No. 21, May-June 2023. Something unexpected happened to me at a hematologist's office the other day. I wanted to know if it was really necessary to undergo a bone marrow biopsy-an "uncomfortable" procedure according to some doctors-for mild anemia. Instead of giving me an explanation loaded with medical terminology, he gave me an analysis of decisional bifurcations and possible consequences that reminded me of the decision trees I had studied in my MBA.
Near the end of the appointment, when I was convinced that biopsy might be the best option only after having tried and discarded other alternatives, the hematologist mentioned that he was finishing a Harvard Business School webinar on negotiation, based on Roger Fisher's "Yes to Agreement" scheme. And suddenly I understood why the analytical logic of his explanation was so clear.
Fisher's outline contains 5 steps for a successful negotiation, where "success" is defined by three criteria: both parties achieve their legitimate interests; through an efficient process; in which relations between the parties are improved (or at least not impaired), since business and personal relationships are usually long-term. These steps are: 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) focus on interests and not lock into positions; 3) broaden the range of options; 4) apply standards independent of the will of the parties; and 5) get to yes when the agreement is better than your BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) or "alex" (the external alternative), the term you prefer according to our colleague Enrique Ogliastri.
I was introduced to this scheme during a flight to a South American country to give a workshop on decision making to the planning ministry, when my colleague informed me that the minister wanted us to give a session on negotiation. When I responded that it was not my area, he passed me his copy of Fisher's book. "Read this," he told me.
I finished reading it before landing. It was an easy read because of the similarity between Fisher's five pillars and the steps of the "WAC method" (written analysis of cases) that we used ad nauseam in the Harvard MBA: define the problem; set objectives (interests); identify alternatives (options); apply criteria (standards) to evaluate them; and select the best alternative, either the agreement under negotiation or the BATNA. We MBA students internalized this scheme to such an extent that we would repeat it in our sleep and sometimes the following slogan would appear on the walls of the school bathrooms: "if you don't know what to do when you walk in here, follow the WAC method."
On a recent visit of Harvard MBA students to Costa Rica, I realized that there is no longer a WAC course in the curriculum. "It was the most valuable course for students," a well-known professor emeritus told me, "but neither the faculty nor the students liked it, the former because it was useless for an academic career and the latter because it caused so much angst." (At INCAE the course is still taught under the name ANEC, Written Case Analysis.)
I found the WAC method not only useful for case analysis-and in win-win negotiations-but also as a generic guide in designing a class session, especially when it comes to the case method.
So, if you have any doubts about how to proceed when you have to teach a case for the first time and have little time to prepare it, just follow the WAC method.
- John C. Ickis
