Requirements for Principled Negotiation – Why Washington and the World are at Stalemate and Brinksmanship

One of Vistage’s top speakers is Jack Kaine.  His topic is negotiation.  He observes that that there are several prerequisites that must be met if a negotiated settlement is possible.  These include:

1) The terms can be varied.

2) Both sides have more to gain by reaching a negotiated settlement than they have to lose.

A third interesting requirement I would add: “Both sides can trust that the other side will adhere to the agreement.”  In other words, the “agreement” won’t be abrogated nor used as the foundation for arguing for another negotiation and another agreement, and then still another negotiation and another agreement ad infinitum, each “negotiation” structured to leverage the other side closer and closer to our original position.  “All or nothing,” achieved either by capitulation of our adversary at the outset or our continued gnawing away at them. Sort of like a small child wheedling away at parents.

Understanding these conditions explains many of the impasses we see in negotiations around the world.  Neither the Arabs nor the Israelis trust each other.  Iran and the U.S. don’t trust each other, and the Democrats and the Republicans don’t trust each other.   For each of these groups, it’s “all or nothing.” Neither is willing to blink and allow the other side to claim victory and then begin the inevitable wheedling their way back towards their original immovable, terms-invariable position.

Ronald Regan and Tip O’Neill were on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and yet they were able to trust each other and be friends.  My first question to our leaderless Washington: “What would it take to trust the other side to engage in a principled negotiation?”