It’s one thing to disagree with someone, whether in our personal or professional lives, but it’s another thing to face disagreements when we feel as if the person on the other side actually intends to cause us harm.
Robert Mnookin has spent his career exploring exactly this conundrum: the ways interpersonal, and geopolitical, disagreements unfold — and how to handle really difficult disagreements mindfully and rationally rather than emotionally and thoughtlessly.
Mr. Mnookin is the Samuel Williston Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School – and he is the author and/or editor of at 10 books, including “Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight” which was published in 2010. It offers practical advice on addressing tough conflicts analytically through examples that range from siblings fighting over an inheritance, to Winston Churchill’s decision to refuse to negotiate with Adolph Hitler.
Professor Mnookin served as Chair of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School for 25 years, and in the early 1980s he helped establish and became the director of the new Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation.
He was on the Florida Gulf Coast University Campus to give a presentation titled “Bargaining with the Devil” as part of the university’s Provost’s Seminar Series and Naples Discussion Group and came by the studio to chat.
Guest:
Robert H. Mnookin is the Samuel Williston Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School
The Five “Spock” Questions:
1. Interests – What are my interests, and what are the interests of the other party?
- This question forces you to step back and analyze what you truly want to achieve.
- It also requires considering what the other side wants—because understanding their goals can help shape a better negotiation strategy.
- Example: In Mandela’s case, both he and the South African government had an interest in avoiding prolonged civil war.
2. Alternatives – What are my alternatives if I refuse to negotiate?
- This is about understanding your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)—i.e., what happens if no deal is reached?
- If your alternative (e.g., war, legal action, or a boycott) is stronger than a bad deal, fighting might be the right choice.
- Example: Churchill determined that the alternative to negotiating with Hitler—continuing to fight—was preferable to making concessions.
3. Potential Outcomes – What is the possible range of negotiated agreements?
- This involves considering what kind of deal could realistically be reached.
- If negotiations are likely to result in an outcome worse than your alternative, then it might be better not to negotiate.
- Example: If a company is in a legal battle with a rival, but a settlement is possible that avoids years of court battles, that might be a good outcome.
4. Costs – What are the tangible and intangible costs of negotiating vs. fighting?
- Tangible costs: Time, money, resources, potential losses.
- Intangible costs: Reputational damage, ethical compromises, emotional toll.
- Example: In a labor dispute, striking might seem appealing, but lost wages, legal fees, and long-term hostility between management and workers could make negotiation the smarter move.
5. Implementation – What are the potential barriers to making a deal work?
- Even if an agreement is reached, will both sides follow through?
- Does the other party have a history of breaking agreements or acting dishonestly?
- Example: In Cold War arms negotiations, the U.S. and USSR had to consider enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance.
WGCU is your trusted source for news and information in Southwest Florida. We are a nonprofit public service, and your support is more critical than ever. Keep public media strong and donate now. Thank you.
