Negotiations - The Titanic Principle

Excerpted from
Negotiate This! : By Caring, But Not T-H-A-T Much
By Herb Cohen

Until now, we have seen illustrations of how what people think they want are not what they ultimately settle for. One of the biggest mistakes that we make is to believe that the initial demand of the contending party correlates with their true interest. Perhaps that is why when people sometimes get what they asked for, they're still not happy. George Bernard Shaw in Man and Superman recognized this dilemma when he wrote, "There are two tragedies in life. One is not getting what you desire. The other is to gain it."

A friend of mine, Buddy Soil, who would later become a respected Dallas psychiatrist, once told me that "the human mind is like an iceberg whose surface movements are determined by unseen forces below the waterline." At the time, I'm not sure I fully understood what he meant. But, as years passed, this analogy shed light on a great deal of what I observed and experienced during interpersonal dealings.

In essence, in negotiating what's visible to us is the tip of the iceberg, that which is expressed as demands or positions taken. Below the surface, though, is a multitude of unseen complex concerns, interests, values, intentions, and preferences. Interestingly, the party who tells you what he or she wants may not even be consciously aware of these forces that will ultimately determine their satisfaction.

As a result, I formulated what I termed the Titanic principle, named after the "unsinkable" cruise ship that had only one voyage. You, of course, recall that the Titanic sailed forth on its maiden journey and struck an iceberg. Unfortunately, the vessel went down, but there were survivors. I imagined what would happen if that tragedy occurred nowadays. Given the competitive nature of today's media, there would be a rush to get the first interview with a survivor.

In my mind's eye I saw a group of those who outlived this catastrophe sitting in a TV studio being interviewed by a network anchor. It's been only hours since they were plucked from the frigid Atlantic. Sitting around the table, still suffering from the effects of hypothermia, they are wrapped in blankets and still shivering slightly as they drink hot coffee from mugs with the network's logo.

When the green light goes on and the interview kicks off, the anchor person asks, "What happened?"

"Well, we hit an iceberg!" says a survivor.

"Didn't you see it?" is the follow-up.

"I guess we did, but there didn't seem to be that much on top."

Aha, the metaphor of our time! What's apparent may not count that much. But what's underneath does.

This is true in negotiating, where my expressed opening demand is what is above sea level. Below the surface are a myriad of submerged factors that influenced my choice of this opener, which I believe will eventually satisfy my underlying concerns, interests, and needs.

What I'm saying is the initial position someone expressed is only shadow-not substance. It is the effect of things, not the things themselves. Therefore, if you immediately counter an opening high demand with a low offer (tit for tat), you will be engaging in positional or share bargaining, which will put you in a competitive (win-lose) contest.

On the other hand, suppose you don't fall into this narrow rut. Instead, you say: "How did you come up with that? I don't understand. Please explain the thinking behind that asking price."

Reacting to these questions, he or she will furnish information by way of justification. This will reveal facts and feelings that were not apparent to you previously. It's information about their motives, preferences, intentions, and interests. Yes, this is the real stuff or substance that affects their decision making.

More significantly, by obtaining this additional data you will expand the playing field and be able to move from distributive (zero-sum) haggling to cooperative (positive-sum) negotiations.

Having burdened you with all this verbiage, let me offer what I trust will be a clarifying example. Its venue is the criminal justice system, a place where you would not expect to find much cooperative problem-solving behavior. I learned of this case in the course of giving a speech at a retreat of a major U.S. attorney's office in the summer of 2001.

The federal government had indicted four individuals as conspirators in a white-collar Ponzi scheme that bilked the public out of several hundred thousand dollars. The evidence against one of the four defendants, let's call him George Marshall, was overwhelming. As for the remaining three, the assistant U.S. attorney felt that he needed help to ensure convictions.

For this reason, the prosecutor offered Marshall a deal. Instead of a fifteen-year sentence when found guilty, if he agreed to cooperate and testify against his co-conspirators, his sentence would be reduced to ten years. Marshall's reaction was "Fuhgeddaboudit, I'm not a rat!"

The negotiations were stalemated until Marshall's attorney asked his client, who was out on bail, why he was so adamant in taking this stance. It turned out that he and his wife had one child, a daughter, who was pregnant. Her due date was December 1.