BU YADYOK P4

Spring 2023

NEGOTIATIONS: SOME DEFINITIONS AND COMPONENTS

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

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

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

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

NEGOTIATIONS: THE TOTAL PROCESS

4 As a starting point, P.H. Gulliver provides a cyclical model for the negotiation
process, which includes eight sequences. Summarily, these are (1) search for an arena for the
negotiations; (2) the formulation of an agenda and working definitions of the issues in
dispute; (3) preliminary statements of demands and offers and the exploration of the
dimensions and limits of the issues, with an emphasis on the differences between the parties;
(4) the narrowing of the differences, agreements on some issues, and the identification of the

Page 1/4
 BU YADYOK P4
Spring 2023

ones which are more difficult to change; (5) preliminaries to final bargaining; (6) final
bargaining; (7) ritual confirmation of the final outcome and in many cases , (8) the
implementation of the outcome or arrangement for that.

5 The process, summarized above, becomes even more meaningful if it is combined with
the concepts provided by Goffman, which identify how individuals confront new situations.
On the basis of existing stereotypes or schemata, Goffman states, they are capable of active
involvement and modification of their behavior based on their perceptions, which result in
change. In that process, their personalities have an important influence on their actions. In
other words, the personal “equipment” negotiators bring and use in negotiations play a
significant role. Negotiations, Larson argues, are heavily influenced by both the participants’
perceptions and the environment in which they are conducted.

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

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

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

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

8 In all this we need to remember that the two parties are in dispute. They want different
things and they want them from each other. They are not necessarily reasonable men open to
persuasion on the objective facts of the case, especially if more advantages can be gained by
persistent unreasonableness. They are much inclined to be suspicious of each other,
mistrustful, and somewhat hostile. This is especially the case where something like a zero-
sum1 condition continues to exist concerning some issues—what they get is what we lose, and
vice versa.

Interests are then exactly opposite. In non-zero-sum conditions it is not clear, or may not be
for some time, just how cooperation can be beneficial or whether one is being induced to take

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

Page 2/4
 BU YADYOK P4
Spring 2023

less than the opponent or less than otherwise might be obtained. Cooperation can be, or can
seem to be, at the expense of one’s own interests.

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

POWER AND NEGOTIATION

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

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

POWER AND AUTHORITY

2
status quo: the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.

Page 3/4
 BU YADYOK P4
Spring 2023

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

TRUST: BRINGING RELATIONSHIP TO POWER AND NEGOTIATION

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4/4
 BU YADYOK P4
Spring 2023

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

Page 5/4