The tension between empathy and assertiveness

This article explores two central dimensions of negotiation behavior: empathy and assertiveness. Empathy refers to the process by which negotiators demonstrate an understanding of their counterpart. Assertiveness refers to the process by which a negotiator articulates and advocates her interests. Although many people experience empathy to be incompatible with assertion and vice-versa, the authors suggest that the most effective negotiators develop expertise along both dimensions. Robert H. Mnookin is the Samuel Williston Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Chair of the Steering Committee of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, and Director of the Harvard Negotiation Research Project. Scott R. Peppet is a Lecturer on Law and Graduate Fellow in Law and Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Andrew S. Tulumello is a law clerk to Judge Pamela Ann Rymer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This article is part of an ongoing negotiation project focusing on the roles lawyers play in negotiation.     

Introduction: negotiating the promotion of democracy

ABSTRACT

This article makes the case for why we should turn to studying democracy promotion negotiation, outlines the research questions guiding this special issue, identifies overarching findings and summarizes the individual contributions. After outlining the rationale for more attention to the issue of negotiation, which we understand as a specific form of interaction between external and local actors in democracy promotion, we outline three basic assumptions informing our research: (1) Democracy promotion is an international practice that is necessarily accompanied by processes of negotiation. (2) These negotiation processes, in turn, have an impact upon the practice and outcome of democracy promotion. (3) For external democracy promotion to be mutually owned and effective, genuine negotiations between ‘promoters’ and ‘local actors’ are indispensable; the term ‘genuine’ here being understood as including a substantial exchange on diverging values and interests. The article, then, introduces the three research questions for this agenda, concerning the issues on the negotiation table, the parameters shaping negotiation processes, and the results of democracy promotion negotiation. We conclude by presenting an overview of the overarching findings of the special issue as well as with brief summaries of the individual contributions.     

A Dialogic Analysis of Audiences’ Interactions on Online Media Sites in Zimbabwe

Abstract

Zimbabwean mainstream media has been profoundly polarised by two significant camps, namely the pro-government and anti-government media. Public opinion has primarily split between the binary ideological alignments of these two camps. The heavily censored political environment in Zimbabwe since the imposition of the Public Order and Security Act 11:17 (and regulated in a multiplicity of overt and covert ways) resulted in political expressive space being constrained. Online media, however, has created alternative media spaces and contexts that are far more enabling to audiences when it comes in dialogic co-production of meaning and new or alternative value positions to those advanced by traditional media. This article explores the negotiation of meaning by online readers of the state-owned daily, The Herald. Dialogism theory is used to explore discourse and ideological interaction occurring between mass media and its audiences in the news website comments section and how online communication is in fact a reciprocal social practice that is both modelled and remodelled through processes of co-production and negotiation of meaning. The research also takes into account the naming practices that the participants employ in their online interaction.     

Interpersonal expectancies,nonverbal communication,and research on negotiation

Conclusion Research on interpersonal expectancy effects and on the processes of nonverbal communication that often play a role in the mediation of these expectancy effects may prove relevant to a better understanding of the processes and outcomes of negotiation. Psychological researchers who investigate these topics have much to learn about social interaction from social scientists who study negotiation. In return, these psychological researchers can bring some interesting bodies of literature and some interesting research methods to bear on the problems of negotiation research. Productive collaboration seems to be a natural and happy consequence. Robert Rosenthal is Professor of Social Psychology at Harvard University, William James Hall, 33 Kirkland St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138. Among his most recent publications isJudgment Studies: Design, Analysis, and Meta-Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987).Preparation of this article and much of the research described was supported in part by the National Science Foundation.     

Three ethical issues in negotiation

Conclusion The overall choice of how to negotiate, whether to emphasize moves that create value or claim it, has implications beyond single encounters. The dynamic that leads individual bargainers to poor agreements, impasses, and conflict spirals also has a larger social counterpart. Without choices that keep creative actions from being driven out, this larger social game tends toward an equilibrium in which everyone claims, engages constantly in behavior that distorts information, and worse.Most people are willing to sacrifice something to avoid such outcomes, and to improve the way people relate to each other in negotiation and beyond. The wider echos of ethical choices made in negotiation can be forces for positive change. Each person must decide if individual risks are worth general improvement, even if such improvement seems small, uncertain, and not likely to be visible. Yet a widespread choice to disregard ethics in negotiation would mark a long step down the road to a more cynical, Hobbesian world. David A. Lax is Assistant Professor at the Harvard Business School, 301 Morgan Hall, Boston, Mass. 02163.James K. Sebenius, on leave as Associate Professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, is associated with Peterson Jacobs, a merchant bank in New York. They are the co-authors ofThe Manager as Negotiator (New York: The Free Press, forthcoming).This article is adapted from a section in the authors' forthcoming book,The Manager as Negotiator (New York: Free Press, 1986). The authors are particularly indebted to Howard Raiffa and to the discussion of ethics in his bookThe Art and Science of Negotiation (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982).     

Dwarfs in international negotiations: how small states make their voices heard

Students of international relations interested in cooperation through international regimes and organizations very often devote their attention to the role of a few big states rather than the numerous small ones. Small states tend to possess fewer administrative and financial resources back home as well as smaller and less well-equipped delegations at the international negotiation table than big states. This can easily translate into difficulties in preparing positions for all items on the negotiation agenda and in developing negotiation strategies in great detail, which might inhibit small states from successfully influencing negotiation outcomes. Yet, since international negotiation often rest on a one-state, one-vote principle and since small states can adjust priorities and redirect their limited capacities, there is a window of opportunity for small states to turn into important international actors and achieve significant outcomes in international affairs. In order to systematically shed light on the role of small states in international negotiations, this article outlines the conceptual framework to answer the following question: How, and under which conditions, can small states successfully punch above their weight in international negotiations?     

One Reasonable and Inquiring Man: 12 Angry Men as a Negotiation-Teaching Tool

The film 12 Angry Men is often shown in law school and business school to teach lessons about negotiation, group process, communication, decision making, team building, leadership, and critical thinking. It effectively and powerfully depicts the ways in which a successful negotiator can make critical moves and capitalize on turning points in a negotiation. It also illustrates vividly such key negotiation concepts as the difference between positions and interests and the role of such skills as coalition building, framing, and active listening. For these reasons, 12 Angry Men can be a powerful negotiation teaching tool.     

Studying small states in international security affairs: a quantitative analysis

Todays’ international security architecture composed of international security treaties and international security norms has been established and formalized by negotiations. Owing to the great importance of international security negotiations for international security practices, this paper sheds light on negotiation activities. A study of 100 different international security negotiations shows that states vary considerably with respect to their negotiation activity. Some countries voice positions very often, while others remain completely silent. This is puzzling, as active negotiation participation is an expression of state sovereignty and a means to influence the shape of the international security architecture. The article distinguishes between capacity and incentives as driving forces of state activity in international security negotiations. The analysis reveals that, next to political and financial capacities, states that place high priority on military matters are more active, while smaller and poorer states are more likely to shelter under the security umbrella of larger counterparts.     

Methodological problems in negotiation research

SUMMARY

Despite a decade or two of researching negotiation, little more is known about it than before. Since the research methods available in communication science are varied and powerful and there is no lack of information or crucial data, the major impediments to progress must be the inability to formulate the most pertinent questions and to construct the most useful integration of information. Comprehension of negotiation depends on the methods used to accumulate this knowledge, that is observation and theory building. As in the case of other human behavioural research methodology, negotiation methodology has problems concerning theoretical assumptions providing the frame for theory development, the theories forming the basis for the selection or development of research methods and the methods determining the data observed. Methodological problems unique to negotiation research are the complexity of the phenomenon, the multi-disciplinarity, the lack of time resulting from the crisis-nature of negotiation and the present lack of methods to measure relationships between variables.     

The channel tunnel negotiations, 1984–1986: Some aspects of the process and its outcome

Conclusion The negotiations leading to a decision to build a fixed link across the channel and to agree on a joint scheme and its mode of operation provide an interesting illustration of a basically non-conflictual, complex, multiple-issue, multipleactor, multiple-event negotiation. Obviously stakes, interests, constraints, goals, and expectations were not similar, but the parties involved took advantage of a ripe moment to act on an undertaking that had first been envisaged almost two centuries ago.The Eurotunnel operation is an important experiment in bi-national cooperation in economic matters. True, negotiations were not easy and differences did and still do exist. But this huge joint venture—whatever view is taken on its merits in terms of allocation of resources and relative priority compared to other large investment opportunities—is often evaluated in terms of its impact on the relationship between two nations which are part of a complex endeavor toward large-scale integration. For the researcher on negotiation, it provides a range of case studies through which to examine the applicability and relevance of concepts and methodologies. This article is a first approach at analysis, but constitutes only a small part of the research potential of the project. Christophe Dupont is a professor of negotiation at Lille University (Faculty of Business Administration) and is also associated with a management research center, Centre des Recherches et d'Études des Chefs d'Enterprises, 76350 Jouy-en-Josas, France. He is the author ofLa Négociation: Conduite, théorie, applications (Paris: Dalloz), the third edition of which will be published in 1990.The research for this article was sponsored by Agence Régionale de Développement, Lille, France. The research involved three different topics, of which only the third is referred to here. The interpretations reflect the author's views based on official documentation and interviews both in France and in the United Kingdom. A preliminary listing of issues—not covering most aspects dealt with here—was presented to the Processes of International Negotiation (PIN) conference at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Vienna, in May 1987 in a paper titled Negotiating a research project on negotiation: The Fixed Link (Transchannel) prenegotiation.     

