NEGOTIATING AS A CIVILIZING PROCESS
Willem Mastenbroek
Holland Consulting Group, Amsterdam
Department of Economics, Free University, Amsterdam
published in 2000
|
Paper presented at the:
Elias Konferenz, Bielefeld, June 1997 |
back to top
Introduction
The civilizing of emotions becomes obvious when studying the sociogenesis of negotiating skills. The courtly civilizing process was supplemented by an intercourtly process to renounce violence, deceit and humiliation.
Negotiating has become common practice in our societies. Some actual problems in the theory and practice of negotiating can be better understood by recognising the changing patterns of emotion management in the development of this precarious skill.
The subject of working group 1 at the Elias conference is called "Reflection, revision and the future". As far as reflection and revision are concerned this paper describes my research on the importance of intercourtly processes. The continued existence of multiple courts has been of great influence on the development of intercourtly skills in Europe. In this sense the skills of negotiating became more and more an alternative to perennial violence.
My ideas on the future are concerned with possible elaborations towards application. The knowledge inspired by Norbert Elias needs to be brought somewhat closer to practice. In the eyes of the public we are mostly engaged in an intellectual debate, mainly of academic relevance. In my opinion this is an underestimation of the relevance of Elias' work. His work and many of our more recent findings have practical implications. Let us try to make these more explicit and let us bring these more in the open. The sociogenesis of negotiating is not only very interesting to study on the level of concepts and structural processes. It is challenging to try to contribute also on a more practical level to this important human ability.
back to top
Abstract
The civilizing of emotions becomes obvious when studying the development of negotiating skills. Studying the development of these skills, one becomes aware of a gradual civilizing process to renounce violence, deceit and humiliation. Crucial are the changing ways in which people learn to deal with emotions. Over the years people learn to become more versatile, they learn to differentiate their feelings and responses. We will improve our understanding of this individual learning process by clarifying the collective learning process as it has evolved over the past twenty centuries in the West.
We will discover how negotiating was experienced in early days. Luckily, some authors from ancient times provide us with penetrating insights. Their testimonies will clarify in what direction behaviour and underlying emotions change over time. Negotiating has become common practice in our societies. Some actual problems in the theory and practice of negotiating are better understood by recognizing the changing pattern of emotion management in the development of this precarious skill.
back to top
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
An early sign of increasing control and restraint
To my knowledge, the earliest publication in Europe in which negotiating is an important subject, is a treatise by Bernard du Rosier (1404-1475), also known in his days by the more commonly used Latin name Bernardus de Rosergio. When he was eighteen Bernard du Rosier entered the monastery as a member of the Augustinian order. In 1445, under pope Eugene IV, he went to Rome; he became Bishop of Basa in 1447; three years later he became bishop of the diocese Monte Alba; he became archbishop of Toulouse in 1452.
His treatise 'Ambaxiator Brevilogus' was written in 1436 at the court of the King of Castile. Central to the text is 'equanimitas' - even-temperedness. What does it refer to? Well, as is suggested by the term, it refers to keeping emotions under control continuously. Some examples:
- "... although offended, surmount these injuries of the heart and rise up to the most exalted attitude ... suppress emotions and show oneself in command." (Rosier, chapter 15, p 15, 16)
- "If the opposition causes delays in the negotiations, don't show vexation." (Rosier, chapter 19, p 19)
- "Envoys must not show personal feelings about their own confusion to strangers whose earlier opinion of them was positive: let outrage yield to friendliness, impetuosity to wisdom, rigidity to adaptability and curtness to approachability. The appearance of envoys must remain distinguished and unmoved to those whose responses are less pleasant or negative, so that their sight remains on the future and better times." (Rosier, chapter 20, p 20)
These recommendations don't sound very special to us. No self-respecting envoy would have any trouble with them. After all, we are talking about people who are used to functioning at courts. So why force these open doors? Rosier was evidently confronted with behaviour that is radically different from that which we are used to. This becomes clear earlier in his treatise when he describes the kind of behaviour envoys should be wary of:
- being inflated with supercilious, conceited arrogance
- tyrannical behaviour, clinging to greed
- brazen and presumptuous forcing one's own way
- mocking religious matters
- committing foul acts, being choleric or malicious
- pursuing fame based on vanities.
(Rosier, chapter 2, p. 5)
Recent negotiating literature lacks such colourful references to untamed behaviour. In our days containment of these strivings apparently is more matter-of-course.
back to top
Struggling with violence
What did interaction and communication look like in those days? A characterization by the Dutch historian Huizinga (1924) of the - in those days - regular communication would include terms like 'lament, wail, wringing one's hands, prostrate oneself, bewilderment, savage exuberance, flaunting ostentation, grovelling submissiveness, blind vengefulness and atrocious violence'. Huizinga paints a colourfull picture of social interaction:
"From the thirteenth century onward inveterate party quarrels arise in nearly all countries: first in Italy, then in France, the Netherlands, Germany and England".
"Racial pride, thirst of vengeance, fidelity, are their primary and direct motives". (Huizinga, 1924, p. 13)
"The people could see their fate and that of the world only as an endless succession of evils. Bad government, exactions, the cupidity and violence of the great, wars and brigandage, scarcity, misery and pestilence - to this is contemporary history nearly reduced in the eyes of the people. The feeling of general insecurity which was caused by the chronic form wars were apt to take, by the constant menace of the dangerous clashes, by the mistrust of justice, was further aggravated by the obsession of the coming end of the world, and by the fear of hell, of sorcerers and of devils. The background of all life in the world seems black. Everywhere the flames of hatred arise and injustice reigns. Satan covers a gloomy earth with his sombre wings". (Huizinga, 1924, p. 21)
There undoubtedly were norms and agreements to regulate mutual interaction,but
"time after time the fierce roughness breaks through the embellished forms".
