“I and Thou – and Negotiations”

“I and Thou – and Negotiations”
cji
2/19/09

How does one explain something which one has in-depth knowledge of both sides and yet others want to see a third view point? Martin Buber’s book takes the view of humans at the center of the virtual world around him – that he/she look out from inside of the themselves and thus see all else. Therefore he begins with the ‘I’ meaning the individual or the self. He then presents three arguments – ‘I and Thou’ – ‘I and You’ and ‘I and It.’ He neither likes nor sanctions the ‘I and It’ but recognizes the reality of there being an ‘It’ in relationships. Therefore he attempts to move the ‘It’ either into a ‘Thou’ or a ‘You’ as quickly as possible.

These relationships have great meaning to him and since 1923 a great variety of meanings to the worldly and those not so inclined. Yet how does one tie this book into the task of negotiations? This will be the attempt of this short essay to do so. Hereafter will follow both professional and personal experience in negotiations and the application of what Buber put forth in his book.

A negation must be somehow defined – as each of us might see this idea quite differently. One can think of the infamous line, “Make him a deal he can’t refuse!” to the more simple idea of a man and woman making the marriage covenant. Both are types of negotiations and for the result of finding a common meeting ground on an issue needing to be resolved by both parties. The changing of times has not diminished the importance of either the idea of negation by fear – incentives or out of attitude and love.

To my understanding a negation which much of the world considers is a non-personal inter-action between two sides (or more) to reach a professional agreement for the mutual benefit of both (or more) sides.

Firm Fixed Price Contracting – Company A needs a road built from c to d. Company K and Company Y are both road builders. After much pricing analysis – Company A puts out solicitation packages to Company’s K and Y – so they can bid on the building of the road. Some would term this as Firm Fixed Bid or a Fixed Price Contract negotiation. It’s relatively simple – both Company’s K and Y will submit bids to complete the work. When Company A receives the two bids – they compare it against their numbers and can choose to award to either company or to both or to neither. In the first instance if one of the two bids is approximate to Company A’s estimate – and the other is either too high or too low – they can make award (in private industry). However in the Government they must first eliminate the company with the ‘too low’ bid. This has to be done when a higher bid is going to get a contract in Firm Fixed Price bidding as the winning bid is published. Therefore there will be negotiation between the two companies and thus interactions between the representatives of both and possibly all three. This way of contracting work is the most prevalent in the world – we do it most every day when we walk into a store to buy something. In some stores with automatic checkouts even the interaction between a teller and customer has been eliminated. The idea being this is a business and not a social gathering. Even with this – if one is using credit they must interact with a store employee to verify they’re the credit card owner. These type interactions are negotiations! One is buying something from another – either in services or products – something will change hands in the form of currency and products or work done. The price has to acceptable to the buyer and the seller must keep his pricing competitive. Going to a gas station is a good example – since most cars can use any type of gasoline on the market – it becomes a choice of the buyer where to go and pay that places price. The negotiation is done with signs posting the various prices at the different gas stations. The inter-personal interaction in this type of contracting is minimal. In some cases the negotiator never sees or meets either side of the negotiation. A person in contracting gets an order from some department within their firm of business and looks for those who sell the product(s) needed – gets pricing and places the order. This can all be done with a paper trail (fax).

Cost Reimbursement Contracting – this type of contracting is done when a term of time or a long term contract with various deliveries and services are required. The system starts out the same – someone has a need to be filled and someone has to find and solicit the work or service to be done. A cost estimate is prepared a solicitation with the specifications of work to be done and then is sent to those who can fulfill the requirements of the solicitation. When the offers come in at the close of bidding – there’s questions and answers – for clarification – with amendments, etc. Eventually the various sides will sit down to negotiate a fair and reasonable price for the contractual needs. A contract may be awarded based on the meeting the needs of the solicitation in a fair and reasonable manner.

With the award of the a cost contract – invoices have to be submitted and reviewed before any payment can be made. The difference between this method and the Firm Fixed Price is that in the Firm Fixed Price all of the money is paid upon completion of the work or delivery of the product. In Cost Reimbursement the payment is made in installments as the work progresses. Thus the interaction between the vendor (seller) and the company (buyer) is ongoing and subject to changes. A good example if you’ve a delivery contract which requires lots of travel and the gas prices soar – then the vendor would come and ask for cost increase to the overall contract limitations – which the buyer would agree to – however – if the contract is awarded in peak gas prices and they lower – the buyer only has to meet the invoices submitted.

When people go to the movies and see smoke filled rooms with a person negotiating some major deal for the most part that’s all follywood. In my experience the over many years the only time you’ve a full room is when you’re explaining to someone why they lost a contract! Negotiation is a part of business in that sphere of industry – it’s a tool nothing more or less. One has to do their homework and then put the pieces together. Very few are very complex or once the homework has been done. The longest negotiation I was in was at a Government Course on Contracting – it had to last three days (this was the requirement) we had it settled in less than three hours but the instructor insisted (smile) so we lasted three days. In this negotiation I represented private industry and my best friend represented the government. We had a lot of fun – because it was only a ‘game’ but we both knew how to do our homework and we both knew what was going to be fair and reasonable.

