Chapter Nine | Defining Issues and Setting an Agenda Negotiation and mediation ate problemselving processes, but they are also, at least potentially, opportunites for establishing, desin- ing. building, or terminating relationships. Both the problem- sobing and the relatonship-defining aspects of mediation occur Inthe context of discussing istes and interests that may be sub- ‘tantive, procedural. o psjcholegical in aatuce rally help mediator if early in the negotiations, some {nota of the key sstes or topics to be addressed are cen tified, so thatthe partes and the intermediary can develop an ef fective process for discusing thers. If partiesare to move toward a settlement of their dillerences, they must shift peocedrally from contention to cooperative ine Duilding a mutually accep can help ther achieve this goal. The three critical tasks negotators and medis- tors must aceomplish in this stage are to (1) identify road topic areas of concern tote parties (2) agree on the subtopis or ses rat wil be discussed, and (3) determine the sequence for discus sion of the tepies oe asues. Coordinated setiviy by negotiators at this point in the process does not mean that they agree substae es, Coordination relers solely to an agreement on the procedare hat will he ed to hanille 3 topic area or particular istes, ‘Syeral variables influence how sapidly and Ino easly th ‘sage in negotiations can be dealt wit: * The number d complexity of sues involved Desnive teams ave Seems: a Acro 233 ‘The neyoulato1s’ understanding ofthe conte’ subst The clarity of presentation by the parties ofeach top or ise ‘The capaciy of the negotiators to Fecognize a distinct topic area or issue when itis presented *+ The extent of parties! power to persuade other negotiators to accept topic orisue for inclusion on the agencls ‘The degree of psichological or other resistance to collabora. tion exhibited by one oF more parti ‘Mediators who enter a dispute before topics and isues have been identified and the agenda hasbeen drawn up ean help the partis complete these tasks. At this sage, the mediator and the negotia {ots have similar procedural goals. ‘TOPIC AREAS AND ISSUES 1 of ueyotiaton varies considerably interme of the de agree of specificity or coneepaal definition of topics under divens sion. For example, ina community dispute between a group of neighbors and a social service organization that plans to ste a health clinic for low-income clients in the group's midldle-lass neighborhood, the partes may have some coneeptnal boundavies for dhe dispute, The neighbors, who oppose sting the cine i the nneighbortiood, might define the boundaries af the discussion as being whether the fatty should be sited there atall, what the pro- ‘cess for decision making will be, and how theie voices ean be heard and respected by those in power who will ultimately decide the {question. The clini staff on the other hand, are probably not con cerned with discussing ‘wheter the facility should be sited in the neighborhood. They want to discs ha i hhow to lower the resistance they are encountering, how to be to provide services toa clientele in need (and make other com- munity members see this need), and how te establish a positive 1e- onship with the neighbors ofthe clinic that wll enable them 1 carry out their medical goals. Ifa representative of exch group Were asked t0 identi what the context and range ofthe neyoti- tions should be, each would answer differently. The neigh234 Tne Mepesnow Process spokesperson would cite a general topic area: whether the clinic should be built. The representative of the clini staff however, ‘woul foeus the discussion om sues relate to haw the clinic cove De located in the neighborhooe, with community concerns and in terest taken into conseration Te degree of specificity of topic areas or ses that the partis ‘want to discuss ares f course, fm spate 6 dispute, Same con. flicts begin with a diagreement over a panicular point and then move free level of contention, whereas otiers begin with very general opis of disagreementand aradually become more specific. More will be sci abit these to ‘dynamics in Chapter Eleven, when we consider what problem: solving tecinique should be applied w handle «disput ‘Aside from the level of spectiiy of the dispute, second kind ‘of distinction ean fintereat based) especificlawe toa more ge mail? sues can be classified a1 consensual nd cssensual (rale-based; Aubert, 1963), Consensual or Interest-Based Contlict ‘Confit of interest ustally ext in conditions of perceved or 2¢- tual scarcity in which one or nore partes believe that gains for one party may mean a loss for another. Conflicts of interest ace often Feferred 10 as “competiive cooperation,” in tha the dspusant are collaborating to compete for potentially the sume set of benelits, Because there are that party may have ina dspuce, there soften great laude in Wading Satistaction of one se of interests for another so that all parties ci teach and accept asettleme Dissensual or Value-Based Conflict In concrast to conflicts of interest