Story: When Senator Joseph Biden Reframed A Conversation - it is brilliant!

Sometimes, you can influence another by accepting his superiority, while stating your interests clearly.   Consider this example from “Getting Past No” by William Ury.

In 1979, the SALT II arms control treaty was up for ratification in the US Senate.  To obtain the necessary two-thirds majority, the Senate leaders wanted to add an amendment, but this required Soviet assent.  A young US senator, Joseph Biden, was about to travel to Moscow, so the Senate leadership asked him to raise the question with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko.

The match in Moscow was uneven: a junior senator head-to-head with a hard-nosed diplomat of vast experience. Gromyko began the discussion with an eloquent hour-long disquisition on how the Soviets had always played catch-up to the Americans in the arms race. He concluded with a forceful argument for why SALT II actually favoured the Americans and why, therefore, the Senate should ratify the treaty unchanged. Gromyko’s position on the proposed amendment was an unequivocal nyet (Russian for ‘no’). 

Then it was Biden’s turn. Instead of arguing with Gromyko and taking a counter-position, he slowly and gravely said, “Mr. Gromyko, you make a very persuasive case. I agree with much of what you’ve said. When I go back to my colleagues in the Senate, however, and report what you’ve just told me, some of them – like Senator Goldwater or Senator Helms – will not be persuaded, and I’m afraid their concerns will carry weight with others.” Biden went on to explain their worries. “you have more experience in these arms-control matters than anyone else alive. How would you advise me to respond to my colleagues’ concern?” 

Gromyko could not resist the temptation to offer advice to the inexperienced young American. He started coaching him on what he should tell the skeptical senators. On by one. Biden raise the arguments that would need to be dealt with, and Gromyko grappled with each of them. In the end, appreciating perhaps for the first time how the amendment would help win wavering votes, Gromyko reversed himself and gave him consent.

Instead of rejecting Gromyko’s position, which would have led to an argument over positions, Biden acted as if Gromyko were interested in problem-solving and asked for his advice. He reframed the conversation as a constructive discussion about how to meet the senators’ concerns and win ratification of the treaty.

On Reframing :- 

Reframing works because every message is subject to interpretation. You have that power of positive perception, the ability to put a problem-solving frame around whatever your opponent says. He will often go along with your reinterpretation, just as Gromyko did, partly because he is surprised that you have not rejected his position and partly because he is eager to pursue his argument.

Because your opponent is concentrated on the outcome of the negotiation, he may not even be aware that you have subtly changed the process. Instead of focusing on competing positions, you are figuring out how best to satisfy each side’s interests. You don’t need to ask your opponent’s permission. Just start to play the new game.
Reframing is one of the greatest powers you have as a negotiator. The way to change the game is to change the frame.