Negotiations Techniques Parts 1 and 2

Negotiation Techniques Part 1

Nicole Carle: Hello and welcome to this session on negotiation techniques. This session will be split into two videos, both of which will overview some of the key techniques that if combined with proper preparation and planning can assist a delegation in obtaining a successful outcome in their negotiations in a range of negotiation settings.

My name is Nicole Carle, and I'm a counsel with the Public International Law and Policy Group, or PILPG. Today, I am so pleased to welcome Dr. Gregory Noone, Executive Director of PILPG, and Ambassador Donald Planty, Senior Peace Fellow at PILPG. Welcome both. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Thank you. 

Introductory Points

Nicole Carle: Fantastic. Ambassador Planty, I'll start with you. Now, you have a wide range of experience in negotiations. Before we get into any of the details of this session, are there any introductory points you would like to make regarding certain negotiation techniques?

Ambassador Planty: Yes, thank you very much. As you have already noted, no negotiation technique can replace the value of good preparation or planning, but techniques can certainly play an important role in achieving success.

Some techniques that we will discuss in this session may seem obvious to listeners, and others may find them counterintuitive, but all are proven effective techniques that are worth considering. We'll also discuss some techniques that are reserved for particular and more unusual situations, and may not be applicable to every negotiation setting.

Gathering Information

Nicole Carle: Okay, so let's get into our first technique, gathering information. Greg, I'll turn to you now. Can you outline why it is so important to know the other parties and the techniques that may be employed to accomplish this? 

Dr. Greg Noone: Yeah, thank you, Nicole. As discussed in other sessions in this module, it's essential that the delegation tries to understand and know as best as they can the other party's positions and interests.

This is going to be a key for achieving a successful outcome here. During the course of the negotiation, the delegation needs to continually update the information that they went into the negotiations with. So, prior to the negotiations, we would have red teamed, meaning, had people from our own team act as the other party to try to work through what their positions would be and really get at what their interests are.

Remember positions are what a delegation, what a party is putting forward. The interest is what they're really looking to gain. That's really what they need. And, we're hopefully developing and continuing to accumulate more information to suss what they're after and to figure out what the other side is thinking.

So, this can be accomplished by employing a number of simple but effective techniques. And first and foremost is encouraging dialogue, there's an old African proverb that says that you have two ears and one mouth for a reason, because you should listen twice as much as you talk.

And we can achieve dialogue by asking open ended questions. So, this encourages the other side to provide unsolicited information to you. If you're asking essentially closed questions, yes or no questions, then all you're going to get is yes or no, where if you provide them the space that they can speak openly, especially if it's an emotional starting position, so they can really start opening up and they get very passionate about what they're talking about.

This is where we're going to be able to pick up more and more valuable information and understand what their interest’s truly are. And then from our perspective, we want to refrain from making speeches or especially emotional charge speeches. We don't want to lecture the other parties because we want them to be doing more of the talking so we continually gather information.

And also, we want to avoid non-negotiable statements, right? So we want to avoid issuing an edict as it were, and really try to make sure that we leave the table open so that we can have these conversations and not immediately get us into a roadblock. So, if the delegation is prepared well for the negotiation, they can use their pre-gathered information to ask pointed questions, both to demonstrate the delegation's understanding of the other parties positions and to also focus the negotiations themselves. 

Active Listening 

Ambassador Planty: Another useful technique is active listening which would include the following and listening, as Greg has suggested, is very important focusing on the speaker and what is being said. Responding to the speaker's views and not relying exclusively on prepared remarks. In other words, be ready to reply to what you've heard and not just read your script, because it may be off his or her point.

Body Language

Using body language to encourage the speaker and signal interest. If you see something that sounds right and is fitting your position and it's endorsed, but the speaker on the other side of the table signals back. You don't have to say anything. You can nod or smile and nod. And this will encourage the speaker to go on along that line, which may be to your benefit. Not interrupting the speaker and letting the speaker finish, this is very important.

We have a tendency today to talk over people in conversations, even at the table and negotiation, and leap in before the other person is finished and that has to be avoided at all costs because it does not is usually not received well, because the speaker is wants to make his or her points and it's important to let them do so unfettered, so they don't feel they're being smothered by your remarks.

Asking non threatening questions to confirm the delegation's understanding and repeating in your own words what speakers have said to demonstrate understanding, this is very important. It's very useful, and one needs to do it in a non threatening manner and just sort of matter of fact and this can be very helpful if you go back to the speaker and say, as I understand it, this is what you've said, and you can get a more informal dialogue going that way as well. 

It may include a recognition of emotion expressed by the speaker, demonstrating that the delegation understands the concern the speaker has raised. I mentioned nodding or smiling or gesturing. There are a number of different things that can be done, permitting the speaker to clarify or confirm the delegation's understanding and give them some space, you know, give them time to absorb what you've said and process it.

And then come back at you, sometimes they don't understand right away, particularly depending on the language being used. They may need some clarification, so let them have time. 

Eye Contact

Eye contact is another important technique. I've always found that it helps it shows that the delegation is paying attention and listening and that you're engaging in a human process.

You know, actually make eye contact with the person I contact across the table. Care should be used, though, and you need to discern this as you go along and you'll be able to be aware of any cultural differences in which eye contact may be inappropriate or may even send the wrong message.

That's usually not the case, but you need to be alert to that. It can happen. I've seen it happen.

Using Silence

And finally, using silence. This sounds a little odd,probably to you but again, important. It shows restraint. It shows interest. The delegation, your delegation does not need to speak just to fill in an uncomfortable silence.

If you've made a point or two and the other side needs time to think about it or process what's been said, they often will not speak right away. Give them that time in that room. Silence is not a bad thing. If used properly, it can encourage the other parties to talk, and sometimes in an unguarded manner.