in which a consennas exists ‘ween parties about competition for the desired end resi, Of ‘which enough differing interests exit to failitaue a trading pe to minimize loss on all sides, sensual conflict are based on ferencesin values. Value disputes focus on sueh isues as gull innocence, wat norms should prevall in asocal relationship. fats should be considered valid, what belief are correct, wha iswhat, and what principles should guide dec . ‘over whether to build shelter for the homeless in a mid rime awAcenmn 235 neighborhood, whether to cut down an irreplaceable of groveth forest, whether divoreing parents should invite ness lovers aver ‘when the children live at home, or whether a party should be pun- ished for committing a thett (as opposed to being compelled 19 rake resination) are generally dispates over vas. Values disputes are extremely difficult to resolve, and rmedtaries are usually very careful wen working with dem We sure that their actions do not increase the parties intransigence and adherence to hardline postions, More will be sid about how {o manage these dificlt conliets in Chapter Fitee, IDENTLEYING AND FRAMING ISSUES In the proces of defining the parameters of a dispute, the partes and the mediator engage ina preliminary definition af topic teas and ines that wil he the focus of future negotiations. This process has been referred t0 variously as ramng or reaming (Wateewck, 1978: Maver, 2000), characterising (Saulberg, 18813), reconccpual ing; oF mefning (Bouiding, 1063; Sawyer and Gvetzhow, 1968) the Issues in dispute. Before exploring the moves of framing 0 framing 2 suation. 1 wll brellyexplan how partes arive at their Sewpoint of the conti. Each disputant comes w dhe confi: wht his or her own ind \icual and sbjectve picture of what issues arein dispute and what the basis of confliet is (Rerger and Luckmana, 1967). Watzla- ick (1978, p. 118) describes the individual's condition: "Let us = -nvember: We never deal with reality rs, ut rather with znages of twalig—that is, with interpretations, though the rnimber of po- {entialy posible interprettions is very large, our world image u- ‘one—and this one therefore appeats 0 be the only posible, resemble, permitted view. Furthermore, sis ‘one interpretation also stggests only one powible,reasorable, and pemitied solution, Framing is summed up in the familia saying about the dfer- ence between an optimist and a pessimist: “The optimist says of bottle dha eis hall fall; dhe pessimist sees i as half empty. The same hoitle and the sime quantity of wine—in other words, the same firstorderreality—but two very diferent world images, ‘creating ovo very different (seconsorder) reales” (Watzlawick, 1978, 119)235 Ter Munaow Peocess More in ine with ous focus is the clase cspute in child ene ted over which parent wil rcsive legal custody ofa child. Both parents want to ensure that dey wil have high level of involve ‘ment in their ches if. They and in many cases the judicial sy tem, aften define the resolution procedure asa court decision determining wh can legally poms the child, There arc, however, alternative vays that these parent-parent and parentehikd rela tionships can be framed I, for example, the struggle over legal cestody is defined in terms of maximizing the parentehild rela Lonship, and the concept of legal custody or ownership of the child's relramed in cers of parental rights and responsibilities tovard their offspring, te bipolarstrggle with only a witlexe cat come is ransformed intoa more complex ae with maliple var ables that may be uaded oi one against another (Haynes, 1981 1880). By reframing how a dispute is seen and defined by the parties, the parties and the mediator can open the door to more collaborative and muwally ssfctoryslstions. For example, in the Singson-Whittamore ease, Singson may frame the problemas “how tb enforce the terms ofthe contract dispute thus: “What i the least amount of compensation | must ay fo the clinic that will enable me to practice medicine in the town where my children live?" The meciator, afer exploring the issues ancl imerests with the pasties, ight ssst them in reframe ing the problem in several wa): “How can the clinic and Dr. Whit amore have a mutually beneficial future relationship?” or “IE compensation isto be paid so that Whittamore can stay in to hhow might fair and objective stanclaris be klentifed that coud guide this calculation?” oc "Are there ways that allow Whitman toachieve the separation and distance he want fom his wife, yok ‘continue a working relationship with Use clinic?” VARIABLES IN FRAMING AND REFRAMING ISSUES When negotiators fame issues ina way that wil fal tave pr tie problem solving, the meetiator may be merely an interested terver. However, some disputes ecome dexdlocked bee Aisputanss have notdaeovered a mutually acceptable defi framing of the Isives that will allow them to cooperate, AU DemnG sts AxD SETMNG AY AGINIA BT point, the mediator’ intervention can be invaluable. ‘The medltor Inay ether frame the intcs before the partis restietdhenscves by 1 particular