Confrontation Manager report

Description
This is a report on the interaction "Untitled interaction" that is part of the "Untitled mission" mission. It was created on
09/May/2019 10:36:53 AM.

Parties
The interaction involves the following parties:
l AWAKKAPAL
l KAPTENPHILIPS
l PEROMPAK

Options
AWAKKAPAL can:
l MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN
l MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ
KAPTENPHILIPS can:
l MELARIKANDIRI
PEROMPAK can:
l MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA
l MENYERAH

Options Board

A t K P

AWAKKAPAL

MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN ?

MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ ?

KAPTENPHILIPS

MELARIKANDIRI

PEROMPAK

MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA

MENYERAH

Page 1 of 9
 Confrontation Manager report
Tug of War

[2] A may not

MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN; A
may not MELUMPUHKANPE...

[A]: AWAKKAPAL's [K]: KAPTENPHILIPS's

[t]: Threatened future
position position
K; P A; P

Present intentions
There are no present intentions.

Positions
AWAKKAPAL's position (A) is that:
l AWAKKAPAL should MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN(?); should MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ(?).
l KAPTENPHILIPS should not MELARIKANDIRI.
l PEROMPAK should not MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; should MENYERAH.
KAPTENPHILIPS's position (K) is that:
l AWAKKAPAL should MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN; should MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l KAPTENPHILIPS should MELARIKANDIRI.
l PEROMPAK should not MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; should MENYERAH.
PEROMPAK's position (P) is that:
l AWAKKAPAL should MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN; should not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l KAPTENPHILIPS should not MELARIKANDIRI.
l PEROMPAK should MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; should not MENYERAH.

Stated intentions
The stated intentions constitute a threatened future.
If this is carried out:
l AWAKKAPAL will not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN; will not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l KAPTENPHILIPS will not MELARIKANDIRI.
l PEROMPAK will MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; will not MENYERAH.

Compatibilities
AWAKKAPAL's position is incompatible with all other positions.
KAPTENPHILIPS's position is incompatible with all other positions.
PEROMPAK's position is incompatible with all other positions.

Page 2 of 9
 Confrontation Manager report
Doubts
If parties agreed to A:
l KAPTENPHILIPS believes that AWAKKAPAL would not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN.
l PEROMPAK believes that AWAKKAPAL would not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN.
l KAPTENPHILIPS believes that AWAKKAPAL would not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l PEROMPAK believes that AWAKKAPAL would not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.

Preferences
AWAKKAPAL:
l prefers, or has no preference for, K over the threatened future.
l prefers, or has no preference for, P over the threatened future.
KAPTENPHILIPS:
l prefers, or has no preference for, A over the threatened future.
l prefers P to his own position.
l prefers, or has no preference for, P over the threatened future.
PEROMPAK:
l prefers, or has no preference for, A over the threatened future.
l prefers, or has no preference for, K over the threatened future.

Dilemmas
AWAKKAPAL's dilemmas
Description of AWAKKAPAL's Rejection dilemma with respect to KAPTENPHILIPS
AWAKKAPAL's problem: its rejection of KAPTENPHILIPS's position is not credible.
KAPTENPHILIPS believes that AWAKKAPAL may prefer his (KAPTENPHILIPS's) position to the threatened future.
Under the threatened future:
l AWAKKAPAL would not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN; would not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l PEROMPAK would MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; would not MENYERAH.

Projected course of action for AWAKKAPAL

Note: Although AWAKKAPAL must deal with this problem eventually, problems with other parties may come first. The
following courses of action assume that this is not so: action is taken now.
AWAKKAPAL has two possible courses of action.
First possible course of action: conciliation or compromise
There is common ground between AWAKKAPAL and KAPTENPHILIPS. For both, KAPTENPHILIPS's position is
potentially better than the threatened future.
AWAKKAPAL's problem is KAPTENPHILIPS's insistence that:
l KAPTENPHILIPS should MELARIKANDIRI.
Why does KAPTENPHILIPS take this position? AWAKKAPAL analyzes KAPTENPHILIPS's underlying concerns. It
then sends messages suggesting how to modify both positions to make them compatible.
Projected emotion: positive toward KAPTENPHILIPS.
Second possible course of action: rejection

Page 3 of 9
 Confrontation Manager report
AWAKKAPAL sends messages to convince KAPTENPHILIPS it (AWAKKAPAL) does prefer the threatened future to
KAPTENPHILIPS's position.
These messages point out that under the threatened future:
l KAPTENPHILIPS would not MELARIKANDIRI.
But this is not enough. To change KAPTENPHILIPS's mind, AWAKKAPAL's messages must, by adding to or changing
the set of available options, do one or both of the following:
l Show that the costs to AWAKKAPAL of KAPTENPHILIPS's position are greater, or more credible, than
KAPTENPHILIPS supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward KAPTENPHILIPS.
l Show that the advantages to AWAKKAPAL of the threatened future are greater, or more credible, than
KAPTENPHILIPS supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward KAPTENPHILIPS.