If there's a little bit of downtime and some silence, often you'll hear chatter from across the table where one member of the other delegation turns to another and says, well, that was really a helpful remark they made. Let's jump on that. Or sometimes you get negative feedback. But it's useful to have some silence and show you're not constantly in a rush to exchange words.

Dr. Greg Noone: If I can fill some of the silence and add on to that, it's human nature that people want to fill the silence and really, I cannot agree with the ambassador enough on this, that silence is not a bad thing and yet people will talk or like the ambassador said, may say something that ordinarily wouldn't have come out of their mouth. It would have stayed in their head if other people were talking. So, silence is a really useful tool here and not to be overlooked.

Delegation Communication 

Nicole Carle: Okay, thank you both for those really useful and helpful pointers to start us off. I want to move now to techniques for communicating with your own delegation. So, say a delegation has chosen carefully who is in the room and they've already designed a robust negotiation plan, there would of course be less of a need for those delegation members to signal and communicate with one another in the room. Nevertheless, such moments do arise. And when they do, how can the delegation communicate in these situations? Greg, I'll start with you. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Yeah, so first and foremost, the delegation's team leader should appear to be in control of the delegation's team negotiations at all times, but also strive to maintain the credibility and the value of all team members.

There has to be an understanding going in exactly what our interests, and in the U.S. government, what we would do is what's called a circular-175, where we would make sure that everybody who has any interest in whatever this negotiation is, we all signed off on what we were going after, where our red lines were or the best alternative to negotiated agreement is, but we all know what we're going after. So nobody's going to go rogue. So, the fact of the matter is that there shouldn't need to be a lot of communication or glances or looks or winks or anything like that in the negotiation room.

There'll be plenty of time to caucus on breaks. It's more than appropriate to slide a note down to the person next to you or down the table. That's very common. It's not considered rude. This isn't a grade school where you get in trouble for passing notes, people understand that's going to happen.

But, I'll tell you what can negatively, I suppose positively, but can negatively impact negotiations, is if you're looking at each other and, you know, raising the eyebrows and, you know, making facial expressions, that's cuing in the other side. And if nothing else, you hope the other side is doing that because that will help you, as the ambassador said, read the body language, read the facial expression.

So, we have to make sure that we are operating as a tight team, that we don't look like we're doing things on the fly and giving these gestures and looks. We need to go in with a tight plan. We need to keep our communications at a professional level and make sure that the team lead is who we're following.

Role of Documents in Negotiations

Nicole Carle: And what about documents? What role did they play in negotiations, and how can the delegation use them to their advantage? 

Ambassador Planty: Before I address documents, I just wanted to say a word or two endorsing what Greg has just said about working with one's own delegation. It's so important that the delegation is disciplined and has unity and does not engage in distracting behavior. I always had a brief meeting with my delegation before going to the table to remind them what our internal rules of the road were, and that, in fact, I was in charge, whether they liked it or not, and if they needed to communicate with me while we were at the table to do justice, as Greg suggested, and pass a message down the row to me, and I would read it and either use it or ignore it depending on how useful it was. So, that's very important to have discipline in your own delegation.

On documents, documents of course play an important role in negotiations, and negotiations are typically managed through the use of various documents, including agendas, position papers, and settlement agreements. When I worked the U. S. Spanish base rights negotiation, we were constantly passing documents back and forth across the table, because we were negotiating specific language on certain things.

Access to the military bases, for example, who's in charge of certain situations, legal matters. So we were negotiating specific language and that meant we were constantly exchanging papers and working with each other's language. So that is with each other's position on language that was going to go into the treaty.

And this was a treaty, one of the last treaties the U. S. Senate, if not the last one, was approved before we went away from doing treaties. So the documents will be useful to both persuade and illustrate your delegation's position, and will also be helpful in establishing and maintaining. your delegation's credibility by supporting a position your delegation is taking.

The document emphasizes that, it stresses that this is our official position, this is our official language, this is what we'd like to see written in there. Documents can also provide a clear illustration for a complex position or argument your delegation is making. So when and how one uses a document and for what purpose is an important part of your delegation strategy. 

Dr. Greg Noone: If I can, Nicole before I pick up, because I have a few comments on documents. Mr. Ambassador, you just made a comment talking about the United States, and you said before we went away from using treaties, I was wondering if you could talk about that a little bit more.

Sure, this particular base rights negotiation originated with Francisco Franco when he was the dictator of Spain in the early fifties. So the Eisenhower administration negotiated it and routinely those kinds of agreements. During that time were treaties, formal treaties between nations and in the case of the United States, of course, had to be approved by the Senate.

Fast forward to when we did this particular version and the base rights negotiation with Spain was always a renegotiation of the previous agreement and at a time frame of five years. So every five years we had to redo this document and this negotiation took place from 1986 to 1988, it took almost two years to get it done and it was negotiated as a formal treaty. In fact, it's hanging on my wall somewhere. It's a piece of paper that says I participated in or won an award for my work on the Treaty of Defense and Cooperation between the United States and Spain.

Treaties became hard to get approved in the Senate by successive administrations, which is why we moved away from it. A treaty requires two thirds vote in the Senate approval and because of the direction our politics we're taking, it became harder and harder to get two-thirds in the Senate.

So we moved to executive agreements, so called Executive Agreements were required rather than just a simple majority of both houses, but it also required the House of Representatives to approve an Executive Agreement. So it was really internal politics issues that forced successive administrations to move away from formal treaties. Although most countries, other countries like them because to them it symbolized a stronger commitment by the United States if the U.S. Senate approved it. 

