By: Kara L. Lamb, June 18, 2019
Have you ever wondered what, if anything, media management has in common with negotiation? Consider Mike Klis introduction to media for the 2019 Denver Broncos rookies. When describing media relations to the future faces of the Broncos, Klis made three points:
Thinking about Klis’ lessons, the answer to the question about connecting media management and negotiation is pretty simple. In essence, a media interview is a negotiation.
First, a well-conducted media interview is one that acts and feels like a constructive conversation. That conversation includes the first principles of negotiation. You need to know the positions of the parties. You also need to know the interests and concerns behind those positions—especially if you are to facilitate any sort of constructive conversation. Be sure to assess the topic of the media interview in light of the positions and interests of the media representative.
Second, how is the reporter framing the story? As you prepare for the interview think about the media representative’s desired outcome of this conversation. Who has the reporter talked to and what perspectives, or “frames,” from other conversations are you hearing in the reporter’s questions? The information you share with the reporter, in light of these frames of understanding, will set the path for you to transition from the story currently being told to the story you need stakeholders and others to hear. Use this information to build talking points and short, but easy to understand, position statements. Knowing the reporter’s frame is how you prepare for an interview.
Last, mind your manners. Do not be on the defensive. Answer questions clearly and succinctly. Be sure to follow up on questions and clarify confusing statements the reporter might ask. In Mike Klis’ briefing he stressed the importance of not over reacting to what you might perceive as stupid questions. Over reaction will lead you to make statements you will later regret. Instead, acknowledge the reporter’s questions, concerns, and perspectives. And do not be afraid to use your answers to the questions as a way to lead into your own story, perspectives, and concerns. By engaging and packaging your message, you can facilitate the interview so your positions and concerns become part of the conversation.
These basics of negotiation, assessing, preparing, engaging, and packaging messages, are principles that also make for a good guide when interviewing with a reporter. Just as they help the facilitator or negotiator drive the conversation into a positive direction, they help you as the interviewee guide a reporter to the story you need told.
Remember these basics. As a result, your interviews, as well as your other negotiations, will be smoother.
by
Berton Lee Lamb and Susan K. Driver
A few years ago we were involved in a multi-party negotiation that had an interesting dynamic. Two of the parties in this negotiation were allies. Although they supported each other, one of those parties was more moderate. As the process unfolded it became clear that the more extreme party was really only interested in one issue. When that issue was settled the more extreme party stopped attending the negotiation sessions. The moderate party was not prepared for this change, and then struggled when it was perceived by the remaining parties to be extreme. Withdrawal of their ally was an “October Surprise.”
An October Surprise is not really about October; it is about surprises that occur late in a negotiation process. The term October Surprise comes to us from American political campaigns. What campaign managers mean by this term is that you can count on some kind of surprise late in the campaign. In the American election cycle that is October. The surprise might be an event, revelation, or opponent’s action that reflects positively or negatively on a candidate.
A study published in 2015 examined three hydropower licensing cases that were characterized as having high, medium, and low collaboration. The author, Nicola Ulibarri, found that high collaboration resulted in “jointly developed and highly implementable operating regimes designed to improve numerous resources, while low collaboration resulted in operating requirements that ignored environmental concerns raised by stakeholders and lacked implementation provisions” (abstract).
Although Ms Ulibarri’s findings are based on a sample size of three cases, her findings are helpful. She concludes that a “full suite of collaborative dynamics appears necessary” for success (p. 17). This suite includes: trust, principled negotiation, and leadership. Moreover, success depends on “the extent and quality of collaboration.”
Source: Nicola Ulibarri (2015) “Tracing Process to Performance of Collaborative Governance: a comparative Case Study of Federal Hydropower Licensing.” Policy Studies Journal vol 00, No. 0 (Open access article). Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
In a recent article appearing in Policy Science Political Scientists Mark McBeth, Donna Lybecker and James Stoutenborough examined the reasons why negotiators might switch between “personal message choice” and “public communication choice.” They describe public communication choice as a message that takes into account how the audience might best receive it.
These scientists found that 53% of negotiators did not switch their communication choice. In other words, more than half of those studied chose to stick with their preferred narrative.
One important factor suggested by the researchers to explain why negotiators did decide to switch away from their preferred narrative is the recognition that “there was a difference between themselves and the wider public.” Age was another factor. Young people were also found to be more likely to switch. Switching narrative also sometimes appeared to be a strategy choice.
The scientists identified a tension that exists when parties decide whether or not to tailor their message to fit the culture of their audience. When making this decision negotiators must weigh the importance and ethics of discussing options in a language that is culturally sensitive to other groups. Changing the message away from personal preference might promote discussion but tailoring the message to an audience might be an attempt to “sell” a preferred option.
Source: McBeth, Mark K., Donna L. Lybecker, James W. Stoutenborough. 2016. “Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices,” Policy Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s11077-016-9252-2
Here is a quote from a blurb that recently appeared in the International Chamber of Commerce webpage:
“..the benefit of mediation was seen as lying in the mediator’s ability to look beyond the polarised positions of the parties and find middle ground by analysing the parties’ positions and making each reflect on its own and the other’s position.”
Should a mediator analyze the parties’ positions and present the results of that evaluation? If so, when should the mediator do this? Continue reading