detniton or may asist che parbiesin reframing theit issues by moring them avay from aa unproductive definition to- ward one that will lea to succesful problem solving. Itshould be noted that and refining, Byekther the partes termeiary, may (and olten does) happen throughout the negoti- ation process ‘When taking the definition ofisues put forth by one or more partes and reffaming kn terms thatate subjectively acceptable ioall éispatants, the mediator should consier (1) the messing or essence of truth that ie contained inthe framing ofa viewpoint, problem, or fc, which mustbe recognized and preserved inthe Fetraming; (2) the level of reframing needed; (3) the potential ced for reframing issues positions. and interest (4) techniques for reframing valuecelated ies, () the explicknes and tring of ‘rang; and (6) the appropriate language or syntax used in = defining the situation, Reframing and Meaning very framing of a conflict station, problem. issue, postion, or interest has some kemel of the truth 3 the advocating pay secs it “Even in the most hostile, negative presentation of en isc, there is information about a person's concems an attitudes that «can be useful in moving the resolution process forward. Silay even in the most callaborativesounding presentations, there are challenges to be faced in clarifying anv acdresing key concer” (Mayer, 2000, p. 113). The essence of reiraming, whether bya party or medistor, isto clarly and uncover the exwence af the meaning, needs, interes, oF concerns from aa sinprodsctive fam ing and present icin a new way so that ic ca be more etsy ade «reseed and handed bythe partis. Levels of Framing Mayer (2000) nows that the iteaton,definienal, framing refers ‘ea, oF prop e are three levels of reframing: deter \d metphorial reframing, Detoxification anging the verbal presentation ofa comment, to remove toxic juegmental, derogatory, and238 Tur Mrpisnon Peocass negative ataibutions, negative emotions, o extreme positions. This bflen means changing wording or syitas, Reframing toni lan squage to make itore neutral while ill maintaining the essence Df feelings or undesying interests or need can help both the pre- Seatcr of Uae inital framing and its recipient get past the strong emotions or perceived negative language that may inhibit further discussions. Let's look at reframe of toxic emotional language ‘The frst pary say of another, ‘You must be a moron to consider that kind of solution. Itwould have been acceptable wenty years ago, but times have changed. We have been damaged and ground down by your foolishness for year!” The reframe might he, "Vou ‘youl like to consider a wider range of solutions dha the one that has been propesed because the exvumstances that yow ae nov fe sng are different than in the past. and the pastimpact on you may alan need to be iclored in? Definition reframing refers to changing the conceptsaira: tion ofa coniliet or situation to make iteaser to conduct collabo- rative problem selsing. This may invohe defining the problem in 4 way tht all parties ean subicribe to, For example, in a debtor credltor dispute a bank, represented by Ms, Ross, may define the problem as "yetting paid back the fll amount due now, o fore closure wil follow” A Farmer, Mr Brubale, who owes the creditor may define the problem as “how to get the creditor off my hack, anil keep on farraing on the land that has been in my family for three generations.” Neither ofthese frames vill probably be a ceptable o the other. The mediator, ater carefully examining the tunderhying interests of the pasties right velrame the probe in this way: "What we are looking for is 4 way that the bank ean be paid back the money it has loaned and not have to get into land ‘ownership, which isnotits primary business and at the same sme tryto find ways oscedle the repayment ofthe loan in away ttt epaymentis possible, and make the farm a viable operation $0 that Mr. Bniaker can continue the family tradition and presen his ifessle." The reframe, which isako a joint problem soli statement, redefines the problem thatthe partes sre working, ina joint acceptable vas Meraphorie reframing “attempts to Bnd a new or alters metaphor for describing the station or concept ns igi the way in which its Vewed. Sometimes this means find Dement i Sern 1N Nernon 239 ‘aphor thatall parties can use oF ansating one party's meta hor into « metaphor recognized by the other pats” (Mayer, 2000, . 