Getting to Yes and the Case of Michelle Rhee

Case Study: Michelle Rhee

Moving from Self-Judgment to Self-Understanding

In Getting to Yes with Yourself, Ury (2015) applies the principle of understanding to the process of self-reflection. Ury (2015) argues that self-judgment is unproductive and that, in order to truly understand ourselves, we must be willing to look at our own interests and motivations honestly. This approach can be seen as missing in the documentary The Education of Michelle Rhee, which follows the former chancellor of the Washington D.C. public school system as she tries to reform the city's education system. Throughout the film, Rhee is faced with difficult decisions that require her to think about her own interests and those of the students she is trying to serve. In the end, it turns out that she does not do much in the way of applying the principles of Getting to Yes, but instead operates on her own authority to make changes that upset stakeholders and constituents, who then responded by electing a new mayor and forcing Rhee’s resignation.

By applying the principles of principled negotiation, one can be better able to make tough choices that are in line with one’s values and goals. As a result, one can make remarkable progress in a short period of time. However, in Rhee’s case, when she was being dressed down by the Chair of the Council of District of Columbia, she tried to stand up for herself, stating that she was the head of the agency and had to make tough decisions about moving the budget from one place to another—but the Chair reminded her that she is supposed to listen to the legislative body, which she was not doing. Others clearly saw her as autocratic and unwilling to listen to the needs of the student body and parents. Thus, in this case, there is a great deal of need for moving from self-judgment to self-understanding.

Moving from Blame to Self-Responsibility

In the art of negotiation, it is often easy to fall into the trap of blame. One party may blame the other for their intransigence, or for their unwillingness to compromise. However, blame is seldom productive in a negotiation. Instead, it is more effective to take responsibility for one's own actions. By doing so, each party can retain their dignity and focus on finding a mutually agreeable solution. In addition, taking responsibility for one's own actions can help to build trust between the parties. Once trust has been established, it becomes easier to find common ground and reach a successful outcome.

There is evidence that Rhee does this—for example, she steps aside after the election, allowing the effects of her reform to be felt in the political sphere and accepting the voters’ pushback. Nonetheless, she is deemed a fierce reformer—one who does the necessary work of closing half-empty schools and firing incompetent teachers and administrators. At least, that is one way to look at it. However, on the other hand, it could be argued that Rhee also needs to hold herself more accountable. She tied teacher tenure to student performance—and saw test scores improve—but before the year was out questions were raised about the legitimacy of those scores (PBS Frontline, 2013). The fact is that when one ties scores to tenure, there is going to be cheating, and that is very likely what happened. Thus, in this case, there is great evidence again that Rhee should have moved from blame to self-responsibility a lot sooner and re-evaluated the merits of her ideas on reform.

Reframing Picture from Unfriendly to Friendly

Fisher et al. (2011) advocate for a technique called “reframing.” Reframing is when one takes an opponent's position and re-frames it in a way that is more favorable to you. Reframing is a powerful tool because it allows one to see things from a different perspective. In many cases, two parties are locked into a conflict because they are both trying to achieve the same thing. If they can reframe the issue, they may be able to find a way to cooperate instead of compete. Reframing can help people find solutions to problems that they thought were unsolvable. For example, imagine if one is trying to lose weight but has hit a plateau he might feel like nothing is working. But if he reframes the goal from “losing weight” to “improving his health,” he suddenly finds it easier to stay motivated and stick with the plan.

For example, in the case of Michelle Rhee, she could have reframed the situation by saying that she was trying to help the students of Washington, DC by giving them access to better schools. This would have been more favorable than her actual framing, which was that she was trying to fix the broken school system. She stated this in public and stood by that framing of the issue. The people did not like that, though, and they voiced their displeasure in the election. Reframing can be an effective way to improve one’s negotiating position, and it is something that Rhee could have used to her advantage. Thus, in this case, there is great evidence again that Rhee should have reframed the picture to make it friendly to the public.

Moving from Resistance to Acceptance

Rhee moved from resistance to resistance instead of to resistance to acceptance. As Chancellor of the Washington D.C. public school system, Michelle Rhee was a polarizing figure. Her aggressive reforms and unpopular decisions made her the target of constant criticism, and she was often accused of being insensitive to the needs of students and teachers. However, rather than backing down in the face of opposition, Rhee continued to push forward with her agenda. In some cases, she was able to gain acceptance for her reforms by making small concessions or by framing the debate in a different way. In other cases, she simply dug in her heels and refused to budge. As a result, Rhee's time as Chancellor was marked by a series of very public battles. While she did not always win these battles, her willingness to stand up to her critics earned her a reputation as a tenacious fighter. But in the end, she had to resign for she never gained acceptance.

