How Being “Trilingual” Is the Key to Resolving Disputes

Try to remember the last time you were in a dispute, argument, or difficult negotiation with someone during which your counterpart vehemently disagreed with you and wasn’t willing to budge. Did you shift tactics and present a different line of reasoning or did you essentially repeat the same arguments, albeit maybe using different words or a louder voice? Most people, if they’re honest, would admit to doing the latter. That’s okay, it’s normal. After all, few people are taught otherwise.

If you follow my posts, however, you already understand the importance of knowing when to engage in an argument and when to walk away. You also know how to be genuinely “entitled” to your opinions through a combination of hard-won experience and knowledge. As important as these things are, learning to use something called the IRP model further advances your skill in navigating a dispute. Here’s a little story to get us started.

The Two Sisters and the Orange

Organizational theory pioneer Mary Parker Follett, often called the “Mother of Modern Management,” used to tell a story about two sisters who were fighting over an orange. Both of them wanted the entire orange and nothing less, so they fought and fought but couldn’t arrive at an agreement. Finally, one of them asked the other what she wanted the orange for, to which the sister replied, “Why, for the juicy flesh, of course. I need it for a juice recipe. What do you need it for?” The first one replied, “I need it for a recipe too. I’m making scones and I need the rind.”

Both sisters needed the “entire” orange, but only part of the entire orange. For one, the recipe called for the meat of an entire orange; for the other, the recipe called for the rind of an entire orange. This is why, without getting to why each of them wanted the entire orange—i.e., their interest—there didn’t seem to be a way to reach an agreement. But had they had the presence of mind to figure out each other’s true interests, they could have realized that there was an easy solution that would have saved them both time and frustration. One sister could have taken the entire rind of the orange, and the other sister could have taken the entire meat of it. Problem solved.

This is why uncovering interests is key and why sooner or later in any dispute, you’re going to want to get past your counterpart’s superficial demands (e.g., “I want the entire orange") and figure out what their underlying interests really are (“I need the rind for a scone recipe”). Along the way, however, rights and power arguments are also likely to come into play.

The Importance of Knowing IRP

IRP stands for interests, rights, and power. According to William L. Ury, Jeanne M. Brett, and Stephen B. Goldberg in their book Getting Disputes Resolved, just about any argument that a person can make in a dispute falls into one of these three categories or “moves.” We’ve already gone over what interest moves are.

Rights moves are when people appeal to either (1) the rules, guidelines, or laws that govern an organization or society or (2) to certain cultural norms, customs, and traditions.

Power moves are statements that basically pressure or force the other person to compromise or give in. Figures of authority often use this—for example, when parents tell their children, “Clean your room right now or you’re grounded.”

From an influence and persuasion perspective, there are two reasons to familiarize yourself with the IRP model and to start putting it into practice. The first is that most people, quite frankly, have poor conflict resolution skills. They are like the two sisters and the orange. They get overly fixated on what they want (the “entire orange”) without trying to understand what the interests are behind their counterpart’s demands. Moreover, they tend to use a blind shotgun approach of throwing out whatever argument they feel like using, which is the opposite of my one mantra for effective communication. If their arguments don’t work, they often repeat the same arguments louder and more forcefully in the vain hope that this will yield better results. It doesn’t. Thus, awareness of the IRP model makes it possible to recognize when something isn’t working so you can stop spinning your wheels.

Second, the IRP model affords you the opportunity, when an argument isn’t working, to instead try something else that could work. But to be able to try something else, you need to understand the difference between the different categories of arguments. Once you do, you can deftly navigate any dispute or negotiation in real-time the way expert negotiators, debaters, and trial lawyers do.

Persuasion Essential Reads

3 Words to Win Any Argument

How to Talk So That People Want to Listen

The Story of Abdul

In my very first post for Psychology Today, I told the true story of a former student of mine who used the principles of persuasion to convince his reluctant mother to get life-saving treatment for an otherwise fatal illness. Today, I have another true story of a student I’ll call “Abdul” who used to be enrolled in the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies here at the University of San Diego, where students from all over the world come to study better ways of managing global conflicts besides violence and warfare. His story illustrates using the IRP model to brilliant effect.

One day, Abdul received a phone call from his father who was apoplectic. Abdul’s family, you see, is from a part of the world where warring tribes and violent conflicts go back generations. Abdul’s father told him that there had been a local skirmish, that his brother, Abdul’s uncle, was wounded, and that there must be bloodletting retaliation. Abdul, being a student of the Peace Studies program, implored his father to refrain from violence, arguing that the desire for revenge was understandable but that there had to be a better way. Here, begging his father to refrain from violence was his demand, and putting his studies of peace into practice was his interest.

When his father scoffed at his suggestion, Abdul said, “Father, I am the oldest son and I have the right to be heard.” Here, he was making a rights-based argument.

“I don’t care about that!” his father roared back. “Don’t you see what’s at stake?”

Abdul realized that this wasn’t working and that he needed to try a different tactic.

“Father,” he began again quietly. “I’m coming home.”

“What?”

“I’m quitting the program and I’m coming home.”

“You can’t do that!” his father protested. “It is a great honor to be there! This would bring shame upon the family!”

“You’re right,” Abdul said. “It is a great honor to be here studying ways to resolve conflict through peace and not violence. But if I can’t even convince my own father of the value of this, why am I here?”

His father was speechless. Eventually, he relented and Abdul was able to have a real dialogue with him about how reflexive violence only perpetuated an endless cycle of revenge. Abdul’s threat to quit his studies and come home was a power-based move, one that he was in a position to back up with action if necessary and which would have had real consequences. What’s even more brilliant is how Abdul transitioned to using the one argument that his father found most persuasive (i.e., his own). Power moves aren’t to be used lightly as they can backfire, but when used wisely in critical moments, they can be very effective.

It takes time to master the IRP model or to be as good at employing it the way Abdul did in this story. The idea isn’t to master this overnight but to start becoming more aware of it. When in a dispute, try to identify whether your counterpart’s arguments (and your own) are interests, rights, or power moves. Then, when one type of move isn’t working, try using a different one. This alone, even if you haven’t mastered it, will put you ahead of most. And it just might allow both sides to get the “entire orange.”

Craig Barkacs, professor of business law and ethics in the Master’s in Executive Leadership and MBA Programs at the Knauss School of Business at the University of San Diego.