ. It shows I'm curious about your views. I want to understand what you're thinking. I'm going to listen to what you say. If I'm Consulting you I'm going to be open to what you say not what you threatened and it's a very simple rule it gives a status and it's surprising how often our offense is at decisions made without our participation whether the United States is unilaterally deciding how many Soviets are going to be kicked out of the UN without discussing the question go public first or whether my wife says we're going to have dinner Saturday with the so-and-so's in if I want to go to dinner with the so-and-so's I'm like you to resent her telling me that we are now going without having consulted me on that in advance. That's basically the simple advice and as you (00:31:12) see there, Don't (00:31:16) the moral really is don't treat your wife as though she were Russian dictator. It's more treat the Soviets the way you would your spouse be understanding don't give in for the sake of giving in but listen the open to persuasion and look for the commonalities. You can see how other people deal with these problems. It helps us understand big relationship issues. If we do it see it in human terms. We know how we respond to threats. We can guess how other people respond to threats. We know the United States has not become more peaceful when the Soviets build more missiles and they have any business doing maybe are building more missiles won't make them more peaceful either. We can understand the kind of reaction. It doesn't give us the answer but it gives us the understanding on which we can go forward. Well, that's the truth. What I have told you now is a hundred percent correct? That's absolutely right, but I'm prepared to negotiate. Thank you. Any questions I prepare to take questions. I say I'll I will I can't guarantee be consistent, but I'll respond. Professor Fisher, I think we have one over (00:32:36) here. I thought you were going to get these in written form, but I (00:32:40) will read migrate. It doesn't suggesting mediation (00:32:44) or some other process that involves a third-party suggest and over-eagerness to resolve a dispute and therefore imply weakness (00:32:51) is always (00:32:52) doesn't suggesting mediation or the use of a third party to resolve a dispute suggest over-eagerness to resolve that dispute. No, I (00:33:03) The if you're dealing with a dispute you want to be able to walk away? And teaching negotiation I teach students. To have in one pocket statement they're going to make or we're going to go if they don't reach agreement students want to know how to negotiate a job. I'll say where do you want to go st. Louis First Choice? What's your second choice Minneapolis go to Minneapolis first interview. Every firm in Minneapolis. Get the best offer. You can have that in your pocket. When you go to St. Louis, you'll know you'll be very strong when you go to st. Louis. If you don't get a good offer this better than that one you'll walk out you want to be able to walk out settling all the disputes is not necessarily desirable the other piece maybe some differences we ought to go on don't I say my wife and I we disagree about fat and lean we shouldn't try and settle at one which is better. It's better not to have that on the other hand. In the crafting of solutions to practical problems professional help good professional help good third-party good competent help is very useful. It can separate inventing from deciding it can help make up for broken Communications. It can make up for lack of trust. It can be created. It can come up with good answers and I find third parties are very useful my wife and I don't use third parties and dealing with our marriage sometimes our older son helps but not very often they but I think the Soviets u.s. Negotiations would be helped by having sometimes and they do with the pugwash private scientific group makes a suggestion on a Test Ban or there's a chairman of the lawyers Alliance Group on nuclear arms control of meets every year with the Soviet delegation and we exchange ideas and come up with some they're not they're not neutral but we are third party in the sense where non-governmental not speaking for the We come up with some ideas that Merit consideration and the negotiation process suggesting that a pre-negotiation that pre-summit summited Iceland could loosen up the arms control debate where no commitments are expected ideas on process that can be can be useful. No, it's not. I don't think I don't want to put too high or go on settling all the disputes and if you want to settle a dispute think about getting some third-party (00:35:30) help. We have a question over (00:35:33) here Barbara Toffler a faculty member at Harvard was recently denied tenure partly as I understand because of the courses. She wanted to teach on ethics was not in the program that that Harvard at laid up for its future. I'm curious how a school can teach completely our future Business Leaders and negotiators with that type of philosophy. I will I suppose I should answer that question when when Petrovsky the deputy foreign minister Soviet Union was speaking at Harvard last month. Someone said how do you justify the invasion of Afghanistan? And you know by