Negotiating the Bridge (Bridge-building 4)

Postcard Circa 1930.

I have recently been driving across what Wikipedia says was “the longest and highest cantilever bridge in the United States” at the time that it was opened…nearly 85 years ago (March 29, 1930). Just so that you know, crossing bridges makes me a little bit nervous… especially when I find out how old they are! This particular bridge was designed by Joseph Strauss, who was the engineer of the Golden Gate Bridge so it has that in its favor. Counting approaches it is 8,192 feet long with its longest span reaching 1200 feet 210 feet above the river below. The designers claimed that any vessel then in existence, including a fully rigged clipper ship, could pass under it successfully. I agree it is a very tall bridge! Can you guess where it is?

Golden Gate Bridge in the fog.

Over the last year, I have written several times on the subject of bridge building. I have used the metaphor to introduce posts on the need to engage others cross-culturally (Bridge-Building In A Chaotic World), to take time to do adequate and authentic listening as an indispensable phase of construction (Bridge-Building 2: "Relational Impact Studies") where we prove that we “can be trusted to safely treasure the story, needs, and longings of others” or if we skip this step, “our efforts a bridge-building will be seen more as an invasion and occupation rather than an authentic connection.” And finally, I wrote about how building well includes a consideration of behavioral tolerances at points where we don’t agree (Bridge-Building 3: Tolerances & Tighteners, Gaps & Grips). I wrote, “Finding common points of agreement or meeting places is important if we are going to build effective bridges.” But, after so much water under the metaphorical bridge, what about working towards agreement on beliefs not merely on behaviors?

Can we continue to be authentic in our beliefs while fully listening to the beliefs of others? If we think that this is unacceptable for us to do, then certainly we cannot expect their attitude to be any different. If we hope to apply diplomacy to the areas of faith and culture we need to learn to negotiate differently than what we might see from a tourist haggling with a bazaar merchant over the price and quality of a samovar.  

“Whether a negotiation concerns a contract, a family quarrel, or a peace settlement among nations, people routinely engage in positional bargaining. Each side takes a position, argues for it, and makes concessions to reach a compromise.”[1]

We are generally faced with one of two negotiating tactics—hard or soft—and neither produces a solution that is best for both parties. In Getting To Yes, Fisher, Ury, and Patton describe these approaches.

The soft negotiator wants to avoid personal conflict and so makes concessions readily to reach [an] agreement. He or she wants an amicable resolution; yet often ends up exploited and feeling bitter.

The hard negotiator sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes the more extreme position and holds out longer fares better. He or she wants to win; yet often ends up producing an equally hard response that exhausts the negotiator and his or her resources and harms the relationship with the other side.[2]

If negotiation was only to choose between these two flawed outcomes then there would be very little hope for Christian diplomacy.

There is a third way to negotiate, a way neither hard nor soft, but rather both hard and soft. The method of principled negotiation developed at the Harvard Negotiation Project is to decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will and won’t do. It suggests that you look for mutual gains whenever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side. The method of principled negotiation is hard on the merits, and soft on the people.[3]

The bridge which I mentioned earlier was only built after long negotiations at the local, state, and national levels. It was opposed by the city of Portland (50 miles away) because they thought that it would negatively impact shipping via the river and their collection of tolls on their own bridge. Once the designers successfully made arguments at the State and Federal levels that what they were building was high enough that shipping wouldn’t be hindered the project was cleared to proceed. At this point, it would seem that most interests of all parties involved were met, with the exception of determining the exact location on the Oregon side.

When practicing diplomacy in a multi-faith context, we would do well to make use of the four main elements of principled negotiation. We may be able to do more, but we should not do less.

People: Separate the people from the problem.

Interests: Focus on interests, not positions.

Options: Invent multiple options looking for mutual gains before deciding what to do.

Criteria: Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.[4]

What do you think? Do these approaches fit into a Christian approach to engaging the world? Would following such guidelines serve to lower the polarizing rhetoric and truly work for the common good?

Looking to the Northeast into Washington

Sometimes we have to slow the push for our own agenda in order to achieve the best results for everyone. By the way, the original speed limit on the Lewis and Clark Bridge was 20 MPH and currently remains at a moderate 35 MPH. I find that plenty fast enough…if you want to negotiate the bridge and enjoy the view a little longer!

---

[1] Fisher, Roger; Ury, William L.; Patton, Bruce (2011-05-03). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Kindle Locations 344-346). Penguin Group US. Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid. (Kindle Locations 318-322).

[3] Ibid. (Kindle Locations 323-327).

[4] Ibid. (Kindle Locations 499-506).