Fighting the wimp image: Why calls for negotiation often fall on deaf ears

Conclusion Must calls for war always dominate pleas for more serious negotiation? Not necessarily. But, if negotiation is to prevail, its advocates have to recognize which elements of their rhetoric sound weak and timid to others.Right after the routing of the Iraqis from Kuwait, the conventional wisdom was that American voters would repudiate those members of Congress who had argued for more negotiation — the surrender lobby, one belligerent called them. Iraq would teach elected officials not to talk of negotiation in the future. Now, barely a year from the start of hostilities, the verdict is not quite so clear. With Saddam still in power and the establishment of President Bush's new world order yet to be proven, opinion polls suggest that a growing number of Americans now regard the war as only a partial success. Public awareness of the costs of war, as well as its seeming benefits, can only be to the good, but apostles of negotiation should be careful not to read such numbers as vindication of their views. Skepticism about war still must be matched by some well-founded confidence in its alternative. Michael Wheeler is Director of the Undergraduate Program, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. 02139. He is also Deputy Director of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.     

Compliance without enforcement: State behavior under regulatory treaties

Conclusion The common conception is that treaties are not complied with because they are unenforceable, and that the cure for this condition is treaties with teeth. Our study shows that there are good reasons why states resist formal enforcement measures in treaties and are likely to continue to do so.On the other hand, negotiation, which is the principal method for dealing with compliance problems, has had a significant measure of success. This should not surprise us. Negotiation often produces agreements between parties who are not bound to agree to anything. In the context of a set of treaty norms accepted by the parties and acknowledged as having binding force, bargaining takes place in the shadow of the law as surely as when there is a possibility of ultimate recourse to coercive sanctions.In this article, we suggest some approaches that appear to enhance the effectiveness of this process. Some have close links to general negotiating theory, such as the importance of transparency between the parties and the need for careful attention to the possibilities for non-binding third party involvement. Others are more closely related to the structural features of national and international decision-making. It remains to elaborate on these themes and integrate them with others in a comprehensive account of how and why states comply with treaties. Abram Chayes is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. 02138.Antonia Handler Chayes is a principal in Endispute Inc., 955 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, Mass. 02139. Abram and Antonia Chayes are co-directors of the Project on International Compliance and Dispute Settlement, a research project based at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.     

Negotiation: The Chinese Concept

It is no understatement to say that negotiation activity has skyrocketed in China in recent years; however, these negotiations are frequently unsatisfactory. Part of the reason for this lack of success is that Chinese people have a conception of negotiation that is fundamentally different from that of people in the West. Based on extensive interviews with Chinese and non-Chinese negotiators over a period of five years, the author explains the Chinese approach by using two metaphors: mobile warfare and the joint quest. Understanding this approach has significant implications for negotiation practice.     

A grass-roots experiment to resolve workplace problems

Leaders from the business, labor, academic, religious, and ADR communities in Massachusetts have gotten together to form a workplace network to encourage the use of ADR mechanisms in the resolution of workplace disputes and problems. The Massachusetts experiment may serve as a model for other states. Current ADR initiatives of the new Network focus on discrimination cases, health and safety issues, and education and training. Susan C. Eaton is a Ph.D. student in industrial relations at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a research fellow of the Massachusetts Workplace Network, c/o Sloan School of Management, MIT E52-532, Cambridge, Mass. 02139.Thomas A. Kochan is the George M. Bunker Professor of Management at the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the past president of the International Industrial Relations Association (IIRA).     

New Problem-Solving Scholarship: An Historical Tale with a Happy Ending

The teaching of negotiation in law, business, and other professional schools has greatly increased over the last quarter-century. The author sets the stage for a review of two negotiation texts and an educational video by opening with an historical overview of the development of negotiation pedagogy, which has been informed by scholars from many different academic disciplines. Teaching negotiation in law schools (which have a long tradition of the case method style of teaching, which often encourages an energetic but adversarial approach to problem solving) is still relatively new. The two texts and the educational video examined in this essay offer lessons in a wide angle approach to negotiation, which includes (among many other useful topics): ideas fundamental to theory and practice; social and emotional considerations; the role of cultural and gender difference; relationships between principals and representatives; differences among various types of ADR; and applications of various forms of negotiation in many different contexts.     

Strengthening international mediation

Conclusion Any of these models can be pursued in tandem with any other. There are undoubtedly other options as well so these must be considered illustrative of what might be done.Such an informal approach to improving and extending the practice of international mediation would not preclude the eventual creation of a more formal organizational structure at some point should that be deemed useful. Indeed, it might prepare the way.If it is too soon to know whether or how a more formal service should be designed, perhaps the soundest way to begin is with a loose network offering an array of support services that can grow organically as it proves useful. William L. Ury is Associate Director of the Avoiding Nuclear War Project at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Director of the Nuclear Negotiation Project, 513 Pound Hall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. His publications includeBeyond the Hotline: How Crisis Control Can Prevent Nuclear War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985) and, with Roger Fisher,Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Houghton Mifflin, 1981).This column was composed as a think-piece for the Working Session on International Mediation held at the Carter Center of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, May 28–29, 1987, and cosponsored by the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School and the Carter Center. For their suggestions and ideas, I am indebted to Brian Urquhart, Harold Saunders, Larry Susskind, Roger Fisher, Cynthia Sampson, Bill Spencer and the members of the Core Group of the International Mediation Project (a faculty seminar sponsored by the Program on Negotiation).     