136). For example, negotiation is described by one party 263 ‘competitive “game” in which participants are cither a jerk or & sucker and no negotiator wants to bea sicker” The other party described negotiations as being dropped into an ecean without 2 Ife jacket, with the potential for going avn and drown Ing at chese wo apparently contradictory metaphos, the media {or might reframe the problem in this way “Survival is important ‘oyou both. Nether of yon wants ta be taken advantage af hy the ‘other and love. erhape we need to imagine tiseiuation as bath ‘ot you being in a boat that is leaking. tn order to survive, You vil need both of your strengths to bail This not an game or isue of. ‘who isa jerk ora sucker, bat how you wil both be survivors and come ou of this conilict in the best shape posible.” The rea iets of both of the parties metaphors and trans- > a new joint definition of the problem, Reframing Issues, Positions, and Interests The act of reframing.in self raises some important questions re. {garding the mediators neutral. The gener sumption of me- ddiators when reframing an issue is that they are making such a move “based on some conception (implicit oF explicit) of « more «constructive or desirable reltionship for the original players than, the one that they see themsclves engaging in atthe outset ofthe Iineraction. And inthis context, the terms ‘eonsiructive™ and “de- sirable’ inevitably carry normative content. Be this as t may, me- diators constantly redefine the context of disputes in ways that disputans find t be extremely helpful avoid or overcome im passe" (Young, 1872, p. 39). In general, reframing issues, postions, and interests is easier reframing value conflicts over nich isucs as gu, rights, OF 1 reframing issues, posiions and imeress, meilators often use technique that expands isues to leave the parties more room to bargain or trade, For example, ia lahormanagement dispute, anion and management are bargaining to adeadlock over a wage: The union negotiators must ring to their con- sien some tangible benefits from the negotiations, They have24 “Dar Menanos Process selected slay increases ts their goal. The mealinor can asist the partes in reaming the isue from the problem of wage increase tothe problem of how the union can obtain multiple benefits that its constinents will ce are the result ofthe negotiations. This re- framing of the situation allows the negouator to look for other ‘means of meeting union needs than obtaining an increase in pay. Refrarning postions requires a cuefal asa of position state tpt ford by partes andthe interes underlying and met by those Positions. Sometimes this involves ooking for either broad ‘or narrew interes. Shifting from specific interests to more gen ‘ral ones may widen the numberof stlement options availble. ‘Occasionally, reframing issues and interess in narrower terms sao effective. For example, considera case in which several peo- ple agreed to purchase together plece of property that was to be tise for cooperative housing, Several months alter the purchase, the relaionships among the owners deteriorated and one of the pariners decided that he wanted his money back. However, this ‘would be posible only by revising the Financial contract all the ‘vers hatt agreed en. The inital iste, tated Inthe form of ade- mand, yas “I want my money bach.” The problem asthe dspatans ‘descrped ievas that one perion wanted his money back and was ‘withdlving from the contract, but the others felt that dey could not reimbuise him without seling the property Sale ofthe prop- tnty wa not acceptable tothe other owners. From this ther se tation, the mediator and the partis mutually refeamed the ive into smaller, more manageable subissues How much money? ‘When? In what form? With interes? And so on, The partes were then able to reach agreement on uadeofls for these subisues. Reframing Value-Related Issues ‘Tie diffi in reframing value conflicts avises from the fact tha sui issues have a strong tendency to become bipolar, with one presenting rightand the other wrong. Dispivans place reat is on normative judgments, which often make it dificult Compromise and trade, ean be done wkd iterestzeaied ste Even proposing ch solutions may provoke excalation; Reope will ‘chim that their “ideals are not for with dhe wu” (Aubert, 1663) Drm Kaursinn Sera Acenoa 24 Mediators accomplish identification and sraming of value= based issues n'a numberof was (1) ransating vale disputes ito intrest disputes, (2) identifying superordinate goals or (3) aveid ance: {wil briefly discuss these approsces here and elaborate on ‘number of other approaches in Chapter Fifteen when exatrin- ng strategies for specific kinds of problems Pure distonsisin conflicts over values and facts is relatively rare, Usually, value dipaes ate mixed dispute, in that parveipants also have some common interests. Mediators who work vith value dlispatesoten uy to ansate values into interests so that the par ties have more tangible imues For example, ia vue dispute over \who as power or authority can be translated into contlc oer the division of respamsibilities, there are some possibilities for com> promise based on « formula for a fair division In a hypothetical ase, ovo employees are Fal for promotion in their onganzation There is only one position available at the next grade above their current rank. Roth employees want dhe job and claim to be the bet ‘er candidate It isin the company’s interest to salty both em ployees, those responsible may explore how the tasks, authority, und statis ofthe job could be divided between the twa equally valifed employees. Thus struggle over who is better becomes ‘hoot as each employee Is rewarded