Dr. Greg Noone: No, thank you, sir. It's always interesting with someone with your extensive background in history to kind of walk us through what one country, in this case, the United States, how they had to change essentially doing business in order to continue to conduct foreign affairs and international relations. So if I can pick up just adding to what the ambassador said about documents, the first recognition is that the initial draft of any operative document, meaning document that will have force or produce an effect such as an agenda, a settlement agreement, will remain largely unchanged with only the most significant points being negotiated. So, it's important to understand that whatever that initial draft is, this is going to be a lot of the framework. In negotiations, oftentimes it will go months, even years, exchanging documents before we even get to the table.

And I used to joke that you need a color printer because the track changes would be in different colors based on who did the track changes. And you know, this particular person in this party, he was yellow and this guy was red and this guy was blue. And so it'd be a colorful rainbow of a document, but it takes a long time to get that first document because, like I said, that will largely remain unchanged. 

So, it's an advantage to be the one drafting the first draft because your delegation's draft may actually define the words or the issues that are going to be used throughout the negotiation.

So, it really does behoove you to be on the front end of saying, oh, we'll put together this draft or just putting it together and then saying, we, we put this together. What are your thoughts? And always be over inclusive because it's much, much easier to remove terms from a document than add terms to a document.

I was in one negotiation, and to be clear, this is another important point, I was way down the end of the table, that the chief negotiator like Ambassador Planty would be dead center in the middle of the table and way down in order of precedence are the people that as we go. So I'm way down the end of the table, the most junior person on this negotiation team, and I make that point just for a moment, because the value of bringing junior people to these negotiations so they can learn and slowly work their way up the table is critical. If you rely on the Ambassador Planty’s of the world to do all your work, and you're never developing your bench, then at some point you're going to have a lack of skilled negotiators. 

So think of it like a football team. You have your first 11 out there. You really have to start looking at 12 through 20 because sooner or later 12 through 20 is going to be on the pitch as well. So this negotiation that I was in, we negotiated for over three hours on one word. It was one word that we couldn't agree upon and this is a word that was being added to the document. So, it wasn't as simple as, we don't like it, and the other side says, we'll give you this one. We'll just take it out. No, this word had to be added in. We went around and around for three hours.

So that's how this process can really get bogged down in how good, as Nicole said at the beginning, prior planning, we can have the right document and the right words and the right definitions of the words. We need to think of documents as a persuasive tool.

Oftentimes, these documents have more power if they're created by a mediator or neutral party, so they can even have more impact on the parties because each party will look at each other thinking you only put that in there because it advantages you, so that's the benefit of having a third party work in this. If you're trying to illustrate complex points in a document, you really have to keep it simple because the more complex the language, the harder the negotiations are going to go as you sort through that. So, try to speak in plain language that everybody understands.

And really, when we look at treaties, one of the first things we look at in a treaty when we're trying to interpret it years later is just the plain meaning, the plain language. What does this mean? What is the difference between shall and will and the plain meaning of those words?

And also lastly, if you're going to use illustrations to support a point, let's say a graph or some type of table, make sure that you're able to fully explain it when it's presented so that it makes sense as well. 

Nicole Carle: Greg, can we ask what the three hour word was? 

Dr. Greg Noone: You know what? I've struggled to remember it all these years later because I think years of therapy helped me block it out. So that was a really frustrating time. You want to know the rest of the story? We broke for the rest of the day. We were done because we weren't getting anywhere.

The two chief negotiators went to the bar, and when we came back the next morning, they had resolved it. And my feeling was, why aren't we doing the entire negotiation at the bar if we're able to resolve these issues so quickly? But we got through it, but it can really slow things down and frustrate people.

People were getting visibly frustrated, and of course, we're going through two different languages. Negotiator speaks, other side's translator says what he said, then the other side speaks, and then your side's translator says what it says, and everything's taking twice as long, and the frustration in the room, it was a hot and things could have gone really badly and gone off the rails at that point.

Nicole Carle: Okay, thank you. 

Use of the Mediator

Moving along, Ambassador Planty, I'll turn to you. What techniques can the delegation employ to use the mediator to their strategic advantage? 

Ambassador Planty: Okay, this can be a touchy issue, but before I comment on it, I want to assure Greg that I started out at the end of the table as well. So I'm familiar with that position and passing notes up, and it's interesting you mentioned shall and will in the base price negotiations with Spain, those two words became key and very important because one of the main issues, there's a legal issue, principle issue was what we call a waving primary jurisdiction. 

If a U.S. serviceman committed a crime in Spain, who had jurisdiction over prosecuting that person? And of course, The U.S. always claims primary jurisdiction, and it's in the agreements, but the Spaniards wanted primary jurisdiction, too, and depending on the nature of the crime, we spent days on shall versus will.

They did not like shall. They felt it was less of a commitment than will, and we went round and round the merry go round. We eventually solved it, not at the bar, but in the coffee shop, but same principle. You're right on the mark there, Greg. On the mediator, this is something that delegations have to approach gingerly, I would say, most frequently parties use a mediator as an information conduit to express their views or position on matters to the other delegation.

This was the case in the negotiations of the peace accords in Guatemala where I was ambassador and the two sides were so far apart, they've been at war for nearly four decades. 36 years that a mediator was really necessary just to keep a dialogue going and it was up to the mediator to facilitate responses to questions that were either unanswered or ignored because they were too delicate or one side did not want to address them across that bridge and address a particularly delicate question. 

And the mediator also might be used in, and in that negotiation, was used to better define the interesting goals of each side to the other because they started out at the top the government on one side and the leadership of the insurgency the Garri that had come out of the mountains, deep in the mountains, were from two different worlds and the mediator was really critical in trying to not just broach the differences, but to get the two sides to talk to one another. 