Description of AWAKKAPAL's Cooperation dilemma with respect to KAPTENPHILIPS

AWAKKAPAL's problem: KAPTENPHILIPS doubts that AWAKKAPAL would implement its commitments, if agreed.
AWAKKAPAL must gain KAPTENPHILIPS's trust.

Projected course of action for AWAKKAPAL

AWAKKAPAL analyzes KAPTENPHILIPS's assumptions. Why does KAPTENPHILIPS believe that , if all parties
agreed to AWAKKAPAL's position, it:
l might not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN; might not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ
AWAKKAPAL sends messages that, by overthrowing these assumptions, do one or more of the following:
l Show that the costs or difficulties AWAKKAPAL would incur in carrying out these commitments are less, or less
credible, than KAPTENPHILIPS supposes.
l Show that the advantages it would gain from carrying them out are greater, or more credible, than
KAPTENPHILIPS supposes.
l Show that it must inevitably carry them out.
Projected emotion: positive toward KAPTENPHILIPS.

Description of AWAKKAPAL's Rejection dilemma with respect to PEROMPAK

AWAKKAPAL's problem: its rejection of PEROMPAK's position is not credible.
PEROMPAK believes that AWAKKAPAL may prefer his (PEROMPAK's) position to the threatened future. Under the
threatened future:
l AWAKKAPAL would not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN.

Projected course of action for AWAKKAPAL

Note: Although AWAKKAPAL must deal with this problem eventually, problems with other parties may come first. The
following courses of action assume that this is not so: action is taken now.
AWAKKAPAL has two possible courses of action.
First possible course of action: conciliation or compromise
There is common ground between AWAKKAPAL and PEROMPAK. For both, PEROMPAK's position is potentially
better than the threatened future.
AWAKKAPAL's problem is PEROMPAK's insistence that:
l AWAKKAPAL should not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l PEROMPAK should MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; should not MENYERAH.
Why does PEROMPAK take this position? AWAKKAPAL analyzes PEROMPAK's underlying concerns. It then sends
messages suggesting how to modify both positions to make them compatible.

Page 4 of 9
 Confrontation Manager report
Projected emotion: positive toward PEROMPAK.
Second possible course of action: rejection
AWAKKAPAL sends messages to convince PEROMPAK it (AWAKKAPAL) does prefer the threatened future to
PEROMPAK's position.
AWAKKAPAL's messages must, by adding to or changing the set of available options, do one or both of the following:
l Show that the costs to AWAKKAPAL of PEROMPAK's position are greater, or more credible, than PEROMPAK
supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward PEROMPAK.
l Show that the advantages to AWAKKAPAL of the threatened future are greater, or more credible, than
PEROMPAK supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward PEROMPAK.

Description of AWAKKAPAL's Cooperation dilemma with respect to PEROMPAK

AWAKKAPAL's problem: PEROMPAK doubts that AWAKKAPAL would implement its commitments, if agreed.
AWAKKAPAL must gain PEROMPAK's trust.

Projected course of action for AWAKKAPAL

AWAKKAPAL analyzes PEROMPAK's assumptions. Why does PEROMPAK believe that , if all parties agreed to
AWAKKAPAL's position, it:
l might not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN
AWAKKAPAL sends messages that, by overthrowing these assumptions, do one or more of the following:
l Show that the costs or difficulties AWAKKAPAL would incur in carrying out these commitments are less, or less
credible, than PEROMPAK supposes.
l Show that the advantages it would gain from carrying them out are greater, or more credible, than PEROMPAK
supposes.
l Show that it must inevitably carry them out.
Projected emotion: positive toward PEROMPAK.

KAPTENPHILIPS's dilemmas
Description of KAPTENPHILIPS's Rejection dilemma with respect to AWAKKAPAL
KAPTENPHILIPS's problem: his rejection of AWAKKAPAL's position is not credible.
AWAKKAPAL believes that KAPTENPHILIPS may prefer its (AWAKKAPAL's) position to the threatened future. Under
the threatened future:
l AWAKKAPAL would not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN; would not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l PEROMPAK would MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; would not MENYERAH.

