The Art of Negotiation

David Kuechle is professor emeritus of education, Harvard Graduate School of Education. He teaches CSS E-126 Managing Negotiations.

David Kuechle

Why do you use the word "art" to define negotiation?

For me, the words "art" and "artist" convey images of extraordinary beauty--often demonstrated by composers, painters, dancers, poets, authors and singers. Comparisons with Michelangelo's David the Mona Lisa and the short stories of James Joyce come to mind.

By contrast, I often consider the process of negotiation to be similar to a sporting event, where we experience excitement, hope, beauty, and mystery amid potential conflicts. The process itself often generates incredible excitement by way of verbal balancing acts among students who enjoy exercising their physical and intellectual skills as they craft the terms of transactions and agreements in search of elegant outcomes (somewhat akin to a Balanchine-choreographed production of Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake.

As our students in the Managing Negotiations class analyze and debate complex issues presented in our case studies, we frequently refer to those experiences as a search for elegance.

It is not unusual for skilled negotiators to be cited by critics, and even opponents, as artists in their ability to bring about elegant and lasting agreements between warring parties, somewhat similar to an artist's conversion of a soiled canvas to a Picasso-inspired masterpiece.

How does one go about sensitizing oneself to negotiation opportunities?

Ever since my high school days I have had a passion for historians: like Leo Tolstoy, who concentrated, in minute detail, on tactical details demonstrated by the World's greatest military leaders, including Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas McArthur, George S. Patton, and Omar Bradley--all of whom were active during World War II. I especially admired Tolstoy for his brilliant, largely unbiased analytic skills--especially those that were displayed in War and Peace. Sometimes when I am stumped in the search for viable, creative options for resolving difficult interpersonal disputes, I reach for Tolstoy and read out loud to all who are within listening distance. More often I reach for Anna Karenina. No matter what pages I read from, the process almost always gives life to the proceedings and causes the listeners to talk with--not at--each other. In short: Read! Read! And Listen!

The art of international negotiation came to the fore for me during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 when President John F. Kennedy learned that Chairman Nikita Khrushchev of the USSR had secretly decided to install ballistic missiles in Cuba within range of Washington DC. At that time I was a second-year MBA student at Harvard Business School, living in Chase Hall. Soon after we learned that the Missile Crisis was at hand some 50 classmates gathered in a downstairs lounge in front of a TV. Many of us remained there for an entire weekend--taking turns at bringing food, dragging mattresses from the upstairs bedrooms, and engaging in excited discussions. The discussions were memorable, especially as members of the faculty joined us. Later in the day they were joined by Professor Graham Allison of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, a friend and adviser to the president.

As a participant in this adventure, I found myself at the front of the room, in an old-fashioned bull session whose members sought to identify the president's options. Many of us were in touch with members of our families, and others sought to ease the tension by placing frantic but friendly wagers on likely outcomes, which ranged from full-scale war off the coast of Florida to a possible nuclear attack on New York City.

Some of us called upon Tolstoy's lessons, learned from the Napoleonic Wars of 1812, wherein military leaders had ordered the abandonment of Moscow as Napoleon's troops were nearing the Russian border. The Soviet strategy, which no one in Chase Hall had considered, was to advise the Russian military leaders to abandon Moscow. Then they would wait for Napoleon to follow, unaware that he and his armies would soon be wiped out. Later in the day I joined a smaller group of classmates who had recalled Napoleon's misadventures in Russia, and we came to realize that many of us, including myself, had become sensitized by Tolstoy to the importance of anticipating and identifying negotiation opportunities if war appeared to be an accidental instrument.

What advice would you give to your CEO or valued client when preparing for critical negotiations with previously unknown parties?

Learn, in detail, about the nature of relationships between the parties: do they have a history of interpersonal conflicts? Of strikes? Of threatened strikes? Are key decision makers clearly identified and able to speak comfortably about their own relationships and objectives. Do they have the power to commit their own constituents to an agreed upon settlement? Can the leaders articulate objectives of all key parties, including potential adversaries, to the satisfaction of those parties?

If the responses to these questions are comfortably positive, an experienced negotiator or mediator can be confident that the key parties are positively sensitized to participate in serious negotiations.

What would you say are some of the common reasons that negotiations break down?

Poor communication--especially when media representatives are involved. Journalists are primarily interested in getting their stories published: sometimes without regard for accuracy, sometimes to undermine the credibility of their political adversaries. Experienced negotiators are keenly aware of such behavior and the identities of the perpetrators.

If you were to point out some of the resounding successes in negotiations at the company level, which would you choose?

During the 1960s and '70s the US industrial scene experienced significant competitive threats from overseas: most dramatically from Japanese companies that had outperformed US industries by implementing new, more efficient, and less costly production techniques along with new personnel policies. These companies quickly outpaced US and European firms, thus gaining significant competitive advantages. Within a ten-year span the Japanese automobile industry dominated the worldwide industry.

Increased employee effectiveness had become the dominant mantra of the Japanese: competitive advantage went to those companies that made optimum use of employee talent and energy. In the United States a number of aggressive firms met the challenge by applying concepts such as job enrichment and job enlargement to work groups throughout their organizations. Among those firms were IBM, Texas Instruments, Digital Equipment, Johnson and Johnson, Hewlett-Packard, and General Motors-Saturn--all of which had achieved success as profitable companies with exemplary managers and negotiators.

This was a time when US corporations enjoyed unprecedented prosperity. Stock markets posted record highs, and union officials proposed a new enterprise contract under which labor and management, together, promised employment security and improvement in the quality of working life--thus restoring America's competitive edge.

It was the year 2000!

CSS News Home Previous | Contents | Next