Groundhog Day: Teach it Again...and Again.

The problem of teaching the same negotiation class again and again, yet remaining fresh and spontaneous, is a dilemma familiar to academics. The situation is akin to that of characters in the movie, Groundhog Day, living the same 24 hours over and over, trying to get things just right. This article reflects on this problem, and offers some advice.     

Scrolling Around the New Organization: The Potential for Conflict in the On-Line Environment

The technological revolution has created as many challenges as opportunities for managers in today's organizations. Besides wandering around to manage, scrolling around on a computer screen has become common-place. This article reviews four key technology-caused challenges facing managers in the workplace, chiefly as the result of communication via e-mail. Specifically, the author focuses on what research to date informs us about negotiation and conflict resolution in an electronic environment.     

The Illusion of Transparency in Negotiations

The authors examined whether negotiators are prone to an illusion of transparency, or the belief that their private thoughts and feelings are more discernible to their negotiation partners than they actually are. In Study One, negotiators who were trying to conceal their preferences thought that their preferences had leaked out more than they actually did. In Study Two, experienced negotiators who were trying to convey information about some of their preferences overestimated their partners' ability to discern them. The results of Study Three rule out the possibility that the findings are simply the result of the curse of knowledge, or the projection of one's own knowledge onto others. Discussion explores how the illusion of transparency might impede negotiators' success.     

Parasitic Integration: Win-Win Agreements Containing Losers

Parasitic integration involves agreements that are Pareto-superior for two or more of the negotiating parties, while being inferior for one or more of the remaining negotiating parties. The contrast between parasitic integration and integrative bargaining is highlighted. A taxonomy and examples of parasitic integration are provided, as well as linkages to specific areas in the negotiation literature.     

Ready for Prime Time: The When,Who, and Why of International Mediation

Most of the literature on international dispute resolution emphasizes timing and ripeness when considering whether or not a dispute is suitable for mediation. In addition to this focus, the authors believe analysts should consider whether a particular mediator is ready for prime time. Their framework posits that one may gauge the appropriateness of a mediator for a particular dispute along three different types of considerations: operational and political; strategic and diplomatic; and relationship and cultural fit. They provide numerous case examples illustrating how the choice of a mediator might apply in each dimension.     

Book Review: Facing the Decisions One Should Make and the Decisions One Wants to Make

Authors of two recent books, Smart Choices and The Win-Win-Solution, offer negotiation practitioners some new twists on how they can improve their decision-making processes. In the first book, Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa present a five-part PrOACT system, which features: an assessment of the problem; determination of objectives; exploration of alternatives; comprehension of the consequences; and dealing with tradeoffs. The second book, by Brams and Taylor, outlines four settlement options that are available to decision makers, but advocates an adjusted winner approach. The authors have devised a system in which individuals' subjective assessments of particular items in dispute receive point totals, which can then be divided in an equitable manner. In effect, the authors show readers how to deal with the decisions they should make, and those they want to make.     

Techniques and sequences in mediation strategies: A proposed model for research

Most studies of mediation strategy focus on the how and what of the process, but fail to take into consideration when particular techniques are used. To improve our understanding of mediation strategies in general, the authors of this article propose a new methodological approach that includes an analysis of the particular techniques that are used as well as the order of their use.he is studying mediation in the Pacific Rim and international peacekeeping. John B. Stark, who is a doctoral student at the University of Missouri, plays chess and studies trust in organizations.     

Teaching Negotiation Theory and Skills Over the Internet

Negotiating on-line is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon in the workplace. The medium of the Internet also offers promising, opportunities for negotiation educators to reach out to participants that might otherwise be unable to attend a seminar. The authors used the Internet to teach negotiation theory and skills during a seven-week seminar that was conducted completely over the World Wide Web. This experiment revealed several advantages and difficulties likely to arise in the conduct of distance learning for topics in negotiation. The authors reflect on how they would organize the seminar differently, should they do it again, and offer suggestions for others organizing courses using the Internet.     

The Cairo Stories: Some Reflections on Conflict Resolution in Egypt

The author relates three cases of conflict which he has observed in Cairo and recognizes patterns that cut across each of these stories. The stories shed light on how people in Egypt approach and deal with conflict; in addition, they may help readers understand conflict in their home culture as well as be instructive on how to listen to conflict in different cultures. Six general themes in the way Egyptians approach or handle conflict are identified, and each of these themes is analyzed.     