"At the coronation banquet of Charles VI, in 1380, the Duke of Burgundy seeks, by force, to take the place to which he is entitled, as doyen of the peers, between the king and the Duke of Anjou. Already the train of the Duke begins to thrust aside their opponents; threatening cries arise, a scuffle is breaking out when the king prevents it, by doing justice to the claims of the Duke of Burgundy". Huizinga, p. 38, 39)
According to an observer at the peace conference at Atrecht in 1435, the participants "throw themselves on the ground, sobbing and groaning". (p. 6) The relatively refined life at the court is characterized as "continual noise and disorder, swearing and quarrels, jealousies and injuries, in short, the court is an abyss of sins, the gate of hell". (p. 38) A ferocious fight can erupt at any time over anything, whether it be a game of chess or a ceremonial funeral.
Self-discipline and the curbing of emotions and drives were less constant and even in those days. Plans and promises were easily overruled by the emotions of the moment. Direct, impulsive and irascible reactions were stronger. The risk that heated behaviour and individual aggression could rapidly escalate into large-scale violence was far from imaginary. There was no confidence that the other side would have enough self-control, just as there was no confidence that people would refrain from assassination or ambush, in spite of all the pledges. Wilder forms of showdowns and trials of strength are in fact the predecessors of our current negotiating behaviour.
back to top
Internalization of the iron fence
The 10th of September 1419, the crown prince of France - later king Charles VII - and John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, met on a bridge across the river Yonne, built specifically for this meeting. In the middle a fence with bars as thick as arms was built across the entire width of the bridge. The fence had a small gate that could be locked and opened from both sides, so that one could only pass through if both parties agreed. During the talks on the bridge, the Duke, either at the advice of the crown prince, or on his own initiative, opened the door of the gate. It was also opened at the other side. As soon as John and his three men came through the door, they were slain (Schneider, 1977, pp. 15-17).
Characteristic of the negotiating standards in those days is the reaction of the contemporaries. They did not accuse Charles of behaving treacherously or murderously. On the contrary, they were of the opinion that John had only himself to blame for his death. John had failed to observe the rules of the game and had not been careful enough.
Negotiating on specially constructed bridges with a fence separating the negotiators may seem rather awkward to us. But if we study history, we become aware that this is an already highly civilized form of negotiating. After the reign of Charlemagne, from the 9th up to the 13th century, it was quite common for fiefs, tribes and states to negotiate across rivers. Evidence is provided by Voss (1987). Of course, trying to negotiate by yelling across the water is not exactly convenient or practical. Gradually more sophisticated arrangements, in line with the physical dangers of negotiating, developed. Meetings on ships, bridges and small islands were among them. These arrangements were not new, they already had a long history. Tacitus (Historiae, V, p. 26; Schneider, 1977, p. 6) refers to the struggle between the Batavian leader Civilis and the Roman general Cerealis in 71 AD. They tried to negotiate an agreement on a bridge marked in the middle. Each was assigned his own place, separated from the other party. Tacitus also describes an incident between two generals, Arminicus and Flavius, in 9 AD. In spite of the river that separated them while negotiating, they came very close to attacking each other (Tacitus, Annales II, 9).1)
As the known accounts of negotiations in Western Europe show, from the beginning of the Christian era up into the 15th century, negotiations are often directly linked with violence and assassination. Technical arrangements are employed to reduce this risk. In this context we observe a sophistication of the technical means that reduce the chances of head-on and direct attack. These technical means compel people to restrain their tempers. So during these 15 centuries there is some evolution in the technical constraints to more civilized behaviour. Very gradually psychological changes also reveal themselves: The iron fence becomes internalized. It takes centuries before we recognize this changing pattern of emotional controls in growing numbers of people. Rosier, as the advocate of 'even-temperedness', turns out to be a herald of the changes that took place in European society. For these were such that, gradually, more and more people felt compelled to negotiate without violence.
back to top
Coping with deceit and manipulation
For his times, Rosier's recommendations were extremely refined. It was obviously quite normal to lash out at, betray or eliminate each other. Deceit was normal. In the Byzantine empire it was developed into an art. Diplomacy among the Italian city-states permitted all means to promote the objectives of the state. Conspiracy, bribery, intrigue and even murder, were its normal tools. Machiavelli (1469-1527) relied on the outward appearance of virtue of the Prince. But virtue also implied strong tendencies to dominate and to force one's way by brutal means. In those days envoys were spies, actively conspiring, lying and deceiving for the good of the state. However, let us not forget that conspiracy, bribery and intrigue already imply much more controll and inhibition when compared to ferocious violence and immediate physical attack. Moreover, less rude, more refined standards were developed for lying and deceiving. Not as a matter of morality but as tactics that prove more effective in situations of closer interdependencies. On some occasions, one even gets a glimpse of standards of trust and reliability. Machiavelli, with his keen sense of power provides the following advice to ambassadors and envoys in a letter written in 1522.
"And above all, a representative must strive to get reputation, which he does by striking actions which show him an able man and by being thought liberal and honest, not stingy and two-faced, and by not appearing to believe one thing and say another. This matter is very important; I know men who, though being clever and two-faced, have so completely lost the trust of a prince that they have never afterward been able to negotiate with him! And if, to be sure, sometimes you need to conceal a fact with words, do it in such a way that it does not become known or, if it does become known, that you have a ready and quick defense". (Machiavelli, 1989, p.116)
Changes in negotiating standards are always controversial and disputed. Decivilizing movements are ample. Louis XI, King of France from 1461-1482, when sending ambassadors to Brittany, provided them with clear instructions. "If they lie to you, see to it that you lie much more to them."
