Persuasion Techniques

Persuasion Techniques

​Katie Hetherington: Hello, and welcome to this module on persuasion techniques in peace negotiations. This session is intended to overview the key aspects of how to successfully persuade another delegation during the course of a peace negotiation. My name is Katie Hetherington and I'm a program manager here at the Public International Law and Policy Group. Today, I am pleased to welcome Ambassador Donald Planty, PLPG Senior Peace Fellow, and Professor Milena Sterio, PLPG Managing Director. Welcome both. 

Prof. Milena Sterio: Pleasure to be here.

Ambassador: Yes, thank you, Katie. 

Key Factors for Being Persuasive

Katie Hetherington: So Milena, let me turn to you first for parties to peace negotiations. Persuasion is a critical aspect of accomplishing one's goals, so what are the key factors to being persuasive? 

Prof. Milena Sterio: Well, Katie, I think this is actually a fairly simple question because persuasion is really all about storytelling. A negotiator is going to be most persuasive if they're able to use a really compelling story to convince the other party that their position is correct.

And oftentimes, this can be best accomplished if you place the other parties in one delegation's position and you tell a story that aligns with that delegation's interest. So, instead of saying, here's my position, here's my interest, you want to approach this from a storytelling perspective and basically say, here is my story, this is why I am correct. 

Katie Hetherington: Thanks, Milena. 

Establishing Common Ground

So, Ambassador Planty, is persuasion always about fostering empathy? 

Ambassador Planty: No, not always. Empathy can play a role, but sometimes it works well for a delegation to highlight common ground between it and its opposing delegations. That's very important to look for common ground.

This can help build trust and also show the parties where they might be able to reach easier agreement on certain topics. In my experience that approach has worked well, whether it be peace negotiations or other kinds of negotiations, international negotiations. So, it can be equally effective to persuade another party into agreement by pointing out mutual interests or universal appeals, like fostering peace for future generations. 

That was something we used in the Guatemalan peace accords, the whole idea was to look forward and let future generations experience peace, that war internal conflict lasted 36 years. So that's a long time. That's almost two generations. And so, a lot of people have lost hope, you know, looking forward, looking ahead. So, by pointing out that you don't want your grandchildren to live in a war torn environment, that's a commonality that both sides can relate to those sorts of things. Now, this shouldn't be overused because it can start sounding hollow or a little thin if you keep turning to grand ideals to build your case, to inspire confidence. 

How to Tell Compelling Stories

Katie Hetherington: So, Milena, I think we can say that if a party isn't making an argument based on common ground or mutual interests, it has more of an uphill battle with respect to persuasion. What then are some ways that parties can make the stories they're telling as compelling as possible, particularly when the opposing parties are not already on their side. 

Prof. Milena Sterio: So, one of the most effective techniques is to refer to objective criteria. So for example, a set of numbers, percentages, studies, budgets, and so forth. The opposing party can always argue against your opinion, against your position, against your story, against your personal perspective, but it's really difficult to argue against a set of objective and measurable facts, especially if you can present some facts in some easily digestible format like a chart or a graph or some other document. 

Now, where can you get such objective data, objective facts, objective criteria? A lot of the time you can get such objective criteria from a neutral third party. So, maybe there's some kind of a mediator or some other third party. Maybe they have a set of neutral criteria, objective criteria. Sometimes, you can even get this kind of objective criteria from the opposing party, which is even better because people have a hard time arguing against their own set of facts. But regardless of where the information came from, if you're using objective criteria, you have to be able to back it up.

You should obviously never manufacture data, never invent data, because if you do so, and if you're called on it, you're going to lose all credibility. So if possible, try to come up with some set of objective, measurable facts, use them to your advantage, but never ever invent facts, never a good persuasion technique.

Preparation and Research Prior to Negotiations

Katie Hetherington: And Ambassador Planty, having this kind of information on hand for peace negotiations would certainly require a lot of preparatory work beforehand. Are there any other areas of research that the negotiators or mediators should carry out in advance?  

Ambassador Planty: Yes, and this may sound obvious, but it's often overlooked. Knowing who's on the other side of the table, knowing who's going to be facing you at the table is always a good idea. And when I say, knowing them, one needs to do some biographic digging, some study. What is their background? Have they done this sort of thing before? What is their professional background? Have they had any experience? Are they considered a cracked negotiator? Are they new to negotiations? So, having a sense of the backgrounds and interests of the negotiators and an opposing delegation can help negotiators identify ways to tell their stories more persuasively. Knowing something about their hobbies or avocations or something like that, you might be able to share with them.

For example, if some of the negotiators on the other side of the table are technical experts, then a delegation might want to bring some technical experts of their own in on the same subjects who can make a more compelling appeal on technical grounds for those experts' issues.