Soviet troops is the Kennedy School at Harvard and we'd all heard the Soviet saying but they were invited in and turned out so I expected some more of that and mr. Petrovsky said that was without the benefit of the new thinking next question. No, I don't want to debate that particular case. I think that the teaching of Ethics is extremely important and very hard people think it's a plimsoll line between being how bad can you get before you're too bad people tend to measure ethics on a linear scale. Whereas ethics is really in my judgment the skill of dealing with conflicting interests. There's no ethical problem unless I'm torn in two Dimensions unless I have a duty to Harvard and Duty my students and their Duty my family unless I've got Duty my client and do with the court. There's no there's no ethical problem unless I have a conflict clean my own interest in making money and my interest in serving the corporation or whatever it may be and the skill of dealing with those conflicting interests I think is what is needed more than sermons on be good because being good persuades a minister. It's all right for the church to have a raffle that's not really gambling or whatever. Maybe that and doesn't really produce the kind of Vigorous stop thinking about analyzing Alternatives and how they will affect the next time that are in there. I don't want to discuss the particular case. I don't know enough about it and being I want to defend action. I don't know enough about other questions. There's a project being started called International mediation (00:37:54) Network between a professor Yuri at Harvard in the Carter Center. (00:37:59) I'm assuming you're familiar with it. If you are would you want to make some comments about that and its potential because there's a Well founded belief that private third parties can be useful in international differences the we have international mediators. We have the United Nations secretary-general. We have a pope but they have a lot of status. They're hardly disposable. They're hardly self-starting. They have a lot of political baggage they take with them as to whether they're right or wrong in a particular case. The network idea that I've talked with Bill Yuri about is to find contact with people who are doing the sort of thing that Terry Wade or I or others others do in the international Arena private citizens that get involved whether it's in Central America South Africa or anywhere and see if a base can be provided see if resources can be provided so that they can be useful it is it's easier to had lunch with Bill this week about that project. It's easier to be helpful if you Don't have to get formal agreement that we are officially mediating your dispute with the consent of all the parties at least my experience is if I talk to someone an Iranian hostage case, I talked with US Government. I talked with the Ayatollah beheshti we set up with this be interesting of discussion on this basis and no one ever said I was mediating I wouldn't say I was mediating I was saying I was being helpful this summer and trips that Jim mentioned a Central America with down three times talking with pregnancy rates are present Marius before the meeting in August and talking with President Ortega afterwards trying to give ideas as to what might be at their invitation. I may say but not all five got together and jointly said he want to hire Fisher to Media people said would like to talk with you and talking with them gives ideas. I think they Network we need is some self-starting competent third parties who can have a funds for travel and come back to a base and invite people for a workshop on some aspect of the Ethiopian Eritrean conflict or workshop with A and C and South African members. Outside South Africa and have a little joint discussion here. There's a lot that can be done. If I don't have to go around with a Long Foundation proposal six months in advance for one quick meeting tools needed next week. And the network is trying to see if we could establish a base of resources that could help the people who are doing it. Give them support group support ideas. They can come back into a huddle and say Here's a problem when we do about do about that. It's still in gestation. I would say we haven't got a firm base for it. Jimmy Carter's Basin in Georgia is he's interested I think in doing providing some kind of help of that. He's hardly an invisible mediator when he shows up and has to be somebody else them and President Carter or you start getting the Press. It's very hard to see the Press thinks progress is made by agreement. What did you agree upon? The danger of the summit on December 7th is going to be that people say well besides the IMF. What did you agree on Star Wars you measure success by agreement and yet those of us in business? No are those of us who deal with business people know that you have a very good meeting which it didn't agree on anything people understood the problem better. I'm going to work on that you're working on that will going off will come back again. I will try some plans on that. There's nothing you can call an agreement but work is being done. Most board meetings aren't negotiated agreements on after elaborate negotiation. We approve the minutes