Designing a dispute resolution system for water policy and management

Conclusions The Montana state water planning process represents one example of how a government agency with decision-making responsibilities can design and facilitate a dispute resolution system. Dispute resolution systems can increase the participation of all affected interests in developing and implementing public policy. This, in turn, should increase their ownership in the final decision and in seeing that it is implemented. A dispute resolution system may not decrease the volume of conflicts, per se, but it should reduce the high costs of conflict and realize the benefits of conflict more efficiently.The use of dispute resolution systems to address complex, multi-party public policy issues also provides other benefits, including the consideration of diverse perspectives and interests; the cooperative and systematic analysis of technical and scientific information; the formation of more pragmatic, equitable, and mutually acceptable goals and alternatives; and the improvement of relationships among diverse, often competing interests, government agencies, and policymakers. Matthew McKinney is a policy analyst and facilitator with the State of Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1520 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, Mont. 59620.An earlier version of this article was presented at a conference titled Innovation in Western Water Law and Management, held at the Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law, 5–7 June, 1991.     

Service-Learning and Negotiation: Engaging Students in Real-World Projects That Make a Difference

In recent years, the normative approach to teaching negotation (i.e., using a combination of lectures, case discussions, and simulation exercises) has been under scrutiny. Calls for change stem from the need to increase the real-world applicability of our courses. The author presents service-learning as a potential pedagogical solution. In doing so, she addresses the fit between service-learning and recent calls for change in teaching negotiation; discusses issues related to student learning, course design, and faculty member involvement; and provides sample reflections from past service-learning negotiation students.     

Framing “the Other”. A critical review of Vietnam war movies and their representation of Asians and Vietnamese

By considering a variety of films, in chronological sequence, I tried to make understandable the representations of Asians, and especially Vietnamese, by European and American filmmakers. While the themes changed from general war movies, through the depiction of bloodthirsty veterans and patriots towards the view of the victimized service men, the representation of the Vietnamese did not change dramatically. Vietnamese soldiers and civilians are portrayed as cunning, cruel, even sadistic, ambivalent, and irresponsible. These articulations of latent and manifest Orientalism in American movies about the Vietnam War are clear manifestations of a discourse which had broader consequences for the way Asians, or for that sake, Vietnamese, have been depicted. Where earlier movies showed a worldview, in which the Asian participants are reduced to simple pawns in a chess game between the superpowers, the post-1975 Vietnam syndrome genre betrayed a stereotype, which reified the Vietnamese as devious and unchanging. Even the films, which are considered to picture the war in more realistic terms, did not change the framing of the Vietnamese substantially. What changed was a manifest Orientalism, symbolized by stereotypes of the Yellow Peril, but the representation of latent Orientalism of the so-called anti-war movies remained. Current American and French cinematic production on Vietnam is not coming to terms with the past. The re-issued Apocalypse Now, Redux is part of a cultural memorial to remember the war in contradictory terms. We were soldiers is not about the Vietnamese and their war, but about we and us. The Other remains an unknown Oriental.This article is derived from a larger contribution to be published by Ravi Srilata and Mario Rutten (eds.) Europe in Asia, Asia in Europe. ISEAS and IIAS, 2003.     

Strategic issues in structuring multi-party public policy negotiations

Conclusion The protocols suggested here provide a framework for addressing the major strategic issues encountered in structuring multi-party public policy negotiations. A careful consideration of the procedures before substantive negotiations begin is the best assurance that these issues will not emerge as dilemmas and crises during the process itself. The protocols should be created by the parties to derive the full benefits of relevance and commitment. To borrow protocols created for another negotiation may result in both unrealistic and missing provisions.Having a good dispute, where the appropriate parties effectively explore and address their most essential and difficult differences, is the critical first step in effective dispute settlement. Gerald W. Cormick is regional director of The Mediation Institute, 15629 Cascadian Way, Mill Creek, Wash. 98012 and research associate professor at the Graduate School of Public Affairs, the University of Washington.An earlier version of this column was presented by the author during a panel on environmental and natural resource dispute resolution at a research conference sponsored by the Association for Public Policy and Management, 30 October 1987, in Bethesda, Md.     

A Discussion Summary of the First Dispute Systems Design Conference

Conclusion A dominant theme throughout the conference was how best to relate existing, traditional dispute systems (e. g., the courts, grievance panels, etc.) to the methods generally advocated by dispute systems designers (e. g., negotiation, mediation, etc.). Exploring that relationship is one of many dispute system design issues worthy of further discussion by practitioners and scholars.In sum, the conference discussion strongly indicates that there is a common set of dispute systems design issues across several contexts. Practitioners were clearly able to build on each other's insights and to learn from one another's practices, even when the settings for these practices diverged widely. An approach that focuses on these common dispute systems design issues appears to be a powerful method of developing individual practitioners and of developing the practical knowledge base of the profession as a whole. Based on this observation, the answer to the question in the title of this article is yes. Tony Simons is a doctoral student at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management of Northwestern University, 3-191 Leverone Hall, Evanston, Ill. 60208.