Negotiation A Very Short Introduction Carrie Menkel Meadow Full Chapter

Negotiation: a Very Short Introduction
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/negotiation-a-very-short-introduction-carrie-menkel-m
eadow/
OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 15/06/22, SPi
Negotiation: A Very Short Introduction

VERY SHORT INTRODUCTIONS are for anyone wanting a stimulating

and accessible way into a new subject. They are written by experts, and
have been translated into more than 45 different languages.
The series began in 1995, and now covers a wide variety of topics in
every discipline. The VSI library currently contains over 700 volumes—a
Very Short Introduction to everything from Psychology and Philosophy of
Science to American History and Relativity—and continues to grow in
every subject area.
Very Short Introductions available now:
ABOLITIONISM Richard S. Newman AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL

THE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS HISTORY
Charles L. Cohen Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen
ACCOUNTING Christopher Nobes THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM
ADOLESCENCE Peter K. Smith Charles L. Zelden
THEODOR W. ADORNO AMERICAN LEGAL HISTORY
Andrew Bowie G. Edward White
ADVERTISING Winston Fletcher AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY
AERIAL WARFARE Frank Ledwidge Joseph T. Glatthaar
AESTHETICS Bence Nanay AMERICAN NAVAL HISTORY
AFRICAN AMERICAN RELIGION Craig L. Symonds
Eddie S. Glaude Jr AMERICAN POETRY David Caplan
AFRICAN HISTORY John Parker and AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY
Richard Rathbone Donald Critchlow
AFRICAN POLITICS Ian Taylor AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES
AFRICAN RELIGIONS AND ELECTIONS L. Sandy Maisel
Jacob K. Olupona AMERICAN POLITICS
AGEING Nancy A. Pachana Richard M. Valelly
AGNOSTICISM Robin Le Poidevin THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
AGRICULTURE Paul Brassley and Charles O. Jones
Richard Soffe THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
ALEXANDER THE GREAT Robert J. Allison
Hugh Bowden AMERICAN SLAVERY
ALGEBRA Peter M. Higgins Heather Andrea Williams
AMERICAN BUSINESS HISTORY THE AMERICAN SOUTH
Walter A. Friedman Charles Reagan Wilson
AMERICAN CULTURAL HISTORY THE AMERICAN WEST Stephen Aron
Eric Avila AMERICAN WOMEN’S HISTORY
AMERICAN FOREIGN RELATIONS Susan Ware
Andrew Preston AMPHIBIANS T. S. Kemp
AMERICAN HISTORY ANAESTHESIA Aidan O’Donnell
Paul S. Boyer ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION Michael Beaney
David A. Gerber ANARCHISM Colin Ward
ANCIENT ASSYRIA Karen Radner AUTOBIOGRAPHY Laura Marcus

ANCIENT EGYPT Ian Shaw THE AVANT GARDE David Cottington
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ART AND THE AZTECS Davíd Carrasco
ARCHITECTURE Christina Riggs BABYLONIA Trevor Bryce
ANCIENT GREECE Paul Cartledge BACTERIA Sebastian G. B. Amyes
THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST BANKING John Goddard and
Amanda H. Podany John O. S. Wilson
ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY Julia Annas BARTHES Jonathan Culler
ANCIENT WARFARE THE BEATS David Sterritt
Harry Sidebottom BEAUTY Roger Scruton
ANGELS David Albert Jones LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN
ANGLICANISM Mark Chapman Mark Evan Bonds
THE ANGLO-SAXON AGE John Blair BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS
ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR Michelle Baddeley
Tristram D. Wyatt BESTSELLERS John Sutherland
THE ANIMAL KINGDOM THE BIBLE John Riches
Peter Holland BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
ANIMAL RIGHTS David DeGrazia Eric H. Cline
THE ANTARCTIC Klaus Dodds BIG DATA Dawn E. Holmes
ANTHROPOCENE Erle C. Ellis BIOCHEMISTRY Mark Lorch
ANTISEMITISM Steven Beller BIOGEOGRAPHY Mark V. Lomolino
ANXIETY Daniel Freeman and BIOGRAPHY Hermione Lee
Jason Freeman BIOMETRICS Michael Fairhurst
THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS ELIZABETH BISHOP
Paul Foster Jonathan F. S. Post
APPLIED MATHEMATICS BLACK HOLES Katherine Blundell
Alain Goriely BLASPHEMY Yvonne Sherwood
THOMAS AQUINAS Fergus Kerr BLOOD Chris Cooper
ARBITRATION Thomas Schultz and THE BLUES Elijah Wald
Thomas Grant THE BODY Chris Shilling
ARCHAEOLOGY Paul Bahn NIELS BOHR J. L. Heilbron
ARCHITECTURE Andrew Ballantyne THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER
THE ARCTIC Klaus Dodds and Brian Cummings
Jamie Woodward THE BOOK OF MORMON
ARISTOCRACY William Doyle Terryl Givens
ARISTOTLE Jonathan Barnes BORDERS Alexander C. Diener and
ART HISTORY Dana Arnold Joshua Hagen
ART THEORY Cynthia Freeland THE BRAIN Michael O’Shea
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BRANDING Robert Jones
Margaret A. Boden THE BRICS Andrew F. Cooper
ASIAN AMERICAN HISTORY THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION
Madeline Y. Hsu Martin Loughlin
ASTROBIOLOGY David C. Catling THE BRITISH EMPIRE Ashley Jackson
ASTROPHYSICS James Binney BRITISH POLITICS Tony Wright
ATHEISM Julian Baggini BUDDHA Michael Carrithers
THE ATMOSPHERE Paul I. Palmer BUDDHISM Damien Keown
AUGUSTINE Henry Chadwick BUDDHIST ETHICS Damien Keown
JANE AUSTEN Tom Keymer BYZANTIUM Peter Sarris
AUSTRALIA Kenneth Morgan CALVINISM Jon Balserak
AUTISM Uta Frith ALBERT CAMUS Oliver Gloag
CANADA Donald Wright COMPETITION AND ANTITRUST

CANCER Nicholas James LAW Ariel Ezrachi
CAPITALISM James Fulcher COMPLEXITY John H. Holland
CATHOLICISM Gerald O’Collins THE COMPUTER Darrel Ince
CAUSATION Stephen Mumford and COMPUTER SCIENCE
Rani Lill Anjum Subrata Dasgupta
THE CELL Terence Allen and CONCENTRATION CAMPS
Graham Cowling Dan Stone
THE CELTS Barry Cunliffe CONFUCIANISM Daniel K. Gardner
CHAOS Leonard Smith THE CONQUISTADORS
GEOFFREY CHAUCER David Wallace Matthew Restall and
CHEMISTRY Peter Atkins Felipe Fernández-Armesto
CHILD PSYCHOLOGY Usha Goswami CONSCIENCE Paul Strohm
CHILDREN’S LITERATURE CONSCIOUSNESS Susan Blackmore
Kimberley Reynolds CONTEMPORARY ART
CHINESE LITERATURE Sabina Knight Julian Stallabrass
CHOICE THEORY Michael Allingham CONTEMPORARY FICTION
CHRISTIAN ART Beth Williamson Robert Eaglestone
CHRISTIAN ETHICS D. Stephen Long CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
CHRISTIANITY Linda Woodhead Simon Critchley
CIRCADIAN RHYTHMS COPERNICUS Owen Gingerich
Russell Foster and Leon Kreitzman CORAL REEFS Charles Sheppard
CITIZENSHIP Richard Bellamy CORPORATE SOCIAL
CITY PLANNING Carl Abbott RESPONSIBILITY Jeremy Moon
CIVIL ENGINEERING CORRUPTION Leslie Holmes
David Muir Wood COSMOLOGY Peter Coles
CLASSICAL LITERATURE William Allan COUNTRY MUSIC Richard Carlin
CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY CREATIVITY Vlad Glăveanu
Helen Morales CRIME FICTION Richard Bradford
CLASSICS Mary Beard and CRIMINAL JUSTICE Julian V. Roberts
John Henderson CRIMINOLOGY Tim Newburn
CLAUSEWITZ Michael Howard CRITICAL THEORY
CLIMATE Mark Maslin Stephen Eric Bronner
CLIMATE CHANGE Mark Maslin THE CRUSADES Christopher Tyerman
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY CRYPTOGRAPHY Fred Piper and
Susan Llewelyn and Sean Murphy
Katie Aafjes-van Doorn CRYSTALLOGRAPHY A. M. Glazer
COGNITIVE BEHAVIOURAL THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION
THERAPY Freda McManus Richard Curt Kraus
COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE Richard DADA AND SURREALISM
Passingham David Hopkins
THE COLD WAR Robert J. McMahon DANTE Peter Hainsworth and
COLONIAL AMERICA Alan Taylor David Robey
COLONIAL LATIN AMERICAN DARWIN Jonathan Howard
LITERATURE Rolena Adorno THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
COMBINATORICS Robin Wilson Timothy H. Lim
COMEDY Matthew Bevis DECADENCE David Weir
COMMUNISM Leslie Holmes DECOLONIZATION Dane Kennedy
COMPARATIVE LITERATURE DEMENTIA Kathleen Taylor
Ben Hutchinson DEMOCRACY Bernard Crick
DEMOGRAPHY Sarah Harper ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

DEPRESSION Jan Scott and Robin Attfield
Mary Jane Tacchi ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
DERRIDA Simon Glendinning Elizabeth Fisher
DESCARTES Tom Sorell ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS
DESERTS Nick Middleton Andrew Dobson
DESIGN John Heskett ENZYMES Paul Engel
DEVELOPMENT Ian Goldin EPICUREANISM Catherine Wilson
DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY EPIDEMIOLOGY Rodolfo Saracci
Lewis Wolpert ETHICS Simon Blackburn
THE DEVIL Darren Oldridge ETHNOMUSICOLOGY Timothy Rice
DIASPORA Kevin Kenny THE ETRUSCANS Christopher Smith
CHARLES DICKENS Jenny Hartley EUGENICS Philippa Levine
DICTIONARIES Lynda Mugglestone THE EUROPEAN UNION
DINOSAURS David Norman Simon Usherwood and John Pinder
DIPLOMATIC HISTORY EUROPEAN UNION LAW
Joseph M. Siracusa Anthony Arnull
DOCUMENTARY FILM EVANGELICALISM John Stackhouse
Patricia Aufderheide EVOLUTION Brian and
DREAMING J. Allan Hobson Deborah Charlesworth
DRUGS Les Iversen EXISTENTIALISM Thomas Flynn
DRUIDS Barry Cunliffe EXPLORATION Stewart A. Weaver
DYNASTY Jeroen Duindam EXTINCTION Paul B. Wignall
DYSLEXIA Margaret J. Snowling THE EYE Michael Land
EARLY MUSIC Thomas Forrest Kelly FAIRY TALE Marina Warner
THE EARTH Martin Redfern FAMILY LAW Jonathan Herring
EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE MICHAEL FARADAY
Tim Lenton Frank A. J. L. James
ECOLOGY Jaboury Ghazoul FASCISM Kevin Passmore
ECONOMICS Partha Dasgupta FASHION Rebecca Arnold
EDUCATION Gary Thomas FEDERALISM Mark J. Rozell and
EGYPTIAN MYTH Geraldine Pinch Clyde Wilcox
EIGHTEENTH‑CENTURY BRITAIN FEMINISM Margaret Walters
Paul Langford FILM Michael Wood
THE ELEMENTS Philip Ball FILM MUSIC Kathryn Kalinak
EMOTION Dylan Evans FILM NOIR James Naremore
EMPIRE Stephen Howe FIRE Andrew C. Scott
EMPLOYMENT LAW David Cabrelli THE FIRST WORLD WAR
ENERGY SYSTEMS Nick Jenkins Michael Howard
ENGELS Terrell Carver FLUID MECHANICS Eric Lauga
ENGINEERING David Blockley FOLK MUSIC Mark Slobin
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE FOOD John Krebs
Simon Horobin FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
ENGLISH LITERATURE Jonathan Bate David Canter
THE ENLIGHTENMENT FORENSIC SCIENCE Jim Fraser
John Robertson FORESTS Jaboury Ghazoul
ENTREPRENEURSHIP Paul Westhead FOSSILS Keith Thomson
and Mike Wright FOUCAULT Gary Gutting
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Stephen Smith R. B. Bernstein
FRACTALS Kenneth Falconer THE HEBREW BIBLE AS

