Heroes and Villains

One of the things you have to learn if you want to write successful fiction, especially mystery novels, is that people are complex. Your heroes will have flaws, and your villains will have positive aspects to their personalities. In real life, your opponent in sports, politics, or war will look like a villain to you as you gear up for competition or battle, but he or she will look like a hero to supporters of the other side. The trick is to avoid branding the opposition as an inhuman villain but to learn to appreciate the opponent's strengths. Only by objectively evaluating these strengths can you plan a successful strategy to overcome your opponent. The saving grace in all of this is that by appreciating the opposition's good points, you may learn to live and work together effectively even while you are competing. Always remember that successful interactions with others follow the basic rule of negotiations - you have to give something up in order to gain something. It works best when what you give up is of higher value to your opponent than it is to you.

Evaluate the US Debt Limit Negotiations

Here are my Seven Principles of Negotiation from my book, DECISION TIME! Better Decisions for a Better Life. After all the smoke clears in Washington, decide for yourself whether each side did a good job of handling the process, regardless of what it looked like to outsiders.

The first principle of negotiation is that you must be sensitive to the needs of others when you set priorities for what you hope to accomplish. If all parties have the same list of priorities, then it is unlikely that the negotiations will be successful. However, it is usually the case that there will be differences in the priority lists for the two or more parties to the negotiations. This will allow a final outcome where more than one party comes away from the process having satisfied his top priority goal. By being sensitive to the desires of others, you can set your priorities into a structure that makes negotiation success more likely.

The second principle of negotiation is that you must make it very clear to your opponent which are your top priorities and how determined you are to achieve them. It is a fact of human nature that if you are able to reach a decision that gains your top priority objective too easily, you will feel that you could have negotiated an even better outcome. This is true whether you are setting the price for the purchase of a used car or if you are involved in a complex labor contract negotiation. For this reason, most negotiations will and should start out with a firm statement of your goals. These goals should be reiterated and should seem to be inflexible for as long as possible. There is acting involved in such posturing, but the objective is to find out which party most desires a positive outcome to the negotiations. That party will usually show the first sign of flexibility. If no such flexibility is seen on either side, progress may have to be made as the result of setting a deadline or introducing a third party to mediate the process. A final alternative to inflexibility is to walk away from the negotiation process. If and only if your opponent believes that you are truly willing to stop the process, moving to end the negotiations may actually introduce flexibility from your adversary and stimulate the process toward success.

The third principle of negotiation is that although you frequently will have to resolve conflicts by giving in to someone else’s viewpoint, you should always try to get something back in return for your willingness to see things their way. This is usually an acceptable and expected trade procedure. Even when there may not be an item on the table that your opponent is willing to give up in exchange for your flexibility, you may be able to gain something by proposing that he or she commit to a future benefit for you. This is why so many sports team trade negotiations end up including “a player to be named later” or a future draft choice. It is easier to reach agreement in this way because neither party knows the true value of a future benefit.

The fourth principle of negotiation is that decisions proceed from the bottom to the top. For this reason, it may be useful to have some low priority points on which you are willing to give in to your opponent’s viewpoint. They may mean little to you, but after you have relinquished something, it is reasonable for you to expect your adversary to offer you something in return. Not only are smaller points agreed before larger points, but also in formal team negotiations there is a “pecking order” for personnel on the two sides. [Lower level people decide lower level matters. Highest level people come in only when trying to come to the final agreement.]

The fifth principle of negotiation is that when you are not sure what to decide on a particular point, the best tactic is to add something to the discussion which “puts the ball in the other party’s court” and gives your opponent responsibility for the next decision. This approach gives you more time to reach the decision that was facing you, and it may also give you new and valuable information from your opponent’s response on the new matter.

The sixth principle of negotiation is that you can’t please or accommodate everyone. You will definitely have to say No in many situations, and you will have to be firm about it. The word No has great value in that it can be used to reverse or slow down the momentum of a negotiation. You may be willing to concede additional points to your adversary, but judicious use of the word No will help you to gain return concessions and will help you to minimize those items on which you have to yield. It also helps to create an image of you as a tough negotiator, and in negotiations image is very important.

The seventh principle of negotiation is that the party with the greatest detailed knowledge of the matters being discussed has a great advantage. If you have all the details immediately available while your adversary has to repeatedly call for assistance from others or request a break in the process to obtain more information, you are negotiating from strength while the other party is negotiating from weakness. It is very important that you have done your homework before the meetings even start.

The Most Obsolete Word in the English Language

It appears that the most terrible thing that a politician anywhere in the world can do is to use the word compromise. Politicians have become more doctrinaire than ever, with discussions described as stand-offs and any comment from a member of a different party described as belligerent, uninformed, and adversarial. A certain amount of defense of your position is good posturing as part of the negotiation process (See my book: DECISION TIME! Better Decisions for a Better Life.), but frequently politicians aren't negotiating at all, but merely trying to score points and develop issues for the next election. Compromise should be the lubricant that makes governments work. Bombast only succeeds in minimizing the public's respect for their elected and appointed officials. In many conversations I hear citizen members of both parties agree that solutions to national problems aren't that difficult if the people in power would only use the second most obsolete term in the English language, common sense. In the field of law, the yardstick for evaluating an action is frequently: What would a reasonable person do? Why can't politicians and government leaders (most of whom are lawyers) ask themselves that same question, and act upon their answers to it?

Peace Between Palestinians and Israelis - Maybe?

President Obama in his speech this week said that peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis should be based on pre-1967 borders. Such a stand is completely unacceptable to the Israelis, but it serves a very important purpose as a negotiating ploy. There has been no progress toward peace because there has been little incentive for the Israelis to move in that direction. They know that they will have to give up some valuable and sentimentally priceless things such as some portion of Jerusalem and feelings of having control over the situation. Obama's talking about pre-1967 borders may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back and makes Israel realize that eternal delays may lead to a less satisfactory outcome in the negotiations. (See my book, DECISION TIME! Better Decisions for a Better Life for negotiation techniques and stages http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/60929.)
Perhaps Israel will respond to the threat of a less-desirable border outcome by moving toward earlier resolution of the negotiation stalemate on the condition that current or compromise borders are the end result. President Obama is not a party to the negotiations, but his words automatically influence the negotiation stances of both sides.

Walking Tightropes

In the Middle East, the fictional country of Ibrimia is on the edge of a revolution. Thirty-seven friends have managed to get the populace of the second largest city upset at the ruling regime. They have convinced the people that they could achieve many of their dreams if their country was a democracy. In this action they are copying the pattern of successful government changes elsewhere. The existing regime considers itself to be generous to a fault in providing free college education and healthcare, and in distributing significant oil revenues to all citizens.
If the activists force out the regime, the stability of oil income might end. While the majority of the population is in favor of democracy and new leadership, there is no agreement as to what alternate group should rule and with what agenda.
While the existing regime does not want to use military might against its own population, it feels that it offers the safest and most secure future for everyone.
What is the best course for each side to take in walking the conflict tightrope toward an improved future?

• Should the regime announce increased benefits and salary structures?
• Should the activists hold meetings to elect a "government-in-waiting" that will formulate and announce the people's goals following the ouster of the current regime?
• Should the regime offer big increases in employment on government-funded public works projects?
• Should the activists meet openly with government representatives to discuss possible power sharing and reforms of constitutional provisions?
• Should the regime offer term limits for itself and future governments?
• Should the activists attempt to split the country and gain international recognition for the part they control?
• Should the regime risk international condemnation by cutting off financial support and utilities to the part of the country it no longer controls?
• Should the activists invite outsiders to support their cause?
• Should the regime cancel the citizenship of the activists and offer citizenship to loyal immigrant workers instead?
• Should the activists seek an alliance of their part of the country with the neighboring large and stable country?
• Should the regime threaten the neighboring country with attack if it interferes in Ibrimia's internal affairs?
• Should representatives of both sides meet secretly to negotiate a mutually acceptable outcome?
• Should the regime ignore the uprising but ship its wealth overseas just in case the outcome isn't favorable?

If you were leading one side or the other, what would you do or recommend?

Middle East Solidarity and Fragmentation

The winds of change that are sweeping middle eastern countries may be just the beginning of turbulence with unknown consequences. It is relatively easy to get a population fired up against the status quo and an unpopular, authoritarian leader. During the process of such an attempted or successful overthrow of a government, the populace is essentially united because everyone wants the current situation to change. As soon as such a movement becomes successful, however, it becomes dangerous to all concerned, because unity will disappear as different segments of society push for their own agendas. This is the point at which power grabs and civil wars develop. The initial jubilation at overthrowing an authoritarian regime may be replaced by a lengthy period of groups jockeying for position and attempting to manipulate each other. External governments would be wise to be nonspecific in their gestures and declarations of support because they will not know nor be able to influence the final configuration of power centers for a long time to come. Enthusiastically backing a losing group may be at least as unwise as taking no public stance on the political upheaval process.

What's the Value of Conflict?

Most of the effort we put into interpersonal relations, and most of the effort our governments put into international relations are aimed at reducing or eliminating conflict. The tensions in our lives are caused by the many conflicts we perceive and encounter. Obviously, conflict must be a bad thing because we always try to eliminate it. This statement is not necessarily true in life, because we gain most of our benefits from negotiations due to the conflicts that ensue during the bargaining process. When you write fiction, as I do*, you learn that nobody will want to read your book if it doesn't contain enough conflict. People find books that are all happiness and void of conflict to be boring and uninteresting. Thus, we have a paradox between life and fiction. In life, we try our best to avoid conflict, while in the selection of fiction to read, we go out of our way to search for it. To resolve this conundrum, we have to look at the impact of conflict. If conflict impacts or affects us during the course of our lives, we seek to avoid it because conflict costs us in many ways: money, sleep, friendships, etc. When conflict occurs in a novel, it impacts fictional characters, and we can find that interesting without working up a sweat over it. It is the same principle that lets us enjoy a football game between two teams that aren't our favorites without caring who wins. We have no stake in the outcome. When one of the teams comes from our home town or college, we go through a psychological roller coaster process when our team looks as though it is on the way to winning or losing. The next time you find yourself in a personal conflict with someone, tell yourself that the outcome really doesn't matter that much, and you will find yourself able to think your way through it more objectively. If you don't let conflict emotionally suck you in, you will be more likely to be able to work your way out of it.

*To enjoy some conflict, read my "Lord's Prayer Mystery Series", books out to date: Lead Us Not into Temptation, Volume I, and Give Us this Day Our Daily Bread, Volume II. (written as Richard Davidson)

Chicago Blackhawks Decline Arbitration Award for Antti Niemi

The Stanley Cup winners, the Chicago Blackhawks, have demonstrated that common sense is trumped by financial considerations in today's sports world. Capital availability, budgets, salary caps and shareholder pressures are more important than trying to turn a once-in-fifty-years championship into a sports dynasty. This is obviously a very conservative approach to sports management. The Blackhawks are thankful that they won this year, but they are assuming that they are not likely to repeat, so they are being fiscally conservative and hoping for the best.

The salary cap restriction made them release or trade a bunch of players who were central to their phenomenal season, but given the fact that they had already conceded that they could stay under the salary cap with Niemi's arbitration award, their action baffles me. In playoff hockey, a reliable goalie is essential. The Blackhawks are disregarding the adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Not only that, but they are turning their backs on a young goalie with many years of future playing potential in favor of a good but older goalie who would be only a temporary solution.

The other Blackhawks news item that throws me is their statement that they lost money this year. They had bigger crowds than ever; they had TV revenues that they didn't have in the past; they had all of the souvenir sales and other benefits of a championship; and they lost money. Next year they will have higher salaries and a low probability of repeating as champions. Will they make more money than this year? I doubt it, but good luck to them.

Local News vs. World News

I have a relative who only watches and listens to local news. He isn't at all concerned with what happens on the larger world scene. I tend to closely monitor the national and international news while only briefly reviewing the local news. Who is correct? The answer is probably that we are both correct because we have different points of view. My relative is more concerned with his day-to-day costs, taxes, and laws that impact his lifestyle. I am more focused on long-term trends and national/international developments that will have impact on my personal life in the future. The fact that different people have varying viewpoints and priorities is a good thing. Because of this sort of situation, you can have negotiations and family plans where both parties are satisfied with the outcome. If we both wanted exactly the same thing, one would come out of a negotiation the winner and the other the loser. Progress is made when you can satisfy all parties without having winners and losers. To paraphrase President John F. Kennedy, people and countries all act in their own enlightened self-interest. We will have coexistence, peace, and prosperity to the extent that those self-interests are not mutually exclusive.

Figures Can Lie and Liars Can Figure

Every time you read an article about the forever ongoing presidential election campaign you see citations of statistics from the latest polls. Always remember to take these with a bit of scepticism, even when they show the result you prefer. If I were taking a poll of these matters, I could get totally different results from the same group of people if I simply changed the wording of my questions. For instance, "How troubling will Bill Clinton's presence in a new Clinton White House be for Hillary?" will lead to a totally different result from "Does Hillary Clinton have a great advantage because of Bill being with her in a new Clinton White House?" Similarly, "Does Barack Obama's having lived among people of many ethnic and national backgrounds give him an edge in understanding people from other countries?" will yield a different result from "Do you consider Barack Obama's limited experience in international negotiation meetings a liability?" Going to John McCain, you could ask "Do you think that John McCain's willingness to disagree with George Bush about tactics and spending shows that he would be an independent-minded President?" or you could ask "Do you think that John McCain's continued support of the Iraq war shows that his presidency would be more of the Stay the course mentality?"

