WILLIAM URY is an author, anthropologist, and one of the world’s leading negotiators and mediators. He has spent his life building bridges in conflict situations and teaching other people how to do the same. His book, Getting to Yes, is a worldwide best seller, and is translated into thirty-five languages.
In part 2 of his interview by GUILA CLARA KESSOUS, William speaks about what causes conflict, how men and women bring different qualities to negotiation, and how conflict resolution has evolved.
Q: What are the most common stereotypes we see today in conflicts?
WU: What is behind all the conflicts around the world? They are each very different, but behind almost all of them is a feeling of scarcity, that there isn’t enough. And behind that scarcity – if you go deeper – there is a sense that we are all separate. There is no sense of the interconnection that you were talking about, Guila; we are all separate little parties, and there isn’t enough. In this worldview, the only way we satisfy our interests is by engaging in a win-lose battle.
Those are the stereotypes behind conflicts: scarcity, separation, and the win-lose mindset.
And what’s required of us to make a paradigmatic shift is to realize that, in fact, quite possibly there is no scarcity. Of course, there is scarcity in one sense, but there may be enough for everyone, just like in the story of the camels . We are not separate; we are interconnected. We are in that story the whole family, the brothers, right? And we are all one in the human family. What’s then required is to shift the mindset from win-lose. We shift it not only to win-win, which has become a phrase popularized by Getting to Yes, but we need a third win. We need a win not just for both sides of a conflict, but a win for the whole. We need a win for the community. We need a win for the world. We need a win for the world’s environment. We need the triple win. That’s the new game we need to learn to play.
Q: And this triple win includes the possibility and the willingness to get out of the conflicts. Is that correct? It means that the two parties are not so in love with their conflict. That is, they accept to take a step back and go to the balcony.
When we talk about gender stereotypes with what has happened in Afghanistan, for example, is there a question that could change men’s approach to women? Is it something you could advise?
WU: Well, it’s really hard to generalize about gender. But with my knowledge of the sub-scientific research, I would say that men tend to be more sucked into the win-lose: Who’s gonna win in the short term? Women, evolutionarily, are trained to pay more attention to relationships in the long-term. So, I have found that when women are involved (or the feminine principle, whether it’s women themselves) in a negotiation, there is more tending to relationships, which is also key.
In negotiation, men often make the mistake of being hard on the problem, wanting to solve the problem. That also means being hard on the people: “Well, okay, that’s what’s possible.” Women sometimes make the opposite mistake, which is, “We need to be soft on the people. We have to tend to the relationships,” so they are soft on the problem, and give in too easily.
A successful negotiator is soft on the people, respectful of the people, and hard on the problem. They try to solve the problem in a way that works for everyone. So, we need both the masculine and the feminine, especially in the peace-making field. We need a lot more women and the leadership of women. I think that’s starting to happen, and it’s an extremely promising trend.
Those are the stereotypes behind conflicts:
scarcity, separation, and
the win-lose mindset.
Q: In your career, have you seen an evolution of ego in negotiation? Would you say that the egos of countries have changed now that they know the protocols you and Rodger Fisher have given to the world? Do you see an ego-education? Would you say that some countries have understood mutual gain and become softer in their relationships?
WU: There’s a syndrome I call the “me-syndrome,” which stands for “male-ego syndrome,” you know, bad heads. And then there is something that happens in these peace-making processes, where suddenly the ego starts to diminish, people start to realize that there are things like the future, their children.
A successful negotiator is soft on the people,
respectful of the
people, and hard on the problem.
They try to solve the problem in a
way
that works for everyone.
I was just remembering back to Northern Ireland in the 80s or early 90s. The reputed head of the IRA was a man by the name of Mark McGuiness. The IRA had declared a ceasefire and then broken the ceasefire, and the terrorist acts were going on. Going back to the role of women here, he was confronted at home by his wife and daughter over the dinner table. They said, “You told us you’re going to stop.” To me, that’s the third side. That’s the community. And that’s when the ego – especially the male ego – starts to go, “Oh, okay.” And Mark McGuiness made the most remarkable turnaround where he led the IRA and Gerry Adams into an agreement – the Good Friday agreement. He later served in the government and became the Minister for Education. His closest colleague in government was his most bitter adversary on the Protestant loyalist side, Ian Paisley. The two of them formed a friendship, and that’s when the ego starts to diminish. A lot of it was through the role of women.
Q: It’s the same in business relationships. Sometimes, in salary negotiation, bosses forget that, even if they don’t have money to give, the person wants to take home something more than money. It’s also to answer the third party, whether it’s a wife, or a past significant, just to say, “Yes, I’ve got something. I’ve been working so hard and you know what? I had the guts to ask for a salary review, and guess what? I’ve got something.” Sometimes, the hierarchy forgets that there is this conversation that happens right after the negotiation, and if they don’t give anything it is a disaster for that relationship. Of course, they are also losing the employee. Would you say that this is also an illustration of the third party?
WU: Absolutely. In fact, one of the most useful exercises when you are preparing for a negotiation is to imagine the other side – maybe the employee – accepting your proposal, and then having to go to the people they care about and explain why this was a victory. In other words, sit down, take out a piece of paper, and write out the other side’s victory speech. What are they going to say to their constituency, the people they care about most, about why accepting your proposal is a victory for them? And then work back from that. How do you help them deliver that victory speech?
Q: Excellent! In terms of role games, it is true that it helps for this paradigmatic shift to prepare the other better to this positive “No,” the way you call it. Excellent!
It is the International Day of Peace, so I would like to ask you: Do we learn, and do Nations learn from conflicts? Can we say that the harm, the difficulties, the aggression, the violence is something that serves the world to get better?
WU: Well, paradoxically and unfortunately, when we are offered a choice between learning the easy way or the hard way, we often choose the hard way. Sometimes we learn through the destructiveness of conflicts. You know, people learned when there was World War I in Europe. But there wasn’t enough learning, so then there was World War II. And that’s how the UN was born, right? The League of Nations was born after World War I, and that was not quite enough. Slowly, slowly, the world is making progress. It may not look that way from the news, but actually the numbers of wars and the numbers of people killed in wars have been gradually decreasing for the last fifty years. There have been some ups here and there, which are very serious, but there has been a slow learning process.
A century ago, war was glorious and people celebrated. For example, in Paris in August 1914, all the women wished the soldiers, “It’s going to be a glorious success,” and sent them off. Since then, we’ve learned that war is a terrible thing; no one wins and, in the end, everyone loses. You know, even one of the most powerful countries in the world, the United States, was not able to win in Afghanistan, against the comparatively small force of the Taliban. They had to leave. It’s just one more example that war does not work. That’s why we need negotiation.
To be continued.
Thanks to our partner, the Spirit of Humanity Forum, for facilitating this interview.
Interview by CLARA KESSOUS
William Ury