In 1604, Sir Henry Wooton defined an ambassador as "a man sent abroad to tell lies for his country's good." Mattingly (1988, p.206), a known expert on renaissance diplomacy, states that most of Wooton's contemporaries would have accepted this statement readily.
A long-term historical perspective is needed to clarify the changing pattern. In the 16th century, assassination was no longer thought to be the safest way of disposing of opponents, although occasionally the envoys of Venice did resort to it. Bribes were only refused by eccentrics. Nevertheless, the moral standards concerning bribery were changing. It was thought more respectable to accept a single payment than a regular subvention. (Nicolson, 1977, p. 37)
Rosier was a pioneer. One factor may have been that he was part of a, at that time, in spite of all the violence, relatively stable social configuration. This relative stability deteriorated rapidly in the last quarter of the 15th century. Florence's dominant position crumbled. The rivalry between Italian cities was exacerbated. The church became more and more entangled in the game of fast-changing coalitions and intrigues. Negotiations were aimed at short-term gains. This required specific behaviour and an emotional attitude known in those days as Virtù. In his standard text on the evolution of diplomacy Nicolson concisely characterizes this mentality:
"Knowing their existence to be precarious, these despots and oligarchs aimed at immediate results only; they had no idea at all of the value of long-term policies or of the gradual creation of confidence. To them the art of negotiation became a game of hazard for high immediate stakes; it was conducted in an atmosphere of excitement, and with that combination of cunning, recklessness and ruthlessness which they lauded as Virtù." (Nicolson, 1977, p. 31)
It would take centuries before someone would pick up where Rosier left off. This would become possible in the times of Richelieu (1585-1641), when the network of negotiating partners stabilizes again. The security and stability that Richelieu attempts to hold onto are the basis of the international negotiating style that François de Callières (1645-1717) wants to cultivate. Until that time there is stagnation; one might even say barbarization. Authors revert to an obligatory compilation of rights and duties. In"Renaissance diplomacy", Mattingly (1955) surveys the literature on diplomacy for over 200 years, from Rosier to the Spaniard De Vera's "El Embaxador" (1620). It concerns more than 40 treatises, largely the work of jurists defining the rights and immunities of diplomats. Another theme which gradually became more important covered the qualities that a good diplomat ought to possess in terms of a portrait of 'the perfect' ambassador. These two themes: legal questions and recommendable virtues, dominate the discussion for several centuries. Descriptions of factual behaviour and specific suggestions are lacking.
Keens-Soper and Schweizer (1983) provide another excellent summary of early diplomatic literature. They regard the Dutchman Abraham de Wicquefort as the first author whose focus was more on actual diplomatic practise. Wicquefort (1606-1682) wrote 'L'ambassadeur et ses Fonctions'. The purpose of this work was to describe what an envoy does and how he should conduct himself. He was on the threshold of a new development and gave the literature on diplomacy a new orientation.
back to top
Increasing restraint and less violence
The person who was to set the tone for the standards of negotiating skills in political practice for the next few centuries was François de Callières (1645-1717). His work was used as a standard text on negotiating well into the 20th century by generations of diplomats. As a civil servant of Louis XIV he was actively involved in a wide range of negotiations. He was one of the main negotiators of the French at the "Treaty of Rijswijk" (1697) that ended the Nine-year war. With profound insight he links the necessity of negotiating to the development of tighter interdependencies in Europe.
'To understand the permanent use of diplomacy and the necessity for continual negotiations, we must think of the states of which Europe is composed as being joined together by all kinds of necessary commerce, in such a way that they may be regarded as members of one Republic and that no considerable change can take place in any one of them without affecting the condition, or disturbing the peace of all the others. The blunder of the smallest of sovereigns may indeed cast an apple of discord among all the greatest Powers, because there is no state so great which does not find it useful to have relations with the lesser states and to seek friends among the different parties of which even the smallest state is composed.
History teems with the results of these conflicts which often have their beginnings in small events, easy to control or suppress at their birth, but which when grown in magnitude became the causes of long and bloody wars which have ravaged the principal states of Christendom.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p 11)
A very modern statement indeed nowadays valid on a world scale!
Let us return to the heart of the matter. A few centuries have passed since Rosier. The Middle Ages are gone. A new Europe, dominated by the state of France under Louis XIV has emerged. What did top-negotiators learn? Did they change, are they now handling their primary drives differently? Well, Callières provides some answers. A few of his recommendations:
- do not act arrogantly
- do not show contempt
- do not immediately resort to threats
- do not take a hostile attitude
- do not give in to fits of rage
- do not show off or flaunt yourself
He also addresses the question of what sort of people should not be appointed to negotiate. The following list describes the personal characteristics deemed unacceptable in negotiators. They should not be:
- gamblers
- drunkards
- quick-tempered, passionate characters
- people of unruly and irregular conduct
- people who mix with shady characters and who abandon themselves to frivolous amusement.