of the last meeting those the kind of agreements you had but it's really getting the work done. And typically you want to there's work to be done that is not agreements. The Press has a bad pressure on these people. Would you agree upon? Have you did you back down? Bad questions third parties can help put to produce better (00:41:58) ones. (00:42:00) Yes. Could you give a brief description from getting to yes of negotiation Jujitsu and perhaps some examples you've seen in international politics where negotiation Jiu-Jitsu has been used boy the the (00:42:16) let's see (00:42:16) currently. Something to some extent you're changing the question president Ortega wants Reagan to talk with him and he demands taught. (00:42:29) And (00:42:30) President Reagan can easily say no he wins the whole round by saying know if president Ortega were well-advised. He'd say, I think I want to change my target from Reagan to the Congress. How do I get the Congress to postpone a vote on military aid to put off military aid for the contras. What can I do to make it very easy for a congressman not to vote for military aid or for speaker right to postpone it so you change the question and Ortega does he opens La prensa a Catholic radio and bites a couple of Bishops back casting going giving Congressman reasons. They can say why we're not supporting military aid Give Peace a chance and the President Reagan was all set to deny talking to him that will Foolin and in a somewhat like a Jiu-Jitsu operation. He's got Congress to say military doesn't make sense right now. He's bypassed the question. So Typically changing the question. From the one they're talking about letting their attacking me out at the thing go right by don't be the enemy if someone's attacking me just step aside and let it hit the wall and you can attack that if you want to and then try not to attack the other person try to attack the problem in some way that will change change it. If I'm in a standard negotiation. I was telling a story of a try and buy a house. I would say I think the house is worth so much. I want to negotiate by standards. I've checked neighboring sales three houses and taxes. And so for the house is worth a hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars. We offer you a hundred thirty-five. The guy says 200,000 I demand 200,000. I'll say where that figure come from. This is that's what I want. That's the price. I'll say what you want. Yes, don't you want to million? It's not worth two million on now, let's discuss what it's worth. What evidence do you have is worth 200,000, you know and I will change the debate from what he wants to what it's worth and by judicial but not telling him you're going to negotiate my way. I'll say what evidence do you have? That's what it's what it's worth. So it's a light-footed negotiate the way you want to negotiate and but be prepared to negotiate about the process without making a federal case out of it. Just do it. Just negotiate on the merits discuss my interest. I won't understand your interest and so forth. Question back there just to carry on with that same analysis. If you found yourself in a position where you were advising the Soviet contingency that will be coming to the upcoming Summit and you were advising them as far as good tactics and strategies by which they would enter into the discussion in the negotiation with the US. How would you go about that? What would you advise? Well, it's good. You are look at each product of a meeting. See, what's my purpose of the meeting is the product. What's the process going to get the product? But know what the product is? I want to what do I want to happen right after the meeting? What do the Soviets want to happen during the next 60 days after December some if they want the negotiators in Geneva to be doing constructive work on inventing lines between permitted research and prohibited activity or if they want 50% cut how you would verify it worked on instead of thinking what to do. I want to win in this negotiation. I'd be looking and saying what kind of a joint statement what kind of a joint memo to our negotiators was most likely to have what we want to happen next happened next so that each step is not the end of the meeting. It is the preparation for the next meeting in the in the Central American peace plan. It was very much not just getting Ortega to sign the same document that for presidents had signed on February 15th. It is saying all right, how do you sign a document that causes things to happen on the ground? What do you have to put in it? So that once Ortega says yes things begin to happen things happen here and here and here and not all going to be perfect. But you get a process going. So if I were advising the Soviets on December 7th, I would say aside from signing the INF agreement. Assuming agreement can be reached on the verification Provisions still not fully resolved. I would be looking at the work. I want the negotiators to do I'd be trying to loosen up the debate and say prepare two or three options on cuts of strategic weapons find a work program and then get us to agree on that work not to agree at Star Wars is good or bad. I wouldn't expect that. So looking toward Paving the ground for the next for the next step