Skip to main content
Log in

Negotiating in a Complex World

  • Published:
Negotiation Journal

Abstract

Drawing on the literatures on negotiation and conflict resolution as well as research on international diplomacy, the author proposes a framework for understanding complexity in real-world negotiations. Rejecting models of the process that are simplistic, sterile, or static, he argues that complexity is inherent in negotiation. In ten propositions, he lays out key dimensions of complexity and ways that skilled negotiators can manage it. The propositions focus attention on the ways negotiators create and claim value, shape perceptions and learn, work within structure and shape the structure, negotiate and mediate, link and de-link negotiations, create momentum and engineer impasses, and work outside and inside. The author also highlights the importance of organizational learning in negotiation, noting that most negotiators manage multiple negotiations in parallel, and most organizations have many negotiators doing similar things.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Allison, G. 1971. Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K., R. Mnookin, L. Ross, A. Tversky, and R. Wilson. 1995. Barriers to conflict resolution. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, J. 1995. The politics of diplomacy: Revolution, war and peace: 1989–1992. New York: G.P. Putnam & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, J. W. and J. Z. Rubin (eds.). 1991. Negotiation theory and practice. Cambridge, Mass:: PON Books (The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School).

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. R., D. Garvin and A. Sweet, eds. 1991. Education for judgment: The artistry of discussion leadership. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B. 1984. Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: William Morrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J. and M. Watkins. 1997. Toward a theory of representation in negotiation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston, August.

  • Fisher, R., W. Ury, and B. Patton. 1991. Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without giving in. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: The making of a new science. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iklé, F. C. 1964. How nations negotiate. Millwood, N.Y.: Kraus Reprint Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. 1998. Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C. and R. Mauborgne. 1997. Fair process: managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review. July-August.

  • Lax, D. A. and J. K. Sebenius. 1986. The manager as negotiator. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lax, D. and J. Sebenius. 1991. Thinking coalitionally. In Negotiation analysis, edited by Peyton Young. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, K. 1996. The Oslo channel: Finding a secret path to peace. Case C113–96–1333.0, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

  • Putnam, R. 1988. Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organizations 42(3): 427–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. 1982. The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H. 1986 The art of political manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R. J. 1997a. Errors in social judgment: Implications for negotiation and conflict resolution. Part 1: Biased assimilation of information. Case No. 897–103. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosegrant, S. and M. Watkins. 1994. The Gulf crisis: Building a coalition for war. Cambridge, Mass.: John F. Kennedy School of Government Case No.. 1264.0.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. and ———. 1995. Carrots, sticks and question marks: Negotiating the North Korean nuclear crisis (A) and (B). Cambridge, Mass.: John F. Kennedy School of Government Case Nos. 1297.0 and 1298.0.

  • ———. and ———. 1996b. A “seamless” transition: United States and United Nations operation in Somalia-1992–1993 (A) and (B). Cambridge, Mass.: John F. Kennedy School of Government Case Nos. 1324.0 and 1325.0.

  • ———. and ———. 1996c. Getting to Dayton: Negotiating an end to the war in Bosnia. Case no. C125–96–1356.0, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

  • ———. and ———. 1997b. Errors in social judgment: Implications for negotiation and conflict resolution. Part 2: Partisan perceptions. Case No. 897–104. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

  • Rosen, S. and M. Watkins. 1998. Rethinking “preparation” in negotiation. Harvard Business School Working Paper #99–042.

  • Ross, L. and A. Ward. 1995. Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 27: 255–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J. Z., D. G. Pruitt, and S. H. Kim. 1994. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professional think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebenius, J. 1984. Negotiating the Law of the Sea. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Negotiation analysis: A characterization and review. Management Science 38(1): 18–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996a. Introduction to negotiation analysis: Structure, people, and context. Note No. 896–034. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

  • ———. 1996b. Sequencing to build coalitions: With whom should I talk first? Wise choices: Decisions, games, and negotiations, edited by R. Zeckhauser, R. Keeney, and J. Sebenius. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

  • Ury, W. 1991. Getting past no: Negotiating your way from confrontation to cooperation. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, R. and R. McKersie. 1965. A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. Ithaca: ILR Press (paperback reprint).

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, M. 1998a. Shaping the structure of negotiations. Program on Negotiation Monograph #98–1. Cambridge, Mass.: Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998b. Building momentum in negotiations: Time-related costs and action-forcing events. Negotiation Journal 14(3): 241–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, M. and K. Lundberg. 1998. Getting to the table in Oslo: Driving forces and channel factors. Negotiation Journal 14(2): 115–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, M. and S. Passow. 1996. Analyzing linked systems of negotiations. Negotiation Journal 12(4): 325–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, M. and S. Rosegrant. 1996. Sources of power in coalition building. Negotiation Journal 12 (1): 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, M., and K. Winters. 1997. Intervenors with interests and power. Negotiation Journal 13(2): 119–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zartman, I. W. and M. Berman. 1982. The practical negotiator. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo, P. and M. Lieppe. 1991. The psychology of attitude change and social influence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Watkins, M. Negotiating in a Complex World. Negotiation Journal 15, 229–244 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007547417505

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007547417505

Keywords

Navigation