So, a delegation might use a mediator strategically. They did in that case, but using a mediator strategically just often involves things like making opening statements that can be an effective tool to persuade the mediator and the other delegations decision maker of the delegations understanding and position on key matters.

This is an important point. An opening statement is very useful just as a lawyer might make an opening statement to the jury in a trial. It can be very important in a negotiation because it clearly lays out your position and point and principle points. And in this process, the delegation may take the opportunity to persuade the mediator of the moral or legal righteousness of their position.

This will often influence the manner in which the mediation process is conducted. Yes, but I'd be very careful on that point so that the mediator doesn't think of you as the delegation head, or your delegation is trying to brainwash him or her at the outset. It means that a particular line needs to be walked carefully.

However, throughout the course of the negotiations, not just in that instance, it's important to use caution. Especially when providing confidential information to the mediator. That is a call that can only be made in the process of the negotiation and usually on the spot, but I guarded that prerogative very carefully, very closely, and only used it when I thought it was just absolutely necessary for the mediator to have it. And then if I did that, it would always be on the side, either after we adjourned to prepare for the next day, or maybe had a coffee break or something. But, I use that very sparingly.  

Use of Experts

Nicole Carle: Excellent point on the use of caution. And what about experts, the last question to both of you for this session will be how can a delegation use various experts to their advantage?

Dr. Greg Noone: I don't even know if it would be to their advantage necessarily, because it'd be useful to the whole process moving forward. So, if it's a complex or technical issue, maybe we need an expert to come in here. Maybe it's a water issue. Maybe it's an oil issue that's causing the problem between the parties. So, to have an expert come in and say this is that can be very persuasive if you're using it to try to solve these complex issues.

However, the expert has to seem as neutral or impartial for that opinion to be useful. And the reality of it is that every expert brings their own bias or individual or cultural or scientific bias to the negotiation. Look at climate change, 99 percent of the world's scientists say that the climate is changing and then one percent says, no, it's not.

We know that one percent is funded by the fossil fuel industry. So what's the bias that these people are coming in with? And that's something that will have to be really scrutinized, really scrutinized as a mediator, really scrutinized as a party, but the expert's technical know-how can help move us through these types of complex issues that probably not a lot of people at the table fully understand. And so, that could be a very useful opportunity.

Ambassador Planty: That's very helpful, Greg, to stress that and very important. A second technique would be to use an expert as a member of your delegations and negotiation team. Such an expert can advise the delegation on complex issues and offer creative solutions that would be unavailable absent their expertise.

The Spanish base negotiations, the base price negotiation that I mentioned are instructive here in that regard, I had, since the bases where there was no army base, the basis that we were negotiating for the use of were primarily air bases and one important naval base on the Mediterranean road to where we still have use of that for the U.S. sixth fleet. 

Well, I was chair of the negotiation, but I was, of course, not a naval expert or an expert on air to ground warfare. So, I had a lawyer from the Pentagon, a Navy lawyer, to talk about naval issues, and I had an Air Force lawyer, a JAG from the Pentagon to get into the specifics of air issue, air base issues and use thereof.

And so, I had these experts at hand I could turn to when we got to a technical issue in either one of those areas and we did frequently and of course, they were there in uniform and they had credibility to the other side, in particular, because my counterpart on the other side was a commander in the Spanish Navy who knew this stuff inside and out backwards and forwards.

So, it was important for me to have experts on my delegation who could address some of the more technical things. But, this one also could include interpreters, and I did have an interpreter. The other side, the Spaniards, insisted on consecutive interpretation. We tried to convince them to use simultaneous, but they wouldn't because they wanted to hear us twice, to make sure they were hearing things correctly.

So, they all understood and spoke English, but they didn't want that as the first language coming at them. Of course, we presented our positions in English and the interpreter translated to Spanish and interpreted Spanish so they could hear it in their own language and which they felt gave them an advantage.

So, we always had an interpreter, but other specialists like economists, depending on what you're negotiating, scientists, lawyers, I mentioned I had three lawyers at the table, two from the Pentagon, one from the State Department, so I was well lawyered up. But these are examples of the type of technical experts that delegations typically utilize and can be very critical to the outcome, especially when you're negotiating technical issues on bases.

And your delegation can expect that other delegations and the mediator will also have a lawyer as part of their negotiating team. And, of course, in this case, the Spaniards did. The Navy commander I mentioned to you had done this negotiation several times. He was a lawyer and had been around a long time. Wonderful man, but tough.

Dr. Greg Noone: I just want to add about that kind of double translation. I agree with you 100%. And I also felt it gave them more time. So you're right. It allowed them to hear it in their native tongue, but it also gave them double the time to respond. So I always thought that was a neat thing there. And Mr. Ambassador, now I know who to thank, because as a Navy lawyer that spent time in Rota, Spain on that base and enjoyed it there. Now I know it's you who got me there. 

Ambassador Planty: A nice base. The only disadvantage, Greg the only disadvantage is, as it takes, can take an inordinate amount of time to do that consecutive interpretation.

We would be at the table for hours upon hours. On and the other side in this negotiation, they use an unfair advantage: they would not go to Washington, they would not alternate venues. They required that we always travel to Madrid. So I made 24 trips to Madrid from Washington DC in two years, and they counted on us being worn out at a certain point and losing patience because they would only start the negotiations at seven p. m. after they had a chance to put in their normal workday. In the meantime, we were losing patience, walking around, trying to do something useful, waiting for seven o'clock to roll around, but our typical sessions were seven to midnight. With consecutive interpretation, that can get tiring very quickly, and it really adds time to the negotiation, of course. 