Quite correct in themselves, these guidelines were apparently not self-evident at that time. Callières had to emphasize again and again that these types of behaviour are not particular effective. These recommendations still closely resemble the admonitions of Rosier. Apparently, behaviour hadn't changed much. But changes are taking off.
back to top
Greater control and more subtlety
Callières is more articulate than Rosier. He develops more elaborate and detailed advice. He focuses in a more refined and varied way on self-restraint and discipline:
'Above all the good negotiator must have sufficient control over himself to resist the longing to speak before he has really thought what he shall say.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p. 19, 20)
'A man who is naturally violent and easily carried away is ill-fitted for the conduct of negotiations.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p 34)
'...for he will be so unreliable that at moments when he seeks the satisfaction of his ill-regulated desires he will be prepared to sell the highest secrets of his master' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p 34)
'A man who is master of himself and always acts with sang-froid has a great advantage over him who is of a lively and easily inflamed nature. One may say indeed that they do not fight with equal arms; for in order to succeed in this kind of work, one must rather listen than speak: and the phlegmatic temper, self-restraint, a faultless discretion and a patience which no trial can break down - these are the servants of success.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p 35, 36)
'...it would be easy to prove by modern examples that men do not act upon firm and stable means of conduct; that as a rule they are governed by passion and temperament more than by reason.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p 47, 48)
'...and finally, he (the good negotiator) must remember that if once he permits his own personal or outrageous feelings to guide his conduct in negotiation, he is on the sure and straight road to disaster.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p 108)
In our days, most of these recommendations still apply but are far more matter-of-course and self-evident. Remarkable are the numerous references to ill-regulated desires and outrageous feelings. Modern authors take a more disciplined temperament for granted.
Negotiators may not always live up to this code of conduct but it is self-evident as a normal standard. In the days of Callières detailed explanations and exhortations were necessary.
back to top
Elegance, cunning and concealment
Some other recommendations by Callières, briefly summarized:
- keep your true feelings hidden, conceal and secrete your own interests
- do not give the impression that you are a clever manipulator; this trait should remain hidden
- exploit the weaknesses of others
- use flattery
- utilize "the flush of wine".
Also, Callières emphasizes the importance of being familiar with the opponent's history and culture, and with courtly manners. Notable are his repeated warnings against dishonest behaviour. The development of an impression of sincerity and good faith are seen as important by him:
'...the negotiator must appear as an agreeable, enlightened, and far-seeing person; he must beware of trying to pass himself off too conspicuously as a crafty or adroit manipulator. The essence of skill lies in concealing it, and the negotiator must ever strive to leave an impression upon his fellow diplomatist of his sincerity and good faith.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p 124)
Noteworthy are the terms: 'appear', 'too conspicuously', 'concealing' and 'impression'. Nevertheless, we can speak of a development towards more trustworthy behaviour. Common practice in Callières' days was closer to threat, confusion, deceit and bribery.
So, Callières' guidelines refer to rather refined behaviour if we compare them to an earlier stage, as he does himself by stating for instance; 'It is a capital error which prevails widely, that a clever negotiator must be a master of the art of deceit.' (Callières/Whyte, 1963, p 31)
back to top
More control, masking and feigning, less confrontation and deceit
Two generations after Callières, in the second half of the eighteenth century, another French author Félice (1778) provides more guidelines regarding the art of negotiating. Félice was born in Rome in 1723. He became a professor of physics who expanded the work of the Encyclopedists. He sees negotiating as a 'recent' skill related to the development of stronger interdependencies. This is important because like those of Callières, his observations clearly demonstrate that the development of negotiating skills is closely related to changing networks of power and dependency. His observation that changing interdependencies compel to negotiating is very astute.
'It is only in modern Europe, where the inhabitants are closely united by similar customs, a common religious basis, frequent commerce, and continual intellectual communication, that negotiation has been raised to an art and become stable. (Félice/Zartman, 1976, p 60)
'However that may be, the custom of negotiating without interruption, or at least the possibility of doing so at any time, has made public negotiation more complex. The delays that that custom imposes on affairs demand greater firmness and patience and a surer hold on passions than would have been required by a more expeditious negotiation. The habit of negotiating without interruption teaches all the ruses that the politicians use to fool each other, and its slowness gives all the time necessary to use them both to tire and to surprise each other. There are continual occasions to sound out, examine, and abuse the sentiments of others.' (Félice/Zartman, 1976, p 60)
According to Félice a negotiator should:
- become acquainted with the drives and the passions of his opponents
- hide emotions, feign other emotions
- be sincere
- learn to look through the masks of others
- avoid confrontation, act as if he concurs; he should not revert to open persuasion: 'The art of insinuation'
- not mistake scheming for negotiating
- be aware of the role of emotions like anxiety, fear, courage, doubt, passion.
Especially noteworthy is his elaborate struggle with emotions.
'Men are moved by feelings alone. Even actions that at first glance may appear to be farthest from what are commonly called emotional acts have some hidden sentimental motive behind them.' (Félice/Zartman, 1976, p 49)
'If we want to dominate the emotions of others, we must master our own. Otherwise we will always be off on false adventures; we will not be able to await the proper moment or seize the right occasion, because we have been carried away. We will not be able to use gentle insinuations and charming words. Our emotions will warn others to be wary of us, and will make us imagine interests that often we do not have. They will blind us to the nature of the resources that we must use and to the ways of using them. Indeed, a man who wishes to succeed in negotiations must be able to hide his emotions to the point of appearing cold when he is overwhelmed with sorrow and calm when he is shaken with passion. Since it is impossible to eliminate all emotion-indeed, it would be dangerous to be free of it entirely, one must at least learn to keep it in check and out of sight. It is often useful to appear to be shaken with emotion but of a different kind than that which is actually at work. An impassioned man gives hope of being won over, whereas a reserved man puts others on guard. In fact, a man who feigns emotions distracts those who are trying to get the upper hand on him. Such acting is permitted and is in no way contrary to proper behaviour...' (Félice/Zartman, 1976, p 53)
A pattern is discernible here. These writings reflect a society in which primary drives are less controlled. The presence of unregulated impulses is much stronger than today. The entire behavioural repertoire is less inhibited and less complex. However, a change is taking place. The struggle with primary affects is becoming more powerful. The quotations make it clear that social conditions apparently demand the suppression of affects and the feigning of emotions. Knowing others are doing the same, brings negotiating sometimes close to fooling each other; at least in modern eyes. This may seem a rather devious and clumsy way of dealing with each other. But it can also be seen as a stage in the process of learning to master one's affects and as very appropriate and cultivated behaviour in that particular age.
