The 19th century scholar Georg Simmel observed how when one group is under attack from another, they pull together more tightly to defend themselves. Later, Lewis Coser refined that concept to add groups may search for enemies just to reinforce such a stronger identity.

Activist Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals” influenced many community organizers and in recent years also influenced more traditional political figures. For example, Republican House majority leader Dick Armey gave copies of Alinsky’s books to members of The Tea Party.

Among Alinsky’s rules are “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Rather than organize around an issue, Alinsky advocates focusing on one individual or group, make them face the issue, and isolate them from potential supporters. Organizing in Rochester, New York, Alinsky picked the city’s major employer, Kodak, and forceed them to face conflict. Alinsky focused attention on Kodak and its policies rather than the broad general issue of discrimination.

Currently, Harvard University finds itself serving as Alinsky’s Kodak. Harvard has become the issue and most observers would be hard pressed to identify exactly what the general concern really is. It isn’t the result of research contracts nor international students.

Former professional wrestling promoter and Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, may have identified the real conflict in a CNBC interview when she said universities should be able to do research as long as they are “in sync” with the Trump administration.

“Making a Deal” has entered popular discourse of late—so much so, that the full depth of its meaning should be made clear.

“Making a Deal” is usually associated with Transactional Negotiation. Professional negotiators understand this typically involves adversarial tactics, such as excessive demands and threats eventually exchanging something of value to reach a mutually agreeable outcome. Parties understand the agreement is typically not intended to be permanent or even long term. As conditions change, the two parties understand there are no guarantees of anything. Transactional Negotiation is by definition short term, temporary, and expedient. Most professional negotiators would agree Transactional Negotiation is only appropriate for parties who never expect to have any relationship, positive or negative, beyond this one negotiation.

Most pros today stress the value of negotiation that builds a relationship between the parties. Professional negotiators recognize making one deal often sacrifices many positive deals in the future, so relationship negotiation not only has the objective of reaching a mutually agreeable solution, but also attempts to maximize the gain for both parties.

Relationship negotiators recognize that winning today is less important than winning many times in the future. Winning in the future means establishing a relationship that can facilitate mutual gain as conditions change.

Deal makers face a future of finding new partners and uncertainty. Relationship negotiators know that partners are available as conditions change and are willing to help if conditions require it.

Transactional Negotiation involves parties exchanging something of value, like a tangible item or an idea, in order to reach a mutually agreeable deal. It often involves adversarial bargaining tactics like making demands or threats, but can also incorporate collaborative approaches, like Integrative Negotiation where parties try to maximize joint gains.

For more information on negotiation styles, refer to my book, “Negotiation and Mediation.”