Advertisement

Reputation and Egotiation: The Impact of Self-Image on the Negotiator

  • Paul Meerts
  • Siniša Vuković
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation book series (AGDN, volume 7)

Abstract

Egotiation is a new term in negotiation research, proposed by one of the authors (Meerts in Pinpoints network newsletter, IIASA, Laxenburg, pp. 28–29, 2010). “Ego” will not be used here in the classical psychological/Freudian sense. For the purposes of this chapter, “egotiation” is a factor in international negotiation processes which will work against the material interests of the negotiator and his party. It has an emotional as well as an interest dimension, a unconscious as well as a conscious side, accidental, and purposeful. The ego of the negotiator, meaning the face/honor/status of the negotiator in question, will be a parasite of the negotiation process. It will flourish through the process, but at the detriment of the interests of the party the negotiator is representing. The authors will look at a series of famous negotiators and ask themselves to what extend these actors gave precedence to face saving over the defense of national and other interests. The authors will then ask themselves what the consequences of “egotiation” have been in different cases. They will try to diagnose if “egotiation” is a typical phenomenon to be found among decision makers of higher or lower rank, politicians or diplomats, etc. They will also look at the question if countries have such an ego and if so, what the function of that ego is in international relations.

Keywords

International negotiations Egotiation Reputation Self-image 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Vlad Badea for his help in providing part of the literature that made this chapter possible.

References

  1. Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and conflict resolution. Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blaker, M., Giarra, P., & Vogel, E. (2002). Case studies in Japanese negotiating behavior. Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  3. Buhite, R. D. (1986). Decisions at Yalta, an appraisal of summit diplomacy. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Cogan, C. G. (2003). French negotiating behavior: Dealing with the ‘grand nation’. Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, R. (1997). Negotiating across cultures: International communication in an interdependent world. Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, R. (2001). Negotiating across cultures. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Turbulent peace: The challenges of managing international conflict (pp. 469–482). Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  7. Duke International Security Conference. (2005). Paris peace conference 1919, minister biographies (pp. 1–10). Durham, US: Duke University.Google Scholar
  8. Faizullaev, A. (2006). Diplomacy and self. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 17(3), 497–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freeman, C. (1997). Arts of power: Statecraft and diplomacy. Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  10. Goldman, A. L., & Rojot, J. (2003). Negotiation: Theory and practice. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  11. Gruyter de R. (1993) Once upon a time, a historical and psychological analysis of gorbachev’s reign. Doctoral Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. Haffner, S. (2011). Anmerkungen zu Hitler. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Google Scholar
  13. Hemery, J., & Meerts, P. W. (2006). Training for practice, a practical approach. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 1(2), 197–208.Google Scholar
  14. Holsti, O.R. (1968). Cognitive dynamics and images of enemy. In J. C. Farrell & A. P. Smith (Eds.), Image and Reality in World Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Iklè, F. C. (1985). How Nations negotiate. Millwood: Kraus.Google Scholar
  16. Joll, J. (1982). The ideal and the real, changing concepts of the international system, 1815-1982. International Affairs, 58(2), 210–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jönsson, C. (2012). Psychological causes of incomplete negotiations. In G. O. Faure (Ed.), Unfinished business: Why international negotiations fail (pp. 167–184). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kissinger, H. (1969). The Vietnam negotiations. Foreign Affairs, 47, 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laloy J. (1988). Yalta, Hier, aujourd’hui, demain. editions Robert Laffort, Paris.Google Scholar
  20. MacMillan, M. (2001). Peacemakers, the Paris conference of 1919 and its attempt to end war. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  21. Meerts, P. (2005). Entrapment in international negotiations. In I. W. Zartman & G. O. Faure (Eds.), Escalation and negotiation in international conflicts (pp. 103–130). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Meerts, P. (2009). Negotiating with the Russian bear: Lessons for the EU?. EU Diplomacy Papers, Vol. 8. College of Europe, Bruges.Google Scholar
  23. Meerts, P. (2010). Egotiation: Ego as a factor in international negotiation processes. In Pinpoints network newsletter (Vol. 35, pp. 28–29). Laxenburg: IIASA.Google Scholar
  24. Mongar, T. M. (1969). Personality and decision making: John F. Kennedy in four crisis decisions. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 2(2), 200–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicolson, H. (1998). The evolution of diplomatic method, diplomatic studies programme. University of Leicester, (being the Chichele Lectures in Oxford, 1953).Google Scholar
  26. Nordholt, J. W. S. (1992). Woodrow Wilson, Een leven voor de wereldvrede: Een biografie. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.Google Scholar
  27. Pearton, M. (1993). The Paris peace conference. In AP. van Goudoever (ed.), Great Peace Conferences in History, 1648–1990, Utrechtse Historische Cahiers, (Vol. 14, # 2). University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Pronin, E., Gilovich, T. D., & Ross, L. (2004). Objectivity in the eye of the beholder: Divergent perceptions of bias in self versus others. Psychological Review, 111(3), 781–799.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Reynolds, D. (2007). Summits, six meetings that shaped the twentieth century. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Richmond, O. (1998). Devious objectives and the disputants’ view of international mediation: A theoretical framework. Journal of Peace Research, 35(6), 707–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharp, A. (2008). The versailles settlement, peacemaking after the first world war, 1919–1929. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Smyser, W. R. (2002). How Germans negotiate: Logical goals, practical solutions. Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  33. Solomon, R. H. (1999). Chinese negotiating behavior: Pursuing interests through ‘old friends’. Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  34. Solomon, R. H., & Quinney, N. (2010). American negotiating behavior: Wheeler-dealers, legal eagles, bullies, and preachers. Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  35. Stedman, S. J. (1997). Spoiler problems in peace processes. International Security, 22(2), 5–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wittes, T. C. (2005). How Israelis and Palestinians negotiate: A cross-cultural analysis of the Oslo peace process. Washington DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  37. Zartman, I. W. (2001a). Negotiating identity: From metaphor to process. International Negotiation, 6(2), 137–140.Google Scholar
  38. Zartman, I. W. (2001b). Timing of peace initiatives: Hurting stalemates and ripe moments. Ethnopolitics, 1(1), 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zartman, I. W. (2002). What I want to know about negotiation. International Negotiation, 7(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  40. Zartman, I. W., & Kremenyuk, V. (2005). Peace versus justice: Negotiating forward and backward looking outcomes. Oxford UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Processes of International Negotiation (PIN) ProgramNetherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’HagueThe Netherland
  2. 2.School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)Johns Hopkins UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations