• Finding a common definition of the problem.

• Determining mutually satisfactory procedures for carrying out a negotiation.

• Identifying the issues and interests of each of the parties.

• Developing a range of options for solving the problem.

• Agreeing on a solution.

• Deciding exactly how agreements will be implemented.

Principle 4. Progress Demands Positive

Working Relationships

Although accurate and consistent data are needed to understand complex public issues, data alone will not resolve them. Information is of little value unless people are able to use it to solve a problem. Parties in a dispute must be willing to exchange information, make agreements, and keep their word. But people who are caught up in the dynamics of conflict reach a point where they stop talking with each other. This happens both because it becomes distasteful to talk with adversaries and because communication with the other side may be viewed with suspicion by one’s own associates. Of course, when the flow of information between the parties ceases, it becomes difficult for them to clarify perceptions and transmit or receive new data needed to solve a problem. The parties cannot discuss alternatives or make adjustments. Instead, they generate information that promotes their own positions and convey it, often with irritating inaccuracies, through outside parties or the news media. When a conflict has become seriously polarized, even useful and accurate information is received with distrust and falls on deaf ears.

The destructive consequences of hostile relationships were evident when a state department of health was attempting to resolve a community water quality problem. People in the community, alarmed that their drinking water might not be safe, thought they were not getting adequate help from the state. As time went on, their alarm turned to fear. The rhetoric turned nasty, and the department of health knew it had to do something to improve its relations with the community. It assigned a young lawyer to explain the procedures the department was following to solve the problem. He assured the community that everything was under control. Unfortunately, the lawyer’s patronizing style only increased the citizens’ anger. They began to attack the lawyer and the agency, accusing them of incompetence. Finally, the lawyer was replaced by someone who was more sensitive to the concerns of the community. When the residents felt they were working with someone they could trust, they agreed to sit down with the state’s technical staff and work out solutions to the problem.

The words people use have a strong influence on their relationships. Adversaries cannot break off from fighting while they are exchanging verbal blows. People in conflicts readily agree that verbal attacks prevent progress and increase hostilities, but once they start trading insults it is hard to stop. Yet the rhetoric must cease before negotiations can begin. Sooner or later the parties must start to trust each other if commitments are to be made and solutions found.

Other sections of the book address methods for creating and preserving working relationships. The point here is that while technical information is important, equal attention must be given to human relationships.

Principle 5. Negotiation Begins with a

Constructive Definition of the Problem

The parties must agree on what the problem is before they start resolving it. The preliminary review of the dispute will almost certainly turn up some disagreements about issues and causes. Often, reaching an agreement on the central issue that should be addressed is the first problem and the first success of a negotiation.

It is important to avoid using a problem statement that can be answered with a “yes” or a “no”. The people in the village first asked, “Shall we build a new hotel?” Some said “yes,” some said “no,” and the battle was joined. They began to make progress when they backed off and posed the problem as “What is the best use of the vacant land?” and “How do we provide accommodations for visitors?” They got down to business when they decided that they clearly needed a hotel in town and that what they really wanted to talk about was what the hotel should look like.

Whenever possible, an issue should be defined as a mutual problem to be solved, perhaps as a description that synthesizes several definitions, or conversely, as a potentially solvable part of a broader set of issues.

Another case illustrates the importance of thinking through the definition. At issue was a federal ban on the use of Compound 1080, a poison used to kill coyotes. Compound 1080 was banned by the federal government because it also killed eagles and other wildlife. After the ban was imposed, woolgrowers, who already had many serious economic problems, complained that they were losing more lambs. The contending parties had to decide whether the problem was (a) whether or not to use 1080, (b) how to kill coyotes, or (c) how to save lambs. Each issue required a particular mix of parties at the negotiating table and a different set of technical resources. It was necessary to select one of the three issues as the explicit focus of the discussion to prevent the entire effort from breaking down into irrelevant quarrels over divergent goals.

(p. 52)p.1

surface [] – появляться; становиться явным