From time to time, we all find ourselves in situations that challenge the edges of our patience and creativity. I have in mind those problems where the other party is at best obstinate and unreasonable, and at worst bloody-minded or downright crazy. At these times it is worth thinking very seriously about our own intellectual and behavioural flexibility, given that they are probably going to carry on doing exactly what they are currently doing. Easy to say, but not so easy to do in real time when there is anger in the air, or large sums of money on the table. As any of you who have attempted to model effective negotiating will know, it is an incredibly challenging but fascinating task. This article will, I hope, provide you with enough material to encourage further exploration.

For many years I have been interested in the nature of conflict and the practice of effective negotiation. As you might imagine, it provides a very rich arena within which to test NLP models and principles to, and perhaps beyond, their limits. In this article I will present ideas I have found to be useful in negotiating and conflict resolution tasks. These insights are summarised in a six-step process which arises from experience in aligning a systemic approach to NLP with the academic rigour of the Harvard approach to conflict resolution, and then given further precision by the distinguishing characteristics of negotiating exemplars.

For the moment I am assuming that you will have already thought through the outcomes you or the other parties require from the specific negotiation, although I will return to that area later in this piece. So, in the first part, I will link the use of 'Presuppositions' thinking to personal flexibility.

There is no such thing as a simple negotiation if you are genuinely seeking a 'win/win/win' outcome. You will have noticed that most of us use the term 'win/win' almost as if we really mean it. This particular expression was originally created by Roger Fisher's team at the Harvard Negotiation Project after its inception in 1977. Their (very worthwhile) aspiration was that negotiators would find it a useful way to encourage protagonists to look beyond the immediate situation towards a more desirable outcome for both/all parties. However, as with many things, overuse has degraded the use of the words, although I believe the intention remains sound. These days, if you look more closely it usually translates to "I win ... you win ... but I win a bit more than you do." This is why I now prefer to strive for the triple win, the third win referring to the larger 'system' within which the situation exists. Harvard is also the origin of the term "interests" that will be introduced later in this piece. The desire to make any resolution to the conflict appropriate to its larger context creates a challenge of course - to understand and describe that larger system. Some NLP Presuppositions provide an excellent entry point:

Presupposition One: "All meaning is context dependent"

This presupposition is a useful way to establish the nature of the system within which you are caught, and is one that I notice the most effective negotiators using naturally. One of the most immediate benefits is that it almost guarantees that you will begin to separate the person causing the problem from the issue itself. Here are some examples of questions that will begin to help you describe this larger system - the whole point here being that, unless you can create a solution that provides answers within the whole system, you might as well save your time, energy and, dare I say, lawyers' fees.

• Under what circumstances would this behaviour make total sense?

• What else could this behaviour or attitude mean?

• From the other person's standpoint, what are the likely effects or consequences of changing their stated position?

Presupposition Two: "There is an 'unconscious positive intention' in every behaviour"

In my early experience of NLP in the 1980s, I found this to be the most personally challenging of the presuppositions that we were working with at that time. In retrospect, I realise my main concern was my reluctance to use a structure that, ultimately, does not have to be 'true' to work. For the sake of these illustrations, we will treat you as if you are the 'injured party'.

• If you think of their (adverse) behaviour or attitude as a metaphor for something, what is the (positive) learning you can take from that metaphor?

• What is their 'unconscious positive intention' towards you that, although it is almost certainly not true, if it were true, would explain all their attitudes and behaviours?

Having identified an unconscious positive intention that seems to fit, we need to check it for its viability as a catalyst in our negotiation approach:

• Notwithstanding the likelihood of this assumption actually being true (it almost certainly is not), does this 'Intention' explain all the characteristics of the other person's behaviour and attitude?

• What, if anything, does it not explain? - At this point, place your attention on creating an Intention that would incorporate this element too. Then, test the revised version against all the other characteristics.

For experienced practitioners of NLP there will be an immediate realisation that many of these questions are best answered initially from information available from second position, validated from third and fourth, and then tested for impact and additional choices when returning to first. Everybody talks about looking at outcomes from the other person's perspective but my experience is that this is usually somewhat superficial and almost always skewed towards the beliefs of the speaker.

So, more seriously, let's look at those outcome aspirations again. From my modelling of negotiating exemplars, I notice that a number of crucial elements are usually missing from 'normal' (non expert) negotiations. Examples would include a detailed understanding of two things:

• An exploration of the higher level 'interests' of both you and the other party or parties.

