Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

Separate Inventing from Deciding
Negotiators often fear that if they invent options while the other party is
present they will lock themselves into an unwise situation. For example, they
may state an option that goes against their interests and the other party may hold
them to the “offer.” Thus, the interest-based negotiator separates inventing from
deciding: both sides agree that no commitments will be made until a final package
is formalized. The first task is to understand interests and invent options for mutual
gain. At this stage, nothing is a commitment. Then, once a full set of options is
generated, parties can refine options to best meet the interests of each side.
For example, the negotiation process used at the 1978 Camp David
negotiations involved a clear separation between inventing and deciding. As
mediator, the United States circulated numerous versions of a draft agreement to
each side for review. Neither side was asked to make a commitment until the 23rd
draft, when the United States determined that this was the best proposal that could
be produced under the circumstances.
Dividing the Pie
No matter how much value parties create, they must still divide the pie to
obtain what they want — whether that means land, money, or (in the case of the
educer) information. The negotiation literature offers a number of strategies for
increasing one’s share of the distributional pie. These strategies can be divided into
two categories: 1) moves that can be made at the negotiation table; and 2) moves
away from the table (i.e., actions that can be taken independent of the other party).
Each of these moves can influence the power dynamics of the negotiation.
Some strategies presented here might be rightly categorized as “contentious
tactics” designed to get one’s way at the other’s expense (Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim,
1994). These strategies can provide an immediate distributional payoff, but they
also increase the risk of damaging a relationship, escalating a conflict, or ending
in stalemate (Axelrod, 1984; Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim, 1994). Thus, contentious
tactics work best when only one issue is at stake, the issue is quantifiable, and the
quality of the relationship is unimportant (Shapiro, 2000).
Strategic Moves at the Negotiation Table
Strategic moves at the negotiation table are actions intended to influence
the distribution of the pie. Three such moves include drawing on standards of
legitimacy, using “gamesmanship,” and making threats.
Drawing on Standards of Legitimacy
Negotiations often turn into a battle of wills. Each side takes a position
and demands that the other concede. This tends to lead to adversarial behavior,
stalemate, or failed negotiation — even when agreement was reasonably possible
for each side.
By drawing on “standards of legitimacy” (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991),
negotiators can improve their power to persuade and reduce the risk of a failed
273