Projected course of action for KAPTENPHILIPS

Note: Although KAPTENPHILIPS must deal with this problem eventually, problems with other parties may come first.
The following courses of action assume that this is not so: action is taken now.
KAPTENPHILIPS has two possible courses of action.
First possible course of action: conciliation or compromise
There is common ground between KAPTENPHILIPS and AWAKKAPAL. For both, AWAKKAPAL's position is
potentially better than the threatened future.
KAPTENPHILIPS's problem is AWAKKAPAL's insistence that:
l KAPTENPHILIPS should not MELARIKANDIRI.

Page 5 of 9
 Confrontation Manager report
Why does AWAKKAPAL take this position? KAPTENPHILIPS analyzes AWAKKAPAL's underlying concerns. He then
sends messages suggesting how to modify both positions to make them compatible.
Projected emotion: positive toward AWAKKAPAL.
Second possible course of action: rejection
KAPTENPHILIPS sends messages to convince AWAKKAPAL he (KAPTENPHILIPS) does prefer the threatened future
to AWAKKAPAL's position.
KAPTENPHILIPS's messages must, by adding to or changing the set of available options, do one or both of the
following:
l Show that the costs to KAPTENPHILIPS of AWAKKAPAL's position are greater, or more credible, than
AWAKKAPAL supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward AWAKKAPAL.
l Show that the advantages to KAPTENPHILIPS of the threatened future are greater, or more credible, than
AWAKKAPAL supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward AWAKKAPAL.

Description of KAPTENPHILIPS's Positioning dilemma with respect to PEROMPAK

KAPTENPHILIPS's problem: he actually prefers PEROMPAK's position to his own. He prefers:
l AWAKKAPAL to not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l KAPTENPHILIPS to not MELARIKANDIRI.
l PEROMPAK to MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; to not MENYERAH.
He nevertheless rejects this. His reasons are strategic.
l Others may reject the position if he does not.
l He may want PEROMPAK to take a position he likes even more.

Projected course of action for KAPTENPHILIPS

KAPTENPHILIPS has two possible courses of action.
First possible course of action: alliance with PEROMPAK
There is common ground: both parties find PEROMPAK's position better than KAPTENPHILIPS's.
KAPTENPHILIPS proposes modifications of PEROMPAK's position that preserve this common interest while making it
still more acceptable to KAPTENPHILIPS and/or others.
Projected emotion: positive toward PEROMPAK.
Second possible course of action: rejection
KAPTENPHILIPS convinces PEROMPAK that he prefers his own position. He sends messages showing one or both
of the following:
l That the costs to KAPTENPHILIPS of PEROMPAK's position are greater, or more credible, than PEROMPAK
supposes. Projected emotion: Negative (irritation) or neutral toward PEROMPAK.
l That the advantages to KAPTENPHILIPS of his own position are greater, or more credible, than PEROMPAK
supposes. Projected emotion: neutral toward PEROMPAK, positive toward self.

Description of KAPTENPHILIPS's Rejection dilemma with respect to PEROMPAK

KAPTENPHILIPS's problem: his rejection of PEROMPAK's position is not credible.
PEROMPAK believes that KAPTENPHILIPS may prefer his (PEROMPAK's) position to the threatened future. Under
the threatened future:
l AWAKKAPAL would not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN.

Page 6 of 9
 Confrontation Manager report
Projected course of action for KAPTENPHILIPS
Note: Although KAPTENPHILIPS must deal with this problem eventually, problems with other parties may come first.
The following courses of action assume that this is not so: action is taken now.
KAPTENPHILIPS has two possible courses of action.
First possible course of action: conciliation or compromise
There is common ground between KAPTENPHILIPS and PEROMPAK. For both, PEROMPAK's position is potentially
better than the threatened future.
KAPTENPHILIPS's problem is PEROMPAK's insistence that:
l AWAKKAPAL should not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l KAPTENPHILIPS should not MELARIKANDIRI.
l PEROMPAK should MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; should not MENYERAH.
Why does PEROMPAK take this position? KAPTENPHILIPS analyzes PEROMPAK's underlying concerns. He then
sends messages suggesting how to modify both positions to make them compatible.
Projected emotion: positive toward PEROMPAK.
Second possible course of action: rejection
KAPTENPHILIPS sends messages to convince PEROMPAK he (KAPTENPHILIPS) does prefer the threatened future
to PEROMPAK's position.
KAPTENPHILIPS's messages must, by adding to or changing the set of available options, do one or both of the
following:
l Show that the costs to KAPTENPHILIPS of PEROMPAK's position are greater, or more credible, than PEROMPAK
supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward PEROMPAK.
l Show that the advantages to KAPTENPHILIPS of the threatened future are greater, or more credible, than
PEROMPAK supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward PEROMPAK.