However one thing did happen the longer the negotiation lasted – the more the flow went to the contractor – which really wasn’t all that fair. The reason being time increased doubt and doubt raises the prices beyond fair and reasonable. All of what I’ve described above is really nothing more than ‘I and It’ relationships – with the possible exception of the latter example. Why – because it’s a professional i.e. not a personal decision-making process. Both of the ‘I’s’ reflect what’s best for them – either their need or the businesses pricing. The ‘It’ becomes the other party in the sales process. We can make shopping personal and most all of us do – we like to be treated nicely at the checkout counter and enjoy using the same clerk if possible – however, it’s still only a buy-sell relationship in the terms of numbers and whether we get the product we wanted and the business stays in business.

In discretionary income businesses there’s much more inter-personal interacting than what’s been discussed above – we now move to the “I and You” relationship – we’ve become friends with those whom we interact with. We go to their business because we like their environment or customer service – they in turn know it’s how they treat their customers how long they’ll stay in business. This then is the type of negotiations most think of in the way of negotiations. This is personal – and thus one has to like the environment of the other they’re dealing with. The problem is that this type of negotiation process and the comfort of it make it attractive to take over the other types of negotiations. In fact many who are in the business of beguiling others trade on this. They know that they’re an ‘it’ cold and hard – but they want your ‘I’ to see them as a ‘you.’

A great example of this is the effort our two sons go to in protecting us as we age in entering into contracts. They repeatedly want us to inform them before we commit to buy or agree to pay someone for services. We’re at the age we want to consider all others as a ‘You’ – and thus fail to see them as an ‘it’. We forget the first and most important rule of negotiation – ‘It’s not personal – it’s business!’

Now we’ll address another intrigue which everyone who’s been in contracting any length of time encounters, repetitive interactions with a good friend. In variably you’ve more contact with some businesses than others – and thus you’ve an opportunity to become friends – first based on mutual respect and trust of the other and secondly – you both understand the difference between personal and business. At the end of my career in contracting I had numerous interactions with the General Manager of the Contractor on a multi-million dollar contract. We’re both retired military – both enjoy wild life photography and both could represent and come to a decision on contract modifications. We were sometimes called into negotiations because the contract specialist his and mine thought they were at impasse over things which we both could see as trivial and easily solvable. Let me first clarify – we both knew and understood every line item of the contract – we knew how much money was available – and we knew what could be done – what had to be done – and how to make the two one. This is not unusual in much of contracting – however, as stated many do not want to do their homework and it’s their side only that they can see. Usually we had to bring both specialists into his office (his and mine) and tell them what was going to happen and how to write it up! Funny as it seems they thought we’d told them to negotiate what we’d told them, really! We’d then remind them we both had contracting authority he for the contractor and me for the government.

Somewhere in the schools of higher learning – people are taught that they’re in competition with one another; i.e. I and It relationships – to the stronger go the rewards, etc. Darwin made a lot ground with this using the phrase “Natural Selection” which he changed to ‘Survival of the Fittest,” in his 1869 (or 5th edition). Herbert Spencer first coined this phase “Survival of the Fittest” in his book, “Principles of Biology,” 1864 - further combining economics with the theory of evolution and proclaimed them to be interrelated. And It’s my belief that Buber took great exception to this by the end of the19th Century. The dehumanization of individuals and applying the animalistic characteristics to them has added to the ultra competitiveness of today. Spencer who was both an economist and a philosopher enjoined the two in further justifying the elitism of his day. (Note: To better understand the tautology of ‘survival of the fittest’ - a study of the mines in England and Scotland of the middle 1800’s is necessary.)

Indeed the teachings of Darwin and Spencer dominated and still dominate the educational system of the world today. This rejection of a being known as God or Heavenly Father or the Creator is denied and cannot exist in the minds of men to accept the doctrine of ‘Survival of the Fittest.’ This doctrine removes a plan from creation and implants total chance. Evolution as presented by Darwin does not support this doctrine – even though it proclaims it as a truth (which it is not). To give an example all an organism needs to do it procreate to achieve survival. The institutions of higher learning – including the media, television, movies, documentaries, magazines and any who support these ideas of Darwin and Spencer combine to create the “I and It’ mindset. Buber presents an alternative view and thus can find application in our lives and inter-relationships with all others.

On a basketball court there’s often competition – this is not negotiation – and is only a sport! Even in football we find the same competition (some times) and it’s only a sport! The players, coaches all know each other – and some are great friends off of the field or court even when they compete with one another. There’s a respect for one’s abilities and the team effort going all out to win. Vince Lombardi said it best, “My teams never left the field a loser, sometimes the clock ran out with us on the short end of the score – but we left the field winners knowing we’d done our best,” (paraphrase). This inter-action Buber would see and call it, “I and You.” So in our lives we too should be able to see the “I and You” relationships with others.

