Program on Negotiation: Webinar with Dr. Dan Shapiro.
“Tempers were running about this high”
On June 18th, 2020, I attended the webinar “Ahhhhh! How to Negotiate the Nonnegotiable” with Dr. Dan Shapiro (Associate Professor of Psychology at Harvard, Founder and Director of the Harvard International Negotiation Program). The webinar was a part of the “Live from PON” series put on by the Harvard Law School’s Program on Negotiation. Dr. Shapiro’s comments had relevance for several domains in my professional and personal lives, and I am indebted to Dr. Judy Bundra of the Cleveland Institute of Music for connecting me with this resource.
Dr. Shapiro’s talk was focused on overcoming the “tribal mindset,” however, his discussion of Complex Conflicts later in the session placed his comments within the larger context of negotiation. Essentially, complex conflicts involve three domains:
The Rational Domain, in which negotiators look below the conflicting positions to their underlying interests in order to craft new solutions. This is the approach described in Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury.
The Emotional Domain, in which negotiators look to issues of saving face and respecting status. This approach is described in Beyond Reason by Dr. Shapiro and Roger Fisher, which identifies a Core Concerns Framework including five basic human motivations (appreciation, autonomy, affiliation, status, and role).
The Individual Domain, in which negotiators look to issues of salient social identity as a source of togetherness and/or divisiveness. This approach is described in Dr. Shapiro’s Negotiating the Nonnegotiable.
Dr. Shapiro’s remarks concerned the third domain, and outlined strategies for achieving a “civic mindset.” Such a mindset is based on the social identity of the whole community; he was careful to explain that he was not thinking in terms of a “civil” mindset, as in his mind, too much respect made for too much inhibition. Along similar lines, he also rejected the idea of “safe” spaces in favor of “brave” spaces, in which participants were encouraged to take risks, to talk about things traditionally considered off-limits. He compared such restricted topics to deeper patterns in a marriage, which, if not addressed, would lead to endless repetition of the same arguments.
The substance of his talk concerned his work with Relational Identity Theory with a focus on five emotional forces that led to a tribal mindset, and how to mitigate them. He characterized the tribal mindset as adversarial (us vs. them), self-righteous (I am reasonable, you are crazy), and insular (my job is to defend my position), and the five emotional forces that led to it as vertigo, repetition compulsion, taboos, assaults on the sacred, and identity politics.
Dr. Shapiro defined vertigo in this context as thinking defined by emotion. He characterized it as reactive, subjective, and myopic, and advised that we shut it down before it consumed us. To do this, he recommended being aware of it and calling it out; take a deep breath, he advised, and ask yourself, “do I really want to go there?”
Repetition compulsion is our tendency to repeat the same, dysfunctional patterns. To illustrate this, Dr. Shapiro cited Spike Lee’s 1989 film Do the Right Thing, in which opposing communities replay inherited patterns of racism and violence. Furthermore, he pointed out, in the thirty-one years since the film was made, we have continued to play out these patterns, most recently in the killings of George Floyd and Rayshard Brooks. While change frequently feels uncomfortable, Dr. Shapiro acknowledged, it is crucial to resist repetition compulsion as soon as we feel it.
Taboos are simply that: societal prohibitions on speech or behavior. Dr. Shapiro stressed the importance of being aware of taboos in the social sphere of the negotiation, and discussing the reasons for them and the potential liabilities of holding them.
Assaults on the Sacred are similarly self-explanatory: “things imbued with divine significance.” Dr. Shapiro commented that, in the current climate, even political party affiliation had taken on sacred status, and that slandering these institutions or affiliations effectively shut down all discussion.
While the last two forces might seem obvious, I believe that Dr. Shapiro’s intention was to remind us to be aware that we don’t necessarily share taboos or conceptions of the sacred, and indeed, it is much more difficult to appreciate others’ perspectives than it seems.
Finally, he defined identity politics as an inherently neutral force for enhancing the salience of social identity. While all of are certainly familiar with its use as an intentional tool for division (us vs. them), Dr, Shapiro challenged us to use the concept of “we” to unite the whole community. As an example, he cited Nelson Mandela, who, instead of seeking retribution for his mistreatment at the hands of the Apartheid government, instead pursued ubuntu, the “spirit of togetherness.” Indeed a concept that has been translated as “I am because we are” serves as an effective model for salient social identity.
Dr. Shapiro summarized the substance of his talk with a series of slogans:
Stop Vertigo.
Resist Repetition Compulsion
Discuss Taboos
Respect the Sacred
Use Identity Politics to Unify
Several useful ideas came out of the discussion that followed. I was particularly attracted to the idea of “flattening leadership” into a more egalitarian model (surprise, surprise!), and his recommendations for strategically building coalitions (Who are the dominant stakeholders? Who should be approached first?) and building relationships with sympathetic power-holders were well made. Finally, I was inspired by the vision of problem-solving processes in which everyone could play a role, governed by mutually agreed-upon guidelines to ensure equity and fairness. Certainly, this was also a prominent theme of the CMS/Carolina Summit 2.0, but it bears repeating. I hope to be more intentional about creating cultures of positive collaboration in all of the domains I inhabit.