Dr. Greg Noone: And I'll add to that, this concept of time. We were negotiating an agreement in Asia, and so our team that's at the table is negotiating on Asian time. And then, when they were all done, when their day was done, Washington D. C. was just getting to the office.

And the people in Washington, people at the Pentagon expected to have these full conversations and back briefings. And my concern all along was we were wearing our own guys out because we weren't letting them have a normal day where they worked hard, got something to eat and made it to bed at a reasonable time.

And we were keeping them up for hours into the evening, which was then disadvantageous because they weren't getting enough sleep. So time is a critical element, especially if you're dealing with different cultural aspects, starting at seven p.m. or you're dealing with, you know, time zones around the world. We have to be careful not to abuse our team that's out in the field.

Nicole Carle: All important points. And I thank you both for those. And with that, it concludes our first section of our session on negotiation techniques. In section two, we will discuss other techniques such as managing time and focus and team members effectively, as well as the use of ultimatums and leaving negotiations.

So, I will see you both there. Thank you again. Thank you.

Negotiation Techniques Part 2

Nicole Carle: Hello and welcome to the second session of the module on negotiation techniques. My name is Nicole Carle, and I'm a counsel at the Public International Law and Policy Group or PILPG. We are joined again by Dr. Gregory Noone, Executive Director of PILPG and Ambassador Donald Planty, Senior Peace Fellow at PILPG. Welcome back both. 

Ambassador Planty: Thank you, Nicole. Nice to see you again, and I'm delighted to be here with you this afternoon. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Pleasure to be here, Nicole. 

Managing Time 

Now, to jump right back into our conversation, managing time effectively is another key negotiation technique. What should the delegation be focused on here? Dr. Noone, I'll start with you.

Dr. Greg Noone: Great. Thank you, Nicole. Look, to negotiate effectively, the delegation needs to fully appreciate the effect time has on the negotiation process. Delegation must be able to recognize whether or not some issues can be resolved in the time allotted, the time constraints of the scheduled negotiations. So, the delegation must know its priorities to be able to focus on those within the time constraints. You have to be realistic. about the time needed to accomplish your delegation's goals.

And your delegation must also know if any other delegation is also under similar time constraints that will affect their negotiation strategy, their positions as we go forward. So if a quick resolution is important to one party or another, your delegation may be able to gain concessions by acknowledging this pressure and quickly making concessions in non essential areas.

But conversely, that can happen to you if the other side senses that you're under time constraints, then they may be looking to use that to their advantage as well. 

Ambassador Planty: Yes, I agree. And it's also important to evaluate who is under the greatest time constraints at the outset because this can have a fundamental impact on strategic issues.

Very few negotiations are open ended, but if there are no external time constraints, your delegation may want to set a time limit on the negotiations to keep the parties focused and the negotiations efficient and effective. That can be very useful, but it depends on the nature of the negotiation and you just have to judge that depending on developments and progress on the issues.

Dr. Greg Noone: So, adding to that both myself and Ambassador Planty plenty have been involved in what really seemingly were open ended negotiations that took two years. Ambassador Planty was telling a story that he had to travel to Madrid 24 times within two years. And that was really one of those longer open ended negotiations. But if you're negotiating something that has to do with conflict, there is a motivator, a desire, a need to move quicker. People are dying, resources are being expended. And one side or the other may realize that the longer the conflict goes on, the weaker their position goes.

So, conflict is usually one of the biggest things in negotiations that will impact time constraints. If you're negotiating, like Ambassador Planty was speaking about, before a base accessing agreement that's going to be renewed every five years. Well, that's something that kind of has its own natural life cycle, and it'll get to the end when it gets to the end. But conflict is usually what adds that critical time constraint. 

Ambassador Planty: I'd like to comment on that. That's such an important point. And, in fact, was involved in one such negotiation. A border war broke out in 1995-96 between Peru and Ecuador. Their Amazonian border is still largely unmarked today, and it had been the source of conflict over the years, but in recent times, not. But nevertheless, it was vicious, people were dying on both sides, many of us thought of a needless conflict. 

And there was a treaty out there signed during World War II, I think it was in 1942, where four or five countries agreed to, in the future, arbitrate any such conflict. The United States was one, and I think it was the United States, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. There are four countries, the ABC powers, so called, plus the United States. And I was the US delegate to the team, and we really felt pressed, and there was a lot of heat because people were dying every day and the fighting was vicious. And until we managed to get a ceasefire, time was critical, absolutely critical. And just to underscore your point, Greg.

Certainly in the backdrop of conflict, managing time becomes all that much more important. 

Managing Focus 

Similarly, delegations must be prepared to manage the focus of negotiations effectively. What techniques can delegations employ to redirect the topic when necessary? Yeah, that's a great question. I've been in negotiations where our lead negotiator, I was just in awe at how much of a pro he was and how the way he operated his cadence, his understanding of the issues, his ability to bring us back to the points at hand.

Conversely, I've been in negotiations where our lead negotiator was chaotic and he was unfocused and it was a struggle on our own team to bring him back to the point at hand. So this is important. So, it may not just be the other side that is unfocused and going down. 

There's a term we use saying rabbit holes, right? And just taking us into places we don't need to go. Sometimes it can be your own team that is doing that if you don't have a particularly good lead negotiator. So we have to redirect and get the discussion back on the topic at hand. And so a couple of things you need to think of, first of all, never lose sight of where we're going. What our interests are and what we're trying to accomplish. You know, there's an old saying, if you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there. And so you need to make sure you stay on the road that you predetermined, that we set out in our pre negotiation conversations and meetings, in order to make sure we don't lose focus at that.

You know, at some point in the negotiation, it may be necessary to redirect the discussion to a different topic, either a new one or an old one to maybe cool down the discussion, take some of the emotion out of the room, or simply refocus the parties based on how the negotiation is moving along. But keeping a focus on what our main objectives are and what our ultimate interests are must be at the forefront of everybody's mind. 