The treatises on negotiating by Rosier, Callières and Félice are part of a broader societal development in the direction of curbing one's passions and adhering to more refined behavioural standards. Elias (1939) explains this development in relation to the growing interdependencies and the higher density of the networks binding people together. Callières and Félice, judging by some of the quotations in this paper, apparently come to the same conclusion.
back to top
Changing patterns of emotion management
Early writers stress the importance of a specific type of emotion management. Rosier, Callières and Félice are very explicit on this subject. Hide your own emotions, exploit the affects of others. No wonder if you read to what emotions they are referring: fits of rage, ill-regulated desires, contempt, arrogance, fear. So they plead for a strict repression of these impulses. Not only the actual behaviour had to be repressed but also any openess about underlying real feelings and intentions. Also intentions of a more businesslike nature concerning factual interests and preferable goals had to be kept hidden. Suppression and descipline are not enough. Already Callières and even more Félice write about creating impressions and building up appearances as courtly, agreeable and honest persons. Very sophisticated is the observation of Félice that it is dangerous to show no emotions at all. This will make people suspicious about your true intentions, at least it will put them on guard. So feign other emotions, behave impassioned but stay cold and calculating, put on a mask. Nowadays, this behavior may seem artificial and inauthentic, not to say faked, manipulative or even dishonest. These judgments express more our recent behavioral standards than what was really happening. In those days this "artificial" behavior was a very refined and very civilized mode of conduct. It demonstrated that people were really masters of themselves, that there were no risks of hideous attacks, fits of anger, unpredictable shifts of temper, sudden switches in conduct. Behaving in this controlled way made people feel more secure and relaxed in their contacts. This personal control and this stableness and safety in relating to others were positive and civilized experiences. Especially in a society were the moulding of drives and the tighter control of affects were not yet general practices. People felt also better, more civilized than others less skilled in these respects. So these behaviors were also means to distinguish oneself from other groups in society. This was another impetus to a more even curbing and control, another incentive towards more differentiation and variation in courtly manners expressing control and distinction.
back to top
Interdependency and emotion management
These changing patterns of emotion management are related to increasing interdependencies. These changes have nothing to do with an inherent or natural tendency towards more civilized and refined behaviour. Nor are the particular skills or qualities of Rosier, Callières or other great minds a crucial factor. The impetus for behavioural change is directly related to the changing patterns of dependencies. The development of more extensive networks with more intense and more continuous interdependencies made it in the self-interest of people to change their behaviour. This process took off at the commercial and political junctions of relations in our early societies.
This process also worked the other way around: More mutually expected self-control contributed to more stable networks. These networks often proved politically and economically stronger. To move to positions of power in these networks required more stable conduct. In this way different stages of emotion management conditioned ever stronger interdependencies and vice versa: Stronger interdependencies sustained stricter and more differentiated patterns of emotion management. Elias (1994) describes in detail how in the late Middle-Ages this process accelerated. Several types of changes reinforced each other. In the first place there was the gradual monopolization of the two decisive power sources of 'taxation' and 'military violence' in a number of European areas. The internal pacification of these areas and the concentration of political, financial and military power generated court societies. A career at court became important for social success. This promoted the tempering of affects, decreasing contrasts, greater variety and elegance and the arts of masking and subtle manipulation. A typical example of the behavioural standards and the emotional skills one needed to consolidate and improve one's position is provided by Gracián (1646), a Spanish priest, who frequented the court elites of his time. He meticulously codified which behaviour was desired.
- The best form of power is control of your emotions, which frees us from base impulses.
- Keep people off-balance and in suspense. It is not elegant to show your hand and it serves no purpose.
- Find people's weak spots; these concern people's primary motivations, which are not always the loftiest ones, because there are, after all, more scoundrels in this world than decent people.
- Offer - limited - help frequently.
- Do the sympathetic things personally, leave the dirty work to others.
- The best tactic is to hide everything that may look like tactics.
The development of this rather sophisticated tactical behaviour is closely related to the monopolization of power resources in the hand of mighty rulers. The elites surrounding these sovereigns developed this more polished behaviour as a way to get ahead. The dependency and the push and shove for favours, the fear of falling into disfavour and the mutual rivalry shaped this behaviour on the various levels of the power pyamid. A constant focus on power, naturally covered up by elegant and pleasant behaviour, is the common denominator. As La Bruyère (1922, p. 211) recounts when he characterizes typical behaviour at the court of Louis XIV:
'A man who knows the court is master of his gestures, of his eyes and his expression; he is deep, impenetrable. He dissimulates the bad turns he does, smiles at his enemies, suppresses his ill-temper, disguises his passions, disavows his heart, acts against his feelings.'
We may say that this type of behaviour and emotion management is characteristic of court societies (Elias, 1969) as they were established during many periods of human history in many parts of the world. It resembles, for instance, the conduct at the courts of the Byzantine or Chinese empires.