• A specific 'leverage point' for action that sits deep within the mass of information that surrounds, and confuses, the negotiation.

Let me explain in more detail, taking the idea of higher level interests first. The principle of identifying these interests is, as I mentioned earlier, an idea that originates in the Harvard Negotiation Project. In simple terms, we can think of an 'interest' being any significant benefit (often unconscious) that someone gets out of a particular entrenched position or view. Secondly, the 'leverage point' is the one thing that if you did something about it, would have the effect of overcoming all the other influences on the current problem or impasse. To give you an understanding of how to use these insights to get real breakthroughs in your negotiations, I will describe my approach to these issues which is built on the following influences:

• Combining the NLP chunking up and chunking down model with meta-model style questions.

• How to identify and explore higher level interests in detail.

• Significant exceptional behaviours of negotiating exemplars.

For best results I strongly recommend using the steps of this model in the following order to ensure that the eventual output is sustainable over time (more details of each step are shown below):

Create a statement of the issue, or unachieved outcome, as you see it at the moment so that the 'problem space' is defined. Identify who is involved.

The purpose of this step is to identify the higher level interests of all the key parties who are involved. In this context, the word "interest" means all those motivators or deeper needs that sit behind a stated position. The term 'hidden agenda' also relates to these interests. Questions that will help you to identify them include:

After answering these questions, mentally step into the mind of the others involved (using perceptual positions thinking or reframing strategies, for example) and ask the same questions but from their perspective (second position). Ask the questions from an assumption that their situation is 'normal' for them even though it may look odd or irrational from the outside. This will require several iterations to ensure that as many interests as possible for all key players are identified. The reason for making this as exhaustive as you can is that this will provide a useful check once we get to the final steps. In other words it will describe the 'solution space' within which the eventual resolution will reside.

Although I have not made it explicit so far, this model also lends itself to helping you to get insight into an Outcome that is currently unachieved. Two additional questions will be of major assistance in cases where you are facilitating someone through such a situation:

The purpose of this step is to establish the main barriers that currently affect the resolution of the problem, or the achievement of the outcome. Generic questions here include:

This step may yield a large number of potential barriers. The more problems you are able to identify during this phase of the exercise, the easier it is to eventually identify the leverage point. It is beyond my intention in this article but, for those readers who may wish to use this structure to facilitate others through a particular negotiation, you will notice that the intonation or tone of voice that someone has as they answer the question will give you some insight into where to focus your attention in the next step.

For our purposes, a leverage point is the one thing, which if it were resolved, would have the effect of negating the impact of all the other barriers. Questions that will help you identify a leverage point include:

As your familiarity with this strategy increases you will be able to incorporate Robert Dilts' 'Neuro-logical levels' thinking in this part of the process too. My approach is to review each of the barriers and obstacles as they are offered and develop a sense of at which level or levels each problem exists. You can then compare this learning with the logical level that the solution will require. For example, if the solution space is at the level of "Beliefs and Values" then it is likely that the leverage point will be at least at that level too.

Diligence will be rewarded in this step, although I fully accept that it can take some time. What you are seeking is something that, if it were to be addressed, would have the effect of lifting all identified barriers.

The important issue here is that the new goal emerging from the leverage point should be within participants' control to make happen. This becomes a new outcome, and may have subsidiary outcomes to be achieved as interim steps on the way to its achievement. You will notice that the new goal, once you have identified it, very often has no immediate connection with the original presenting issue. However, achievement of it will move the negotiation forward.

Does the achievement of this new goal meet the higher level interests and needs that we defined earlier in step 4.2? If the answer is yes, you can test the person's commitment to actually implementing that decision and move on. If no, my recommendation is to revisit the leverage point again and just make sure that resolution of that point will eliminate, obviate or make immaterial, all the other barriers and obstacles previously identified.

Chunking Up: To identify higher level interests that drive each party to hold on to the position they do. Define the benefits of achieving or not achieving a particular outcome.

Chunking Down: To describe the barriers to resolution of the problem or achievement of the outcome, and identify the leverage point for action.

Effective conflict resolution is a complex and potentially fast-moving process. There is often a temptation to settle for a compromise but this almost always has a longer-term cost because the higher level interests of the various parties are not being met. Therefore, to bring more of the outcome of any significant negotiation within your control, I hope you will begin to experiment with the model to see what immediate benefits it may yield for you and your clients.