Always remember to read the questions (if they even show them) when you examine poll results. In addition, you should look at as many polls as possible, and average the results to get more realistic figures.

Vice Presidential Candidates

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a tight race to the finish for the Democratic presidential nomination. Many have suggested that the winner select the loser as vice-presidential candidate. Things are clearer on the Republican side, but do you think John McCain should take Mike Huckabee as his vice-presidential candidate? Is it a good idea to have someone you have criticized to be your running mate? Will a Vice President who thinks he/she should really be the President be loyal and supportive. We have had cases in the past where this was done, and where it worked out well. There have also probably been some cases where it was a disaster. A Vice President who had tried for the top job is certainly more likely to be acceptable to the people as President if succession is necessary than a complete unknown who was selected for loyalty rather than for competence. On the other hand, does a President feel safe and secure with an ambitious rival in the number two job? What do you think?

The Seventh Principle of Negotiation

The seventh principle of negotiation is that the party with the greatest detailed knowledge of the matters being discussed has a great advantage. If you have all the details immediately available while your adversary has to repeatedly call for assistance from others or request a break in the process to obtain more information, you are negotiating from strength while the other party is negotiating from weakness. It is very important that you do your homework before the meetings even start.

The Sixth Principle of Negotiation

The sixth principle of negotiation is that you can't please or accommodate everyone. You will definitely have to say No in many situations, and you will have to be firm about it. The word No has great value in that it can be used to reverse or slow down the momentum of a negotiation. You may be willing to concede additional points to your adversary, but judicious use of the word No will help you to gain return concessions and will help you to minimize those items on which you have to yield. It also helps to create an image of you as a tough negotiator, and in negotiations image is very important.

The Fifth Principle of Negotiation

The fifth principle of negotiation is that when you are not sure what to decide on a particular point, the best tactic is to add something to the discussion which "puts the ball in the other party's court" and gives your opponent responsibility for the next decision. This approach gives you more time to reach the decision that was facing you, and it may also give you new and valuable information from your opponent's response to the new matter.

The Fourth Principle of Negotiation

The fourth principle of negotiation is that decisions proceed from the bottom to the top. For this reason, it may be useful to have some low priority points on which you are willing to give in to your opponent's viewpoint. They may mean little to you, but after you have relinquished something, it is reasonable for you to expect your adversary to offer you something in return. Not only are smaller points agreed before larger points, but also in formal team negotiations there is a "pecking order" for the personnel who participate on both sides. Junior personnel discuss minor matters and are authorized to agree upon them. More senior personnel are required in order to reach an agreement on the more important matters.

The Third Principle of Negotiation

The third principle of negotiation is that although you frequently will have to resolve conflicts by giving in to someone else's viewpoint, you should always try to get something back in return for your willingness to see things their way. This is usually an acceptable and expected trade procedure. Even when there may not be an item on the table that your opponent is willing to give up in exchange for your flexibility, you may be able to gain something by proposing that he or she commit to a future benefit for you. This is why so many sports team trade negotiations end up including "a player to be named later" or a future draft choice. It is easier to reach agreement in this way because neither party knows the true value of a future benefit.

The Second Principle of Negotiation

The second principle of negotiation is that you must make it very clear to your opponent which are your top priorities and how determined you are to achieve them. These goals should be reiterated and should seem to be inflexible for as long as possible. There is acting involved in such posturing, but the objective is to find out which party most desires a positive outcome to the negotiations. That party will usually show the first sign of flexibility. If no such flexibility is seen on either side, progress may have to be made as the result of setting a deadline or introducing a third party to mediate the process. A final alternative to inflexibility is to walk away from the negotiation process. If and only if your opponent believes that you are truly willing to stop the process, he may show flexibility and allow movement toward success of the negotiations.

The First Principle of Negotiation (Excerpt from DECISION TIME!)

The first principle of negotiation is that you must be sensitive to the needs of others when you set priorities for what you hope to accomplish. If all parties have the same list of priorities, then it is unlikely that the negotiations will be successful. However, it is usually the case that there will be differences in the priority lists for the two or more parties to a negotiation. This will allow a final outcome where more than one party comes away from the process having satisfied his top priority goal. By being sensitive to the desires of others, you can set your priorities into a structure that makes negotiation success more likely.