A quick word first
Thanks for visiting The Jazz of Negotiation! When you have a chance, check out the About page to see the aim of this publication and learn how it can help you become a more effective negotiator. (Photo by mark tulin on Unsplash)
Part one: The back story
Think of this as a mini case-study that you can follow step-by-step. It’s connected to the “Marines Don’t Do That” article I posted earlier this week. But it’s not about having to make lightning fast-decisions in harrowing situations. Rather it’s about deciding if and how to respond to a personal challenge when you have time to think about it.
Eight years ago, my original version of the article got a thumbs up from a good number of readers. They recognized how an incident far from their own experience (brutal warfare) could nevertheless be relevant to moral decision making in their own personal and professional lives. But more than few readers were hostile.
Their pushback came in various forms. Some felt it was out of place for someone like me who has never been in combat to second-guess actions of soldiers in peril on the battlefield. Others felt that that I was ennobling U.S. Marines as being superior ethically to their British counterparts.
Those weren’t my intentions but re-reading the piece I could see how it could spark such reactions. Maybe you’ve had a similar experience when a colleague or someone you’re negotiating with snaps at your text or email, reading something between the lines that you didn’t mean. Do you ignore it, defend yourself, or do something else?
I weighed those options and chose to respond to Andrew Haslam, one of the sharpest critics of my article and a former British army officer. To my surprise and to his credit, we clarified our differences and reached an amicable understanding.
Flash forward to the present. I reached out to Andrew just yesterday. He remembers our long-ago conversation in the same warm spirit that I do. He kindly gave permission for me to quote our correspondence here.
I leave it to you to assess how what we said back-and-forth transformed our dialogue. In hindsight, I can spot some things I might rephrase if I had a do-over, but I’ve made no changes here.
Finally, for those Jazz readers who took offense at this latest version of the piece, first of all, my apologies. I hope that what follows addresses some of your concerns but would be glad to respond to comments here if there are other issues that you’d like me to address.
Part two: The back-and-forth
1. Andrew’s first comment
“As an ex British Army Officer, I have a lot of disdain for this article and its inherent assumption that ‘if only the UK marines were taught the same as the US Marines,’ this wouldn't have happened. We are steeped in the Geneva convention (as was shown by the soldier's comments), many other factors went into this situation and a four-word 20/20 hindsight analysis helps no-one.”
Question: Should I have responded to Andrew and, if so, how? What might be the downside?
2. Another reader’s response to him
“Andrew, you may be reading too much into it. As a former JAG, US Army, I know we have had our violations of the law of war and the Geneva Convention, and no one can claim we are better than the UK in that regard. The point I took was that concise communication might have saved the situation. Admittedly, that's easier said than done in a combat situation.”
3. My first note to Andrew (visible to everyone on the thread)
“Hello Andrew,
“I am sorry.
“It wasn't my intent to compare training practices in the UK though I can now see how you might infer that. And to make doubly sure that I'm clear, I apologize as I have no basis for making such a judgment, and certainly no reason to start with that as a premise.
”If it's of interest, here's a bit of background on the post.
“Perhaps the story of the Marine's trial and recent conviction has been widely reported in the UK but I was unaware of it here in the States. I came across it in a post by Paul Vallely (see the link in my post). Apparently he is a British strategy consultant with an interest in ethics.
“He cites the ‘Marines don't do that’ quotation. He nicely connects it to character, specifically, the strengths and limitations of virtue ethics, with roots back to Aristotle. He also notes the controversy in the UK military over how the case of this Marine should be handled. (It parallels some of the exchange that my post has sparked, though I meant to address a narrower point about negotiation.)
“If you've gotten this far, thanks. You're more than halfway.
“I forwarded the Vallely piece to my former student, a USMC combat helicopter pilot who generously allowed me to quote him. Neither he nor I believe that the statement ‘Marines don't do that’ would have necessarily prevented the killing. But if that is one's objective, it sounds as good as anything I could come up with -- and I've had the luxury of having several days to think about it (which wasn't the case for the other Marines in the unit).
“Words matter, obviously. So is the poise needed to take effective action under great pressure and when the clock is ticking. I'm curious to know what others would do and whether certain kinds of training can help in such extreme cases.
“As for second-guessing others, not me. You don't how you'll perform in high stress situations; you can't know until you're there. I understand that hoping to do right is one thing. Actually having the capacity to is quite another. I make no assumptions about myself in that regard.
“Thank you for your comment. Mike Wheeler”
Question: I think I did okay, but with hindsight I can see things I could have expressed better. Where do you see room for improvement?
4. Andrew’s reply to me
“Thank you for your considered response, and for taking the time to discuss my post. The case generated a lot of interest over here, and as ex-Military I took special interest in it as well. Very complex debate about how the individual should be punished and one that engendered a lot of emotions.
“I follow your chain of thought and see how you are making a case about business ethics, that has been lost in the "storm" of comment about US v UK Marine training. I think that the training I received in the Army has helped me in the occasional situation, where what I'm saying is not what people want to hear and it has certainly re-enforced my general approach to how I conduct my business and personal life.
“I'd pose the question, ‘is it nature or nurture?’ Am I the kind of person that would be like that anyway, and thus was attracted to the forces, where though personality traits were enhanced, or did the Military training give me those strengths? If the first, then no amount of training will change people, if it's the second then there are lessons to be learnt and that's (I believe) the nub of your article.
“It has been a fascinating few days and it is an article that has engendered a tremendous amount of debate, and I accept you did not mean any slight of the UK marines, so my apologies for ‘shooting from the hip’ over that point.”
5. My reply to his latest comment
“Hello Andrew --
“Thank you for your gracious response.
“Your nature-nurture musings are especially appropriate for me and my wife as we were just promoted to grandparenthood earlier this morning. I hope we've contributed some healthy genes to the mix, but when I see how wonderful his parents are with young Angus, I certainly give nurture it's full due.
“I hope the holiday season brings you and your family great joy. Best wishes for the coming year. Mike”
6. My later comment to all on the thread
“I hope people who look at Andrew's initial post take a moment to read through the discussion we had on this thread a few days ago. When I saw his original comment (above) I apologized unequivocally for not being sufficiently clear about the point about negotiation I was trying to make. Andrew, a true gentleman, kindly accepted my apology. I've enjoyed getting to know him and am gratified that in a medium that often amplifies differences (and emotions), we seem to have built better understanding. And for that, he deserves all the credit.”
Question: What were the pros and cons on having this exchange publicly, rather than reaching out to Andrew privately?
7. Andrew Haslam latest message (2/3/22)
“Mike, that’s all fine. I too would like to say that your considered response to my initial angrier post caused me to reflect on what the core issues where, and for that all the credit is yours as I think that was the pivotal point where the dialogue could have gone two ways. So well done you for making it a debate and not a flame war.”
Question: Andrew and I settled our differences over the content of the article but we disagree on who deserves the credit for that. I say it’s him. He says it’s me. Not a bad place to end up in. Yes?
Mike, thank you for the detailed commentary on this piece. I personally find these deep, step-by-step analyses and discussions extremely helpful. I would love to see more like this.
Hi
My humble opinion - most things outside a science lab are not accurate / perfect and have shades of grey.