on the bas of interest Ina realli dispute, an association of single-family home- owners was confronting a planning department over constnaction ‘multifamily dwellings on the edge of thei neighborhood. The single-family homeowners charged that the new construction Natld change the neighborhood's ambiance and that it would meain an entire shift in ifstye. On careful examination, Hifi ales were anslated into interes limited ise, no abrupt ra sitions from single-family t multifamily homes, sninimizing the hegitof new construction to preserve views, and maintaining pri vay by avoiding building complexes that overlook tye backjards of singlefamily homes. Civen the interests ofall partes, a mut ally sitshictory development plan was negotiated that met mest of the necds deseribed Avsecond approach to reframing value disputes isto identify Iunyersupevordinate goals with which all partes ean identify (Sherif Anil others, 1961). For example, in «dispute over locating a dam, ne party snay argue that the proposed consiruction site damages242 Tw Mazucnon Froese 1 priaine wildemest aren, whereas the other party argues that i Inds mandate w provide vater w a nearby city and dat Ue dan allows the party to fall contractual ebligations, The mediator looks for a siperordinate goal tojoin the parties in a cooperative ‘effort. A consenais might be obtained on ove points the city nods certain amount of water, and the wilderness to be protected. The parties ean then participate in a joint search for potential sources of water The third strategy for managing vahic-based issues f to aod Jdentilving or responding to them direct orto reframe the sin tion so that partoe agree to disagree, Becase iis dificult to medi ate gullor Innocence, ightor wrong, respect or lick of respect, and ‘0.0n, the mediator may want to avokd these questions entirely and {eens only on the componenis that ean he tamed toward interest based bargaining. I enough issues can be sole wit interestbased Dargaining, the importance of value diferences may fade and be dropped froma ist of demands or topics for discussion, Explicit-Implicit Reframiag and Timing “To resahe disputes aver interests or valtes, parties must often be explicit about the copie areas that divide ther. The degrec of ex plicitness, however, may vary overtime because of the dynamics of the negotiation proces itselfor the consciousstrategies ofthe ne- igotinton or the mediator The medistor should menage the da {ng of ste identification so that dhe parties wil be most recepiive tothe wayaan sue is framed. Parties ae often vague atthe start of negotiations about the specficr of have in dipnte, Only through ‘4 proces of discusion anil mutta education can dhe parte jointly {efine tnd make explicit the concrete ites that must be resold ‘One parry wil often precisely name an issue, ony to have other pary repeatedly reject it Afcr several rounds of proposal reection and exploration, che parties may finally beable to agree todiscus the sue. The final framing of the issues by the parte or reframing by th acterizaons. The {uming and the psychological readines of the parties to accept definition of the stvation, This psychological shift often ae afer dilegue oF when the neutral intervenor sites the fal Desnanctsuis nw Sen AN AGENDA 245 ‘Thece is research evidence that parties are often willing and able tolicar and acceptstatements worded by the meduor when they are notable to hearer accept an idential statement from another ddisputant (Rabin and Brown, 1975) Appropriate Language nereininog pol neeks w be ermced regula thc aning oises the medaters language: Dupuis hen wc language thatlsfodga cil postions nod bined unard nei mje in Pee share aoe rian ofthe dpe ino note tial es wo enew Bam penton vind juagment. This when one party sayy, “That ft stb has feeds ey oo area eee eee ee aie a vod erecee Cate eee ae ‘hat you feels due wo you according tote terms of your rental agrezmentwith Mr Broa” ln ths cc the jigental aatement pecieeeea ta eter el iene eee eee fare Tet eee Ra cee ‘ion ard his ned forreimbursement. This sterall vat con- Serres ean emerged ee eee aero eo on is chavacter but on tke landlords noe tobe pad Inentiving and famingkstex medaion shoul be cael i senna are EE oie de no makes one party Bameworty. Teal, tbe edi shovld depersnalrfstesand put them outside the relationship (Peeters ammenities 1 snore Ojecine manner (Filo, 1975) Sauberg 181a) ox ha Inedton should take great ce toaold “ener words or ate Sete ate eee eee Fagard ate vis nee corte eee sence ream] Tingage,rterring to confisas stations or polonspeitons Bice crim sepa eee erat arise oto Secaeie ba eter FE Tere are kines, however nen early neutral terminclogy Na ates cco partie language fer exeAL Tee tonto Proce the mediator may calla caucus to discuss the problem of issue Sdendfcation. The mediator may we language mors bi the interes or values of the particular partyin the cateus to it fluence that party's decision making. He or she may use the same terminology, syntax, and emotion atthe party to promote ident feation