FREE SPEECH Nigel Warburton LITERATURE Tod Linafelt
FREE WILL Thomas Pink HEGEL Peter Singer
FREEMASONRY Andreas Önnerfors HEIDEGGER Michael Inwood
FRENCH LITERATURE John D. Lyons THE HELLENISTIC AGE
FRENCH PHILOSOPHY Peter Thonemann
Stephen Gaukroger and Knox Peden HEREDITY John Waller
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION HERMENEUTICS Jens Zimmermann
William Doyle HERODOTUS Jennifer T. Roberts
FREUD Anthony Storr HIEROGLYPHS Penelope Wilson
FUNDAMENTALISM Malise Ruthven HINDUISM Kim Knott
FUNGI Nicholas P. Money HISTORY John H. Arnold
THE FUTURE Jennifer M. Gidley THE HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY
GALAXIES John Gribbin Michael Hoskin
GALILEO Stillman Drake THE HISTORY OF CHEMISTRY
GAME THEORY Ken Binmore William H. Brock
GANDHI Bhikhu Parekh THE HISTORY OF CHILDHOOD
GARDEN HISTORY Gordon Campbell James Marten
GENES Jonathan Slack THE HISTORY OF CINEMA
GENIUS Andrew Robinson Geoffrey Nowell-Smith
GENOMICS John Archibald THE HISTORY OF LIFE
GEOGRAPHY John Matthews and Michael Benton
David Herbert THE HISTORY OF MATHEMATICS
GEOLOGY Jan Zalasiewicz Jacqueline Stedall
GEOMETRY Maciej Dunajski THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE
GEOPHYSICS William Lowrie William Bynum
GEOPOLITICS Klaus Dodds THE HISTORY OF PHYSICS
GERMAN LITERATURE Nicholas Boyle J. L. Heilbron
GERMAN PHILOSOPHY THE HISTORY OF POLITICAL
Andrew Bowie THOUGHT Richard Whatmore
THE GHETTO Bryan Cheyette THE HISTORY OF TIME
GLACIATION David J. A. Evans Leofranc Holford‑Strevens
GLOBAL CATASTROPHES Bill McGuire HIV AND AIDS Alan Whiteside
GLOBAL ECONOMIC HISTORY HOBBES Richard Tuck
Robert C. Allen HOLLYWOOD Peter Decherney
GLOBAL ISLAM Nile Green THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE
GLOBALIZATION Manfred B. Steger Joachim Whaley
GOD John Bowker HOME Michael Allen Fox
GOETHE Ritchie Robertson HOMER Barbara Graziosi
THE GOTHIC Nick Groom HORMONES Martin Luck
GOVERNANCE Mark Bevir HORROR Darryl Jones
GRAVITY Timothy Clifton HUMAN ANATOMY
THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND Leslie Klenerman
THE NEW DEAL Eric Rauchway HUMAN EVOLUTION Bernard Wood
HABEAS CORPUS Amanda Tyler HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY
HABERMAS James Gordon Finlayson Jamie A. Davies
THE HABSBURG EMPIRE Martyn Rady HUMAN RESOURCE
HAPPINESS Daniel M. Haybron MANAGEMENT Adrian Wilkinson
THE HARLEM RENAISSANCE HUMAN RIGHTS Andrew Clapham
Cheryl A. Wall HUMANISM Stephen Law
HUME James A. Harris KNOWLEDGE Jennifer Nagel

HUMOUR Noël Carroll THE KORAN Michael Cook
THE ICE AGE Jamie Woodward KOREA Michael J. Seth
IDENTITY Florian Coulmas LAKES Warwick F. Vincent
IDEOLOGY Michael Freeden LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
THE IMMUNE SYSTEM Ian H. Thompson
Paul Klenerman LANDSCAPES AND
INDIAN CINEMA GEOMORPHOLOGY
Ashish Rajadhyaksha Andrew Goudie and Heather Viles
INDIAN PHILOSOPHY Sue Hamilton LANGUAGES Stephen R. Anderson
THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION LATE ANTIQUITY Gillian Clark
Robert C. Allen LAW Raymond Wacks
INFECTIOUS DISEASE Marta L. Wayne THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
and Benjamin M. Bolker Peter Atkins
INFINITY Ian Stewart LEADERSHIP Keith Grint
INFORMATION Luciano Floridi LEARNING Mark Haselgrove
INNOVATION Mark Dodgson and LEIBNIZ Maria Rosa Antognazza
David Gann C. S. LEWIS James Como
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIBERALISM Michael Freeden
Siva Vaidhyanathan LIGHT Ian Walmsley
INTELLIGENCE Ian J. Deary LINCOLN Allen C. Guelzo
INTERNATIONAL LAW LINGUISTICS Peter Matthews
Vaughan Lowe LITERARY THEORY Jonathan Culler
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION LOCKE John Dunn
Khalid Koser LOGIC Graham Priest
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS LOVE Ronald de Sousa
Christian Reus-Smit MARTIN LUTHER Scott H. Hendrix
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY MACHIAVELLI Quentin Skinner
Christopher S. Browning MADNESS Andrew Scull
INSECTS Simon Leather MAGIC Owen Davies
IRAN Ali M. Ansari MAGNA CARTA Nicholas Vincent
ISLAM Malise Ruthven MAGNETISM Stephen Blundell
ISLAMIC HISTORY Adam Silverstein MALTHUS Donald Winch
ISLAMIC LAW Mashood A. Baderin MAMMALS T. S. Kemp
ISOTOPES Rob Ellam MANAGEMENT John Hendry
ITALIAN LITERATURE NELSON MANDELA Elleke Boehmer
Peter Hainsworth and David Robey MAO Delia Davin
HENRY JAMES Susan L. Mizruchi MARINE BIOLOGY Philip V. Mladenov
JESUS Richard Bauckham MARKETING
JEWISH HISTORY David N. Myers Kenneth Le Meunier-FitzHugh
JEWISH LITERATURE Ilan Stavans THE MARQUIS DE SADE John Phillips
JOURNALISM Ian Hargreaves MARTYRDOM Jolyon Mitchell
JAMES JOYCE Colin MacCabe MARX Peter Singer
JUDAISM Norman Solomon MATERIALS Christopher Hall
JUNG Anthony Stevens MATHEMATICAL FINANCE
KABBALAH Joseph Dan Mark H. A. Davis
KAFKA Ritchie Robertson MATHEMATICS Timothy Gowers
KANT Roger Scruton MATTER Geoff Cottrell
KEYNES Robert Skidelsky THE MAYA Matthew Restall and
KIERKEGAARD Patrick Gardiner Amara Solari
THE MEANING OF LIFE THE MONGOLS Morris Rossabi

Terry Eagleton MONTAIGNE William M. Hamlin
MEASUREMENT David Hand MOONS David A. Rothery
MEDICAL ETHICS Michael Dunn and MORMONISM
Tony Hope Richard Lyman Bushman
MEDICAL LAW Charles Foster MOUNTAINS Martin F. Price
MEDIEVAL BRITAIN John Gillingham MUHAMMAD Jonathan A. C. Brown
and Ralph A. Griffiths MULTICULTURALISM Ali Rattansi
MEDIEVAL LITERATURE MULTILINGUALISM John C. Maher
Elaine Treharne MUSIC Nicholas Cook
MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY MUSIC AND TECHNOLOGY
John Marenbon Mark Katz
MEMORY Jonathan K. Foster MYTH Robert A. Segal
METAPHYSICS Stephen Mumford NAPOLEON David Bell
METHODISM William J. Abraham THE NAPOLEONIC WARS
THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION Mike Rapport
Alan Knight NATIONALISM Steven Grosby
MICROBIOLOGY Nicholas P. Money NATIVE AMERICAN LITERATURE
MICROECONOMICS Avinash Dixit Sean Teuton
MICROSCOPY Terence Allen NAVIGATION Jim Bennett
THE MIDDLE AGES Miri Rubin NAZI GERMANY Jane Caplan
MILITARY JUSTICE Eugene R. Fidell NEGOTIATION Carrie Menkel-Meadow
MILITARY STRATEGY NEOLIBERALISM Manfred B. Steger
Antulio J. Echevarria II and Ravi K. Roy
JOHN STUART MILL Gregory Claeys NETWORKS Guido Caldarelli and
MINERALS David Vaughan Michele Catanzaro
MIRACLES Yujin Nagasawa THE NEW TESTAMENT
MODERN ARCHITECTURE Luke Timothy Johnson
Adam Sharr THE NEW TESTAMENT AS
MODERN ART David Cottington LITERATURE Kyle Keefer
MODERN BRAZIL Anthony W. Pereira NEWTON Robert Iliffe
MODERN CHINA Rana Mitter NIETZSCHE Michael Tanner
MODERN DRAMA NINETEENTH‑CENTURY BRITAIN
Kirsten E. Shepherd-Barr Christopher Harvie and
MODERN FRANCE H. C. G. Matthew
Vanessa R. Schwartz THE NORMAN
MODERN INDIA Craig Jeffrey CONQUEST George Garnett
MODERN IRELAND Senia Pašeta NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS
MODERN ITALY Anna Cento Bull Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green
MODERN JAPAN NORTHERN IRELAND
Christopher Goto-Jones Marc Mulholland
MODERN LATIN AMERICAN NOTHING Frank Close
LITERATURE NUCLEAR PHYSICS Frank Close
Roberto González Echevarría NUCLEAR POWER Maxwell Irvine
MODERN WAR Richard English NUCLEAR WEAPONS
MODERNISM Christopher Butler Joseph M. Siracusa
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Aysha Divan NUMBER THEORY Robin Wilson
and Janice A. Royds NUMBERS Peter M. Higgins
MOLECULES Philip Ball NUTRITION David A. Bender
MONASTICISM Stephen J. Davis OBJECTIVITY Stephen Gaukroger
OCEANS Dorrik Stow PLATE TECTONICS Peter Molnar

THE OLD TESTAMENT PLATO Julia Annas
Michael D. Coogan POETRY Bernard O’Donoghue
THE ORCHESTRA D. Kern Holoman POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY David Miller
ORGANIC CHEMISTRY POLITICS Kenneth Minogue
Graham Patrick POLYGAMY Sarah M. S. Pearsall
ORGANIZATIONS Mary Jo Hatch POPULISM Cas Mudde and
ORGANIZED CRIME Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser
Georgios A. Antonopoulos and POSTCOLONIALISM Robert Young
Georgios Papanicolaou POSTMODERNISM Christopher Butler
ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY POSTSTRUCTURALISM
A. Edward Siecienski Catherine Belsey
OVID Llewelyn Morgan POVERTY Philip N. Jefferson
PAGANISM Owen Davies PREHISTORY Chris Gosden
PAKISTAN Pippa Virdee PRESOCRATIC PHILOSOPHY
THE PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI Catherine Osborne
CONFLICT Martin Bunton PRIVACY Raymond Wacks
PANDEMICS Christian W. McMillen PROBABILITY John Haigh
PARTICLE PHYSICS Frank Close PROGRESSIVISM Walter Nugent
PAUL E. P. Sanders PROHIBITION W. J. Rorabaugh
PEACE Oliver P. Richmond PROJECTS Andrew Davies
PENTECOSTALISM William K. Kay PROTESTANTISM Mark A. Noll
PERCEPTION Brian Rogers PSYCHIATRY Tom Burns
THE PERIODIC TABLE Eric R. Scerri PSYCHOANALYSIS Daniel Pick
PHILOSOPHICAL METHOD PSYCHOLOGY Gillian Butler and
Timothy Williamson Freda McManus
PHILOSOPHY Edward Craig PSYCHOLOGY OF MUSIC
PHILOSOPHY IN THE ISLAMIC Elizabeth Hellmuth Margulis
WORLD Peter Adamson PSYCHOPATHY Essi Viding
PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY PSYCHOTHERAPY Tom Burns and
Samir Okasha Eva Burns-Lundgren
PHILOSOPHY OF LAW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Raymond Wacks Stella Z. Theodoulou and Ravi K. Roy
PHILOSOPHY OF MIND PUBLIC HEALTH Virginia Berridge
Barbara Gail Montero PURITANISM Francis J. Bremer
PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS THE QUAKERS Pink Dandelion
David Wallace QUANTUM THEORY
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE John Polkinghorne
Samir Okasha RACISM Ali Rattansi
PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION RADIOACTIVITY Claudio Tuniz
Tim Bayne RASTAFARI Ennis B. Edmonds
PHOTOGRAPHY Steve Edwards READING Belinda Jack
PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY Peter Atkins THE REAGAN REVOLUTION Gil Troy
PHYSICS Sidney Perkowitz REALITY Jan Westerhoff
PILGRIMAGE Ian Reader RECONSTRUCTION Allen C. Guelzo
PLAGUE Paul Slack THE REFORMATION Peter Marshall
PLANETARY SYSTEMS REFUGEES Gil Loescher
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert RELATIVITY Russell Stannard
PLANETS David A. Rothery RELIGION Thomas A. Tweed
PLANTS Timothy Walker RELIGION IN AMERICA Timothy Beal
THE RENAISSANCE Jerry Brotton SHAKESPEARE’S TRAGEDIES

