NEGOTIATIONS:

SOME DEFINITIONS AND COMPONENTS

Careful Reading

1 While negotiations are undertaken for a variety of reasons, all center on the idea
that two or more parties find themselves “at a distance from one another”, which in some
way has to be reduced or removed (Gulliver). That aspect of negotiations is generally
accepted, understood and relatively simple. However, when negotiations are studied, one
is also reminded of the fact that power relationships are an important part of them. Two
or more parties may be sufficiently equal in their perceived power status, but must,
nevertheless, settle a dispute. On the other hand, one of the parties may represent an
entity that is more powerful than the others, but that same party also needs approval by
observers, such as the community, a nation-at-large, or possibly even the entire world, for
what it seeks to accomplish.

2 What also needs to be kept in mind is the fact that in all negotiations, including
international ones, the total process begins much earlier, ends much later, and is much
more complex than the layman reading a daily newspaper or watching the evening news
on television assumes, or is led to believe. For instance, Professors Walton and McKersie
remind us that incompatible expectations frequently require an approach that includes
both pre-negotiation and post-negotiation efforts. In addition one must not overlook the
role individuals play. Their personal characteristics, temperaments and attitudes can be
another significant part that is too often overlooked because of the importance of the
issues discussed, or the fact that negotiators are identified as representing some entity
(for instance, a government or state). Some of the major factors in successful negotiations
thus will always be emotional, creative, personal, or even artistic, and they simply cannot
be discovered, described or taught “by the numbers”.

3 N. Luhmann, a prominent German sociologist, argues that the acceptance of the

complexity of human interactions and the systematic process people employ to reduce
complexity must be used as a basis for the study of human interactions. Furthermore,
Summons emphasizes the influence of social contexts in giving meaning to messages in
human interactions. Casmin argues that only if one starts with these assumptions about
human interactions can he or she hope to adequately deal with the total process involved
in international negotiations.

NEGOTIATIONS: THE TOTAL PROCESS

4 As a starting point, P.H. Gulliver provides a cyclical model for the negotiation
process, which includes eight sequences. Summarily, these are (1) search for an arena for
the negotiations; (2) the formulation of an agenda and working definitions of the issues
in dispute; (3) preliminary statements of demands and offers and the exploration of the
dimensions and limits of the issues, with an emphasis on the differences between the
parties; (4) the narrowing of the differences, agreements on some issues, and the
identification of the ones which are more difficult to change; (5) preliminaries to final
bargaining; (6) final bargaining; (7) ritual confirmation of the final outcome and in many
cases , (8) the implementation of the outcome or arrangement for that.
5 The process, summarized above, becomes even more meaningful if it is combined
with the concepts provided by Goffman, which identify how individuals confront new
situations. On the basis of existing stereotypes or schemata, Goffman states, they are
capable of active involvement and modification of their behavior based on their
perceptions, which result in change. In that process, their personalities have an important
influence on their actions. In other words, the personal “equipment” negotiators bring
and use in negotiations play a significant role. Negotiations, Larson argues, are heavily
influenced by both the participants’ perceptions and the environment in which they are
conducted.

6 In this connection, Gulliver argues convincingly that the procedures in negotiations

have not been identified successfully because three factors have not been taken into
account:(a) Time constraints on the duration of negotiations. Negotiators do not have the
luxury of taking as much time as complex negotiations would ideally require. (b) The fact
that negotiators are first of all human beings, thus their assessments and choices change
during a negotiation, even when they are expected to represent a nation or state. (c) The
multiplicity of issues is another factor which makes the process quite unmanageable.

7 It is little wonder, then, that in many international negotiations, indecisiveness

becomes a common response. It is a result of the belief that a wait-and-see attitude can,
in the long run, produce better results that are more acceptable to all involved.
Unfortunately, when it is finally achieved, what appears to be sudden closure may lead
the people without special knowledge or experience to the groundless conclusion that
previously some uncooperative individual or government simply insisted on dragging his
or its feet. After all, the solution was quite obvious and simple all along. Often it is also
difficult to identify the real issues considered important by negotiators or their
preferences, on the basis of what they state publicly. Indeed, such public statements may
be responsive to the immediate needs of readers, listeners, and viewers—in other words,
mass-media consumers—rather than of those involved in long-range diplomatic
interactions.

8 In all this we need to remember that the two parties are in dispute. They want
different things and they want them from each other. They are not necessarily reasonable
men open to persuasion on the objective facts of the case, especially if more advantages
can be gained by persistent unreasonableness. They are much inclined to be suspicious of
each other, mistrustful, and somewhat hostile. This is especially the case where
something like a zero-sum1 condition continues to exist concerning some issues—what
they get is what we lose, and vice versa.
Interests are then exactly opposite. In non-zero-sum conditions it is not clear, or may not
be for some time, just how cooperation can be beneficial or whether one is being induced
to take less than the opponent or less than otherwise might be obtained. Cooperation can
be, or can seem to be, at the expense of one’s own interests.