between party and mediator, thereby ea agreement on disputed isis. However ‘are that the way they speak in a eaves inet drasialy different from the way they speak in joint session. Other ive, pain may be ‘confused or feel double-crossed by the shift to mere neutral kn suige when they return to cd tomar DETERMINING AN AGENDA mediator designs helove negotiations 2 discsed fn Chapter Si, ‘raf. whieh new information isadded from the opening statements of the parties. The negotiating agenda thar disputanteuldimaiely follow should be develeped and approved by the parties alone, by the partis in coajantion with the mediator, or by the mediator alone (with the consent of the partes). Once sues have been identified, they must he placed in an order for discussion. “There are at leat cight approaches to agenda dexelopmentin neyosiations: (1) ad hoc, (2) simple agenda (3) alternation of i sues, (1) inking by importance, () principled agenda, (6) “as. fer item firs.” (7) building biock or contingent tradeolls or packaging. The agenda ‘Ad Hoc Development With ad hor sequencing, ane party proposes thatthe negovistord sliscussan item, the other patty or partes coneity aud the ie {is eiscusec in it entirety unt a conctusion has been reached. 1 partis then muzuallyagree on anche item, and the process i peated. The partes more through al items inthis manner, ‘model allows flexibility but also permis and opens the possibil of manipulation by partes for placement of agenda items at ticularly opportune moments that are in one or anothers fi Dern ss as Sve a8 AceOA Simple Agenda In the simpleagenca method, issues for negotiation are taken one sta time, in an order prescribed by one or more partes. (Cener ally the party proposing the agenda has sequenced the items ina ‘manner that wil Beadvancageous to achieving benef for himself for hersel) Typically, each iste i addres and setled separately Guiliver (1979) notes that slehough this may commonly ue ceed for decision making in committees and conferences, Lean rarely workin negotations."The chief reason is that it atterpesto ignore the extent problems of mul ple criteria that fasues are ft interconnected in the social life of negotiations and that i any event, they are necessarily interconnected within the specific context of the negotiations in progres, Parties are aware ofthis cad are unviling to forfeic acrantages tat ight be gained by get tung better terms on one issue through concession (or refusal of it) on another. They wish to explore interconnections rigilty of xed agencia onder ple agencia approach encourages stalling and manip- lative tactics inorder to gain leverage on iter that will come up, later on the agenda. Gulliver notes that this procedure tends to subvert the ovdering almost immediate Alternation of Issues A third model for agenda construction ithe alternatingissue ap- proach. In thismethod, the parties alternate in chonsing the top season. Thi structural solution allows dhe pais to procecd ‘nd often inhibits evelopment of deadlocks. Gulliver (1979) says that this process rarely works forlong, however, heealse one or rote parties invariably insist on breaking the order Ranking by Importance ‘A fourth mde! of senda design forthe partes pick the one 1-049 iems that both consider of greatest importance and place them a the bead of the agenda (Culler 179). The semption In tha if hey ean agrce on thee ea the hess important ems245 Tar Mnaion Procass wil follow suit This procedure depends of couse on the ability of Inte partes to agree on the mos imporiant issues and the order in Ishich they vill be addressed. There is evidence that this approach is best used when no daims or counterclaims are made oF n0 of Fense has been alleged, as when partiesare attempting to establish 2 new relationship where only limited one has existed before, Principled Agenda \ fifth approach is to define isues ia werms of principles or general levels of agreement that wil guide the decisions on specific items, The parties jointly establish the principles and then work ut in de- til how these principles will be applied on speciie agenda items [Fisher and Ury, 1981). For example, in negotiations beeen tele- phone companies, a public utilities commision, and consumer ‘groups over access charges on interstate phone lines, all parties agreed thatthe universal telephene service, which would provide accesso telephone service all people regurdless of their income, should be maintained. This agreentent in principle became the basis for an agenda item in which the negotiators would discuss how universal service could be financed, The procedure works only under conilions ia whieh the pat= ies are willing and able 0 negotiate ata high level of generalize tion or abstretion, and in which they are wiling to defer decision, making on minor issues uni later, This process of approaching nexotiation agenda will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Fleven, Basicr Items First” Asin merbod of agenda formation i 1 identify issues on whieh the paties will most likely each ayreementand tha