RENAISSANCE ART Stanley Wells
Geraldine A. Johnson GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
RENEWABLE ENERGY Nick Jelley Christopher Wixson
REPTILES T.S. Kemp MARY SHELLEY Charlotte Gordon
REVOLUTIONS Jack A. Goldstone THE SHORT STORY Andrew Kahn
RHETORIC Richard Toye SIKHISM Eleanor Nesbitt
RISK Baruch Fischhoff and John Kadvany SILENT FILM Donna Kornhaber
RITUAL Barry Stephenson THE SILK ROAD James A. Millward
RIVERS Nick Middleton SLANG Jonathon Green
ROBOTICS Alan Winfield SLEEP Steven W. Lockley and
ROCKS Jan Zalasiewicz Russell G. Foster
ROMAN BRITAIN Peter Salway SMELL Matthew Cobb
THE ROMAN EMPIRE ADAM SMITH Christopher J. Berry
Christopher Kelly SOCIAL AND CULTURAL
THE ROMAN REPUBLIC ANTHROPOLOGY
David M. Gwynn John Monaghan and Peter Just
ROMANTICISM Michael Ferber SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Richard J. Crisp
ROUSSEAU Robert Wokler SOCIAL WORK Sally Holland and
RUSSELL A. C. Grayling Jonathan Scourfield
THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY SOCIALISM Michael Newman
Richard Connolly SOCIOLINGUISTICS John Edwards
RUSSIAN HISTORY Geoffrey Hosking SOCIOLOGY Steve Bruce
RUSSIAN LITERATURE Catriona Kelly SOCRATES C. C. W. Taylor
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION SOFT MATTER Tom McLeish
S. A. Smith SOUND Mike Goldsmith
SAINTS Simon Yarrow SOUTHEAST ASIA James R. Rush
SAMURAI Michael Wert THE SOVIET UNION Stephen Lovell
SAVANNAS Peter A. Furley THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR
SCEPTICISM Duncan Pritchard Helen Graham
SCHIZOPHRENIA Chris Frith and SPANISH LITERATURE Jo Labanyi
Eve Johnstone THE SPARTANS Andrew Bayliss
SCHOPENHAUER SPINOZA Roger Scruton
Christopher Janaway SPIRITUALITY Philip Sheldrake
SCIENCE AND RELIGION SPORT Mike Cronin
Thomas Dixon and Adam R. Shapiro STARS Andrew King
SCIENCE FICTION David Seed STATISTICS David J. Hand
THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION STEM CELLS Jonathan Slack
Lawrence M. Principe STOICISM Brad Inwood
SCOTLAND Rab Houston STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
SECULARISM Andrew Copson David Blockley
SEXUAL SELECTION Marlene Zuk and STUART BRITAIN John Morrill
Leigh W. Simmons THE SUN Philip Judge
SEXUALITY Véronique Mottier SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE Stephen Blundell
Stanley Wells SUPERSTITION Stuart Vyse
SHAKESPEARE’S COMEDIES SYMMETRY Ian Stewart
Bart van Es SYNAESTHESIA Julia Simner
SHAKESPEARE’S SONNETS AND SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY Jamie A. Davies
POEMS Jonathan F. S. Post SYSTEMS BIOLOGY Eberhard O. Voit
TAXATION Stephen Smith THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Linda

TEETH Peter S. Ungar Greenhouse
TELESCOPES Geoff Cottrell UTILITARIANISM Katarzyna de
TERRORISM Charles Townshend Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer
THEATRE Marvin Carlson UTOPIANISM Lyman Tower Sargent
THEOLOGY David F. Ford VETERINARY SCIENCE James Yeates
THINKING AND REASONING THE VIKINGS Julian D. Richards
Jonathan St B. T. Evans VIOLENCE Philip Dwyer
THOUGHT Tim Bayne THE VIRGIN MARY
TIBETAN BUDDHISM Mary Joan Winn Leith
Matthew T. Kapstein THE VIRTUES Craig A. Boyd and
TIDES David George Bowers and Kevin Timpe
Emyr Martyn Roberts VIRUSES Dorothy H. Crawford
TIME Jenann Ismael VOLCANOES Michael J. Branney and
TOCQUEVILLE Harvey C. Mansfield Jan Zalasiewicz
LEO TOLSTOY Liza Knapp VOLTAIRE Nicholas Cronk
TOPOLOGY Richard Earl WAR AND RELIGION Jolyon Mitchell
TRAGEDY Adrian Poole and Joshua Rey
TRANSLATION Matthew Reynolds WAR AND TECHNOLOGY
THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES Alex Roland
Michael S. Neiberg WATER John Finney
TRIGONOMETRY Glen Van Brummelen WAVES Mike Goldsmith
THE TROJAN WAR Eric H. Cline WEATHER Storm Dunlop
TRUST Katherine Hawley THE WELFARE STATE David Garland
THE TUDORS John Guy WITCHCRAFT Malcolm Gaskill
TWENTIETH‑CENTURY BRITAIN WITTGENSTEIN A. C. Grayling
Kenneth O. Morgan WORK Stephen Fineman
TYPOGRAPHY Paul Luna WORLD MUSIC Philip Bohlman
THE UNITED NATIONS THE WORLD TRADE
Jussi M. Hanhimäki ORGANIZATION Amrita Narlikar
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES WORLD WAR II
David Palfreyman and Paul Temple Gerhard L. Weinberg
THE U.S. CIVIL WAR Louis P. Masur WRITING AND SCRIPT
THE U.S. CONGRESS Donald A. Ritchie Andrew Robinson
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ZIONISM Michael Stanislawski
David J. Bodenhamer ÉMILE ZOLA Brian Nelson
Available soon:
HANNAH ARENDT Dana Villa ANSELM Thomas Williams
MICROBIOMES Angela E. Douglas GÖDEL’S THEOREM A. W. Moore
NANOTECHNOLOGY Philip Moriarty
For more information visit our website

www.oup.com/vsi/
NEGOTIATION
A Very Short Introduction
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,

United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Carrie Menkel-Meadow 2022
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First edition published in 2022
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022933345
ISBN 978–0–19–885140–0
Printed in the UK by
Ashford Colour Press Ltd, Gosport, Hampshire
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
For Robert, practitioner of problem-solving

negotiation for 50 years
Contents
Preface and acknowledgments xix
List of illustrations xxiii
List of tables xxv
1 When we need others to accomplish something 1
2 Frameworks of negotiation: Winning for self or problem

solving for all? 10
3 Contexts in negotiation 35
4 Behavioral choices in negotiation: What to do and why 53
5 Challenges to reaching negotiated agreements 72
6 Complex multi-party multi-issue negotiations 91
7 Ethical and legal issues in negotiation: Making enforceable

agreements 113
8 The future of negotiation 130
Appendix: Negotiation plan 143
Glossary 147
References and further reading 151
Index 161
Preface and acknowledgments
Humans have been negotiating since they came into existence.

Studying negotiation is newer. Although people negotiate with
themselves, their partners, their families, their communities, with
merchants in markets and in groups, it is when larger groups, like
nation-states, negotiate with each other that we look to theories of
action and strategy—what are our goals and what means should
we use for peace-seeking, national gain, and diplomacy.
As a field, negotiation draws on the knowledge bases of many

fields: political science, psychology, economics, history, sociology,
anthropology, law, and game theory, decision science, policy
planning, and leadership studies. It also draws on multi-disciplinary
and empirical studies of human behavior, including cognitive,
social, and behavioral psychology and economics and gender, race,
ethnicity, and class studies. We want to know what to do to be
more effective negotiators in the many contexts in which we
encounter or need others to accomplish something we cannot do
on our own. This is not a “how to” book, but a book about how to
think about negotiation and its contextual complexities.
The field of negotiation is marked by different frameworks and

theories about whether our goals are to maximize our own gains
or seek joint gain and betterment for all. This VSI surveys these
different approaches so the reader can assess what makes sense in
particular contexts. Our view is that “one size will not fit all” and
the well-informed negotiator will choose goals, frameworks,
strategies, and behaviors that are appropriate to the situation, all
while considering what the other parties to the negotiation are
thinking about too. Negotiation has always been an interactive
and dynamic human process—but now it may even be more than
human—humans plus machines.
It is challenging to distill decades of social science and hundreds

of years of human experience into a slim volume, but this book
should whet the appetite of any person who wants to learn more.
There is an extensive reading list at the end, as well as an
Appendix for use in planning future negotiations.
I have been teaching and writing about negotiation for over

40 years and practicing it even longer as a child, sister, wife, aunt,
lawyer, teacher, consultant, consumer, and mediator. My first
Negotiation
learning about and then teaching negotiation could not have

flourished without the colleagueship, mentorship, and friendship
of Howard Raiffa, James Sebenius, Michael Wheeler, Roger
Fisher, Larry Susskind, Frank Sander, Paul Brest, Deborah Kolb,
Alain Verbeke, Robert Mnookin, Howard Gadlin, Orna
Rabinovich-Einy, Amy Cohen, Carol Liebman, Stephanie Smith,
Janet Martinez, Michael Palmer, Simon Roberts, Margaret Shaw,
Russell Korobkin, Melanie Greenberg, Bea Moulton, Gary Bellow,
Joel Lee, Susan Gillig, and Mark Spiegel; co-authorships with
Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Jean Sternlight, Lela Love, Michael
Moffitt, Maria Moscati, Christopher Honeyman, Emmanuel Vivet;
and enriching mutual student‒teacher relationships, from around
the world, with Kondi Kleinman, Peter Reilly, Clark Freshman,
Janis Nelson, Lukasz Rozdeiczer, Letizia Coppo, Rutger Metsch,
Ana Silva, Carlos Ruffinelli, Carlos Silva, Ana Carolina Viella
Riella, and other bright stars in a stellar universe.
This book is far better (and shorter) for the careful and serious
review of Naomi Creutzfeldt, Kondi Kleinman, and my best
xx
negotiation partner, Robert Meadow. Thanks to my research

assistant Alexandra Cadena, faculty assistant Maria Gonzalez, and
librarian extraordinaire Dianna Sahhar. With great appreciation
for OUP for support and careful editing—Andrea Keegan, Jenny
Nugee, Luciana O’Flaherty, and Imogene Haslam.
May you go forth and negotiate good arrangements and solve

problems with what you learn in this book.
Los Angeles, California
Preface and acknowledgments
xxi
List of illustrations
1 Diplomatic negotiation— 4 Modes of behavior 49

Deng Xiaoping and Margaret From: Andrea Kupfer Schneider
Thatcher 4 and David Kupfer, Smart and
Savvy: Negotiation Strategies in
Peter Jordan/Alamy Stock Photo
Academia (2017)
2 Zone of Agreement 15 5 Venn diagram:

interlocking parties and
3 Pareto optimality 33 issues 95
List of tables
1 Frameworks of negotiation 12 3 Modes of conflict