What we used in the Guatemalan peace negotiations, but then also others that I have done. Say there are security issues, and there almost always are in these kinds of negotiations, if they have uniformed officers at the table, an Army expert, a Navy expert and Air Force expert, depending on the subject matter, then it behooves you to have some uniform people of your own on your side. 

The Spanish military base rights negotiations, which were all about security in Europe and Spain's re entry into the European community, especially into NATO. I made sure that I had three uniformed military officers at my side, and not at the end of the table, but right next to me, the next people on my left, I had a naval officer, an Air Force officer, an Army officer. So, they couldn't outflank us on expertise when it came to military affairs. And we did the same thing in the Guatemalan Peace Accords where I advised the Guatemalan government negotiation to make sure they had at least one uniformed person on the other side even though it was a touchy business to have a uniformed military at the table on the government side.

But by then, the two sides knew each other a little bit, and this ended up just generating more confidence, not that they necessarily have to say a lot or do anything more than pass you a note, but simply their presence and their rank helps a lot, gives you credibility, and it gives the other side pause about challenging any of your technical points which is what you want. 

Otherwise, a lot of the actual research into the opposing delegations is going to happen during the negotiations themselves. And I mentioned in the past that I like to take breaks and go to the coffee shop and talk to my counterpart informally, especially when we were having a rough time with language and trying to get on the same page with some substance, but I use those coffee breaks also to get to know him personally. And so, we got to know each other on a personal basis and respected each other, and that helped a great deal.

Gathering Information About Other Parties

Katie Hetherington: Thank you, Ambassador Planty. So, Milena, just to add a few final points regarding this topic and process. How should delegations be observing their counterparts and what sort of information should they be attempting to gather that might impact their narratives? 

Prof. Milena Sterio: So you want to be in a position where you have gathered important information about the opposing party so that you can use that information to your advantage.

And the best way to gather such information is simply by asking a lot of questions, a lot of strategic questions, and Ambassador Planty mentioned coffee breaks. Coffee breaks are an excellent opportunity for you to ask some of those strategic questions. And what's great about asking strategic questions, whether it be at the coffee break or anywhere else during the negotiation, is that it will not only help you to gather important facts, but it will also help you to build trust with the opposing delegation, and they might actually even start liking you.

And we all know it's human nature that you're much more likely to build consensus with someone if you actually like the person. And so, ask questions, try to build a solid relationship with the other side, and then be very strategic about the kinds of questions that you're asking. So for example, if you want to know what the other side's interests are, they might give you their official position during the formal sessions, the formal negotiation, but you really want to dive deeper and find out what their interests are. You want to maybe find out more information about any specific proposals that they have, and then they might also be able to give you some objective facts and figures, which we already mentioned a little bit earlier during this session. 

If the other side can give you some objective facts and figures that you can use to Bolster your own negotiating position., that is really a great position to be in because, as I said earlier, the other side is not likely to be able to object to their own objective facts and figures. So, in a nutshell, ask questions, ask strategic questions, ask them during the coffee break. Even if you don't like coffee, pretend like you like coffee, engage with the other person. It's the best way that you can build a relationship and you're going to be that much more likely to be able to find that negotiated solution. 

Strategic Questions for Eliciting Interests 

Katie Hetherington: So, we have these three major categories of information that the strategic questions should be trying to find out, as you said Milena, interests, information about proposals, and more objective facts and figures. So, let's walk through each of these one by one. We'll start with strategic questions for eliciting interests, and Ambassador Planty, I'll turn to you.

Ambassador Planty: Okay, I just want to comment on a very important point that was made, and in fact, the central point. One needs to keep in mind that the team on the other side is not a monolith. You know, they have a leader who does most of the talking, but in any delegation, there are disagreements, not usually over strategy as much as tactics and what to say when, and how to maneuver and so on and so forth. And one of the things the informal sessions help you develop, whether it's coffee or just standing around taking a break, is the counterpart or the chief delegate or the chair on their side can ask you things he can't ask at the table formally because of objections in his delegation to moving in this direction or the other, or he might want to move, but it's not something that he feels comfortable raising at the table, but it's something he can raise with you on the side.

And that's how so many breakthroughs are made through these informal discussions where one side or the other can say, look, my delegation is a hundred percent against this, but I know there's support in my capital for this. What do you think? Suppose we frame this issue a little differently, or we try different language. You really get more done on the tough questions that way than you ever do at the table, but going back to your broad question. This is probably the broadest category of strategic questions, the ones we're discussing and the questions asked here really should be framed as both open ended and non confrontational.

That's so important. You need to let your counterpart know that you're open minded and that you will consider, and certainly non-confrontational, open minded and open to new ideas in a new language. And in most negotiations, there's a lot of exchange of formal language back and forth across the table.