Most of us will not sit down in an executive office and hammer out a good contract – mostly because it just doesn’t happen in real life. Many of the biggest deals in business have literally taken place on yachts or golf courses. Of course business schools could never teach this. They’d have no need to empathize MBA’s or the more learning the better you’ll be in business. (Note: when I taught business courses at the college level – I was amazed at what I had to re-teach from the student’s course in business principles.) The practical application of common sense – dissolves mystery and makes clear that which is pretty simple to begin with. Martin Buber saw this and in his writings tried to clarify it to his understandings.

He (Buber) taught we could all be good – to be respecters of others and to engage socially appropriately in all aspects of life. In negotiations we too need to do this. However in the best of circumstances it’s not always possible. Someone will always want to play the ‘jerk’ – or better, ‘agitator.’ Going back to the classroom where my best friend and I represented the opposite sides – there was at least one person on each side who just didn’t want to agree on anything. In these situations both my friend and I had to ‘trump’ them to put them and keep them in their places.

The “I and You” is most likely the most important part of our mortal life in dealing with others who we come into contact with on a daily basis. We try to make things as least stressful – and hopefully the other person will do the same. This is normal interaction between people and actually between animals! I’ve many photos of egrets and gators in the same place at the same time and the gator isn’t trying to eat everything in sight. Any nature movie one watches they’ll see animals in harmony with others – predators and their game. Man has taken the idea of 24/7 competition to be real when it’s only a theory long on rhetoric and short on truth.

The last part of “I and You” is the sacred relationship between a man and a woman – committed to love and marriage to become as the Scriptures say – “to become as one, like the Father and Son are one!” The world has sought to destroy this as with everything else – yet some men and some women understand the greater covenant of marriage and the family unity which can be forever and ever. Buber saw part of this but within his belief system he didn’t know how to carry it into forever. Which much discussion I’ve tried to call this “I and I’ (smile) indicating the man and women become one in thought, actions and beliefs. Neither loses their inherent individual ness – but both surrender some of their different ness in achieving harmony together. Thus believing in the Scriptures that they’ll be heirs together (if worthy) forever and ever.

And yes there’s negation in love – much negotiation – from the dating process till the wedding day – and then far more intensely afterwards. These negotiations are not only with your best friend but with your spouse and eternal companion to be! Harmony in negotiations here is the keyword and never competitiveness to be found. Both seeking resolution for the whole and striving to become one in understanding and loving, without guile in any way.

Society and the world have worked over time to change this relationship into one night engagements and till divorce do us part or better till death do us part. Making marriage a competitive institution and asking the question why anyone would want to become married and why have children. This is all selfish, which is the underlying theory of evolution and Spencer’s works.

‘Unselfishness or selflessness’ are the key ingredients of Martin Buber’s works – and thus why he titled it, “I and Thou.” The ‘I and Thou’ to Martin Buber were very important to him in raising human relationship to a higher plane of existence. He knew he had a relationship which he could not totally define and he knew this sacred relationship was to be sought among those who he knew. And also because in knowing there was someone greater – someone sacred it gave him a hope – which seemed unlikely in the Germany of the 1900’s of his time.

If ever we could attain an “I and Thou” relationship in our everyday relationships we’d find a peace and understanding within ourselves and others. In negotiations one might guess the relationship I had with the General Manager came close – we never argued or wasted each other’s time – we always found resolution – and yet at the same time maintained a professional relationship.

I’ll close with the classroom negotiation. When my friend and I got together for the first session – after some conversation – I offered to split the difference in his price and mine. We agreed – we were told we couldn’t agree. Everyone thought we were crazy to have agreed so quickly. After three day of so called negotiations we ended up with my price – the government lost several hundred thousand dollars. Yet nowhere did I beguile or misrepresent our side – but some of the more difficult team members on both side – raised so many different issues – the government side became convinced in our bid. Why did I offer to compromise – because I thought as a company we could do the work and absorb half of the risk involved and have a good working relationship with the government! In the end if I had to deal with any of those (with the exception of my friend) in the working of the contract an adversarial relationship would’ve been present. This is not what negations should achieve – fair and reasonable is the goal – always – professional and not personal. Oh in the real negotiation (this was an actual negotiation situation) the government and the contractor agreed to split the risk and therefore split the difference in the government estimate and the contractor bid!

One final thought on “I and Thou” – in the world there are some who treat every situation as ‘I and Thou’ – however with a twist. They expect us to look at them and treat them as the ‘Thou’ in the every relationship! Yet in return to them once this occurs – they treat us as an ‘I and it’ relationship. We become as nothing in their eyes and feelings (if they have any left) – simply something to be manipulated in any relationship which might occur. An example might be the wealthy within the Roman Civilization or Greek Civilizations long ago – or in some religions today – Congress or Government – Professors – Clergy – and every now and then one will find this in negotiations. Think of bright lights – razzle and dazzle – or something similar – it’s in their insincerity of approach and treatment of others – beginning to beguile and then once they the ‘I’ so treated – the ‘I’ in us becomes and ‘it’ to them. Throughout history these type people are called ‘demagogues’ and for some reason many of the ‘I’s’ want to be in this relationship – for it means they’ve no accountability or responsibility in the relationship as it’s all been transferred to the ‘Thou.’

Copyright © 2009 – cji