wil probably not take long to cscuss and settle. These sues are often sally seltcontaned, less emotion-tadea, and not symbolic in compat son with othe topics thai might be discussed. Some of these ple items ay he placed tthe beginning ofthe agenda and other flternated with more difical em to (1) ensure agreement spine issues early in negotiations (2) promote a habit of age ment; (3) create a numberof agreements that dhe partes will Dswons sues ax Sern Ax Acton 247 reluctant to love a the result of an impasse later on; and (4) pro duce agenda items that can be deferred, traded, oF dropped, after they have been ditcuswed, asa demonstration of gond faith ‘Naturally, this strategy is contingent on the sili of the partes tomutaalyidentily simple ssues, This is usually accomplished by tealand error. oe the medtator may ask parties to identify sues on ‘which they fec! ready agreement may be achieved with ltde effort Building-Block or Contingent Agenda A seventh method of agenda construction is the building-block ap- proach, In this process, a pany or parties identify which agree- ments must be made first because the issues involved lay the {groundwork of foundation forlarer decisions. Agenda sequencing, fepende cn which agreements are contingent on previous ones, ‘Contingency may be based on principles, time, payment schedals, and so on, This approach, although fairly complicated and de pendent on a high degree of party coordination, does prevent {cadlocks that would be det incorrect sequencing of fsues. It ‘willbe discussed in more derail in Chapter leven. ‘Trade-Offs o Packaging The final approach to agencl formation is ssne trading or package ing: Paris in dispute are sometimes reluctant to scte agenda items ‘ome ata time for feat that Uiey wll se leverage on one tem if they hve seed another one eather. Toavoid this problem, parties may ‘vant to link and formulate combinations of nace for discussion This mears that they negotiate a number of issues simultaneously Satifaetion of intereats may later he traded in such a way ccquivilence of exchange is attained Packaging a propesal containing multipletssue solutions advantages as an agenda-forming tool: it demonstrates a wil hess to tail satfaction of ives and interests and meet the of partys needs; t may indkice an opponent co generate alternative ppuckages: it demonstrates that some concessions are possible if they ine inked wth specific gains and it can eliminate some ofthe dif ficult, at least for one party? of producing settlement options for Individual or a combination of sues, However package does“THE MninoN Paocrss Doane tstrs an Sermyc av Actsna 246 Ihave deswbacks nay ay be seen asa way of forcing an unnavorable settlement or denying party the chance to ropresetement building. Away to ircunvent these drawback {Present a serie of sll packages for consideration thee see ag, ss comprehensive and are les likely to produce vexiwance as asked to intervene in a university graduate department of porchology that was expericneing sigaficant turmoll.‘The chait ‘of the department had been removed aftera conflict herween fae llty members, ancl now factions within the department were sao ‘aging each other and rendering decision making impossible. ks and assignments would be delegated to a faculty member, and when he or she did what was assigned the results would be se jected, passively resistd, or publicly citized by other deparunent embers lwasasked bythe acting char and a number of his colleagues to conductinterviews with al he parties, assess thele willingness ‘o tlk about departmental problems, developa proposed agenda, iid convene a meeting toaddessidentiied problems, After hold. ing numerous individual sessions with the parties, [convened a meeting. began by reporting back on the interviews and propos ‘nan agenda that incorporated the topics that the parties had specifically identified as necding to be discussed. The group in ‘:iately balked at the proposal and announced that they wer hot ready to talk about these fsies,exen though they hemches Inne suggested the isues and had individually approved the ‘agenda. I thought I recognized a pattern that many prople ide tied in the interviews, but I decided not to oppose thelr rey nce. I choseinstead to re the horse in the ditection that ke was ioing and asked them what they wanted to do, Finally, one person sil thatshe would lke to spend the nexe hour just “talking about our flings.” Although this approach ould have represented avoidance af issues, recognized that many bf the departments members vere clinical pechologist, and what they wanted, a less intaly, was an approach ioagenda develop. iment that was probably more akin 19 group therapy sesson than I problemsolsing mediation—that i, they wanted to be “in thelr fulture” with their dispute, working on feelings frst and insights risus lates greed wo facilitate the meeting bat suggested that they migh follow some ground rules, euch ss talking only about their own flings and net ateibuting mexives or atacking other, hey agreed, and we proceeded. During