So you're handing over a piece of paper with a paragraph saying, you know, we'd like this section 4A to read this way, and they'll look at it and maybe consult among themselves and come back and say, well, this isn't anywhere close to something we can accept. But, maybe we should try it. So, you keep everything open and non-confrontational because confrontation is counterproductive, obviously, in the negotiation, but it can happen. 

So, asking an open ended question allows the other parties to tell their story. You learn about where they're coming from, which in itself can be really informative, because then it allows your delegation to see what points they find, the most important, and how they're trying to sell your delegation on them. So, it gives you perspective to their approach, which is very important. And you have to be attentive at the table. So, these strategic questions for eliciting interests that are really designed to establish certain base facts and to better define where the disagreement really is.

And that's not always obvious or easy, remember, they're coming from a different place with a different cultural perspective, a different language, so you need to establish this sort of exchange to make sure that your delegation is fostering an environment of cooperation and building credibility with the opposing delegation. So you can't, you know, spend time emphasizing that you're from two different worlds and you have nothing in common, but that happens. It can happen. 

It's sometimes tough to get over that. But after a delegation has gathered information about the other party's interests, it can use that information then to respond to their proposals by presenting alternatives that address the other party's interests in ways that may be more appealing to them.

You know what? This one delegation I was working with, they were chain smokers, and so, in addition to coffee breaks, we would have to take cigarette breaks so they could go out on the patio and have their cigarette. But I use those occasions to talk to some of the more junior members of the delegation, which I learned a lot from,

They could pull me aside in the garden at the cigarette break and say, stay on that line, it will bear fruit. You know, we think that's in our interest to … So, the idea is to be open and available and use every way that you can to get to know the other side's position and where they have room and where they don't. 

Strategic Questions for Eliciting Information About Proposals

Katie Hetherington: Thank you Ambassador Planty. Thinking then about the second category that we discussed, strategic questions for enlisting information about proposals. Now, Milena, can I turn to you to elaborate a little on this second category?

Prof. Milena Sterio: Sure, Katie. In some cases, parties might bring proposals to the table that might be extremely vague or that might just not be feasible because they need additional details, additional information or are just simply not feasible. So rather than accepting or rejecting the other side's proposal outright, you should be able to start asking questions about these proposals.

And there are a couple of different reasons for doing this. So first, asking these questions might help you determine whether the other side has truly considered this proposal. Is this something that they're just throwing at you to gauge your reaction? So Ambassador Planty mentioned someone who read something and they come back and their face is all red, clearly they're reacting negatively. 

So are they just throwing something at you to see what your reaction is? And if you think that's the case, then you probably don't want to just outright say yes or no, instead you want to figure out what it is that they're doing and they're doing so.

And if it's just a proposal that they're throwing at you to gauge your reaction, then it's probably going to be the case that they're not going to be super insistent on keeping this proposal. It's not that important to them. It's not their true interest that's reflected in this proposal. Instead, they're just trying to see how you will react.

Second, if you ask these sorts of strategic or follow up questions about proposals, that can also help you to identify weaknesses in the other side's positions, as well as additional entry points that could be helpful for future negotiations. So, by asking follow up strategic questions, maybe you'll be able to identify areas of common ground.

Maybe your interests actually converge on a couple of points and the only reason you found out is because you're asking follow up questions based on their proposal. And so, very important to emphasize here that instead of just saying yes or no to a proposal, it might be a good idea to take a step back, carefully consider it, and start asking strategic follow up questions, which will then help you truly assess what this proposal is about, whether it's their true proposal, true interest, and whether you need to return to some of these issues later on.

Strategic Questions for Understanding Facts and Figures

Katie Hetherington: So, what about the last category? So, our strategic questions for understanding more about objective facts and figures. Ambassador Planty, I'll turn to you first. 

Ambassador Planty: Okay, this takes us back to what we were discussing earlier with respect to how useful measurable facts and objective criteria are in building a compelling story. Remember, the other side is trying to sell a compelling story, too. So they're going to be using the same sorts of positive, persuasive techniques, rather. So, it's always important to ask for more information about the source of this from which the other side is drawing their concrete numbers or study results, and if you do that, you'll start chipping away sometimes at weaknesses on their side where their data is suspect or can't be justified or their experience. 

One of the problems in the Spanish peace accords negotiations was the two different worlds at that table, the guerilla insurgency versus an established government. So, the information and experience they were bringing to the table were from two different worlds. And so, you have to keep chipping away trying to find out what was real and what was just wishful thinking. 

Katie Hetherington: And Milena, is there anything you'd like to add to this third category?