Derived and expanded from resolution 108
C. Menkel-Meadow, L. Love, Source: C. Menkel-Meadow,
A. Schneider, and M. Moffitt, Introduction to From Legal Disputes
Dispute Resolution: Beyond the to Conflict Resolution and Human
Adversary Model, 3rd edn 2019, Problem Solving (Ashgate
Wolters Kluwer, at 78 Press, 2003)
2 Stages and phases of a

negotiation by framework 56
Chapter 1
When we need others
to accomplish something
Consider each of these scenarios: Two young children both want

the last piece of chocolate cake. Their mother says she will cut it
down the middle and they can share. Is there a better way? You
see an antique ring in a flea market that you like. The seller offers
a price that is more than you are willing to pay. He says, you drove
here on a tank of gas that cost more than this ring. Don’t you
think a permanent item is worth more than the gasoline you use?
What can you do to get a better price? Many countries would like
to limit the production of nuclear material for weapons
components in Iran and North Korea. How should they conduct
negotiations with many parties? These examples, and so many
others, are the everyday and major international negotiations we
face as we approach others to get what we and they need
and want.
Everyone negotiates. Whenever any person, couple, community,

company, organization, or country needs someone else to
accomplish something, they must negotiate—seeking agreement
with one or more people to do that which one cannot do alone. We
also often negotiate internally with ourselves about whether to do
something or not (if I go to the gym this morning, can I have
dessert this evening?). So negotiation is also a form of decision
making—where we ask ourselves: “what should I do in particular
situations?”
1
Sometimes negotiations are designed to create something new—a

relationship, a treaty, a new entity, partnership, contract (called a
transactional or deal negotiation). Other times negotiations are
used to resolve conflicts, resolving past disputes or providing for
future relations, including ending relationships—think Brexit or
divorce (called dispute negotiation). Governmental negotiations
create new laws and regulations (legislative negotiations). We
negotiate in our families, in our workplaces, when we buy
something, when we want to begin or end a relationship, and
when we want to solve a problem with others. Individuals
negotiate, as do their representatives (lawyers, agents, brokers,
parents, guardians). Organizations and entities (e.g. corporations,
trade unions, non-profit organizations, universities) negotiate
(both internally with their members, employees, and externally
with their customers, constituencies, competitors, suppliers, and
regulators). Countries negotiate with each other to form treaties
on substantive engagements, including economic relations,
Negotiation
environmental undertakings, arms reduction, cooperation on

criminal matters and to prevent conflicts (providing for peaceful
means of dispute resolution to prevent aggression) or end them
through peace agreements following war. Governments
negotiate with their citizens, with other governments, and, of
course, internally with themselves in legislative-parliamentary
negotiations; political party negotiations; political sub-divisions,
including states, provinces, and municipalities; and inter-
governmental agency and branch negotiations. In short, humans
need to work with other humans to accomplish their goals, to
survive, and to flourish—by making things better than they were
before negotiation occurs.
Many people think of negotiation as an anxiety-producing process

because we don’t know where we will wind up at the end. Others
find argument, persuasion, and pursuit of a good deal thrilling.
But negotiation is more than a complex and sometimes fraught
process of human interaction. It is at the same time both a
conceptual matter of analyzing what is at stake, and then later a
2
behavioral process of choices for action, comprising offers,

proposals, arguments, question asking, suggestions, threats,
claims, information, and solutions. Because, by definition,
negotiation involves interaction with others, both analysis
(conceptualizing the issues being negotiated) and behavior are
dynamic works-in-progress and must be revised before, during,
and after engagements and processing of new information. Most
successful negotiations result in an agreement, in a contract, treaty,
or memorandum of understanding, but some are informal
understandings. Many may have “reopener” or “contingency”
agreements to permit renegotiation when conditions or facts
change. How we hold people, countries, and entities to their
agreements by enforcement may involve further negotiations,
When we need others to accomplish something

court action, or referral to some other process of dispute
resolution.
Conventional conceptions of negotiation are that they are often

competitive processes in which each party tries to maximize its
own interests, assuming scarcity of resources (money, land, even
identity) which must be divided (called a problem of distributive
bargaining; a “zero-sum game” in which your gain of a dollar or
acre is my loss). And a conventional (and lazy) conception of
negotiation is that it will end through a compromise or a “splitting
the difference” resolution. But, how we think of the negotiation
problem (conceptualizing or the “science” of negotiation) depends
on many factors—what is at stake, who are the parties, how many
issues there are, what is the context or industry in which the
negotiation is situated— and determines how we act, or the “art”
of negotiation.
Not all negotiation problems are the same and no one set of
analytic or behavioral choices serves in all situations. When
parties work collaboratively to achieve joint gain, they are using
integrative bargaining conceptions and behaviors. Negotiation
offers the opportunity to make things better than they were
before—making lemonade or lemon pie out of lemons.
3
1. Diplomatic negotiation—Deng Xiaoping and Margaret Thatcher.
In the last few decades, negotiation has emerged as a formal field

Negotiation
of study in many different disciplines. Even schoolchildren now

learn how to negotiate more effectively, to “use your words” to
prevent, manage, or resolve conflict in more effective, less
violent ways.
The constituent fields of negotiation contribute to a variety of

new processes for human beings to resolve their differences and
solve problems—mediation, consensus building, restorative
justice, truth and reconciliation commissions, problem-solving
courts, and other hybrid processes that enable groups of people to
choose how they want to interact to effectively deal with
each other.
Negotiation, as a discipline of study, has developed its

own concepts, memes, and frameworks to help students and
practitioners of negotiation learn how to create value or “expand
the pie” (before it is cut into slices), how to cut the cake (if I like
the frosting and you the cake, we can both get 100 percent of what
4
we want), create new options and opportunities for joint gain, and
to learn to share with future generations. Often, but not always,
we will want to “get the best price” by competing, but most
negotiations have more than one issue which means that learning
how to trade effectively means both you and your counterpart can
improve your pre-negotiation situation. This is not necessarily
“win‒win,” but “better than before” negotiation. The magic of a
good negotiation is that by taking the needs, wants, and interests
of all parties into account we can be additive and creative in
getting what we want, as much as possible, while also allowing
other parties to do well.
What’s in a negotiation

Negotiations begin with a mindset or perspective on what is to be
accomplished, which in turn affects the choices we make about
how to behave, so we must consider different models and
conceptual frameworks (note I did not say “styles”) of negotiation.
This is the “science” of negotiation. We always ask first: what is at
stake in the negotiation? What is the res (thing) about which we
are negotiating? Is it a scarce resource, or something that can be
shared? Can something new emerge from the negotiation (think
the American constitution of 1787)? How many issues are there to
be negotiated? Who are the parties? How many parties are there?
When do we need an agreement? (Now? Can it wait for new
information?) Where are we negotiating? (Different legal rules in
different jurisdictions? A bucolic retreat or a hostile courtroom?)
Most importantly, Why are we negotiating? Are we buying or
selling, creating a law or new entity, ending a war, beginning or
ending a business or personal relationship? Can we solve a
problem by negotiating? This is the analysis of any negotiation
that must occur before we can decide how to act. There are more
choices than just competing or cooperating—there are “mixed” or
hybrid models of negotiation and sometimes sequential choices
will have to be made.
5
We will also explore the basic concepts that illuminate some of the
more universal aspects of negotiation: how the “framing” of a
negotiation and the proposals that are made in the beginning
affect the negotiation, how to analyze what the possible “Zone(s)
of Possible Agreement” (ZOPAs) are; how to place negotiation
analysis in the context of what else is possible (alternatives both
inside and outside of the negotiation, known as BATNAs,
WATNAs, ATNAs and MLATNAs—Best, Worst, All and Most
Likely Alternatives To a Negotiated Agreement). We consider how
to analyze whether a negotiation has “succeeded,” not just by
evaluating its outcome, but also its process, that is, how did we get
“there” and was there a better way to get “there”?
Negotiations are not all the same. Beware of those books that tell
you “Winning at All Costs,” “You Can Negotiate Anything!,”
“Splitting the Difference,” “Negotiating with the Russians/
Chinese/French/Americans,” “How to Negotiate Anything With
Negotiation
Anyone Anywhere in the World,” etc. Negotiations come in

different types, sizes, situations, and industries. Contexts matter in
negotiations—how does the subject matter, industry, setting,
materiel, routineness, history of the parties and their relationships
to each other (and to others outside the negotiation) affect what is
possible or desirable to achieve? Do we need a precedent or
publicity? Do we want to keep negotiations private (trade secrets,
personal privacy, nondisclosure agreements)? How many parties
are involved? Are the parties trying to create, preserve, change, or
leave a relationship? Does the status, gender, race, class, age, or
profession of the negotiators matter in what they think and do?
Are the parties negotiating in person, by phone, via text, instant
message, email, or on Zoom? Is the negotiation synchronous or
asynchronous?
After the analysis, we come to the negotiating “table” (physical

or virtual). What shall we say or do? What are the differences
between competing, compromising, cooperating, or collaborating
(the 4 Cs of behavioral negotiation)? So we look at the classic
6
dilemmas of negotiation strategy (overall game plan) and tactics

(particular behavioral moves). How should we set goals and
objectives, who should make the first offers or proposals, should
we use an agenda, what research do we need to do, how do we
assess what others tell us (how to trust and verify), how do we
develop creative solutions to seemingly intractable problems,
when do we concede anything, and how do we deal with the
competitive “tricks” or bullying tactics our counterparts may use?
All of these behavioral choices should be made for a purpose,
consistent with planning and goals for the particular negotiation.
Behavioral choices cannot be made uniformly or in a vacuum—they
are necessarily tied to the contexts and analysis that have preceded
any actual engagement with the “other” side(s). Of course, once a

negotiator acts and does something, the other side will respond
and we will have to consider our next actions. Consider a chess
game with potentially infinite moves and countermoves, with the
need to react and rethink, but with a clear goal in mind. We
consider productive responses, countermoves, and interventions,
which include not only the “science” of negotiation but also its “art.”
Analysis (Framework)---→Contexts-----→Behavior = Process----→Outcome

Then: Assessment---Evaluation
Even with the best intentions and behaviors, many negotiations

fail. Why? Modern research from the disciplines of social and
cognitive psychology and behavioral economics helps us to
understand why parties often fail to reach agreement when they
should have found some accommodation. Most of us make many
errors of judgment in receiving and processing information
(thinking too “fast or slow” as Daniel Kahneman has
documented), in communicating with others, in understanding
ourselves and others (what is “rational”; how do emotions both
help and impede productive negotiations?), and in reacting
without thinking. How can we “correct” for these common human
heuristic errors? One answer is to get some help—use a t hird-party
7
mediator or negotiation expert, agent, broker, or lawyer to

facilitate negotiation and “neutralize” the “noise.” Modern
negotiation theory and practice has correctives for many human
processing errors. We can develop ground rules for interactions,
set agendas, jointly seek information and data, create task groups,
and then determine clear voting and decision rules.
Although most people think of negotiation as two parties butting

heads or shaking hands, the modern reality is that most
negotiations involve more than two parties, such as the insurance
company or governmental agency behind personal injury claims,
the lawyers behind any two-party contract dispute, any regional
trade agreement, or all environmental treaties, the employees of
companies in merger and acquisition negotiations, the family
members in any divorce proceedings. With two parties we know
we have an agreement when the two parties say yes, but what if
there are three parties? Is there an agreement when two say yes
Negotiation
and cut out the third? The complexity of negotiations when there
are more than two parties adds other issues to consider such as
coalition formation, veto powers, holdouts, when we need all to
form an agreement. What different approaches, strategies, voting,
and decision rules might be required in treaty formation,
community and government negotiations, or settlements of
aggregate litigation claims. Who goes first? Do I seek out allies
from my friends or go to my “frenemies” first? How do we
combine different kinds of processes in complex negotiations—
principled rationality, rule of law, practical bargains, trades and
compromises, emotional, ethical, ideological, and religious
commitments and passions when all may be present in a
negotiation simultaneously? We need brains (reasons), stomachs
(trades of what we “can live with”), and hearts (morals, emotions,
and values) to negotiate, all at the same time.
If we reach agreement in any negotiation, how can we be sure the

parties will fulfill their commitments? Too often a handshake ends
the conversation but is only the beginning of new problems to be
8
resolved. Enforcement of contracts and treaties implicates legal

standards and rules which may differ from problem to problem
and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We must understand the legal
issues in enforcing agreements in different contexts and
understand how to ensure that successful negotiations stay that
way, with good monitoring and renegotiation or dispute resolution
provisions.
As we consider whether to trust what we are being told, all

negotiators must consider their own and counterparts’ ethical
duties and obligations. Whom do we trust? Formal law provides
some answers in contract, tort, and fraud/misrepresentation rules,
but there are human, moral, and larger ethical questions that have

no easy answer and draw on each negotiator’s moral compass.
Moral philosophers now debate when we should not “bargain with
a devil,” as negotiation theorists and practitioners offer advice
about how to test for trust and truth telling. As negotiators are we
accountable for our work? For the impacts of any negotiation
agreement on those not at the table (children in divorce, future
generations in environmental or peace negotiations)? When are
the goals of negotiation simply “peace” and end of conflict and
when should we aim for the more elusive “justice”? When is
negotiation (and yes, even compromise) morally or politically
compelled for human coexistence and not a sign of weakness?
This short introduction to a vast field ends with consideration

of the uses to which the human process of negotiation can (or
should) be put. Employing examples from modern international
relations, environmental, business, and economic issues we can
consider how good negotiation practices might help us address
climate change, world peace, health, safety, migration, and other
issues facing humanity. This book suggests that the frameworks
we choose (distributive division or integrative creative problem
solving) for negotiation affect the behaviors we enact, which in
turn produce the outcomes we get.
9
Chapter 2
Frameworks of negotiation:
Winning for self or problem
solving for all?
It is common for modern negotiation theory and practice to posit

two distinct conceptual frameworks for analyzing negotiation—
often described as (a) distributional-adversarial-competitive
negotiation or (b) integrative-collaborative-problem-solving
negotiation. These two frames assume that one can approach a
negotiation in advance, regardless of what the negotiation is about
or who the parties are. In fact, there are more than two different
frameworks, based on analysis of what the res/stakes being
negotiated are, who the parties are, and a variety of other
contextual factors that should help us to orient ourselves to
choosing both substantive goals and appropriate behaviors in a
negotiation.
The “science” of negotiation suggests that, before we choose the

behaviors we will deploy, we must first use cognitive analysis of a
situation, asking such questions as (1) Is the res divisible, sharable,
scarce? (2) Do the parties know each other and are they “repeat
players” or “one shotters”? (3) How many parties are there?
(4) How many issues are involved?
Here we explore four different orientations to negotiation,

dependent on answers to these questions. Only then can we
consider appropriate behaviors, the “art” of negotiation (including
separately the strategies (plans) and tactics (individual behavioral
10
“moves”) that fit the negotiation context), as we also consider what

our counterparts might be thinking and doing as well.
These frameworks can be succinctly described and illustrated