very (00:47:19) much. It was more about your definitions of success what for example if the parties only get two maybe if all the parties don't agree, is it worth it to them? And how do they know that they can get something out of that negotiation, even if all the parties don't fully agree. (00:47:40) Well, you multi-party negotiations It's Tricky if I'm negotiating against or with an environmentalist Group which has (00:47:48) 15 (00:47:50) a public spirited citizens who are interested in the birds and the fish and the bees and the trees and the rest of it. They may be the most extreme Lee dedicated environmentalists around it may be that the state and the companies and so forth cannot let them decide total policy. So it may well be than agreement that lets two or three of them be unhappy is the best agreement that can be produced. So as a facilitator, I will not I will try to produce agreement that's going to carry. The center of gravity of the group along that's going to carry the day it's as if I'm trying to get a bill through Congress. I don't want unanimity. I want enough votes to make it worthwhile. I don't want to have it's not just necessary 5149. I want to have something to carry the day a little further perhaps so it's a judgment question, but Unanimity is not the highest value. That's the lowest common denominator of agreements. Now for any one person. They want to know their walk away alternative what we can get a DSP called your batna an acronym for be a TNA your best alternative to a negotiated agreement and each negotiator should know if they walk away where they going to go and if they're batting is better than the agreement walk. The don't have a policy in favor of always agreeing or always walking whether you stay at the table or walk away depends upon where you're going to walk. (00:49:21) Hawk (00:49:21) is lines and say I have a policy I never talk. I just do it. They don't they're cutting out all the chances where agreement would be better than walking away people who say I State the table and reach agreement no matter how poor as long as I can reach an agreement. They're making a mistake because sometimes they would do better elsewhere. They would do better in another occasion. You have to have those standards in a case-by-case decide whether to stay or whether to walk. Sometimes it's good to walk. Sometimes it's good to (00:49:50) talk. (00:49:52) Each of us who's listened to you so far as presumably enlightened enough now to accept always consult before deciding. How does any of your advice change when you're negotiating with somebody whose philosophy is always decide before Consulting the well, I'm negotiating with him. I'll say that's interesting policy. Where'd you get that? You think that that sometimes it's useful to side first, but don't you find the cost of other people don't you find the rub feelings the feathers that are rushed the wrong way painful. Sometimes that's interesting. Why do you do it? I'm innocence getting your advice about when that's a good policy and when it's not maybe I can learn something from you. Decisions without consulting sometimes you have to you can't accompany can't consult every employee before they decide on new model car. They can't get a unanimity of everybody at her some decisions for confidentiality reasons or otherwise, you have to have a better idea of what you're doing. So as I want I'm not dogmatic about I'm saying is a rule up there a CBI always consult before deciding is a good idea to have in mind and but if you want to negotiate their side of that I'll happily consult you on that and I before deciding that I'm right. I listen to your views Professor. Yeah. It seems from your discussion that the highest moral imperative is the ongoing relationship certainly true for spousal relationships neighbors businesses State cities. If one accepts The View that there are at least others some others that have other higher moral imperative. Dr. Marks postulated the inevitability of the demise of the system which they confront. Mr. Linen postulated. What I would describe as a long-range plan for that. Is it fair to apply these techniques these principles to people who operate under a different different moral imperative? The question is what's the best question really what you're asking me? I think if I find Machiavelli's question is best. What advice would you give a prince? What is the best advice you can give someone with choices to make if you ask me to step aside as an historian or spectator and hindsight, the world is determined that there's an explanation for everything. Why did it people thought it had to happen that way why I chose a red tie when I packed yesterday morning. Someone can explain it to me. I suppose what caused me to do it. But if the world's determined it's determined that we behave as if we have free will I had to decide about elect I was determined that I had to make that kind of decision. So if I'm dealing with someone with a different view if my question is, what advice do you give me talking with him? (00:52:45) I will (00:52:46) I will say don't underestimate the value of a relationship in picking the Soviet Union in a spouse. I'm picking parties with which we are going to have to deal like it or