Jon and Sue both agreed with me that they needed to stop making decisions that were good for one and bad for the other. They agreed that the gains from having a mutually agreeable lifestyle more than outweighed the personal loss of making independent decisions. They learned to ask each other How would you feel? before they made any decision.
That's the first step toward marital negotiation - asking the question, "How would you feel?" Without it couples don't negotiate. They simply make their decisions without regard for each other's feelings. But following the Policy of Joint Agreement guaranteed that Sue and Jon would negotiate, because they couldn't do anything until they were both in agreement. The Policy of Joint Agreement changed the way they discussed issues, and for the first time in their marriage, they were communicating with the deepest concern for each other's feelings.
In most marriages, negotiation is tough. Whenever there is a conflict of opinions, spouses usually either do whatever they're asked or refuse to do much of anything. Discussing each conflict until a mutually enthusiastic agreement is reached is very unusual. But that's because most spouses are unskilled in negotiating with each other. They don't know how to work out agreements that are in their mutual interest.
However, if a couple are committed to avoid any decision until they come to a mutually enthusiastic agreement, eventually they learn how to negotiate, and they do it almost effortlessly. They become very creative in discovering solutions to problems and this leads to their mutual happiness.
The Policy of Joint Agreement forced Jon and Sue to negotiate until they could arrive at a decision that would not hurt either of them. It forced them to be thoughtful. These mutually acceptable decisions formed the foundation for a new lifestyle that they would share with each other - a lifestyle that would not withdraw love units from either of their Love Banks.
How to Negotiate with the Policy of Joint Agreement
Throughout Sue and Jon's marriage the issue of his business travel had been a source of unhappiness for Sue. She was lonely when he was away from home. Now Jon had a new position that didn't require traveling, but it paid quite a bit less, and they both missed his higher income. Sue wanted Jon's previous income without the problems his travel caused. Jon and Sue needed to find a solution to this dilemma, so it was on this issue that I taught them to negotiate with the Policy of Joint Agreement.
There are four guidelines that I recommend to couples for reaching an enthusiastic agreement. I encouraged Jon and Sue to use them as they discussed his career alternatives.
Guideline 1. Set ground rules to make negotiations pleasant and safe.
Before you start to negotiate, agree with each other that you will both follow these rules: (a) be pleasant and cheerful throughout your discussion of the issue; (b) put safety first - do not threaten to cause pain or suffering when you negotiate, even if your negotiations fail; and (c) if you reach an impasse, stop for a while and come back to the issue later.
One spouse's negative comment or pessimistic attitude will often trigger an escalation of negativity and pessimism from the other spouse. This can lead to Love Busters intruding on your happy conversation. Angry outbursts, disrespectful judgments, and selfish demands will ruin any effort you make to negotiate. You will simply never have an enthusiastic agreement about anything if you hurt each other as you try to solve your problems. Instead, try your best to soothe each other when something said creates a negative reaction.
If your negotiation becomes unpleasant or unsafe to either of you, break it off and choose another time to discuss the issue. Do the same thing if it appears you have reached an impasse. Taking a break will allow tempers to cool, and may reveal new insights that can be discussed when you begin your negotiations again.
Guideline 2. Identify the problem from the perspectives of both you and your spouse.
Be able to state each other's position on the issue before you go on to find a solution. Each of you should describe what you would like and why you would like it. Then explain the other's position to each other's satisfaction. Be sure you fully understand each other before you go any further toward an agreement. And respect your differences of opinion.
As soon as Sue began to explain how she felt about Jon's trips away from home, she could hardly hold back her tears. She explained how she had wanted Jon to reach his highest potential with his job and earn a living that would create a comfortable lifestyle for their family. Yet, whenever he was gone, she felt very lonely, as if he had abandoned her. She explained that while her needs were not being met when he traveled, her need for financial support was not being met by his new position that did not require travel. She wanted to find a solution that would enable him to meet all of her emotional needs.
After Sue explained her perspective, Jon summarized what he heard. He tried to put into his own words what Sue felt. When he was finished, Sue made a few minor corrections to clarify her perspective but in general was very pleased with Jon's summary and felt that he understood her position.
Then Jon described his perspective. He began by explaining how they had been living above their means for some time. Before the affair they had spent just about everything he earned. But during their separation their expenses skyrocketed. Jon had to borrow heavily to pay his own living expenses and pay the support to Sue that the court had ordered. It had left them on the verge of bankruptcy.
To add to this financial crisis, Jon had given up his high-paying position to take a lower-paying position that did not require travel. He did this while Sue was having her affair as an expression of his willingness and ability to meet her emotional needs when she would return to him. After hearing Jon's perspective, Sue summarized what she heard. Jon was satisfed that it accurately reflected his feelings.
This was not the first time they had this conversation. But they had never gone beyond that second step of understanding each other's perspective. They knew what the problem was but they had never solved it. They had not used the Policy of Joint Agreement to guide them toward a solution. Now their financial crisis pushed them to the fast track toward a solution to the problem. They had to come quickly to an enthusiastic agreement. Next post, I'll talk about guideline 3 and 4. Before that, you can check out Communication Techniques For Couples.