Structural,Domestic, and Strategic Interests in the European Union: Negotiation Positions in the Council of Ministers

Preferences are a crucial element for analyzing decision making and negotiations, but knowledge about which factors determine these preferences is sparse. Some quantitative and qualitative studies of European Union (EU) negotiations have assumed that the negotiation conflict dimensions in intergovernmental negotiations reflect market‐versus‐regulation approaches as well as a north–south dimension. In this study, I demonstrate that these findings can be extended to show that the relevant determining factors for negotiation positions are economic structural variables and the degree to which a country benefits from the EU. Furthermore, the domestic interests of EU governments better explain a government's interest in some specific issues, such as consumer protection or fishery policies, than do their partisan preferences. Moreover, I am able to show that in frequent negotiations, such as EU Council of Ministers negotiations, sincere preferences dominate; however, some factors, such as extreme salience, can increase the likelihood that a minister will choose a less sincere strategic position such as an extreme position.     

Ten Ways that Culture Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey Results

A survey of 310 persons of different nationalities and occupations asked respondents to rate their negotiating styles with respect to ten factors involved in the negotiation process. These factors included a preference for: a written contract in contrast to relationship-building as a negotiating goal; an integrative (win-win) as opposed to a distributive (win-lose) bargaining approach; and high rather than low tolerance for risk-taking. Reporting on the responses of persons from 12 countries and eight different occupations, this study finds that, in many instances, persons from the same cultures and occupations tended to respond to these negotiating elements in a similar fashion. Survey responses were also examined with respect to the respondents' gender. The study would appear to support the proposition that culture, occupational background, and gender can influence negotiating style.     

Press-party parallelism: The Star's editorial position on the 1922 Miner's Strike

SUMMARY

Against the background of a theory about press-party parallelism the author of this article argues that the Johannesburg based newspaper, THE STAR, supported the use of political violence when this newspaper supported the government of the day. As an example he illustrates how THE STAR vigorously defended the strong steps taken by the Smuts Government against revolutionaries in 1922. This was at a time when THE STAR was associated with colonial control and mining interests. During the mine worker strikes in 1913, 1914 and 1922 THE STAR supported the government's use of military measures to suppress revolt, and identified ‘communists’ and ‘agitators’ as the primary force behind the strikes. Today the same newspaper opposes the government's arguments for strong measures against revolutionaries. According to the author the implications of his historical evidence are disquieting: they suggest that on occasion newspapers are so tightly linked to a political party and other interests that truth, balance and fairness are of secondary interest.     

The Necessity and Pitfall of Cybersecurity Capacity Building for Norm Development in Cyberspace

This this paper positions cybersecurity capacity building in the realm of the debate on international norms. It is argued that cybersecurity capacity building on the one side is a necessity to make adherence to discussed norms feasible. On the other side, it can serve as a tool for fostering donor state’s interests in recipient states. The latter can lead to cybersecurity capacity building measures being used to foster geopolitical interests. As a result, rather than advancing the effort to agree on international norms and make adherence possible, it might lead to a fragmentation of norms and different understandings of these norm’s contents.     

The Strategic Use of Interests,Rights, and Power to Resolve Disputes

To ensure success in resolving difficult disputes, negotiators mustmake strategic decisions about their negotiation approach. In this essay,we make practical recommendations for negotiation strategy based on Ury,Brett, and Goldberg's (1993) interests, rights, and power framework fordispute resolution and subsequent empirical research by Brett, Shapiro, andLytle (1998). We discuss how negotiations cycle through interests, rights,and power foci; the prevalence of reciprocity; and the one-sided,distributive outcomes that result from reciprocity of rights and powercommunications. We then turn to using interests, rights and powerstrategically in negotiations. We discuss choosing an opening stragegy,breaking conflict spirals of reciprocated rights and power communications,and when and how to use rights and power communications effectively innegotiations.     

