What Can Corporate Negotiators Learn From U.S. Diplomats?
getty  On July 4, 2021, the US will turn 245 years old and, by many measures, the country has had an extremely successful run so far. Accounting for just 4.2% of the global population, the US boasts roughly 16% of global GDP, and many Americans alive today have experienced an unprecedented level of prosperity during their lifetime, so the country, and its diplomatic corps, must be doing something right. Although governmental institutions are often perceived as slow and inefficient, the US government has mostly thrived over nearly two and a half centuries, accumulating institutional experience and conducting successful diplomatic negotiations that have fueled the countrys success. In some sense, international diplomacy is the purest representation of the art and science of negotiation, since the people doing the negotiating are almost never doing so on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of the government policymakers they work for. I recently talked to two diplomats, retired US Ambassador Jeffrey D. Levine and a former US diplomat with the UN in Geneva, about foreign relations and what insights corporate negotiators might glean from them. Both diplomats pointed out that the UN can be a negotiators nightmare, as it encompasses 193 member states, has 6 official languages and works on consensus. That combination makes it one of the most complex and difficult settings for negotiators, who are working on behalf of their respective countries decision makers, who, in turn, are influenced by multiple, and often competing, constituencies. What the Diplomats Know that Commercial Negotiators May Not  In diplomatic negotiations, countries negotiating teams typically honor a host of unwritten rules and conventions that help parties with very different backgrounds and objectives find agreement. For example, Russian and Iranian diplomats might have an aggressive negotiating style, but they still usually adhere to the same diplomatic conventions that help countries communicate while having diagonally different views. Richard Holbrooke, who was the chief negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the Bosnian War and saved perhaps tens of thousands of lives, combined the might of the US with an aggressive but effective negotiating style. One tactic he used was turning on his considerable charm and being as accommodating as possible informally, but raining down fire during negotiations when any member of the opposing team made the slightest mistake, charging them with incompetence and leaving them intimidated and overly cautious about raising new issues. That tactical approach is advisable only for highly experienced pros who, hopefully, use it only for causes where reaching an agreement is a moral imperative. Our negotiating teams always have their red lines, as does the other side, says Ambassador Levine. The best negotiators Ive seen arrive fully aware of our positions, but are also familiar with the opposing sides critical concerns and are sensitive to them. As in most interactions, the process is smoother and ultimately more successful when both sides feel their interests have been respected.  For corporate negotiators, below are some common tactics and strategies that diplomats in the US and other countries regularly employ that can be useful tools in the commercial world. Thoroughly Preparing  Diplomatic negotiations sometimes entail years of preparation and they typically begin with a prepared agreement on which both (or all) parties are more or less aligned. While thats not practical in a corporate setting, thorough preparation can help speed up negotiations and increase the chance of arriving at an acceptable agreement. Prior to beginning a negotiation, teams of preparers can exchange emails or meet in person to agree on all of the issues that should be on the negotiating table, share their priorities, identify obstacles and discuss any approvals that will be required once an agreement has been reached. Deploying teams who will not be the main negotiators to try to obtain as much alignment as possible prior to the official start of talks can be a highly effective strategy in commercial negotiations. Fast-Tracking  Fast-tracking is self-explanatory: it means that once an agreement has been reached between negotiating teams, the empowering body is committed to accepting or rejecting it as is, rather than having the option of sending the negotiators back to the table to make further changes. Using Nonbinding Language  When negotiating agreements, diplomats choose their words carefully. Language can be binding (party A mustadhere to these rules) or nonbinding (party A should adhere to these rules). Deliberately vague language, commonly known as weasel wording, can be extremely useful in negotiations when wielded strategically. For example, an international peacekeeping organization may introduce language into an agreement that prohibits the presence of substantial troops from a single country in a particular region. What constitutes a substantial number of troops is unspecified, but the phrasing could help both sides come to an agreement and coexist peacefully. In a commercial setting, choosing to use nonbinding language can help move a deal past a stalemate. Yes, it can raise some additional risks, but it can also help parties agree in the moment, while leaving them free to define a more concrete relationship later, when more information is available to them. (Another way of resolving a stalemate is to agree on a description of how the issue will be resolved in the future.) Establishing Enforceability  The US sticks to the principle of not signing any agreement that is ambiguous with regard to enforcement or compliance, which makes negotiating on behalf of the US more difficult compared with many other countries. This was evident in the NATO accession negotiations. Some NATO aspirants were more than willing to sign an agreement without knowing whether they could actually comply with it and that left the US often seemingly negotiating for both sides. The US will never sign a deal if it has any doubts about its own ability to comply with the agreement, says Ambassador Levine. Treaties approved by the US Senate and signed by the president carry the weight of federal law, so the US is not just ethically but legally obligated to comply with all provisions of them.  In commercial negotiations, clearly establishing enforcement and compliance requirements can be useful. Take, for example, the case of a small technology company that is eager to sign on to a project with a large enterprise. The large company may be just as eager to close the deal because it needs the tech companys expertise and software platform to expand its business, but it can lower its own risk by making the smaller tech company prove its ability to comply with certain security, labor and ESG standards. Persevering  Diplomatic negotiation teams often have a deadline for reaching an agreement. When the Paris Agreement was reached at the UN Climate Change Conference in 2015, the parties initially could not reach a deal and, so, got a two-day extension. The negotiating teams then stayed up for 48 hours, sometimes spending hours coming to agreement on a single word. That level of perseverance can be useful in commercial settings as well. In instances when making a deal fast is more important than agreeing on every detail, it makes sense for both sides to commit to continuing to negotiate until they reach an agreementeven if it means working through the night for several days without rest. This can also, of course, be used as a hostile tactic to wear the other party out. In international relations, countries with a large diplomatic corps, such as the US, hold an advantage in these situations, as they typically have several subject matter experts on their negotiating team, enabling them to cycle individuals in and out over several days of intense talks to avoid fatigue. The same is typically true for large enterprises. Using Like-Minded Allies  Playing bad cop in a negotiation is rarely helpful in achieving a good deal. Diplomats often solve this by bringing in another countrys diplomatic team to press for what they want instead of pushing for it themselves. In a corporate setting, a negotiating team facing this dilemma might bring in an investor or a trade union representative, depending on the situation, to help get the terms they want without looking like the bad cop or bearing the blame for obstructing the deal. For both countries and corporations, the time-tested negotiation strategies above can be extremely effective, particularly when employed by skilled, experienced teams of negotiators. Thorough preparation and gathering as much information as possible about the other partys goals and priorities before sitting down at the table are key. And having a full set of negotiating tactics to choose from throughout the process can help parties avoid delays, stalemates and unenforceable agreements while keeping the door open to future cooperation.