(see Table 1) as (1) distributive-adversarial-competitive when
the resources being negotiated are limited and must be
divided (e.g. money, land); (2) integrative-problem-solving
where the sharing or expanding of resources or creation of new
arrangements or solutions may allow for joint gain for all parties,
usually with shared information; (3) compromising or cooperative-
relationship preserving (when the relationship of the parties may
be more important than the substantive outcome, e.g. family,
workplace, some business relations, the polity, and even some
diplomatic alliances); (4) mixed situations where a negotiation
setting may allow some problem solving and resource expansion,
Frameworks of negotiation
which then must be allocated (so that the “enlarged” pie will still
have to be divided, following some “creating” of resources or new
solutions).
Framework # 1 Conventional conceptions of

negotiation: The distributional or adversarial
model of negotiation
Much negotiation theory and practice can be located in the larger
historical zeitgeist in which they have been developed. The
concepts behind competitive or distributive negotiation were
derived from game theory developed to aid decision making
during World War II and the Cold War for strategies for
responding to acts of aggression, often without the tools of direct
communication. This work had important effects on legal
negotiations, advertising, marketing, sales, and the use of
win‒lose metaphors in social life generally. Thus, “frames” or
“memes” are particularly important for understanding when and
how different behaviors might be invoked in different settings. For
those who have seen negotiation as a competitive activity,
metaphors of sports, wars, games, and struggles are legion in
11
Table 1. Frameworks of negotiation
Goal Model Behavior Outcomes
I Win Adversarial Distributive/ • Competitive or Positional debate • Win/lose

(Maximizing Competitive • Arguments/persuasion • Impasse
individual gain) • Hiding information • Split the difference
• Demands
• Threats
• Deceit
• Few concessions
II Problem solve Integrative Problem • Collaborative • Creative solutions
12
(Maximizing Solving • Ask questions • Expanded issues and
joint gain) Principled • Propose suggestions/offers opportunities
Interest and needs-based • Listen • Contingent agreements
• Explore needs/interests
• Create new solutions/ideas
• Brainstorm
• Find trades of complementary
interests and needs
• Use objective criteria, reasons,
principles
• Have curiosity
III Compromise- Accommodative • Cooperate • Compromise
cooperation Sharing • Give in • Split the difference
(Relationship • Make concessions
preserving)
IV Allocate created Mixed • Create, then claim • Pareto optimal
resources/ • Trades sharing gain
solutions • Revisit • Contingent agreements
• Solved problems
13
descriptions of the process of negotiation and exhortations about

how to behave.
For many people, especially those in business or law, the default

approach to negotiation is to think of it as a competition, in which
the goal is to maximize individual gain (higher price for sellers,
lower prices for buyers). This mindset to maximize gain or to
“win” at negotiation leads to a series of assumptions, which leads
to the use of particular behaviors, which in turn often leads to a
limited set of outcomes. These assumptions may be appropriate
only for some negotiations—such as the simple model of the
two-party, one-issue negotiation over price. This simple model is
often deceptive as even simple pricing negotiations often have
other issues (and other parties) involved which can complicate the
possible goals and behavioral choices.
Common assumptions built into an individual maximization goal

Negotiation
include the behaviors that one should hide one’s real preferences
(as revealing them will lead to exploitation by the other side) so
that deceit, exaggeration, or misrepresentation are common.
Negotiators using this mindset think they can affect outcomes
favorably by making high first offers and then using aggressive
powers of persuasion and planned limited concessions to keep the
outcome close to their desired goal.
We can use such a simple example to define and chart some classic
negotiation concepts (Figure 2).
The structure of this picture of distributional or adversarial

negotiation is linear. S is one party (assume a seller) and B is the
other party (assume a buyer). S has a target price (or an aspiration
level—the high price s/he would like to achieve (T(S)) and a
resistance point (or reservation price (R(S)) or “bottom line,” the
lowest price s/he would settle for and still sell the item. On the
other side is B (the buyer) who similarly has a target price (a lower
value, T(B)) and a reservation price (a higher number but still one
14
Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA)

T (B) R (B)
======================
I ////////// I
S(eller) -------------------I --------------------I------------------ B(uyer)
I ////////// I
I ////////// I
===========================
R (S) T (S)
T = Target point (or aspiration point)

R = Resistance point (or reservation price)
/// = Zone of Possible Agreement
2. Zone of Agreement.
B would pay to purchase the item, R(B)). The parties will
conclude a negotiation and make a deal within their ZOPA where
there is overlap between the values assigned for acceptable ranges
of prices. Note that in the chart there is considerable room for an
agreement between the Target and Resistance points of the
parties. How they allocate what price they will agree to is called
the “allocation of surplus value.” Here there is ample room for
possible agreed-to prices. The competitive-adversarial model
suggests that parties make offers of numbers without revealing
where they would ultimately settle and the more successful
negotiator will be the one who achieves a price closer to its Target
price and further away from its Resistance point.
Consider this illustration: Alice the Author has a manuscript to

sell—she would like an advance of $10,000 and royalties of 15
percent on all sales (the price). She is negotiating with Columbia
Publications and they offer only $5,000 for an advance and 10
percent for royalties. The parties (or their agents/lawyers) may
make arguments to each other to justify their offers (the “going
15
rate” for the publisher; the effort put in or the projected sales as
arguments made by the author) and eventually they will reach an
agreement or not. If this is seen as a single-issue negotiation
(price) it is most common for the parties to reach an agreement in
a ZOPA that is close to a “split the difference” result, meaning
halfway between the first two offers—$7,500 advance and 12.5
percent royalties, expressed as:
O (1) (offer by Party 1) + 0 (2) (offer by party 2)

___________________________________ = Outcome
2 (midpoint
between
offers)
Conventional models of distributional negotiations thus suggest

that the Author should make a higher demand (raise her
aspiration level) so that the ultimate agreement in the middle will
Negotiation
be closer to what she hopes to achieve. But the risk of aiming too
high (and out of the “authority” of what the publisher can do) is
that the publisher may simply walk away (or there will be an
impasse in this negotiation).
Ideally a good negotiator here would do her research, know the

customary price, and prepare good arguments to suggest why she
is better, has worked harder, or deserves more. And she would also
benefit from seeking other publishers (what we would call
developing Alternatives to this Negotiated Agreement or ATNAs)
to help her decide whether to keep negotiating here or seek a
different publication partner. Roger Fisher, William Ury, and
Bruce Patton in their paradigm shifting book, Getting to YES:
Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (1983) coined the
important phrase and concept of having a Best Alternative to a
Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) to know when to leave a
particular negotiation or to create better alternatives to the
negotiation in which one is engaged. We now want to know all the
ATNAs (all the possible alternatives to this particular
16
negotiation), the WATNAs (the worst alternatives to this

negotiation—which might cause us to stay in this particular
negotiation for want of a better deal) or, most helpfully, the Most
Likely Alternative to this Negotiated Agreement (MLATNA)—is
there, in fact, a going rate commonly offered by all publishers?
What is it most realistic to accept?
But note, even this “simple” single issue, two-party distributive

negotiation, is not so simple. The price has at least two
components—an advance and a royalty (contingent on sales over
time). These two prices could be traded (more advance, lower
royalty rate or lower advance, higher royalty rate) depending on
the parties’ assessments of what they may not fully know now—the
contingency of sales as well as their risk tolerance. They could
agree to set a price at the beginning (advance) and then assess
royalties or adjust them later as they measure sales (contingent
agreement). Almost any purchase (e.g. furniture) that might have
a discount for all cash now or offer the buyer a zero percent
interest rate on a loan for higher total price but lower monthly
payment actually has several components. If the Author turns out
to be as successful as J. K. Rowling (Harry Potter), the publisher
will certainly want to keep the contractual relationship going and
so may be willing to take a smaller percentage of a larger
numerator—the sales. The issue of what kind of relationship the
parties are going to have is always on the agenda. If Alice the
Author is the next J. K. Rowling there will be other issues to
consider: film and product rights—to be negotiated now or later.
And there will also be delivery issues in timing, costs, and modes
of transfer—both for manuscripts and for furniture.
Thus, conventional advice about aiming high, not revealing true

preferences, making demands or strong claims, and making few
and small concessions in pricing negotiations (distributive
allocations of presumed scarce resources) may be effective in the
few cases where there really are scarce resources or one-shot
engagements, but most negotiation situations actually involve
17
more issues and more parties. It is often a mistake to look at

even a “price” negotiation as being just about “price” unless the
objective is clearly a commodity available anywhere from multiple
vendors. Consider how one might conceptualize price—a focus on
a single price of a unit of a commodity could change if by buying
more (quantity, as a second issue), the unit price might be reduced
if greater numbers of the item are purchased. And consider how
quality may be an issue in any pricing negotiation. Won’t Alice the
Author care about the quality of the editing of her manuscript (or
control over the edits), as the Publisher may want to ensure some
performance measures too (quality, timing of production, etc.)?
To decide what is the appropriate approach to have in a

negotiation one must always ask these questions first:
1. What is at stake (what is the thing involved, scarce resource like

money or sharable items)?
Negotiation
2. How many issues are there in the negotiation?