If Rhee had been more accepting of input from others and more willing to compromise in a positive way (i.e., in a way that does not require her to give up any goals) as Fisher et al. (2011) recommend, she might have been able to win more support for her initiatives. As it stands, her top-down approach was unpopular with many and ultimately failed to bring about the sweeping changes she had hoped for. Those reforms she could point to as “successes” were later seen as mirages. Had she been more open to gaining acceptance from stakeholders, she might have seen that her own goals were stilted and could stand to be reshaped with good input. To gain acceptance, as Ury (2015) points out, one needs to listen with good will to others and not be so quick to push forward.

Moving from Exclusion to Inclusion

Rhee was very okay with being exclusive: she saw herself as having the authority to shut down, move budgets, fire and hire, and terminate at will. She negotiated with the teachers union and won some ground—but in the end she was never focused on including others in her decision-making process, and that is why the Chair of the Council chastised her in the end of the Frontline documentary.

However, Fisher et al. (2011) recommend that negotiators move from an exclusive focus on their own interests to a more inclusive focus that takes into account the interests of all parties involved. They argue that this shift is necessary in order to reach an agreement that is fair and mutually beneficial. To achieve this, they suggest that negotiators first try to identify the underlying needs of all parties involved. Once these needs have been established, they can then work together to find creative solutions that meet everyone's needs. By taking this more inclusive approach, Fisher and Ury believe that negotiators will be more likely to reach an agreement that satisfies all parties involved. Rhee could have absolutely done this by working more closely with parents, accepting their viewpoints as important and vital, and seeing how they could arrive at solutions that benefited everyone.

Moving from Win-Lose to Win-Win-Win

Rhee saw her position as one of win-lose: either she pushed through her reforms or the reforms never got implemented; and she accepted that there would be political costs to pay. Her goal was to win, even if others had to lose (like the mayor—or even herself, since she ultimately had to step down).

But Fisher et al. (2011) proposed a model for negotiation that would move parties from a win-lose mindset to one of win-win-win. According to this model, the goal of negotiation is not simply to secure the best possible outcome for oneself, but rather to create a situation in which all parties involved feel that they have benefitted. To achieve this, Fisher and Ury recommended a number of steps, including: 1) defining the problem at hand; 2) generating a range of potential solutions; 3) evaluating these options in terms of their potential to meet the needs of all parties; and 4) selecting the solution that is most likely to be acceptable to all. Their point was that by following these steps, negotiators could create an agreement that is not only beneficial, but also durable and fair. Rhee could have implemented this tactic by accepting what the Council had to say earlier on, by accepting what parents and teachers had to say throughout the negotiation process, and by seeing that there could be new ways to create avenues that would benefit all stakeholders.

Need to Separate People Issues from the Problem

Rhee clearly had some people issues: she had a tendency to see people as the problem—which is why she fired so many. However, she might have benefited from applying Fisher et al’s (2011) principle of separating people issues from the problem. Although she said to the public that the problem was the system, she really saw the people in that system as the problem. If she had seen the system as the problem, she would have worked harder to make sure teachers could stay and schools could remain open. Instead, she wanted to clean house and put new people in—which ultimately did not lead to any real positive change.

Need to Focus on Interests not Positions

Rhee was dead-set on positions from the word go. It was her position that reform was needed, that she had the winning solution, that linking performance to pay was the key, and that she had to bulldoze ahead with her agenda while she had time to do it. Yet never did she stop to consider that a truly successful negotiator focuses on interests rather than positions, as Fisher et al. (2011) show.

Successful negotiators should identify the needs and objectives that are driving their position, and then work together to find a solution that meets everyone’s interests (Ury, 2015). This approach has several advantages. First, it helps the parties to see beyond their initial positions and to understand the other side’s perspective. Second, it helps to create a more collaborative atmosphere, as the parties are working together to find a creative solution. Finally, it is more likely to result in an agreement that is satisfactory to both parties, as it takes into account their respective interests. This approach would most certainly have helped Rhee both to win support from the public and to implement reforms effectively.

Need to Invent Options for Mutual Gain

According to Fisher et al. (2011), one of the keys to successful negotiation is to focus on finding solutions that are mutually beneficial. Both parties should feel like they have something to gain from the agreement. To do this, the negotiators need to be creative and come up with a variety of options that could satisfy both parties. They also need to be willing to compromise and make concessions that enable them to maintain their interests. By keeping these principles in mind, both parties can come away from the negotiation feeling like they have won. However, to make it work, a negotiator has to be willing and able to invent new options that will benefit everyone. It is really part of being a creative negotiator. This approach was wholly missing in Rhee’s approach.