Ambassador Planty: And I can't sufficiently stress the criticality of those points, because it's easy to get stuck, and sometimes when you get stuck, it's very hard to get off the reef and back on track. So, redirecting the topic can be used effectively to focus the discussion away from a problem area, the one that can more easily be resolved in the negotiation.

I've used this, I've seen this in every negotiation I've been involved in. It was critical in the case of the Guantanamo Peace Accords because the parties were so far apart, there was almost nothing they wanted to agree on initially, in the base rights negotiations as well. And this permitted the delegation and other parties to focus on and resolve the easier topics before taking on the more difficult ones.

And this technique works, I've seen it work, it builds momentum, trust, and the confidence necessary then to tackle and resolve the difficult issues. It's a confidence builder. It's amazing how once some of these agreements start falling into place on the lesser issues, it gets easier and easier to move toward the more difficult issues.

So it's really very important to the process, and I think it is something every negotiator or mediator should use. Redirecting the topic can also shift the discussion away as I've alluded to from a problem area to one of strength or to one where it's easier to come to an agreement to get some forward progress.

And remember, it's always easy to negotiate from a position of strength and weakness, so you want to try to keep your delegation riding a wave of strength throughout the negotiation. There are various ways of doing that, some of which we've already discussed, but that's an important point to keep in mind.

Holding Topics 

Nicole Carle:Absolutely, and staying on the subject of redirecting topics, is it ever useful or recommended for a delegation to hold certain topics for future discussions? 

Dr. Greg Noone: Yes. I'll take this one, Nicole. And really one of the keys to a successful negotiation is to maintain an active dialogue. But occasionally, an issue may arise that falls outside the scope of the negotiations or is too big to resolve or simply unanticipated by all the parties. So, in order to resolve these situations, it's best to record and acknowledge each party's positions on such issues. And maybe if there were concessions made, record those as well. And set aside that for future negotiations. Now, it may be part of the same negotiations, but maybe it's just not something that we're ready to address this week. We are scheduled to meet again in six weeks. Let's push that down to six weeks. We've all had time to think about it and work through it a little bit more. And then hopefully once that impasse is removed or eliminated, or at least put off into the future, we can refocus the group and continue towards resolving the issues that we were on.

Use of Breaks

Nicole Carle:Now we spoke earlier about the importance of managing time. Let's talk now about how to strategically use perhaps breakster negotiations.

Ambassador Planty: Intermittent breaks during a negotiating session can be employed as an effective technique in various circumstances. Breaks can be used to effectively alter the tenor of the negotiations, and to ease tension in the room by permitting parties to step away from an emotionally charged discussion. I make these points sort of, chuckling to myself because I was eternally grateful that we had a room that the foreign ministry for the Spanish base rights negotiations, really it was a chalet, it was a house, it and it had a coffee shop in one wing and I can't tell you how many times I adjourned the session to the coffee shop so I could sit down with the commander direct or we could just clear the air for the things got a little heated across the table and sometimes they did.

And you know, we became good friends during this process and you use the breaks to refocus both the delegation and and take stock of where we were headed and agree that we made progress, slap each other on the back. And in general, diffuse tension that had come to the surface, but also to try to informally different language.

Sometimes, we’d draft some language and pass it across the table and it was too direct or struck a nerve on the other side. And I'd use a break to explain the language and go through it and see if we could achieve our objective by softening it in some way or otherwise making it acceptable to the other side.

You can overdo this. Caution should be used when suggesting or taking breaks because they can, in fact, break momentum if you're not careful, interfering with a dialogue sometimes in an unhelpful way. But for the most part, I think breaks are a very useful tool and I've always used them and it's always resulted in a positive outcome and to avoid problems, maybe try to break on a positive note and take the negative issue up once you get into the coffee shop or we weren't so lucky as you Greg to have a bar. We had to drink that strong Spanish coffee, but nevertheless, the technique worked. And I used it frequently. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Yeah, and I would just add to that more is done over coffee breaks than I think sometimes. And this is the opportunity to get to know people, build rapport. Not that you're going to become best friends, but you do need to humanize yourself and humanize the people across the table. You know, and then there's always that one guy across the table who has that look on his face like he's angry at everything.

You need to take one of your best team members and say, look, on the break, I want you to become best friends with that guy. And to try to take the stinger out a little bit and get him to a place, because he could be the spoiler and the other side of the table.

So you could think you're doing great, and then when they caucus, they come back and they say no, and my guess is it's the guy who looks angry all the time that's probably angry in the caucus meetings as well. So building those relationships, building that rapport is critical. Also you know, we've spoken at other times about information. Is it a great opportunity to gain information? To understand what might be the driver. We know this is important, but look, we have an election coming up. That's probably not something said at the table. So, that's good information that you can bring back to the team when you're starting to really continually assess and reassess where they might be and finding something like that is important.

Mediators During Break

And then I'd say that mediators often use time during the break. Mediators have to be careful, though, because during the break, they can try to spend time with each side a little bit, but as a mediator, you have to be careful that when we come back from break, the other side thinks that you spent the whole break talking to Team A, and we're Team B, and now we're upset, and you could actually go backwards in time.

So if it's a short break, the mediator might best just stand with his team or her team and drink their coffee and not talk to anyone because you don't want to be seen favoring one side or the other when we're enjoying croissants. And then lastly, when you come back from break, a very useful technique is to summarize where the negotiations were before the break. So get us back on track, remind everyone, not that they don't know, but remind everyone to get the juices flowing again, and then we can start moving into the conversation. And it's a natural stepping off point. Post break is to have that summary of where we were.

