MODUS OPERAND!

How to train international negotiation in an effective way? The first question is of course about effectiveness. I would define effective­ness as the ability of the trainer/training to influence the trainee to the degree that he/she will be able to manage the negotiation in such a way that an optimal outcome will be reached.

Trainers

We have already discussed the importance of charisma and I would like to add the dimen­sion of being skilled and knowledgeable. Skill is a prerequisite for any training, commercial or diplomatic. If a trainer does not know how to handle participants, effectiveness will be nil. Empathy is needed to understand the emotional problems trainees face in negotiation. Being well trained him/herself is imperative. But training in itself will not suffice.Acertain measure of artistry is needed, and we discussed the importance of charisma. Talent is needed, as skill alone will not do. Artistry, by the way, will often be aligned to people whose field of interest lies in science, diplomacy or bureaucracy—not so to politicians, maybe.

Being knowledgeable that case negotiation processes are part of international politics is important. A trainer without in-depth insights into the mechanics and the issues of modern politics, diplomacy and bureaucracy cannot convince his students. In many regions in the world, this is not enough. Thorough historical knowledge is needed to understand the ‘soul’ of the diplomats being trained, the context their countries are in and have been in. ‘Where they come from’ is as important as ‘where they go to’.

Trainers who look for advice on training might look at the work of Pierre Casse, the most charismatic trainer this author is acquainted with, who is even capable of putting participants in a trance without them being aware of it (Casse and Deol 1985). Another excellent charismatic trainer—Bob Weibel—did not really publish till now. The most specialized trainer for trainers is without doubt the man who calls himself ‘Thiagi’ (www.thiagi.com). His train-the- trainers workshops are famous and effective. He focuses on the creation of short exercises raising awareness among trainers and trainees. Recently, John Hemery reported on Seminars on Chairing and Negotiation for UK diplomats and civil servants who were trained in prepa­ration of the UK EU Presidency (Hemery and Meerts 2006, 197-208), highlighting the methodology used by the trainers involved. As far as broader negotiation literature is concerned, one might take a look at research overviews provided by serious academic researchers (Jonsson 2000).

Trainees

For the trainee, it is of course important to be able to learn how to be a more effective conflict manager using negotiation as his or her tool. The level of language education, the native language, etc. will have a decisive impact on the question ‘is the student fit for negotiation training’? But also his political and bureaucratic system is a factor. In some systems, it will be difficult for participants to be open enough to undergo the change needed for being a more effective negotiator. Some­times this is subconscious: the student is not aware of his external and internal resistance to experience the negotiation process in a good manner.

Once I watched a group of Iranian diplo­mats simulating a meeting of the United Nations Security Council. The first interven­tion came from a person playing the role of a French diplomat. He started his statement as Iranians have to do, honoring God. Another Iranian, representing the United States, raised objections saying this was not normal practice in UNSC. After an informal back-channel debate of 20 minutes, they decided to live up to reality, notwithstanding the danger of one of them reporting this to Teheran. On another occasion, Russian diplomatic students felt free enough to explain the unreliable behavior of the Russian representing the Russian Federation, by saying—I quote the Russian ‘playing’ the United States—that ‘the Russians can never be trusted’. It takes a Russian to say it; I would not dare.

Trainees who want to know more about negotiation processes might turn to the work of WillemMastenbroek (2002), Saner (2005), Nierenberg (1976), Karrass (1992) or the classics of Fisher and Ury. The Fisher and Ury book Getting to Yes (1991) set the trend for common problem solving and has been followed by a range of publications pondering on the same theme. Trainees should be aware of the cultural bias in these books. The approaches of Nierenberg, Karrass and Fisher and Ury are quite American, of Saner Swiss and of Mastenbroek Dutch. But this can be seen as an advantage: it helps the trainee to be critical. All books meant to take (potential) negotiators ‘by-the-hand’ are relevant for the context the author is working in, but might have serious defaults in Central and EastAsia, Africa and Latin America.

Tools

Trainers have macro and micro tools. Macro tools are the seminars or workshops they deliver. In general, seminars on negotiation should not take too much time—professionals especially have limited time available.

Micro tools are the exercises to be used in the context of seminars and workshops. In general, two kinds of exercises can be distinguished: short and long ones. Short exercises are often meant to prepare the longer ones and they will normally precede them (as an example, see the first exercise in the Annex). Not always: they can also be used as tools of illustration and debriefing for the more extended ones. Short exercises can be on bilateral negotiations, long exercises on multilateral. Short exercises can be self­assessing. Longer ones are often role plays or simulations. As we will see later on, in-between forms can be developed like the minilateral ‘Pentagame’ (the second exercise in the Annex). Another distinction can be made between role-play exercises based on interaction between people (Boskma and Van der Meer 1973; Meerts and Schalker 1986) and simulations through computer-interaction (Lipschits 1971), and a mix of the two (Kaufman 1998, 59-75).

The exercises in this chapter are all developed by the author, but he has been inspired by others on this. In the world of training, everybody borrows from everybody (as is the case in the world of art). The main point is to note the source of origin, but the problem is that this is not always known. Resource and guidebooks for exercises are, for example: Lewicki et al. (1994), Karrass (2000), Donnay (2006) and Meerts (1994, 133-141). The most important source of cases is the archive of the Pew Charitable Trust. The Clingendael Institute has its own range of simulation games being available to outsiders on a case by case basis. These exercises have been created by the informal ‘Clingendael International Negotiation Group' (CLING) in the past two decades.