the hour that they talked, I recorded some of theit Aelings and relaied iksues and interests om aflipehary, and at the PROCEDURAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE MEDIATOR Allo these agenda development ts can be nated by one or mare lpn pais rte neato Becane eae ‘Rent onan agenda requites coordination eteeen ne the may note able achieve mn therown, heehee bed to sages a procedure that in hiss hes ini a oy flint rescludon of dgreement over Ore Coen Salas, or sequencing. d the pares arc moving oward a procedtte for agenda for Jamon ths the nedlator fects wil ae mpeodectnc eo should iter suggest an akermtne metal aan is it superioiy ovr the one cseny the panes on allowing the puesto nepoiate and reach an espe tne sevice Selecting the inter suey mst be ceca ed gz the potential damage the pate eto ea ef reach procedil agreement one gece 1 isimportnt that he mea, n malay suggestions boy theaenda, old beng preted stern pei Szuene on the paties (Fach, WeaKan, sa eel isee a $ttaon canon reins a eedy dearer more dispute ressance, and les effete ce ran CULTURAL APPROACHES derpecailing culture may significant inflence the proces defining issues and sewing an agenda; Itisimportant ron nnsciary te develop procedures in these two arene thet te {tara appropriate andacceprble othe paren none Iced a rapid dhitin process was neceseuy wadape ay ‘hic professional eulure ofthe parties250 Tw Minsnon Poca conclusion of ths phase ofthe meeting they asked me to sumina- Fiz. [related the history ofthe conflict a a gronp story and oat lined how it made diferent people fee! the saues that trained and some of the interests that would have o be addressed 10 re. solve past hurts and move ahead to future tasks and better rel. tionships, The group affirmed the summary and agreed to move stead to problem solving on the iues Byseting into the group's culture and using its familiar norms and procedures, we were able o develop a more acceptable agenda, define issues our ofa dacassion of past pain and jointly move for ‘ward to both problem solving ann cleating dhe alt for potentially ‘ore positive relasonships. “There are a number of cultural variations in iste identifica tion and agenda development, Some cultures —ruch as a number of uaditional Naive American, Fist Nain, New Zealand Mart, and other aboriginal tribes or bands—often ele ssues through Sorstelling a respected party tells the history f the problem and of the people involved almost in the manner of rating a legend br odyssey. The sites and interests are encapsitiated inthe tale being to, ‘Members of incireetlesing cultres, or those that try to avoid overt disagreement or conflict, enifyiaues and set agendas in variety of wavs. Some Asian cultures that are not drecteealing do not wanto identify conflict issues at al but wll alk ery obliquely and in circalar manner ahout“ilficulies” or inconveniences.” Lederach (1988) also noted this indicectness in Conta Rican die Pptants; the parties used the words nasandl edangementsto dese be ‘sus, problems, orconiics (the term confi being reserved for vi lent physical confrontations). Members ef other indirect dealing cultures alk about conflict in terms of metaphors or attempt to di tance themselves [rom the problem by talking about the people i solved in the third person. Yer other indirect-dealing partes, whe highly value the presenation of relationships and face, prefer te tlh frseabouta valery of issues that are not confliceretated, especialy ‘ones that may affirm the partes’ pas and future relationships an only gradually approuch areas of diagreement Fasyand lst eo tentious issues are dealt with intially; only later after some good feelings have been created and progress made on simpler prob: Jems, are harder issues tackled, Drm sos a Stemne ax Aceans 251 Direceeatng cultures may identify isucs and set agendas in a variety of ways, among them linear apd explicit presentations, brainstorming (identifying an listing issues withoutimmediately using or evaluating them), enumerating all topics for diseus sion on a handout distributed to all parties, listing issues on ‘wallchari, making specific proposals or advocating specific solu tions rather than identifying asaes,and proposing principles be- fore hdendiying specific topes for season, Medlators working within one culture need to develop iss idenifcation and agendasetting procedaresthatare culturally ac epable,and when working across culaures should help coordinate tiferent and often somewhat incempatble approaches There are A number of ways to aecomplish this + Being familiar with the approaches commonly uted in the par- tes eu Interpreting and explaining 10 other partes the rationale for the diverse approaches to genda development that are being wed + Listening carefully tothe partes and ariewating ses ane concerns in ways tha respect sensitivity to overt disagreement fand norms regarding expliitness 1g et sues from stories and making them more ex inl then suggesting ways co discuss them. tng discussions on hw issues wil be identified and agendas developed