In the West this type of emotion management blended with a different range of practices and emotional patterns. The difference can be explained by the rather unique structure of interdependencies that came to exist in the West. The works of Elias and McNeill (1991) bring me to the following summary of this different pattern:
- No ruling elite became the dominant elite of all Europe. For instance, early in the 15th century the Chinese emperor could recall the Chinese admiral from his exploratory expeditions all the way along the East African coasts (at that time China was far ahead of Europe in terms of navigation and exploration; their technology, means of communication, industry and trade were also of a higher level). Not one European ruler would have been able to stop the expeditions from Europe. No emperor or king in Europe had the absolute power of the Chinese emperor. On the contrary, the characteristic pattern consisted of competing court elites and states. This rivalry had an energizing effect and promoted the art of negotiating. The mutual competition could not be settled by violence, although this was attemped continuously. Stable alliances based on a certain equality proved to be a strong power resource. With the increasing interdependency between states, constant negotiating proved to be the pre-eminent vehicle for more stable ties between states. Félice and Callières consider negotiating as a trans-national skill, developed specifically for the relationships between states. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the French used the term 'négociation' when referring to the handling of the affairs of the state. This connotation was so strong that Félice (1778) had to note explicitly that negotiating is an activity that encompasses more than diplomatic affairs. He identifies negotiation as an aspect of all activities in human life.
- The monopolization of power in the hands of one elite within European states lagged behind compared to for instance Byzantium or China. There were always powerful groups of merchants, artisans, shipowners and bankers. The internal history of states was in effect a constant struggle between heterogeneous, relatively powerful and independent elites. Struggles which were often settled by a mix of violence and negotiation.
- A third difference was the relatively unstable nature of medieval society. Standards and behavioural codes had not as yet been internalized to the degree that change could be blocked. The heterogeneous elites and the still tribal traditions of clans with self-appointed leaders counterbalanced the tendency toward rigid command and control hierarchies common to empires and states throughout history.
According to McNeil this different pattern of interdependencies explains the rise of the West from the late Middle-Ages onward. It is also related to the development of negotiating. The dominant pattern is the continued existence of multiple competing centres of power, both within states and between states. These multiple configurations characterised not only political relations, but also religious and economic relations. Alongside the age-long attempts to gain dominance by means of violence, an age-long learning process of negotiation and compromise evolved. The ongoing competition within and between these configurations fostered a growing negotiating ability to regulate the inherent instability of these networks: Negotiating replaced bit by bit the continuous struggles of elimination. The development of parliamentary and more democratic governments was a more definite movement to a more stable regulation of conflicts (Van Vree, 1994). Negotiating became a skill for more and more citizens.
We can regard the treatises by Rosier, Callières and Félice as supplementing the courtly behavioural codes like Gracían's 'Supplementing' because they start to renounce arrogance, manipulation, intrigue, cunning and deception. The relatively mild types of confrontation that go with negotiating are incompatible with intrigue, deception and humiliation. Trust and stability in the relationships between more or less egalitarian partners demand different behaviour than rivalry for the favours of a powerful ruler or than control of highly dependent subservients. Society by command does not foster the behavorial standards and the kind of emotion management close to negotiating skills.
back to top
Controlled decontrolling2
How appropriate are the recommendations of Callières and Félice in our days? Show no emotions, feign other emotions, stay cold and calculating! Are these sensible rules of conduct? Modern negotiators do not always agree in their reactions to these questions of feigning and masking. Some may agree with this line of action. Some may have developed the habits of 'poker-face' and 'no emotion in public' themselves. Others present themselves as very open and emotional persons.
The most recent stage concerns the transition to a more differentiated self-control, which allows greater flexibility and more leeway for emotional impulses (but measured, channelled), tolerating and expressing higher levels of tension in the balance between autonomy and interdependency. This style is expressed in tactic's like:
- Voice your demands with consideration for the interests of others;
- Be friendly without giving in;
- Design creative solutions while holding on to your interests;
- Be assertive without forcing your way.
Recent literature of practioners and theorists abounds with these maxim's (Fisher, Ury, 1981; Kremenyuk, 1992). Firmness is combined with friendliness. Assertiveness with flexibility. We need skills that enable us to tolerate a higher tension between autonomy and interdependence, between more private concerns and common interests.
These tactic's are simple to understand on the rational level. Putting them into practice proves often a lot more difficult. Why? Because, the underlying emotional ability to deal with contrasting impulses has not always been fostered yet. It took centuries before people were able to practice the message of Rosier. It will also take time to transfer and to spread these abilities. The historical perspective shows the difficulties we experience in becoming more pliable in our reactions. It helps to clarify the specific emotional development which is needed to practice these seemingly simple tactics. I am referring to a pattern of emotion management to tolerate a variety of sometimes contrasting impulses alongside one another. People learn to deal with mixed emotions. This is possible because they have learned to differentiate their feelings and actions. Conceptualizing this mixed orientation proves far from easy. In negotiating-theory we most often use 'either-or' concepts; 'distributive versus integrative', 'win-lose versus win-win'. Various authors developed conceptual frameworks to grasp the mixed nature of negotiating (Lax and Sebenius, 1986; Mastenbroek, 1989, 1991). However, these concepts remain shallow if one does not consider the underlying emotional process. In my own work I have tried to conceptualize this mixed character by distinguishing four processes each dealing with another relational aspect. The ability to differentiate these processes and to combine them in mixed patterns makes for effective negotiating.3)
back to top
CONCLUSIONS
Several stages of control
Restraints and controls are firmly established in an early stage of the development of negotiating skills. Very restrained, almost ritualistic behaviour has a definite function. It minimizes the risk of unpredictable, emotional outbursts. It prevents the demonstration of fits of anger, threats or signs of weakness which are regretted afterwards. It also functions as an expression and confirmation of status and power differences. Later, the strict suppression of affects, the feigning of emotions, flattery and the hiding of interests become less adequate if not counterproductive. They cause inflexibility and arouse suspicion.