3. Who are the parties, how many of them (n = 2, n > 2) and are the
parties individuals or groups or entities?
4. What do the parties value (money, relationship, love, peace,
long-term gain)?
5. Are the parties going to have a relationship beyond this
negotiation (one-off sales, potential longer-term relationship, e.g.
supply chain contract, employment, parenting, lawsuit settlement
requiring monitoring of performance, diplomatic alliances)?
6. Are the parties negotiating directly or using agents, brokers,
representatives, lawyers, diplomats with their own interests in the
negotiation (reputation, payment, incentives, potential conflicts of
interest)?
An example of how commitment to the “hardball” school of

negotiation can backfire comes from the Covid epidemic. The
United States government began negotiating with pharmaceutical
giant Pfizer and other drug companies to manufacture vaccines in
spring 2020, as the pandemic was reaching extreme numbers in
18
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Dead Authors
“Les morts n’écrivent point,” said Madame de Maintenon, who
lived in a day of tranquil finalities. If men’s passions and vanities
were admittedly strong until the hour of dissolution, the finger of
death obliterated all traces of them; and the supreme dignity of this
obliteration sustained noble minds and solaced the souls that
believed. An age which produced the Oraisons Funèbres had an
unquenchable reverence for the grave.
Echoes of Madame de Maintenon’s soothing conviction ring
pleasantly through the intervening centuries. Book-making, which
she knew only in its smiling infancy, had grown to ominous
proportions when the Hon. Augustine Birrell, brooding over the
fatality which had dipped the world in ink, comforted himself—and us
—with the vision of an authorless future. “There were no books in
Eden,” he said meditatively, “and there will be none in Heaven; but
between times it is otherwise.”
For an Englishman more or less conversant with ghosts, Mr. Birrell
showed little foreknowledge of their dawning ambitions. If we may
judge by the recent and determined intrusion of spirits into
authorship, Heaven bids fair to be stacked with printing-presses.
One of their number, indeed, the “Living Dead Man,” whose
amanuensis is Elsa Barker, and whose publishers have
unhesitatingly revealed (or, I might perhaps say, announced) his
identity, gives high praise to a ghostly library, well catalogued, and
containing millions of books and records. Miss Lilian Whiting assures
us that every piece of work done in life has its ethereal counterpart.
“The artist creates in the astral before he creates in the material, and
the creation in the astral is the permanent embodiment.”
Consequently, when an author dies, he finds awaiting him an
“imperishable record” of all he has ever written. Miss Whiting does
not tell us how she comes to know this. Neither does she say how
good a book has to be to live forever in the astral, or if a very bad
book is never suffered to die a natural and kindly death as in our
natural and kindly world. Perhaps it is the ease with which astral
immortality is achieved, or rather the impossibility of escaping it,
which prompts ambitious and exclusive spirits to force an entrance
into our congested literary life, and compete with mortal scribblers
who ask their little day.
The suddenness of the attack, and its unprecedented character,
daunt and bewilder us. It is true that the apparitions that lend vivacity
to the ordinary spiritualistic séance have from time to time written
short themes, or dropped into friendly verse. Readers of that
engaging volume, “Report of the Seybert Commission for
Investigating Modern Spiritualism,” published in 1887, will remember
that “Belle,” who claimed to be the original proprietor of Yorick’s skull
(long a “property” of the Walnut Street Theatre, Philadelphia, but at
that time in the library of Dr. Horace Howard Furness), voiced her
pretensions, and told her story, in ten carefully rhymed stanzas.
“My form was sold to doctors three,

So you have all that’s left of me;
I come to greet you in white mull,
You that prizes my lonely skull.”
But these effusions were desultory and amateurish. They were