Managing Delegation Team Members

Nicole Carle:Moving to techniques to employ within one's own delegation. Is there anything perhaps a chief negotiator can do on managing team members themselves? 

Ambassador Planty: Yes, that's a good question, Nicole and Greg, I had one such angry man on my delegation. He wasn't across the table on the other side. It may be beneficial or even necessary for the parties to change the members of their negotiating teams.

During negotiations, it's human nature. Some people are cut out for this sort of thing. Others aren't. You want, of course, your delegation to be disciplined, to follow what had been agreed on in terms of both policy and procedure. We had our marching orders from Washington, we had our instructions and had to adhere to those and could not deviate from them. 

Team members who did not follow the guidance or were undisciplined can be a problem. And sometimes, you need to change people to overcome a stalemate caused by some conflict of personalities, or if a team member lacks credibility and is no longer an effective representative for a party. I've seen that happen. In fact, it's probably the rule, not the exception. There's almost always some of this adjustment that goes in and goes on internally on the team. And as we've said before in this discussion, keeping the dialogue moving is vital to successfully concluding negotiations.

So if a change in negotiations appears necessary, one should not hesitate suggesting or implementing it, that is changed to among team members. It's important to stay on top of that. Inevitably, these things can come up internally on the team and have to be paid attention to.

Dr. Greg Noone: Ambassador Planty, let me ask you this. You just gave one example of swapping out a team member. Would, have you seen times where we've had to swap out the lead negotiator? 

Ambassador Planty: I've seen efforts to do that. Yes. Not successful ones in the negotiations. Was involved in but certainly efforts from say disgruntled members of the delegation or Washington agency.

I mentioned I've done the Spanish base rights negotiations twice, once from Washington, where I was office in charge of Spanish affairs in the State Department. But, the second time I did it, I was a counselor for political military affairs at the U. S. Embassy in Madrid. I had to go through that experience twice in my career. The second time wasn't voluntary, but Ambassador Planty, who was our chief negotiator, insisted that I be a member of the team. And, he was unpopular with the uniform members of our team and with the Department of Defense. 

As you can imagine, sometimes the Department of Defense saw base rights as their equity, and would have rather had someone, perhaps than this individual be the chief negotiator, although he was an outstanding professional and very good at what he did, but he didn't, as we say, suffer fools gladly, and he we had sometimes the internal negotiation among the U.S. agencies. And in particular, the Department of Defense was more difficult than the negotiations with the opposite party we were trying to get an agreement with. 

Yes, that happens, though. I've seen it happen not in my particular personal experience, but absolutely. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Because, as we know, it can be common to change the roles of your delegation's membership during the negotiations in order to bring a new perspective or a new voice to the table in order to alter the dynamic and hopefully in your delegation's favor. And having new team members take on a lead on a particular topic can be a planned strategy that can be effective in emphasizing or emphasizing the importance of a particular topic in the negotiation. 

But, it can also stall the agreements, right? So a change in the lead negotiator would surely kind of put the negotiations dead in the water until the new lead can come in, get up to speed, start the process again of reacquainting and refamiliarizing themselves. And as we've talked about, as you get further out on the table, that these people are interchangeable, right?

They're fungible, but as you get closer into the middle, these people are going to have to be there for the whole ride. But yeah, it can have an impact both positively and negatively.

Use of Ultimatums

Nicole Carle:Something else I'd like to raise is the use of ultimatums. How might these be employed by a delegation?

Ambassador Planty: I'm not a big fan of ultimatums. I think they're more often counterproductive than productive. Deciding this issue it's important that the delegation be aware of differing customs and cultures of all the parties at the negotiating table.

And one of the situations, which this is particularly important in is regarding the use of ultimatums. In some cultures, in some places, ultimatums are considered a regular part of negotiations. I know people who've gone up against this in other countries where ultimatums are favored, but they're generally quite risky and are a drastic measure in any negotiation. Because in a way, you're really pressing the other parties back to the wall, and that is often not a productive approach. If the other country rejects your ultimatum, then your delegation may be faced with a difficult decision to either end the negotiation or withdraw the ultimatum and risk losing credibility and nevertheless, should the negotiations reach a point where no progress is being made, and only a few issues remain, issuing an ultimatum may encourage the other parties to make a better offer. 

We did have something of this. It approached an ultimatum in the base rights negotiation with Spain, where we'd really resolved everything except the main issue, and that was that the Spanish government did not want us to continue to operate an airbase near the international airport outside of Madrid, where we had a wing of nuclear capable F-16s, 72 aircraft, and their main goal in that negotiation was to get that base moved. And, of course, we did not, the U. S.,  for various reasons, did not want to move that base because the aircraft's base there had their missions in wartime were out of the country. They were not in Spain.

But, they put their foot down on this and it didn't, it was a quasi ultimatum, I will say, because it caused us to have to suspend for a while our negotiator, our chief negotiator went back to Washington and took stock as did they, and there was an interregnum there, a period where we tried to get our orders changed or modified or instructions chanted. It didn't work. Basically, we finally had to get the two heads of state together, not personally, but through messages and reached, so it kind of, I think it had been an ultimatum, a real thing, the whole thing would have collapsed probably. So, you have to be very careful using an ultimatum. I think it's not one of the tools and the negotiating kit bag that I favor. 

Greg Noone: Yeah, I one hundred percent agree. And then your response to an ultimatum, you want to make sure that you're doing it in a manner that doesn't end the dialogue. Right? So the great thing about negotiations is we're talking and we don't always get to a solution. We don't always get to a solution that everybody likes, but we're talking. And in many situations, talking means people aren't fighting. People aren't dying.