not for a while. With whom we are dealing on going. There are some One-Shot transactions, but they're fewer than you think and even there if I'm negotiating with a Mexican over pottery and a souvenir stand and don't expect to go back Monterey again in the first two minutes. I'm lucky to establish a relationship and how we're treating each other which may have a significant effect on both my pleasure in the transaction his and the price I get I'm reminded of a One-Shot of buying a chest in Spain years ago. We're toast want to buy a lolly carved wooden Spanish chest and it's big antique store. They said oh, yes will handle all the shipping and so forth and we like their chest but not that much I wife and out another shop and there was a terrific chest just a lovely 16th century carved chest for $75 a beautiful thing. And I said, how about customs and shipping and boxing? He says no, no. No, I don't do that stuff you come and get it and take it away. We were in Spain and driving through is not going to be exactly so I went back to the big shop and I said, I got a proposition to put to you. How about letting me buy a chest at your competitor down the street and you handled and ship (00:54:11) it. (00:54:13) He's that's a funny request I said, yes, but here's why and talked about it and we sat down and he talked to his brother and they said all right, and they went through the whole thing and he showed me the creating in the building and the railroad in the freight and shipping the insurance and everything and I said, but where is your charge? (00:54:30) He said charge. (00:54:32) I don't make a business out of hell with my competitors. You asked me for a favor as a friend. Of course. I'll do that. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna charge for that. I'll be selling at and three minutes of how we spoke with this fella. I established. You know, we got a rapport going how we're talking about this about. How do we help me solve this problem what he helped me and solve it which turned out to be the most useful thing I could do with somebody. I never expected to see in fact, I went back 20 years later and so on and he remembered the occasion very clearly never done it before or since but no I think that the relationship issues of how human beings treat human beings as someone who has to be respected open cared concerned dealt with is Central to all problems solving and even if I don't expect to see him very often in a very moment or two, I can convey some kind of Rapport if he doesn't think so. He will be surprised to learn differently. He himself will care about who he's dealing with and he will treat people differently based on their relationship. (00:55:41) I'm curious to know have you has the administration of the United States of America ever asked your advice and help on Central American problem? (00:55:49) Oh, well at the administration with capital a dozen organized we get together Max kampelman has asked me to come to Geneva sometimes and talk with him General rowney before him invited me to meet in Geneva with the group. I've dealt with people in in the government. I've dealt with and occasionally why invite the administration and I invite ranking of American effect side one time couple years ago where the United States Soviet and completely out of killed her. They were talking to each other about an important and I arranged a dinner party for One guy from the White House and one guy from the Soviet Embassy and meana student working with me just so they could talk to each other. It's a surprisingly it's much easier. I mean the guy in the white I said look I couldn't if I said I want to make an approach direct approach to the Soviet Embassy that would require clearance from everything the government. But if I say I'm invited to dinner I've been told a Soviet will be there. I just accept the invitation I can do that and that way third parties can be useful in not any big federal case just making things happen at that. That's a done that several occasions getting people together who want to talk and who are not talking and just invite him to dinner and they come why not not committed anything and they might learn something the I must say I should say Reagan has not told me he's read getting to yes or saying he's keeping a copy in the Oval Office, but I did at the request of a fellow worked for the Central Committee. I did inscribe a copy to mr. Gorbachev and I got a message last June back saying statement and a question the statement was he's keeping the book in his office. (00:57:26) The (00:57:26) question was does Professor Fisher think that I'm following his advice pretty well. I've got no idea that whether my friend in the Communist Central Committee of the Communist party was giving pulling my leg or not, but I like the question very much. I think on that tone will have to end the questions. Thank you very (00:57:47) much. (00:58:00) Thank you Roger for a challenging discussion on behalf of the Minnesota meeting. I would like to present you with the Minnesota meeting. Peace pipe created by Minnesota artist Robert Rose bear. The peace pipe is symbolic of human bonds, which are needed to preserve and establish relationships. Thank you very much. Oh, (00:58:17) thank you.