Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

This report, then, represents an effort to offer ideas from negotiation theory
and practice to those who have responsibilities for developing and carrying out
EI activities. The author has selected robust concepts that show promise for
successful adaptation and use by an information educer. That being said, this
report is clearly exploratory. Although the author has consulted with experts in the
field of information eduction and was trained by the New York Police Department
in hostage negotiation, his areas of expertise are negotiation, conflict resolution,
and psychology, not EI. Thus, he leaves it to the judgment and creative thinking of
national security officials to consider how the following ideas might be usefully
applied or adapted to EI.
Why Negotiations Fail
There are at least four major reasons why parties fail to reach a satisfactory
outcome even when such an outcome is possible. First, they commonly assume
that negotiation involves a “fixed pie,” in which any gain by one party is a loss
for the other. This assumption can quickly turn an interaction into an adversarial
contest and can constrain the parties’ ability to explore creative ways of satisfying
their interests. Second, many negotiators fail to use the most efficient means to
divide the “pie” and obtain their portion. Typically, each party tries to persuade
the other via a battle of wills, which often leads to stalemate. Third, negotiators
often communicate a proposal — even a promising one — in a way that fails
to maximize the likelihood that the other party will agree. Finally, negative
emotions — anger, shame, embarrassment, anxiety, or others — can impede the
negotiation.
This report summarizes strategies that address each of these common causes
of negotiation failure:
1. Assumption of “fixed pie” Use methods that expand the pie.
2. Inefficient means Choose an efficient process to divide the pie.
3. Poor framing Craft a “yesable proposition.”
4. Emotions getting in the way Improve the relationship with the other side
— without giving in.
Expanding the Pie
Until the early 1980s, most popular negotiation texts considered negotiation
a win-lose game, in which every gain made by one side comes at the expense
of the other. Negotiation was generally seen as “positional bargaining,” where
representatives of each side would state their position, concede only stubbornly, or
demonstrate a greater willingness than the other side to walk from the negotiation
table. Negotiation scholars such as Roger Fisher and Robert McKersie recognized,
however, that the pie need not be fixed. In most situations, the potential exists to
create opportunities for mutual gain (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991; Walton and
McKersie, 1991).
Seeking mutual gains is not simply an act of compassion toward the other
party: it is a wise move of self-interest. One of the most important revelations of
game theory is that parties who seek to gain solely at the expense of the other side
268