designed as personal communications, and were betrayed into
publicity by their recipients. We cannot regard their authors—
painstaking but simple-hearted ghosts—as advance guards of the
army of occupation which is now storming the citadel of print.
It is passing strange that the dead who seek to communicate with
the living should cling so closely to the alphabet as a connecting link.
Dying is a primitive thing. Men died, and were wept and forgotten, for
many, many ages before Cadmus sowed the dragon’s teeth. But
letters are artificial and complicated. They belong to fettered
humanity which is perpetually devising ways and means. Shelley,
whose impatient soul fretted against barriers, cried out despairingly
that inspiration wanes when composition begins. We strive to follow
Madame de Sévigné’s counsel, “Laissez trotter la plume”; but we
know well how the little instrument halts and stumbles; and if a pen is
too clumsy for the transmission of thought, what must be the effort to
pick out letters on a ouija board, or with a tilting table? The spirit that
invented table-rapping (which combines every possible disadvantage
as a means of communication with every absurdity that can offend a
fastidious taste) deserves to be penalized by its fellow spirits. Even
Sir Oliver Lodge admits that the substitution of tables for pen and ink
“has difficulties of its own.”
Yet nothing can overcome the infatuation of ghostly visitors for this
particular piece of furniture. They cannot keep their spectral fingers
off one, and they will come any distance, and take any pains, for the
pleasure of such handling. Maeterlinck relates with enviable gravity
the details of an evening call paid by a monk who had lain in the
cloisters of the Abbaye de Saint Wandrille since 1693, and who
broke a sleep of two centuries that he might spin a table on one leg
for the diversion of the poet’s guests. Their host, while profoundly
indifferent to the entertainment, accepted it with a tolerant shrug. If it
amused both mortals and the monk, why cavil at its infantile
simplicity?
The frolicsome moods of the Lodge table must have been
disconcerting even to such a receptive and sympathetic circle. It
performed little tricks like lying down, or holding two feet in the air,
apparently for its own innocent delight. It emulated Æsop’s
affectionate ass, and “seemed to wish to get into Lady Lodge’s lap,
and made caressing movements to and fro, as if it could not get
close enough to her.” It jocularly thumped piano-players on the back;
and when a cushion was held up to protect them, it banged a hole in
the cover. What wonder that several tables were broken “during the
more exuberant period of these domestic sittings, before the power
was under control”; and that the family was compelled to provide a
strong and heavy article which could stand the “skylarking” (Sir
Oliver’s word) of supernatural visitors.
The ouija board, though an improvement on the table, is
mechanical and cumbersome. It has long been the chosen medium
of that most prolific of spirit writers, Patience Worth; and a
sympathetic disciple once ventured to ask her if there were no less
laborious method by which she could compose her stories. To which
Patience, who then used a language called by her editor “archaic,”
and who preferred to “dock the smaller parts-o’-speech,” replied
formidably,—
“The hand o’ her do I to put be the hand o’ her, and ’t is ascribe
that setteth the one awither by eyes-fulls she taketh in.”
The disciple’s mind being thus set at rest, he inquired how
Patience discovered this avenue of approach, and was told,—
“I did to seek at crannies for to put; ay, an’t wer the her o’ her who
tireth past the her o’ her, and slippeth to a naught o’ putting; and ’t
wer the me o’ me at seek, aye, and find. Aye, and ’t wer so.”
The casual and inexpert reader is not always sure what Patience
means to say; but to the initiated her cryptic and monosyllabic
speech offers no difficulties. When asked if she were acquainted with
the spirit of the late Dr. William James, she said darkly,—
“I telled a one o’ the brothers and the neighbours o’ thy day, and
he doth know.”
“This,” comments Mr. Yost, “was considered as an affirmative
reply,” and with it her questioners were content.
All fields of literature are open to Patience Worth, and she disports
herself by turns in prose and verse, fiction and philosophy. Other
spirits have their specialties. They write, as a rule, letters, sermons,
didactic essays, vers libre, and an occasional story. But Patience
writes six-act dramas which, we are assured, could, “with a little
alteration,” be produced upon the stage, short comedies “rich in
humour,” country tales, mystical tales, parables, aphorisms, volumes
of verse, and historical novels. In three years and a half she dictated
to Mrs. Curran, her patient ouija-board amanuensis, 900,000 words.
It is my belief that she represents a spirit syndicate, and lends her
name to a large coterie of literary wraiths. The most discouraging
feature of her performance is the possibility of its indefinite
extension. She is what Mr. Yost calls “a continuing phenomenon.”
Being dead already, she cannot die, and the beneficent limit which is
set to mortal endeavour does not exist for her. “The larger literature
is to come,” says Mr. Yost ominously; and we fear he speaks the
truth.
Now what do we gain by this lamentable intrusion of ghostly
aspirants into the serried ranks of authorship? What is the value of
their work, and what is its ethical significance? Perhaps because
literary distinction is a rare quality, the editors and publishers of
these revelations lay stress upon the spiritual insight, the finer
wisdom, which may accrue to us from direct contact with liberated
souls. They even hint at some great moral law which may be thus
revealed for our betterment. But the law of Christ is as pure and lofty
as any code our human intelligence can grasp. We do not live by it,
because it makes no concession to the sickly qualities which cement
our earthly natures; but we hold fast to it as an incomparable ideal. It
is not law or light we need. It is the power of effort and resistance.
“Toutes les bonnes maximes sont dans le monde; on ne manque
que de les appliquer.”
The didacticism of spirit authors is, so far, their most striking
characteristic. As Mr. Henry James would put it, they are “awkward
writers, but yearning moralists.” Free from any shadow of diffidence,
they proffer a deal of counsel, but it is mostly of the kind which our
next-door neighbour has at our command.
In the volume called “Letters from Harry and Helen,” the dead
children exhort their relatives continuously; and their exhortations,
albeit of a somewhat intimate character, have been passed on to the
public as “an inspiration to the life of brotherhood.” Helen, for
example, bids her mother and sister give away the clothes they do
not need. “You had better send the pink dress to B. You won’t wear
it. Lace and a few good bits of jewelry you can use, and these won’t
hurt your progress.” She also warns them not to take long motor
rides with large parties. The car holds four comfortably; but if her
sister will go all afternoon with five people packed into it, she is sure
to be ill. This is sensible advice, but can it be needful that the dead
should revisit earth to give it?
Harry, a hardy and boisterous spirit, with a fine contempt for
precautions, favours a motor trip across the continent, gallantly
assures his family that the project is “perfectly feasible,” tells his
sister to “shoot some genuine food” at her sick husband, who
appears to have been kept on a low diet, and observes with pleasure
that his mother is overcoming her aversion to tobacco. “Mamma is
learning,” he comments patronizingly. “Some day she will arrive at
the point where a smoker will fail to arouse a spark of criticism, or
even of interest. When that day comes, she will have learned what
she is living for this time.”
Here was a chance for a ghostly son to get even with the parent
who had disparaged the harmless pleasures of his youth. Harry is
not the kind of a spirit to miss such an opportunity. He finds a great
deal to correct in his family, a great deal to blame in the world, and
some things to criticize in the universe. “I suppose the Creator knows
his own business best,” he observes grudgingly; “but there have
been moments when I felt I could suggest improvements. For
instance, had I been running affairs, I should have been a little more
open about this reincarnation plan of elevating the individual. Why let
a soul boggle along blindly for numberless lives, when just a friendly
tip would have illuminated the whole situation, and enabled him to
plan with far less waste?”
“O eloquent, just and mighty death!” Have we professed to break
thy barriers, to force thy pregnant silence into speech, only to make
of thy majesty a vulgar farce, and, of thy consolations, folly and self-
righteousness?
The “Living Dead Man” has also a course of instruction, in fact
several courses of instruction, to offer. His counsels are all of the
simplest. He bids us drink plenty of water, because water feeds our
astral bodies; to take plenty of sleep, because sleep fits us for work;
and on no account to lose our tempers. He is a gentle, garrulous
ghost, and his first volume is filled with little anecdotes about his new
—and very dull—surroundings, and mild little stories of adventure.
He calls himself an “astral Scheherazade,” but no sultan would ever
have listened to him for a thousand and one nights. He chants vers
libre of a singularly uninspired order, and is particular about his
quotations. “If you print these letters,” he tells his medium, “I wish
you would insert here fragments from that wonderful poem of
Wordsworth, ‘Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early
Childhood.’” Then follow nineteen lines of this fairly familiar
masterpiece. There is something rather droll in having our own
printed poets quoted to us lengthily by cultivated and appreciative
spirits.
The “War Letters” dictated by the “Living Dead Man” in the spring
and summer of 1915 are more animated and highly coloured. Some
long-past episodes, notably the entrance of the German soldiers into
Brussels, are well described, though not so vividly as by the living
Richard Harding Davis. We are told in the preface that on the fourth
of February, 1915, the spirit wrote: “When I come back” (he was
touring to a distant star), “and tell you the story of this war, as seen
from the other side, you will know more than all the Chancelleries of
the nations.” This promises well; but in the three hundred pages that
follow there is not one word to indicate that the “Living Dead Man”
had any acquaintance with real happenings which were not
published in our newspapers; or that he was aware of these
happenings before the newspapers published them. He is always on
the safe side of prophecy. In a letter dictated on the seventh of May,
the date of the sinking of the Lusitania, he makes no mention of the
crime; but the following morning, after the ghastly news was known
to the world, he writes that he could have told it twenty-four hours
earlier had he not feared to shock Mrs. Barker’s sensibilities.
It was a mistaken kindness. Nothing could save mankind from a
knowledge of that terrible deed; but four words spoken on the
seventh of May would have revolutionized the world of thought. They
would have compelled belief in phenomena which we are now
intellectually free to reject.
The events narrated by the “Living Dead Man” are of a kind which
the Chancelleries of the nations had no need to know. He tells us
that he and twenty other spirits stood for hours in the palace of
Potsdam, trying with lamentable lack of success to reduce by the
pressure of their will the greater pressure of the war-will surging
through the German nation. He has a dramatic meeting with the
spirit of the murdered Archduke, Franz Ferdinand, and a long
interview with the spirit of Nietzsche, whom he commands—
authoritatively—to go back to earth and teach humility. He rests and
refreshes the jaded spirit of a British officer, killed in action, by
showing him a dance of sylphs; and he meets an old acquaintance,
the sylph Meriline (friend and familiar of a French magician), doing
scout duty in the German trenches. Finally he assures us that Serbia
is doomed to disaster, because a Serbian magician, who died many
years ago, left her as a legacy a host of “astral monsters” that infest
the land, awakening from slumber at the first hint of strife, and
revelling in bloodshed and misery.
It is hard lines on Serbia, and it sounds a good deal like the fairy
tales of our happy infancy. The “Living Dead Man” is careful to let us
know that he has assisted at the war councils of Berlin, being
enabled by an especial hardening of the astral ears to hear all that is
spoken on earth. No secrets of state are hidden from him; but, on
such weighty matters, discretion compels silence. Moreover, the
vastness of his knowledge is out of accord with the puniness of our
intelligence. It cannot be communicated, because there is no avenue
of approach. “The attempt to tell the world what I know now is like
trying to play Beethoven on a penny whistle. I feel as a
mathematician would feel should he set himself down to teach
addition to small children. I dare not tell you more than I do, for you
could not contain it.”
And so we are told nothing.
In the little book entitled, “Thy Son Liveth,” which is said to have
been dictated by an American soldier, killed in Flanders, to his
mother, we have a cheerful picture of active young spirits “carrying
on” the business of war, relieving the wounded, soothing the dying,
working up wireless communications (“The German operators
cannot see us when we are around”), and occasionally playing the
part of the gods before the walls of Troy.
“I told you that we were not given any power over bullets, that we
can comfort, but not save from what you call death. That is not quite
the case, I find. Jack Wells directed me to stand by a junior
lieutenant to-day, and impel him this way and that to avoid danger. I
discovered that my perceptions are much more sensitive than they
were before I came out. I can estimate the speed, and determine the
course, of shells. I stood by this fellow, nudged him here and there,
and kept him from being hurt. I asked Wells if that was an answer to
prayer. Wells said, ‘No, the young chap is an inventor, and has a job
ahead of him that’s of importance to the world.’”
It is an interesting episode; but intervention, as we learn from
Homer, is an open game. Perhaps some German lieutenant had a
job ahead of him, and scientifically-minded German ghosts saved
him from Allied shells. When the dead American soldier writes that
he is going to “get in touch with Edison,” and work on devices to
combat German machines, we ask ourselves whether dead German
soldiers got in touch with Dr. Haber, and helped him make the poison
gas and the flame-throwers which won the Nobel prize.
That the son should proffer much good advice to his mother
seems inevitable, because it is the passion of all communicative
spirits to advise. He is also happy to correct certain false
impressions which she has derived from the Evangelists.
“I got your wire calling my attention to the scriptural statement that
in Heaven there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage, and I do
not know what to say. It seemed (until you gave me this jolt) that the
Bible bears out everything that I have been able to tell you. Perhaps
the chronicler got balled up in this particular quotation. For love and
marriage are certainly in bud and flower here. I can see this fact with
my own eyes.”
He can do more than see it with his own eyes. He can feel it with
his own heart. A few pages later comes this naïve confession:
“Jack Wells and I are very close friends. His sister’s name is Alice,
and she has grown up in the country beyond, where his folks live. It
seems all reach or return to maturity. Youth blossoms and flowers,
but does not decay. I can call up her vision at any time. But I want
her near.”
A simple and guileless little book, preposterous only in the
assumption that the human race has waited for centuries to receive
its revelations.
We have been told that the Great War stands responsible for our
mental disturbance, for the repeated assaults upon taste and
credulity before which the walls of our minds are giving way. Mr.
Howells, observing rather sympathetically the ghostly stir and thrill
which pervades literature, asked if it were due to the overwhelming
numbers of the dead, if it came to us straight from sunken ships, and
from the battle-fields of Europe.
What answer can we make save that natural laws work
independently of circumstance? A single dead man and a million of
dead men stand in the same relation to the living. If ever there was a
time when it was needful to hold on to our sanity with all our might,
that time is now. Our thoughts turn, and will long turn, to the men
who laid down their lives for our safety. How could it be otherwise?
There is, and there has always been, a sense of comradeship with
the departed. It is a noble and a still comradeship, untarnished by
illusions, unvulgarized by extravagant details. Newman has
portrayed it in “A Voice from Afar”; and Mr. Rowland Thirlmere has
made it the theme of some very simple and touching verses called
“Jimmy Doane.” The elderly Englishman who has lost his friend, a
young American aviator, “generous, clever, and confident,” and who
sits alone, with his heart cold and sore, feels suddenly the welcome
nearness of the dead. No table heaves its heavy legs to announce
that silent presence. No alphabet is needed for his message. But the
living man says simply to his friend, “My house is always open to
you,” and hopes that they may sit quietly together when the dreams
of both are realized, and the hour of deliverance comes.
The attitude of spirit authors to the war varies from the serene
detachment of Raymond, who had been a soldier, to the passionate
partisanship of the “Living Dead Man,” who had been a civilian; but
who, like the anonymous “Son,” cannot refrain from playing a lively
part in the struggle. “Many a time have I clutched with my too-
tenuous hands a German soldier who was about to disgrace
himself.” Harry and Helen express some calm regret that the lack of
unselfish love should make war possible, and report that “Hughey”—
their brother-in-law’s brother—“has gone to throw all he possesses
of light into the dark struggle.” Apparently his beams failed signally to
illuminate the gloom, which is not surprising when we learn that “a
selfish or ill-natured thought” (say from a Bulgarian or a Turk) “lowers
the rate of vibration throughout the entire universe.” They also join
the “White Cross” nurses, and are gratified that their knowledge of
French enables them to receive and encourage the rapidly arriving
French soldiers. Helen, being the better scholar of the two, is able to
give first aid, while Harry brushes up his verbs. In the absence of
French caretakers, who seem to have all gone elsewhere, the two
young Americans are in much demand.
Remote from such crass absurdities (which have their confiding
readers) is the quiet, if somewhat perfunctory, counsel given by “The
Invisible Guide” to Mr. C. Lewis Hind, and by him transmitted to the
public. There is nothing offensive or distasteful in this little volume
which has some charming chapters, and which purports to be an
answer to the often asked question, “How may I enter into
communion with the departed?” If the admonitions of the dead
soldier, who is the “Guide,” lack pith and marrow, they do not lack it
more perceptibly than do the admonitions of living counsellors, and
he is always commendably brief. What depresses us is the quality of
his pacifism expressed at a time which warranted the natural and
noble anger awakened by injustice.
It is the peculiarity of all pacifists that wrongdoing disturbs them
less than does the hostility it provokes. The “Guide” has not a sigh to
waste over Belgium and Serbia. Air-raids and submarines fail to
disturb his serenity. But he cannot endure a picture called
Mitrailleuse, which represents four French soldiers firing a machine
gun. When his friend, the author, so far forgets himself as to be
angry at the insolence of some Germans, the “Guide,” pained by
such intolerance, refuses any communication; and when, in more
cheerful mood, the author ventures to be a bit enthusiastic over the
gallant feats of a young aviator, the “Guide” murmurs faintly and
reproachfully, “It is the mothers that suffer.”
One is forced to doubt if guidance such as this would ever have
led to victory.
Raymond, though he has been thrust before the public without pity
and without reserve, has shown no disposition to enter the arena of
authorship. He has been content to prattle to his own family about
the conditions that surround him, about the brick house he lives in,
the laboratories he visits, where “all sorts of things” are
manufactured out of “essences and ether and gases,”—rather like
German war products, and the lectures that he attends. The subjects
of these lectures are spirituality, concentration, and—alas!—“the
projection of uplifting and helpful thoughts to those on the earth
plane.” Such scraps of wisdom as are vouchsafed him he passes
dutifully on to his parents. He tells his mother that, on the spiritual
plane, “Rank doesn’t count as a virtue. High rank comes by being
virtuous.”
“Kind hearts are more than coronets.”
Also that “It isn’t always the parsons that go highest first,” and that
“It isn’t what you’ve professed; it’s what you’ve done.” Something of
this kind we have long suspected. Something of this kind has long
been hinted from the plain pulpits of the world.
I fear it is the impatience of the human mind, the hardness of the
human heart, which make us restless under too much preaching.
Volume after volume of “messages” have been sent to us by spirits
during the last few years. There is no fault to be found with any of
them, and that sad word, “uplifting,” may well apply to all. Is it
possible that, when we die, we shall preach to one another; or is it
the elusiveness of ghostly audiences which drives determined
preachers to the ouija board? The somewhat presumptuous title, “To
Walk With God,” which Mrs. Lane and Mrs. Beale have given to their
volume of revelations, was, we are told, commanded by the spirit
who dictated it. “Stephen,” the dead soldier who stands responsible
for the diffuse philosophy of “Our Unseen Guest,” dedicates the book
to the “wistful” questioners who seek enlightenment at his hands.
“Anne Simon,” a transcendental spirit with a strong bias for
hyphenated words, sends her modest “Message,” dictated through
her husband, to “world-mortals for their regeneration.”
How lightly that tremendous word, “regeneration,” is bandied about
by our ghostly preceptors. Mr. Basil King, in “The Abolishing of
Death,” reports the spirit of Henry Talbot, the distinguished Boston
chemist, as saying, “My especial mission is to regenerate the world.”
It is a large order. The ungrateful but always curious mortal who
would like a few practical hints about chemistry, is told instead that
“grief is unrhythmical,” which proves that Mr. Talbot never read “In
Memoriam”; or finds himself beset by figurative phrases. “Literature
is the sun, music is the water, sculpture is the earth, dancing is life,
and painting is the soul. These in their purity can never be evil. I
have spread a table in your sight. Whatever is on it is for your use.
Take freely, and give it to others. They hunger for the food.”
For what do we hunger? For any word which will help us on our
hard but interesting way, any word which is wise, or practically
useful, or beautiful. It has been revealed to Mr. King that poets as
splendid as Homer and Shakespeare bloom in the spirit world. Why,
in the general assault by dead authors, are they the silent ones?
Could they not give us one good play, one good lyric, one good
sonnet, just to show a glint of their splendour? What is wrong with
psychic currents that they bear nothing of value? “Stephen,” the
“Unseen Guest,” assures us that many a man we call a genius
“simply puts into words the thoughts of some greater mentality in the
other life.” But this is not adding to our store. It is trying to take away
from us the merit of what we have. “Anne Simon” reads the riddle
thus: “In earth-proximity the spirit leaves behind him his efficacy, for
the time, of Heaven-emanation; so it is better to open the heart, and
wish the larger beneficence than to visualize the spirit-form. For the
spirit-form without its spirit-treasure does not bring the mortal to the
higher places.”
Which, though not wholly intelligible, is doubtless true.
If we do not get what we hunger for, what is it we receive?
Professor Hyslop once assured me that the authorship of “Jap
Herron” was “proved beyond question.” This contented him, but
dismayed me. The eclipse of the “merry star” which danced above
Mark Twain’s cradle, and which shone on him fitfully through life,
suggests direful possibilities in the future. It is whispered that O.
Henry is busily dictating allegories and tracts; that Dickens may yet
reveal “The Mystery of Edwin Drood”; that Washington Irving has
loomed on the horizon of an aspiring medium. The publication of
“Shakespeare’s Revelations, by Shakespeare’s Spirit: A Soul’s
Record of Defeat,” adds a touch of fantastic horror to the situation.
The taste of the world, like the sanity of the world, has seemingly
crashed into impotence.
Patience Worth is fortunate in so far that she has no earlier
reputation at stake. In fact, we are informed that three of her stories
are told in “a dialect which, taken as a whole, was probably never
spoken, and certainly never written. Each seems to be a composite
of dialect words and idioms of different periods and different
localities.” It is Mr. Yost’s opinion, however, that her long historical
novel, “The Sorry Tale,” is composed “in a literary tongue somewhat
resembling the language of the King James version of the Bible in
form and style, but with the unmistakable verbal peculiarities of
Patience Worth.” “What bringeth thee asearch?” and “Who hath the
trod of the antelope?” are doubtless verbal peculiarities; but for any
resemblance to the noble and vigorous lucidity of the English Bible
we may search in vain through the six hundred and forty closely
printed pages of this confused, wandering, sensuous, and wholly
unreadable narrative, which purports to tell the life-history of the
penitent thief. I quote a single paragraph, snatched at random from
the text, which may serve as a sample of the whole:
“And within, upon the skins’-pack, sat Samuel, who listed him, and
lo, the jaws of him hung ope. And Jacob wailed, and the Jew’s
tongue of him sounded as the chatter of fowls, and he spake of the
fool that plucked of his ass that he save of down. Yea, and walked
him at the sea’s edge, and yet sought o’ pools. And he held aloft
unto the men who hung them o’er the bin’s place handsful of brass
and shammed precious stuffs, and cried him out.”
Six hundred and forty pages of this kind of writing defy a patient
world. And we are threatened with “the larger literature to come”!
“Hope Trueblood,” Patience Worth’s last novel, is written in
intelligible English, as is also the greater part of her verse. The story
deals with the doubtful legitimacy of a little girl in an English village
which has lived its life along such straight lines that the mere
existence of a bastard child, or a child thought to be a bastard, rocks
it to its foundations, and furnishes sufficient matter for violent and
heart-wounding scenes from the first chapter to the last. It is difficult
to follow the fortunes of this child (who might have been the great
original devil baby of Hull House for the pother she creates) because
of the confusion of the narrative, and because of the cruelly high
pitch at which all emotions are sustained; but we gather that the
marriage lines are at last triumphantly produced, and that the village
is suffered to relapse into the virtuous somnolence of earlier days.
Mr. Yost, who has edited all of Patience Worth’s books, and who is
perhaps a partial critic, praises her poems for their rare individuality.
We may search in vain, he says, through literature for anything
resembling them. “They are alike in the essential features of all
poetry, and yet they are unalike. There is something in them that is
not in other poetry. In the profusion of their metaphor there is an
etherealness that more closely resembles Shelley, perhaps, than any
other poet; but the beauty of Shelley’s poems is almost wholly in
their diction; there is in him no profundity of thought. In these poems
there is both beauty and depth,—and something else.”
Whatever this “something else” may be, it is certainly not rhyme or
rhythm. The verses brook no bondage, but run loosely on with the
perilous ease of enfranchisement. For the most part they are of the
kind which used to be classified by compilers as “Poems of Nature,”
and “Poems of Sentiment and Reflection.” Spring, summer, autumn,
and winter are as inspirational for the dead as for the living.
“’Tis season’s parting.