When emotional controls become more of a second nature, and when power differences become smaller, there is less need for ritualistic, formal and repetitive negotiating techniques. These impede more direct, flexible and constructive dealings which fit the still closer interdependencies of our times. The challenge in our days is no longer only a matter of more and stricter restraints, it also includes a loosening up and a controlled decontrolling to become more open, direct, creative and persuasive. But let us not forget that more open and direct ways of dealing with each other become possible only when there exists a more stable and differentiated self-control. Only then do negotiators feel secure about each others discipline. So one stage in the development of negotiating skills creates the conditions for the next. The next step in this development is to feel secure that people will not resent other people having different opinions and interests. In this stage people are able to appreciate outspokenness and informal behaviour. They no longer experience it as provocative or threatening, especially when this more direct and relaxed attitude is combined with the open recognition of different interests and a creative and flexible search for compromise. This kind of negotiating becomes a means to develop trust and confidence between people, but only because interaction is embedded in close interdependencies and in a well-trained, more encompassing moderation of affects.4)
back to top
Learning to negotiate
The most recent stage in the development of negotiating can be expressed in do's and dont's like:
- Combine tenacity with tact.
- Do not confuse standing up for yourself with dominance or forcing your views.
- Be flexible ànd tough.
- Separate the issue from the person.
- Exploring alternative options has nothing to do with giving in.
These do's and dont's provide indications how to deal with mixed affects and conflicting impulses more effectively. They give us something to go on, but they can only be effective, if they are internalized, integrated in the psychology of the negotiator, becoming 'second nature'. I am referring to a basic attitude, an internal structure characterized by such a degree of sensibility, that a variety of sometimes contrasting impulses can exist alongside one another. As I have described in this paper this style of emotion management is not natural given to human beings. This has been neglected very much in modern negotiating literature and in current courses and training. It seems as if learning to negotiate is learning the right do's and dont's. This is close to plain nonsense; these do's and dont's presuppose a specific emotional style. Learning do negotiate is developing this type of emotion management.
back to top
Emotion management as a power resource
This brings me to an intriguing observation. Compared to more rigid and hostile behaviour, the more flexible, direct and informal style functions as a power resource. It provides an advantage over earlier, more formal ways of negotiating. And why shouldn't people use it if they can get away with it? In this sense, the flexible mixed style, while definitely not primarily focused on dominance and power, may become an instrument in gaining the upper hand. Isn't this a strange paradox? How do we deal with this? For instance, when confronted with cultural differences in negotiating styles, we need to be aware of the potentially adverse effects of a flexible mixed style. If it is not understood, people may perceive it as smooth and suave behaviour and resent it. Because they are not able to counter it with equal flexibility, they may feel clumsy and awkward, in some way even inferior. It may also become difficult for them to believe in the sincerity of the other side. They may see it as an effort to lure them into a game defined by established groups which will put them at a disadvantage.
back to top
The past is the present
History sometimes has the ring of tales about the past. However, the insights discussed in this paper are closely tied to our present reality. The ability to negotiate is not an established human ability. In many societies conflicts are responded to by fighting, constant terror or flight. Many social configurations do not foster the abilities to negotiate. Often enough ongoing dead-lock and escalation into hostilities still prove tempting. Clumsy negotiating itself can have an escalating effect. It takes not only much effort from all people involved to prevent gradual and unplanned polarization. It takes a specific type of emotion management which is still a scarce ability. Negotiating remains a precarious skill.
back to top
NOTES
- Huizinga (1924) mentions the shifts of mood and temper common in the Middle-Ages. His predecessors Tacitus en Suetonius write about the Roman era. From their work one gets very much the same impression of interaction and emotion management. The life at the court of the emperors as described by Suetonius can be characterized by extreme cruelty as well as the most positive fidelity. Blind loyalty and easy treachery shift unpredictably. Small incidents cause fast escalating reactions. Exactly as Huizinga describes. So there has not been much change during 15 centuries? The civilizing of behaviour and emotions apparently can not be taken for granted. Stagnation and barbarization also belong to the normal course of events.
- The term 'controlled decontrolling' refers to the work of Elias (1939, 1994) and Wouters (1990).
- To give the reader a taste of this mixed concept of negotiating a few elements are presented here: Effective negotiators differentiate their activities into four types: 1. Realizing one's interests. 2. Influencing the balance of power. 3. Promoting a constructive climate. 4. Obtaining flexibility.
Figure 1- The competitive style |
These four activities and the corresponding tactics are described extensively elsewhere (Mastenbroek, 1989, 1991, 1992). To make the model operational the tactics have been placed on four scales, which can also be used to provide negotiators with feed-back.
A naive negotiator has not yet learned to differentiate his behaviour and emotions. His activities are more clustered. For instance: if he clings to his interests he wants to score, and tends to go on and on on the same track. His tough stance will come across as even harder than is strictly necessary. Figure 1 shows this profile.
This style results in escalation and promotes ongoing struggles. |
Figure 2- The cooperative style |
An alternative is to invest more in developing a climate of trust and credibility. This is easily combined with exploring behaviour. Power is no longer seen as an important issue. Again the more naive negotiator is inclined towards a certain 'contamination': He leans towards a more lenient and cooperative attitude in the area of interests as well.
This profile is expressed in figure 2.
This style provokes exploitative behaviour. It is too easy for the other side to rake in concessions and to explain the cooperative behaviour of the other side as inevitable, given one's own constructive claims and proposals. |
Figure 3- The mixed style |
The negotiator who is able to differentiate the four types of activities focuses his tenacity on his subtantial interests. He realizes that an atmosphere of irritation will not strengthen his position; on the contrary! Furthermore, the continuity of the relationship makes it in his own best interest to keep the relation positive and to develop trust. He also realizes that scoring points and driving others into a corner have nothing to do with negotiating. He knows how to explore options and alternatives without giving in.