Prof. Milena Sterio: So, Katie, you really want to keep in mind that most people aren't going to just volunteer information. But at the same time, if you ask a direct question, and if you say, you know, what is your source? Where are you getting this from? It becomes a lot more difficult for the other side to outright say, no, I'm not going to answer your question. So it's part of your homework, your preparation to be able to ask those questions to say, you just cited the number 20. Where did you get that number? What is your source?

And if they provide you with their source, then it's going to be part of your homework to make an assessment about the credibility of that source. You're going to look up the source, you're going to see where all this comes from, and you're going to say, okay, this is a credible source or not. Now, if the other side refuses to divulge where their information comes from, what their sources are, or if they're simply unable to provide sources, then you are going to be in a position where you can make a pretty solid argument that the other side's proposals are arbitrary and not based on measurable or verifiable facts. 

And if that's the case, then you're going to be in a position where you can then provide your own counter proposal, which does have well sourced facts, which does have measurable objective facts, and that just going to look that more compelling. And so, a key to being a successful negotiator is adequately preparing for the negotiation and adequate preparation for the negotiation includes a list of those strategic questions that you're going to be able to ask in the appropriate moment, so that you can find this information, so you can say, hey, where is your source coming from?

Conversely, if you're not prepared, you're not going to be in a position to ask those questions. So it is on you to prepare, to have a list of questions, to have a list of specific strategies that you can use at different points during the negotiation. 

Non-Verbal Persuasive Communication

Katie Hetherington: So, we have focused a lot thus far on the verbal aspects of persuasion. Ambassador Planty, do you have any thoughts on the non verbal aspects of persuasive communication that you'd like to add? 

Ambassador Planty: I do, in fact, this is one of my favorite topics. It can be so important in a negotiation, and when you're at the table hours on end, every day of the week, you're thrust into a room with these people.

So, you have to be aware of the verbal aspects of persuasion, how to use it, or how not to use it. Just to add one more thing about Milena. And to say, I always had that one sheet of paper with me in my suit coat pocket that had the list of my 5 or 6 strategic goals that I would refer to became very dogeared.

I kept going back and reading it and making sure we were on track for what we were trying to achieve. You never remind yourself of that too often. But persuasion, of course, also relies not just on what you're saying, on the words that are coming out, but on how you are presenting, it relies on body language, facial expression, tone, and sometimes, even silence.

Now, in the Guatemalan negotiation, the comandantes on their side of the table were very expressive, that told us some things,that told us what was important, most important to them and gave us insights into their thinking, but you have to be careful because body language can be read in different ways, depending on the cultural context, how you use your hands or, I mean, you have to be cognizant of this, some cultures or subcultures practice interrupting another person while speaking. It indicates engagement in the conversation while others it's considerably rude or considered rude. You know, we Americans, we love to talk over people and not wait until they finish their point or otherwise become too verbose and not listen carefully enough to what's coming through from the other side. 

And in many cultures, it's considered incredibly rude and obnoxious to do that, you have to really listen, hear the person out, no matter how rude or obnoxious they're being, don't fall into that pattern and be careful about, you know, leaning across the table while somebody else is speaking, which can indicate too much interest or aggression, or maybe a negative signal that you're not speaking clearly enough, we can't hear you. They take all sorts of things away from certain kinds of body language. So, you have to be careful. 

I remember such a lesson during the Spanish negotiations, the first time around, the lead negotiator on the Spanish side was a Navy admiral and he was the classic 16th century Castilian leader and a military leader and disciplined them. And he sat there for hours on end and never moved. He didn't move a finger. He didn't twitch his face. He never had an expression of any kind on his face to give away what he was thinking. I mean, it's the greatest example I'd ever seen of not giving away anything through body language.

Either positive or negative, so it can be really useful to consult with someone that's familiar with the culture of the other party. Words make a difference too. You have to be careful so that the delegation can avoid any offensive misunderstandings, or can pitch its own presentation of its positions more effectively.

So understanding how the other parties may manifest certain types of reactions based on cultural norms. How they receive you can also be critical to understanding how they're receiving and responding to proposals, because they're going to judge the substance of your proposals, not purely, neutrally on substance, but how you present them and how you identify yourself with them. And if you really insult them while you're making presentations, it doesn't help. you get an agreement, it doesn't help you get them. You have two things to get over. One, your personality and two, the language that is probably unacceptable to them in the first place. So, negotiations are tricky business. 

Katie Hetherington: They certainly are. Thank you so much Ambassador Planty and thank you to you both. I think that brings us to a great conclusion on our session on persuasion techniques, but thank you. Thank you so much for your insights and sharing your experiences on this topic.

Thank you to those of you joining today's session, and in other videos within this module, we will discuss further aspects of the negotiation process. Thank you for your time. We'll see you in the next session. ​