Conflict resolution perspectives on civil wars in the Horn of Africa

Conclusion In conclusion, in order to find resolutions to the conflicts of the Horn of Africa, one needs to pay as much attention to the process as one does to content and substance.A paradoxical situation exists in civil wars, where there are no courts to declare who is right and wrong or where force cannot be the final arbiter. The paradox is that conflict parties need the cooperation of their adversaries in order to win. This means that refined argumentation to prove the rightness of a position (this is what I mean by content or substance) is not enough to get what one wants. People must be equally concerned about how to present their positions in a way that their adversaries can hear them, and become motivated to act in the manner they want. This is what I call process and this is what determines the success of negotiations, or for that matter, even discussions between various scholars who represent different sides of the conflict in the Horn. And this is where I feel the position versus interest distinction is helpful.Therefore, the challenge that this article poses to all conflict parties, citizens, nationals, and/or concerned participants is to focus on the common interests and overarching mutual goals that bind them, and allow such a focus to guide the route they take to handle the civil wars in the Horn of Africa. Hizkias Assefa, a native of the Horn of Africa, is Associate Professor of Management and International Affairs at La Roche College, Pittsburgh, Penn. 15237. His publications include:Mediation of Civil Wars (Westview, 1987) andExtremist Groups and Conflict Resolution (Praeger, 1988). During his forthcoming sabbatical year (1990–91) he will be working as a consultant on regional peacemaking initiatives in Eastern and Southern Africa.     

“A Trivial and Unimportant Ally”? Britain and the West German-Soviet Treaty Negotiations, 1970

ABSTRACT

This analysis explores British perceptions and roles regarding the negotiation of the West German-Soviet Moscow treaty of 1970. Whilst supportive of West German Ostpolitik, Britain has received a very marginal role in the historiography of the treaty. By exploring the consultation process in the so-called Bonn Group of the United States, Britain, France, and West Germany, this exegesis explains that Britain played a leading role in building consensus and forming schemes to resolve the issue of the treatment of Quadripartite Rights and Responsibilities concerning Berlin in the Moscow treaty package. As background, this essay also explains the policies of the Harold Wilson’s Labour government and Edward Heath’s Conservative government regarding European détente in Europe, including West German Ostpolitik.     

Beyond contestation: conceptualizing negotiation in democracy promotion

ABSTRACT

This article presents an analytical framework that guides the contributions to this special issue and, in general terms, aims at enabling a systematic investigation of processes of negotiation in the international promotion of democracy. It first briefly introduces the rationale for studying democracy promotion negotiation, offers a definition, and locates the general approach within the academic literature, bringing together different strands of research, namely studies of negotiation in international relations as well as research on democratization and democracy promotion. The larger part of the article then discusses key concepts, analytical distinctions and theoretical propositions along the lines of the three research questions that are identified in the introduction to this special issue. More specifically, the article (1) offers a typology that facilitates a systematic empirical analysis of the issues that are discussed in democracy promotion negotiations; (2) takes initial steps towards a causal theory of democracy promotion negotiation by identifying and discussing a set of parameters that can be expected to shape such negotiations; and (3) introduces key distinctions and dimensions that help guide empirical research on the output and outcome of negotiations in democracy promotion.     

Youth,culture, negotiation and politics

The following paper was motivated by a series of seminars held in 2004 at University of Bayreuth on the Harvard Negotiation Concept of Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton (R. Fisher, W. Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without giving in, 2nd edn, Penguin Books, New York 1991). When comparing the advices of the Harvard Negotiation Concept with my own negotiation experiences in youth politics, I realized that the Harvard Concept is rather useless in many forms of intercultural negotiations. It does not sufficiently address how much culture influences our perceptions of negotiations. Politics is not the only, but surely the most prominent field of intercultural negotiation. Therefore my focus of research was: does culture influence politics? In the first chapter, I describe the reason for the science of negotiation, the validity of universal negotiation concepts, the definition of culture and the existing research on intercultural negotiations. In the second chapter, I discuss concrete examples of how culture allegedly influences politics, such as in International Youth Politics and in the ASEM process. I also give some results from a survey that I carried out in 2004 (The extended version of the paper can be found at my webpage at http://www.karsten-wenzlaff.de). All examples cast a doubt on whether culture really influences politics.