PEROMPAK's dilemmas
Description of PEROMPAK's Rejection dilemma with respect to AWAKKAPAL
PEROMPAK's problem: his rejection of AWAKKAPAL's position is not credible.
AWAKKAPAL believes that PEROMPAK may prefer its (AWAKKAPAL's) position to the threatened future. Under the
threatened future:
l AWAKKAPAL would not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN.

Projected course of action for PEROMPAK

Note: Although PEROMPAK must deal with this problem eventually, problems with other parties may come first. The
following courses of action assume that this is not so: action is taken now.
PEROMPAK has two possible courses of action.
First possible course of action: conciliation or compromise
There is common ground between PEROMPAK and AWAKKAPAL. For both, AWAKKAPAL's position is potentially
better than the threatened future.
PEROMPAK's problem is AWAKKAPAL's insistence that:
l AWAKKAPAL should MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l PEROMPAK should not MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; should MENYERAH.
Why does AWAKKAPAL take this position? PEROMPAK analyzes AWAKKAPAL's underlying concerns. He then sends
messages suggesting how to modify both positions to make them compatible.

Page 7 of 9
 Confrontation Manager report
Projected emotion: positive toward AWAKKAPAL.
Second possible course of action: rejection
PEROMPAK sends messages to convince AWAKKAPAL he (PEROMPAK) does prefer the threatened future to
AWAKKAPAL's position.
These messages point out that under the threatened future:
l AWAKKAPAL would not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l PEROMPAK would MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; would not MENYERAH.
But this is not enough. To change AWAKKAPAL's mind, PEROMPAK's messages must, by adding to or changing the
set of available options, do one or both of the following:
l Show that the costs to PEROMPAK of AWAKKAPAL's position are greater, or more credible, than AWAKKAPAL
supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward AWAKKAPAL.
l Show that the advantages to PEROMPAK of the threatened future are greater, or more credible, than
AWAKKAPAL supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward AWAKKAPAL.

Description of PEROMPAK's Rejection dilemma with respect to KAPTENPHILIPS

PEROMPAK's problem: his rejection of KAPTENPHILIPS's position is not credible.
KAPTENPHILIPS believes that PEROMPAK may prefer his (KAPTENPHILIPS's) position to the threatened future.
Under the threatened future:
l AWAKKAPAL would not MEMBERIKANTEBUSAN.

Projected course of action for PEROMPAK

Note: Although PEROMPAK must deal with this problem eventually, problems with other parties may come first. The
following courses of action assume that this is not so: action is taken now.
PEROMPAK has two possible courses of action.
First possible course of action: conciliation or compromise
There is common ground between PEROMPAK and KAPTENPHILIPS. For both, KAPTENPHILIPS's position is
potentially better than the threatened future.
PEROMPAK's problem is KAPTENPHILIPS's insistence that:
l AWAKKAPAL should MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l KAPTENPHILIPS should MELARIKANDIRI.
l PEROMPAK should not MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; should MENYERAH.
Why does KAPTENPHILIPS take this position? PEROMPAK analyzes KAPTENPHILIPS's underlying concerns. He
then sends messages suggesting how to modify both positions to make them compatible.
Projected emotion: positive toward KAPTENPHILIPS.
Second possible course of action: rejection
PEROMPAK sends messages to convince KAPTENPHILIPS he (PEROMPAK) does prefer the threatened future to
KAPTENPHILIPS's position.
These messages point out that under the threatened future:
l AWAKKAPAL would not MELUMPUHKANPEROMPAJ.
l KAPTENPHILIPS would not MELARIKANDIRI.
l PEROMPAK would MEMBAWASANDERAKESOMALIA; would not MENYERAH.
But this is not enough. To change KAPTENPHILIPS's mind, PEROMPAK's messages must, by adding to or changing
the set of available options, do one or both of the following:

Page 8 of 9
 Confrontation Manager report
l Show that the costs to PEROMPAK of KAPTENPHILIPS's position are greater, or more credible, than
KAPTENPHILIPS supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward KAPTENPHILIPS.
l Show that the advantages to PEROMPAK of the threatened future are greater, or more credible, than
KAPTENPHILIPS supposes. Projected emotion: Negative or neutral toward KAPTENPHILIPS.

Messages
Describe messages that should be communicated to eliminate dilemmas. Remember to address:
l rationale;
l evidence;
l comprehensibility;
l emotional acceptability;
l coordination.

Page 9 of 9