And so, this is important to make sure the dialogue continues. Ultimatums, I think, are less than useful. Sometimes they're just for political show. They're trying to appease a domestic constituency back home and they really don't think anyone's going to accept it.

But they have to say it because they need to make their position clear to the people back home. Remember, positions are not interests. So, just because the ultimatum is put out there as a position doesn't mean that's what they're really after in their interest. So we have to be creative and if we offer any type of counter ultimatum, or idea or solution, we need to make sure it's one that leads to more discussion. Or frankly, just redirect the discussion to a different topic altogether. 

And to try to move on and as we say, put a pin in it, hold it, say, can we address that issue? We're scheduled to meet again six weeks from now. Can we address that issue in six weeks? We've made a lot of great progress on what we're talking about now. Can we continue making progress? And then there's an old rule of thumb that I heard once, that it's not an exact science, but delegations only get to make one ultimatum per negotiations, right?

Because if you're issuing ultimatums left and center, then the fact of the matter is, those negotiations are going to break down. Then they're not going to last long.

Nicole Carle:Dr. Noone, you mentioned the worthy goal of wanting to maintain dialogue. But before we conclude this session, I do want to touch upon one final and quite drastic negotiation technique, which is ultimately leaving the negotiation. Ambassador Planty.

Leaving Negotiations

Ambassador Planty: Yes, you're right. Leaving a negotiation is an extreme step that should only be taken after your delegation has exhausted all reasonable avenues of resolving the dispute. As with every aspect of the negotiation, and I've mentioned this before, understanding the culture and customs of the other parties is essential. In some cultures, leaving the negotiating table may be a routine occurrence, but in other cultures, it's a drastic step that usually signals that negotiations are over.

Remember that if your delegation does leave, it will have to answer to its constituents and explain why the negotiations failed and most delegations, all delegations I've ever worked on, operate on instructions. When you're on instructions from your government, usually you don't leave the table unless you're instructed to do so, which is extremely rare.

If your delegation publicly criticizes the other party's behaviors as the cause for breakdown negotiations, future negotiations are likely to be more difficult, if not impossible. Moreover, if your delegation leaves the negotiation and attempts to return, credibility and trust may be lost. And the delegation may re enter the negotiations in a weaker position than that from which it began.

It obviously is not a good outcome. You shouldn't leave a negotiation unless everyone is at wit's end and there's a clear case that nothing more can be achieved. And I think that should be rare. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Yeah, and if you do decide to leave the negotiation and you wish to return, it's important that you reassure the other party that you're interested in resolving this dispute at the negotiation table.

But as Ambassador Planty said, you have to be mindful of the fact you're probably going to lose some credibility with the other party and you're saying we're leaving, but you're telling them we want to come back, they're going to have a different view as to your discipline and whether or not you actually have your interests defined. In some sense, you think, we've got everything put together, we have a good plan, we know exactly what our positions and interests are, and some people think that if the other side is not as organized and not as clearly defined goals, then we can somehow take advantage of that, right? We can leverage that at the negotiation table. But what you'll find is that, when you're facing someone on the other side that is not organized, you're not going to get anywhere.

Because they're probably going to continue to say we have to go back to our chain of command and ask them what they think about that. And so, what you're really facing is a party that isn't prepared to be at the table. And so, if that's the reason why you're leaving the negotiation table, because the other side is just not prepared, then you're going to have to diplomatically find a way to talk about how important it is and how we want to reach these negotiations. We want to reach a settlement, want to do it through negotiations, and kind of reassure that's what the plan is. Then again, if you're leaving because you're reached that issue that just can't be resolved, you don't say that.

If they're saying, we want that air base moved and you don't have the authority, nor is it in your national interest to move that air base, say, okay, we reached an impasse. Got it. We respect you. Let's go back and talk to our respective national governments and come back.

But hopefully, people aren't leaving the table storming out of the room, as it were. And that's going to be hard putting people back to the table. 

Ambassador Planty: Yeah that's for sure. I'm glad you mentioned chain of command because every negotiation responds to a chain of command, and we have to remember that negotiations take place in a political environment in our day and age among countries, and negotiators operate on the basis of instructions.

So, you have to be respectful of that and understand that there are discussions going on simultaneously with your negotiations at the table. Between the parties at a political level, perhaps, the Prime Minister and President are talking to one another, two foreign ministers are talking to one another, defense ministers are talking to one another in the background as you're grinding out language to get an agreement.

So that helps with maintaining the commitment to continuing the negotiations. Even after the other party leaves, if a party leaves, your delegation will want to think about the best means of getting the other party to return. This could include attempts at persuasion, granting concessions, going to the media, and the use of outside and inside advocates attempts at persuasion are important.

I mentioned the discussions I swirl around. Negotiations where there are exchanges of views and where it's possible to make a concession here and there, and then that can be communicated to the negotiating team. I will tell you my experience going to the media has never been a positive experience when it comes to trying to get the other party to stay at the table or return, that usually backfires. 

And the use of advocates, yes, you know, inside and outside as they're available to help, and I understand we'll talk about persuasion techniques and in another session. In the event the other party returns, then your delegation should do everything possible to ensure that the returning party does not feel embarrassed.

Don't single them out. Don't act as the stern father and remind them they never should have left in the first place. Remind them that we're all there at the table to work toward a mutual resolution of the dispute or the issues. And that's why we sat down in the first place and we call it a negotiation and a resolution or agreement can only be reached through continued dialogue.

It's important that both sides keep that in mind and manage to work toward a positive outcome.

Nicole Carle:Well, with that, it brings us to the end of our video on negotiation techniques. You're right that we will be covering persuasion techniques and an entire other session. Thank you both for joining, and we hope you can join us for our next video. Thank you all.