9 If one carefully considers this concise summary, it becomes evident that the mere
description of techniques accomplishes a little, because limited resources that have to be
shared, real differences in perceptions, as well as human mental processes, are such vital
components of the negotiation process.

1
zero-sum: a situation or relationship in which a gain for one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side.
POWER AND NEGOTIATION

10 Since the possibility of walking out or ending negotiations must be taken into
consideration, some of the possible bases for continuity need to be addressed. After all,
negotiators enter the process with preferences and expectations. In effect, they have both
minimum and maximum expectations, and they realize that their opponents, or enemies,
who are engaged in the process with them, play a significant role in making the realization
or achievement of those expectations possible. In other words, expectations are directly
related to power. In that connection it is necessary to consider an interesting definition of
power. Power has been defined as a capacity or potential to influence others while
resisting the influence of others. Human beings in interaction, even internationally, thus
can be said to have a need to influence. Societal interactions are based on the idea that
people cannot leave each other alone. Especially in the contemporary world, such
interactions between nations include a concept of power that is often related to
armaments and armed conflict.

11 Peter M. Blau, an American sociologist and theorist, discusses four conditions that
give rise to social and economic independence and thus reduce the likelihood that one
will be subjected to another’s power. First, possessing strategic resources enables
persons to be more independent. Second, having alternative sources of supply is likely to
make them less dependent. Third, being able to use coercive force to make suppliers
provide services also reduces dependency. Fourth, reducing their needs for various
services also reduces dependence upon suppliers. The four conditions that promote
social and economic independence can be employed to outline four strategies that can be
used to acquire and maintain power. First, remaining indifferent to the services that the
dependent persons might be able to provide. Obviously, if power holders were to become
dependent upon services offered by others, they become subject to their power. Second,
making sure that those who are dependent do not have access to alternative sources of
supply. Such alternative sources weaken dependence and thus reduce power. Third,
discouraging the formation of coalitions among the dependent ones. Consequently, the
dependent ones cannot employ coercive force to obtain their supplies. Fourth, making
sure that those who are dependent do not change their needs so that the value of their
supplies diminishes. Hence persons who are in positions of power may have a vested
interest in maintaining the status quo2 in order to ensure continued dependence on them.

POWER AND AUTHORITY

12 Some people, of course, consider just the very thought of power as something very
unpleasant. De Jouvenel, a French philosopher, probably spoke for many when he
indicated that “Power is authority and makes for more authority. It is force and makes for
more force.” It appears, however, that the relationship of power and authority is not quite
so simple as positioned by Jouvenel. There is clearly a linkage between the two, but they
may not be the same. Gandhi used his authority while denying that physical power had a
legitimate role in his scheme of things. It is for that reason that international negotiations
are singularly inadequate when it comes to dealing with spiritual power. They commonly
deal only with material matters, though resulting values are frequently asserted. Pruitt
and Cross, challenge the idea that an analysis of power should be based simply on the idea

2
status quo: the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues
that it is “synonymous with or descriptive of the outcome”. Power cannot simply be
exerted. Its acceptance as meaningful authority by the perceiver is an important part of
the definition as well.

TRUST: BRINGING RELATIONSHIP TO POWER AND NEGOTIATION

13 To avoid inadequate assumptions while relating power to negotiations, it is

necessary to include Gulliver’s insistence that negotiation is a “process of discovery”.
What becomes important, as a result, is to consider what has to be discovered and when
and where that process begins. It surely does begin prior to, and certainly does not end
with the actual, limited-in-time negotiation event. It does not only depend on resolving
those problems that were discovered prior to the negotiation. It is based as well on the
discovery of a mutual, ongoing process in which all partners can continue to engage
during and even after the specific negotiations.

14 What, then produces successful negotiations? What makes power less threatening?
According to Luhmann, it is trust. He speaks of it as an “effective form of complexity
reduction”. That is exactly so, because trust relates to what exists in the present, including
power, to that which is expected in the future. As Luhmann puts it, “the formation and
consolidation of trust is therefore concerned with the future prospects of what is at any
time the present”. Negotiations, conducted at some present moment in time, find their
meaning, or ultimate purpose, at some future moment in time. Nothing can assure an
ultimate outcome, especially since ever-changing power relationships are involved. Only
trust can produce the minimum requirements needed to complete negotiation efforts

15 Those who only consider the short-term role of power in negotiations on a

situational or “now-in-time” basis need to be informed of Luhmann’s insistence on the
long-range impact trust can and must have. It is necessary, therefore, to be concerned
with much more than techniques, manipulations or raw power.

16 And all manipulation, in particular, runs the risk of becoming obvious and thereby
betraying its goal. This can, of course, be prevented through social differentiation, role
separation, barriers to communication and control of information. The effect of this will
simply be to arouse universal suspicion of manipulation. Trust, therefore, can be
maintained if it finds a form which allows it to live with such suspicion.

17 Druckman moves much of what has been discussed so far in general terms into the
arena of diplomacy, or international negotiations. According to him, “Diplomacy works at
the international level through feelings of liking, trust, attraction and other personal
aspects of the relationship”.