From John DeGroote’s Settlement Perspectives
Longtime Settlement Perspectives readers know that I’m a big fan of Chip and Dan Heath. Their first book, Made to Stick, inspired posts back and forth with the authors on why you might not want to send a message in negotiation, and the rest of Made to Stick continues to color my view of message “stickiness” — a term the Heath brothers contributed to today’s communication lexicon.
With advance warning from Mitch Joel, I eagerly awaited my copy of the Heath brothers’ new book, Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard. Like Made to Stick, Switch ostensibly has nothing to do with negotiation, but like its predecessor Switch backs into a settlement insight important to all of us.
As with most concepts, Switch defines the identity model of decision making early on:
In the identity model of decision making, we essentially ask ourselves three questions when we have a decision to make: Who am I? What kind of situation is this? What would someone like me do in this situation? Notice what’s missing: any calculation of costs and benefits.
According to the Heath brothers, “we adopt identities throughout our lives” that help explain economically irrational behavior — we consider ourselves a patriotic citizen or a devout Catholic or a good mother, and these adopted identities drive decisions beyond superficial self interest. A Silicon Valley millionaire might vote against a Republican who would cut her taxes, or an auto worker might vote against a Democrat who would provide him health insurance.
In our last post we discussed how important kitchen table talking points are to the settlement process, but the identity model insight Chip and Dan Heath provide is just as important. I have had cases that wouldn’t settle despite favorable economic terms because the plaintiff inexplicably wanted her “day in court.” It seemed a bit self-righteous at the time, and I didn’t get why a few more dollars couldn’t get the deal done. But I now see the need that a few more dollars didn’t address; in effect our lawsuit opponents may be asking themselves questions like:
We often wonder what’s driving the other side to hold out in settlement talks, and we have often known it’s more than money, but Switch puts our finger on it. The ordinary citizen becomes a safety advocate in a rollover lawsuit, or an everyday cardholder becomes a consumer advocate when he realizes everyone’s interest was calculated that way.
I once had a grizzled old defense lawyer tell me:
They say it’s not about the money. That’s BS — it’s always about the money. Eventually you pay a little more and all of a sudden that other stuff they were talking about goes away.
In some cases he may be right, but in every case your opponent’s conduct is driven at least in part by who they think they are. You can either ignore that fact, and pay more if you’re going to settle at all, or you can approach the settlement talks with the other side’s identity in mind. To take it back to Switch, that auto worker isn’t going to change his vote just to get health insurance, but he might support a Democrat for other reasons. In your settlement talks:
The idea here isn’t to come up with a new set of unnecessary concessions. The point here is to consider who the other side thinks he is, and factor that into your overall settlement approach. You’ll be glad you did.
Draft Excerpt, Kenneth Cloke, Into the Heart of Conflict: A Guide to Resolution, Transfromation, and Transcendence, to be published 2005If we listen attentively, we shall hear amid the uproar of...By Kenneth Cloke