A Middle Eastern patriarch on his deathbed bequeathed 17 camels to his three sons. He willed the inheritance be divided to the order of 1/2 to the eldest, 1/3rd entitled to the middle son and 1/9th to the youngest. Since prescriptive laws of mathematics prohibits dividing an odd number into whole parts, and many a war had been fought in history over estate, the three brothers soon found themselves in a quandary, heated confrontations ensued, swords drawn and was on the verge of spilling blood. The eldest one, more pragmatic and composed among the three, suggested to seek the counsel of a sage who lived as hermit in a cave, outskirts of the city. The hermit was summoned and after pondering over the catch-22 situation, proffered the following solution to the recalcitrant brothers. He averred,

“Though I’m a bit perplexed as how to resolve this impasse, I offer gladly my only camel if that would be helpful to dissipate the tensions”.

The brothers nodded in agreement and went on their business immediately to partition their deceased fathers will, the total camels now numbered at 18. So, the eldest son got 9 camels (1/2 x 18), the middle one received 6 camels (1/3 x 18) and last one got 2 (1/9 x 18). The total camels after the amicable settlement stood at 17 (9+6+2) with one remaining. The wise sage intervened and demanded that he keep the one remaining as remuneration for his arbitration, for which the delighted brothers readily agreed. The wise man rode off on his camel into the sunset.

The aforementioned story in all probability is fictitious but the intellectual insights and moral trajectory it provides for conflict resolution and negotiation are timeless. Human beings, unbeknownst from childhood are engaged in persuasion and negotiation almost naturally and spend most part of their routine lives trying to convince others and advancing their interests to accomplish their needs, wants, desires and goals. A child negotiating his playtime with his parents in exchange for diligently completing his homework, a kid persuading her father to buy candies at a store rolling her eyes with an adorable smile and soft inflection of voice, to multi-million-dollar negotiations in complex enterprise sales to surcharged boardroom meetings to high-stake hostage negotiations all have one thing in common- to achieve pre-determined favorable outcomes.

But humans are also condemned to REACT overwhelmingly most of the time than RESPOND since we are carriers of the evolutionary vestiges of ‘fight or flee’ impulses at the slightest pretext of danger and provocation. To react is to forfeit rationality and judgement but to respond involves analytical thought process. Reaction is instinctive and fast, whereas response is slow and contemplative aided by information and scrutiny. Reactions incited by ‘adrenaline rushes’ unfailingly estrange relationships. An intellectual revolution is long overdue conditioning our minds for judicious responses.  A refinement of human emotional quotient is the key to conflict avoidance. The single greatest obstacle in getting what you want is YOU-the man in the mirror. And the greatest power you have is not to react.    

Daniel Kahneman, the eminent psychologist and noble laureate differentiated these two aspects of our mind as System I and System II, in his magnum opus ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’. The dominance of either of the two systems in us turn governs our beliefs, color perceptions, forms character and create our individualistic worldview. It can be illustrated by an example of how the two mind works when we are tasked with multiplication of numbers. If we are asked to multiply 10 x 2, the answer is almost instantaneous and effortless, but if the numbers are changed to 49 x 28, the System II mind kicks in with detailed process of multiplication, recalling the sequential steps from primary school, stored in that part of the brain known as Associative Memory to derive the solution. System II is slow and methodical and therefore its domain is acquired skills, gained over protracted periods of time through mastering repetitive tasks.

While System I is useful to avert danger and aids in self-preservation – to swerve the car to avoid collision, to retract the hand when one accidentally grips a hot plate handle or close the eyelids and dodge when a fly storms towards the face – it is categorically useless to become skilled professionals like doctors, engineers, lawyers and scientists or to build roads, bridges and skyscrapers. Whenever persuasion and negotiation are warranted for resolving issues in everyday lives and business, only the calm and resolute, data driven and analytical System II delivers a win-win solution. Unfortunately, most people are neither aware of this principle nor have trained their faculties to exercise System II thinking, but fall prey to the mindless, effortless and aggressive System I dynamics. They let loose their primal animal instincts, screaming and abusing. And mayhem results, stalemate grows.

Most people invariably negotiate on their Positions which has become their second nature. Positions are nothing but concrete stances and demands that are often inflexible and obstinate by nature. It is triggered by System I activity of ego and super-ego. Any constructive and productive form of negotiation is to find the underlying Interests – to understand why someone is taking such a position. It is known as ‘Tactical Empathy’. To illustrate this psychological tool by an example, three men were fiercely haggling for a watermelon and no one was prepared to make any concessions until a passerby had the wisdom to ask the magical question “WHY” each needed the watermelon. It turned out that the first one wanted the shell for the Halloween mask, the second one needed the pulp for soup and the third one, just the seeds! When underlying interests converged, a resolution was possible. Therefore, it is crucial for the negotiating parties to ask each other the journalistic questions; who, what, where, when, why and how, to elicit information on their real interests and motivations behind their self-serving positions. Always separate people from positions. Be soft on people but hard on problem. Another Golden Rule is to treat people with respect at all times. Listen intently and it’s the easiest concession you can make as a negotiator and conveys respect. 

If two negotiating parties can’t reach a consensus, it is wise to call in a mediator, which could be their BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Settlement). BATNA simply means what is the next course of action if the negotiation falls apart. It is a plan B or C. Both parties should endeavor to know each other’s BATNA. A BATNA could also mean to do nothing and maintain the Status Quo. An outside arbitrator could shift the negotiation process from adversarial confrontation to cooperative exercise to joint problem solving by offering fresh perspectives. Any stand-off could be resolved through creative solutions that satisfies all camps if they negotiated on principles (interests) rather than positions of adamant egoistic minds. 

A fundamental principle in negotiation and conflict resolution whether in business, professional and personal lives is that you can’t win all deal points. Life is all about give and take. Albert Einstein made the messianic statement, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it”. Know that when you are angry, you will make the best speech that you will ever regret. It is therefore inevitable to search and find that 18th camel. 

About the author : Jaykhosh Chidambaran is an accomplished management professional with over 20 years of diverse industry experience in MNC’s and is currently an EdTech Growth and Strategy Consultant for India & Middle East. He is an alumnus of Chicago Booth School of Business. 

Disclaimer : The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of TAS and TAS does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.