Figure 3 expresses this mixed approach. |
-
This development does not run along the same lines everywhere. There are substantial cultural differences. An important factor in the explanation of these differences in Europe is the status of the aristocratic-military groups in our societies. For example, the upsurge of these groups during the 19th century in German society promoted a specific code of conduct. This code was very different compared to the competing middle-class, bourgeois type of conduct on the rise until the unification of Germany. Elias (1996) describes this class struggle between aristocracy and middle-class which can be traced as far back as the Middle Ages. The unification of Germany by military means strengthened the aristocratic-military elites substantially. They fulfilled a dream, shared by all strata, to put an end to the plurality of numerous quarreling small states. The middle classes failed in their efforts by peaceful means. This was of great significance for the development of the middle class German habitus. An important effect was the smothering of the urban and middle-class models of negotiation and persuasion by military models of command and obedience. The power and prestige of more courtly and military standards received another upsurge by the war with France. "The victory of the German armies over France was at the same time a victory of the German nobility over the German middle-class." (Elias, 1996. p. 14)
So, a quite flat mulipolar configuration of many small states becomes a steep monopolistic pyramide. Intercourtly conflicts and negotiations become intra courtly intrigues; models of command and obedience are setting the tone. Competing bourgeois models of discussion, debate and negotiation become weaker and especially after 1871 more military models of behaviour are adopted also by the German middle-classes. This may explain some characteristics of the German habitus until these days: "Very noticeable in the German tradition is the habituation to strategies of
command and obedience - quite often through direct or indirect use of physical strength - and until recently, the comparatively low level of skill in debate as a heritage from the long period of absolute or near-absolute rule. Unease with the relatively complicated restraint of affect which is required in solving conflicts solely through discussion, and. conversely, a feeling of ease with simpler command and obedience strategies, can still be observed today in Germany." (Elias, 1996. p. 450)
back to top
REFERENCES
Bruyère, La. 1922. Caractères, De la Cour. Paris: Hachette.
Callières, F. de. 1716. De la manière de négocier avec les souvereins.
M. Brunet, Paris. Available in english: On the manner of Negotiating with Princes. Translated by A.F. Whyte.(1963). University of Notre Dame Press. Also: The art of diplomacy. (1983) Keens-Soper, H.M.A., Schweizer, K.W. (ed.) Leicester: University Press.
Elias, N. 1939. Über den Prozess der Zivilisation. Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Untersuchungen. Basel, Haus zum Falken. Translated as: Elias, N. (1994). The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
Elias, N. 1969. Die höfische Geschellschaft. Luchterhand. Translated as; Elias N., (1983). The court society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Félice, F.B. de. 1778. Des Négotiations, ou de l'Art de Négocier In: Dictionnaire de justice naturelle et civile: code de l'Humanité, ou la Législation universelle, naturelle, civile et politique comprise par une société de gens de lettres et mise en ordre alphabétique par Félice. (Yverdun). Universities of Naples and of Berne. Translated as 'Negotiations, or the art of Negotiating' in: Zartman, W. (ed.) (1976). The 50% solution. New York: Anchor Press.
Fisher, R. and W. Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gracián, B. 1647. Oráculo manual y arte de prudencia. Dutch translation (1991), Handorakel, Amsterdam: Polak & Van Gennep.
Huizinga, J. 1924. The waning of the middle ages. London: Edward Arnold & Co.
Keens-Soper, H.M.A., Schweizer, K.W. 1983. Diplomatic theory in the Ancien Regime. In: Keens-Soper, H.M.A., Schweizer, K.W. (ed.) The art of Diplomacy. Leicester: University Press.
Kremenyuk, V.A. (ed). 1992. International Negotiating. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J.K. 1986. The manager as Negotiator. New York: Free Press.
Machiavelli, N., 1989. The chief works and others. Volume one. English translation: A. Gilbert, London: Duke University Press.
Mastenbroek, W.F.G. 1989. Negotiate. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mastenbroek, W.F.G. 1991. The development of negotiating skills. In: Kremenyuk, V.A. (ed). International Negotiating. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mastenbroek, W.F.G. 1992. Die historische Entwicklung der Kunst des Verhandeln (pp 173-196). In: Verhandeln: Strategie, Taktik, Technik. Frankfurt: Frankfurter Allgemeine/Gabler Verlag.
Mattingly, G. 1988. Renaissance Diplomacy. New York: Dover. (Unabridged and unaltered republication of the work first published by Houghton Mifflin, Boston in 1955).
McNeill, W.H. 1991. The rise of the West. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Nicolson, H. 1977. The evolution of diplomatic method, being the Chichele lectures delivered at the University of Oxford in November 1953. Westport: Greenwood Press. (Reprint of the 1954 ed. published by Constable, London)
Rosergio, B de. 1905. 'Ambaxiator Brevilogus', in: Vladimir E. Hrabar, De Legatis et Legationibus Tractatus Varii: Bernardi de Rosergio Ambaxiatorum brevilogus, Hermolai Barbari De officio Legati, Martini Garrati Laudensis De Legatix maxime principum, Ex aliis excerpta qui eadem de re usque ad annum MDCXXV scripserunt, pp. 1-28. Juriev University Library Dorpati Livinorum.
Schneider, R. 1977. Mittelalterliche Verträge auf Brücken und Flüssen. In: Heinemeyer, W., Jordan, K. (red.). Archiv für Diplomatik: Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde. Köln: Böhlau Verlag.
Voss, I. 1987. Herrschertreffen im frühen und hohen Mittelalter. Köln: Böhlau Verlag.
Vree, W.B.A.M. van. 1994. Nederland als vergaderland. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
Wouters, C. 1990. Social stratification and informalization in global perspective. Theory, Culture & Society. 7, 69-90.
