The mission; the recording that self-destructs; the burning fuse; the iconic Lalo Schiffrin score that accompanies the opening credits (to this day, a copy of the sheet music still sits atop the stack in my piano bench). I’ve been a fan of Mission: Impossible — first the television series (including its remake in the ’80s) and now the movies produced by and starring Tom Cruise — from the day it first aired on September 17, 1966. So, when I learned that Mission: Impossible — Rogue Nation was scheduled to open this past weekend, this month’s title and theme practically cried out to me:

“Good morning, Mr. Siegal. After years of open hostilities, warring parties agreed to pursue a diplomatic solution to their ongoing feud. Unfortunately, negotiations between the two sides have stalled and both are now threatening to walk away from the bargaining table and ratchet up the conflict. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to devise a strategy that will break the impasse, thereby enabling the parties to negotiate a peaceful and permanent resolution to their long-running dispute.”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFtHB4RevLM

Last month, I was confronted with this exact scenario. The parties arrived at mediation, negotiated briefly, and then refused to budge from their respective positions, with plaintiff demanding $90,000 and defendant offering $40,000 in response. I proposed to both attorneys that they write down a “better” number on a piece of paper, fold the paper and give it to me, with the understanding that I would look at the numbers only when I had both in my possession and that I would disclose the numbers if — but only if — they were within $15,000 of one another. Otherwise, I would simply report back that the parties remained more than $15,000 apart. Both sides agreed to give it a try.

Counsel for plaintiff wrote down $70,000 on a piece of paper and counsel for defendant wrote down $47,000, leaving a gap of $23,000. As promised, I informed each that the gap separating the parties was more than $15,000, but I provided no other information. Obviously, plaintiff was able to infer that counsel for defendant had written something less than $55,000 and defendant was able to infer that counsel for plaintiff had written something greater than $62,000.

I then proposed that both attorneys write down a new number, the only requirement being that the new number had to be at least one dollar “better” than the first number. This time, counsel for plaintiff wrote down $60,000 and counsel for defendant wrote down $50,000. Since they were now within $15,000 of one another, I handed each the other side’s folded piece of paper and asked how they wished to proceed. As you might expect, they worked it out from there.

With slight variations, I found that I was able to successfully employ the same strategy a number of other times in the weeks that followed. So when it comes to finding ways to break an impasse, never accept that the mission is impossible.

Best regards . . .

Floyd J. Siegal