Yea, and earth doth weep. The Winter cometh,
And he bears her jewels for the decking
Of his bride. A glittered crown
Shall fall ’pon earth, and sparkled drop
Shall stand like gem that flasheth
’Pon a nobled brow. Yea, the tears
Of earth shall freeze and drop
As pearls, the necklace o’ the earth
’Tis season’s parting. Yea,
The earth doth weep.
’Tis Fall.”
These simple statements might justifiably be printed without the

capital letters which distinguish prose from verse; but we can
understand them, and we are familiar with the phenomena they
describe.
Byron has recorded in a letter to Hoppner the profound impression
made upon him by two concise epitaphs in the cemetery of Bologna.
MARTINI LUIGI
Implora pace.
LUCREZIA PICINI
Implora eterna quiete.
It seemed to the poet—himself in need of peace—that all the

weariness of life, and all the gentle humility of the tired but trusting
soul, were compressed into those lines. There is nothing calamitous
in death.
“The patrimony of a little mould,

And entail of four planks,”
is the common heritage of mankind, and we accept it reverently. A

belief in the immortality of the soul has been fairly familiar to
Christendom before the spiritualists adopted it as their exclusive
slogan. But to escape from time, only to enter upon an eternity shorn
of everything which could make eternity endurable, to pass through
the narrow door which opens on the highways of God, only to find
ourselves dictating dull books, and delivering platitudinous lectures,
—which of us has courage to face such possibilities!
We are told that once, when Patience Worth was spelling out the
endless pages of “The Sorry Tale,” she came to a sudden stop, then
wrote, “This be nuff,” and knocked off for the night. A blessed
phrase, and, of a certainty, her finest inspiration. Would that all dead
authors would adopt it as their motto; and with ouija boards, and
table-legs, and automatic pencils, write as their farewell message to
the world those three short, comely words, “This be nuff.”
Consolations of the Conservative
There is a story of Hawthorne’s which is little known, because it is
too expansively dull to be read. It tells how the nations of the earth,
convulsed by a mighty spasm of reform, rid themselves of the tools
and symbols of all they held in abhorrence. Because they would
have no more war, they destroyed the weapons of the world.
Because they would have no more drunkenness, they destroyed its
wines and spirits. Because they banned self-indulgence, they
destroyed tobacco, tea, and coffee. Because they would have all
men to be equal, they destroyed the insignia of rank, from the crown
jewels of England to the medal of the Cincinnati. Wealth itself was
not permitted to survive, lest the new order be as corrupt as was the
old. Nothing was left but the human heart with its imperishable and
inalienable qualities; and while it beats within the human breast, the
world must still be moulded by its passions. “When Cain wished to
slay his brother,” murmured a cynic, watching the great guns
trundled to the blaze, “he was at no loss for a weapon.”
If belief in the perfectibility of man—and not of man only, but of
governments—is the inspiration of liberalism, of radicalism, of the
spirit that calls clamorously for change, and that has requisitioned
the words reform and progression, sympathy with man and with his
work, with the beautiful and imperfect things he has made of the
chequered centuries, is the keynote of conservatism. The
temperamental conservative is a type vulnerable to ridicule, yet not
more innately ridiculous than his neighbours. He has been carelessly
defined as a man who is cautious because he has a good income,
and content because he is well placed; who is thick-headed because
he lacks vision, and close-hearted because he is deaf to the
moaning wind which is the cry of unhappy humanity asking justice
from a world which has never known how to be just. Lecky, who had
a neat hand at analysis, characterized the great conflicting parties in
an axiom which pleased neither: “Stupidity in all its forms is Tory;
folly in all its forms is Whig.”
These things have been too often said to be quite worth the
saying. Stupidity is not the prerogative of any one class or creed. It is
Heaven’s free gift to men of all kinds, and conditions, and
civilizations. A practical man, said Disraeli, is one who perpetuates
the blunders of his predecessor instead of striking out into blunders
of his own. Temperamental conservatism is the dower (not to be
coveted) of men in whom delight and doubt—I had almost said
delight and despair—contend for mastery; whose enjoyment of
colour, light, atmosphere, tradition, language and literature is
balanced by chilling apprehensiveness; whose easily won pardon for
the shameless revelations of an historic past brings with it no healing
belief in the triumphant virtues of the future.
The conservative is not an idealist, any more than he is an
optimist. Idealism has worn thin in these days of colossal violence
and colossal cupidity. Perhaps it has always been a cloak for more
crimes than even liberty sheltered under her holy name. The French
Jacobins were pure idealists; but they translated the splendour of
their aspirations, the nobility and amplitude of their great conception,
into terms of commonplace official murder, which are all the more
displeasing to look back upon because of the riot of sentimentalism
and impiety which disfigured them. It is bad enough to be bad, but to
be bad in bad taste is unpardonable. If we had resolutely severed
the word “idealism” from the bloody chaos which is Russia, we
should have understood more clearly, and have judged no less
leniently, the seething ambitions of men who passionately desired,
and desire, control. The elemental instinct of self-preservation is the
first step to the equally elemental instinct of self-interest. Natural
rights, about which we chatter freely, are not more equably
preserved by denying them to one class of men than by denying
them to another. They have been ill-protected under militarism and
capitalism; and their subversion has been a sin crying out to Heaven
for vengeance. They are not protected at all under any Soviet
government so far known to report.
Nothing is easier than to make the world safe for democracy.
Democracy is playing her own hand in the game. She has every
intention and every opportunity to make the world safe for herself.
But democracy may be divorced from freedom, and freedom is the
breath of man’s nostrils, the strength of his sinews, the sanction of
his soul. It is as painful to be tyrannized over by a proletariat as by a
tsar or by a corporation, and it is in a measure more disconcerting,
because of the greater incohesion of the process. It is as revolting to
be robbed by a reformer as by a trust. Oppressive taxation, which
forced the great Revolution upon France; dishonest “deals,” which
have made a mockery of justice in the United States; ironic laws,
framed for the convenient looting of the bourgeoisie in Russia;—
there is as much idealism in one device as in the others. Sonorous
phrases like “reconstruction of the world’s psychology,” and “creation
of a new world-atmosphere,” are mental sedatives, drug words,
calculated to put to sleep any uneasy apprehensions. They may
mean anything, and they do mean nothing, so that it is safe to go on
repeating them. But a Bolshevist official was arrested in Petrograd in
March, 1919, charged with embezzling fifteen million rubles. Not
content with the excesses of the new régime, he must needs revert
to the excesses of the old,—a discouraging study in evolution.
When Lord Hugh Cecil published his analysis of conservatism nine
years ago, the British reviewers devoted a great deal of time to its
consideration,—not so much because they cared for what the author
had to say (though he said it thoughtfully and well), as because they
had opinions of their own on the subject, and desired to give them
utterance. Cecil’s conception of temperamental, as apart from
modern British political conservatism (which he dates from Pitt and
Burke), affords the most interesting part of the volume; but the line of
demarcation is a wavering one. That famous sentence of Burke’s
concerning innovations that are not necessarily reforms, “They
shake the public security, they menace private enjoyment,” shows
the alliance between temperament and valuation. It was Burke’s
passionate delight in life’s expression, rather than in life’s adventure,
that made him alive to its values. He was not averse to change:
change is the law of the universe; but he changed in order to

Negotiation A Very Short Introduction Carrie Menkel Meadow Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Negotiation A Very Short Introduction Carrie Menkel Meadow Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Negotiation: a Very Short Introduction

Negotiation: A Very Short Introduction

VERY SHORT INTRODUCTIONS are for anyone wanting a stimulating

Very Short Introductions available now:

ABOLITIONISM Richard S. Newman AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL

ANCIENT ASSYRIA Karen Radner AUTOBIOGRAPHY Laura Marcus

CANADA Donald Wright COMPETITION AND ANTITRUST

DEMOGRAPHY Sarah Harper ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

FRACTALS Kenneth Falconer THE HEBREW BIBLE AS

HUME James A. Harris KNOWLEDGE Jennifer Nagel

THE MEANING OF LIFE THE MONGOLS Morris Rossabi

OCEANS Dorrik Stow PLATE TECTONICS Peter Molnar

THE RENAISSANCE Jerry Brotton SHAKESPEARE’S TRAGEDIES

TAXATION Stephen Smith THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Linda

For more information visit our website

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,

For Robert, practitioner of problem-­solving

Preface and acknowledgments xix

List of illustrations xxiii

List of tables xxv

1 When we need others to accomplish something 1

2 Frameworks of negotiation: Winning for self or problem

4 Behavioral choices in negotiation: What to do and why 53

5 Challenges to reaching negotiated agreements 72

6 Complex multi-­party multi-­issue negotiations 91

7 Ethical and legal issues in negotiation: Making enforceable

8 The future of negotiation 130

Appendix: Negotiation plan 143

References and further reading 151

Preface and acknowledgments

Humans have been negotiating since they came into existence.

As a field, negotiation draws on the knowledge bases of many

The field of negotiation is marked by different frameworks and

It is challenging to distill decades of social science and hundreds

I have been teaching and writing about negotiation for over

learning about and then teaching negotiation could not have

negotiation partner, Robert Meadow. Thanks to my research

May you go forth and negotiate good arrangements and solve

Preface and acknowledgments

1 Diplomatic negotiation— 4 Modes of behavior 49

2 Zone of Agreement 15 5 Venn diagram:

1 Frameworks of negotiation 12 3 Modes of conflict

2 Stages and phases of a

Consider each of these scenarios: Two young children both want

Everyone negotiates. Whenever any person, couple, community,

Sometimes negotiations are designed to create something new—a

environmental undertakings, arms reduction, cooperation on

Many people think of negotiation as an anxiety-­producing process

behavioral process of choices for action, comprising offers,

When we need others to accomplish something

Conventional conceptions of negotiation are that they are often

1. Diplomatic negotiation—Deng Xiaoping and Margaret Thatcher.

In the last few decades, negotiation has emerged as a formal field

of study in many different disciplines. Even schoolchildren now

The constituent fields of negotiation contribute to a variety of

Negotiation, as a discipline of study, has developed its

When we need others to accomplish something

Anyone Anywhere in the World,” etc. Negotiations come in

After the analysis, we come to the negotiating “table” (physical

dilemmas of negotiation strategy (overall game plan) and tactics

When we need others to accomplish something

Analysis (Framework)---→Contexts-----→Behavior = Process----→Outcome

Even with the best intentions and behaviors, many negotiations

For Robert, practitioner of problem-solving

6 Complex multi-party multi-issue negotiations 91

Many people think of negotiation as an anxiety-producing process

But note, even this “simple” single issue, two-party distributive