Empirical and Normative Studies[1] of Negotiation Reflections -- By Peter B. Bloch Empirical Studies: As important as negotiation and mediation are, surprisingly little empirical information is available to guide mediators or negotiators. Undoubtedly, many of these people hunger for useful knowledge, for their work often has enduring consequences, affecting whether war ceases, hostages are freed, strikes end, litigation settles, families dissolve or unite, companies function effectively, and creative ideas are implemented. However, empirical studies usually are of little use. For example, after reviewing the literature on communication in intergroup negotiation simulations, Stephen Edward Weiss concluded: [N]one of this research proffers a concept linking the various aspects of communication to the negotiation process.[2] Writing seven years later, after attempting an ambitious historical analysis of mediation of serious international conflicts, Jacob Bercovitch concluded: Studying the conditions of successful mediation in international relations requires the development of a taxonomy or framework of mediation and the identification of these context and process variables that might affect the adversaries' decision-making choice, and behavior. It would be fruitful to build on this research and develop an inventory of factors associated with successful international mediation.[3] What these analysts have in common is their realization, after struggling with available empirical data, that there is a need for a "link" or "framework" with which to conceptualize negotiation and mediation. Without that link, attempts at empirical research are barren. Without a theory, a researcher can guess what is important, but useful analysis would attempt to validate an integrated theory, based on a mature understanding of the underlying process. Without a plausible theory to validate, the "study" then becomes a effort to validate the researchers "hunches" or prejudices. Before we decry this state of affairs, we must first consider whether it is inevitable, flowing from the complexity of the questions being asked. In psychology and social psychology, there are many theories, few of which are both rich in their explanatory value and also empirically testable. This may occur because of the complexity of human behavior and the expense of in-depth exploration of meaningful theories. Normative Study. By contrast to the empirical studies, which are lacking in usefulness, Gilkey and Greenhalgh have written an article which is a tour de force. They point out that: Despite the importance of [personality in successful negotiation], ... almost no comprehensive attention has been given to how personality affects negotiation....[4] They then discuss why they believe personality is an essential factor in negotiation and they describe courses at the Amos Tuck School of Business Administration, Dartmouth College, that use self-examination, feedback, and personality testing to teach negotiation skills. The Gilkey and Greenhalgh article is persuasive and well written. Their argument for the effect of personality on negotiation is based on shared experience rather than empirical research. They state: Anyone who has negotiated with people who are stubborn, short-tempered[5], shy, Machiavellian, or risk-averse will attest to how important negotiators' personalities can be in determining how negotiations unfold. These traits are a small sample of the wide range of personality factors that can make negotiations productive or unproductive. Traits are stable and enduring characteristics of individuals that predispose negotiators to react to situations in particular ways. Negotiators who are aware of their own traits can adjust the strategies and tactics their personalities induce them to adopt; negotiators who are keen observers of others' personality characteristics know what to expect and can make strategic adjustments in dealing with others. Thus every negotiator should be a student of how individuals differ from each other and how such differences affect negotiating behavior.[6] The principal components of the Tuck negotiation skills curriculum are intensive personality assessment, simulations based on actual business negotiations, required student journals for the purpose of encouraging self- examination, and feedback, primarily by instructors or a clinician working in the program. Experience in the program has led the authors to conclude that: Personality assessment can be a valuable teaching tool in expanding negotiators' awareness of the way they think and act. In addition to mobilizing their capacities for self-awareness, negotiators also learn to benefit from the feedback of peers and clinically-trained observers. In addition, as they become more aware of their particular assets, they can make more explicit and effective use of them. Such self-awareness can often create the desire for change as the students become aware of alternative approaches to dealing with conflict that can allow them to use their individual strengths more fully.[7] One reason that the Gilkey and Greenhalgh article is persuasive is that it provides case studies of three individuals: Paul, Bruce and Wendy. Each of these studies shows how the individuals used their negotiating simulation work and the personality studies to draw conclusions about their own negotiating style and to devise their own remedies for making their style more effective. Included in one of these case studies is a rare observation made one year after the training. That observation was that Wendy had continued to progress in implementing her plan to be a more effective negotiator. The authors humbly (and correctly) disclose that some of Wendy's continued improvement could have come from a year of maturing in a corporate environment, but I am nevertheless impressed that an observation made a year later shows continued improvement in the expected direction. Common Sense. The Gilkey and Greenhalgh conclusions also have common sense on their side. What they have done is to provide various kinds of empirical information with which a person can gather information and make constructive changes. In this way, they become conscious of their own patterns of behavior. Rather than blindly following their habits and personality traits, these people are reinforced in a process of becoming their own quality control. It is like handing them a radar device capable of showing them in action -- rather than flying blind to what one does and ignoring the possibility of becoming captain of one's own ship. This makes these conclusions particularly exciting and suggests the desirability of empirical testing. Relationship to Awareness. In my article on "Use of Process Work and Awareness in Resolving Disputes,"[8] Mindell's theories of dispute resolution are described. Just as Gilkey and Greenhalgh aim to improve negotiation performance by having the negotiator reflect on her own conduct, Mindell's facilitator has the job of stimulating self-reflection by the parties. If it should turn out that Mindell's facilitator is successful in encouraging settlement by stimulating the negotiators' use of self- reflection, this would parallel empirical findings corroborating the effectiveness of the Tuck School training methods, which teach the same skill. To extend the parallel further, it would seem that the skills of the facilitator in the Mindell method would be similar to the skills required of the Staff and the clinician who conduct the Tuck School training. The facilitator, Staff and clinician all have the parallel job of teaching negotiators how to reflect on their own behavior and find tools to resolve the conflicts that underlie the negotiations in which they are engaged. Empirical Work Could Be Useful It would seem that both Gilkey and Greenhalgh and Mindell present rich models that could be evaluated. A full experiment on Gilkey and Greenhalgh would involve randomly selecting people for the Tuck School training and providing a credible, skill-based course (not focused on personal insight and growth) to a control group. Then the comparative performance of the experimental and control groups could be assessed through records of dispute occurrence and resolution, double-blind observations of negotiations, self-reports and co-workers and subordinate surveys. The Mindell theories could be tested by classifying mediators according to the degree to which they possess awareness skills and then assessing their performance through double-blind observations. Conclusion There are powerful reasons to believe that the training model suggested by Gilkey and Greenhalgh and the mediator-awareness model of Mindell could improve the quality of negotiations and mediations. Because of the power of these models, they could be empirically tested. Through careful empirical tests, the usefulness of these models could be validated, stimulating further use. An additional advantage of the evaluation is that important information about these processes could be acquired, improving the effectiveness with which these models is implemented. ______________________________________________________________ 1. I am grateful to Colin Rule of the National Institute for Dispute Resolution for bringing to my attention the papers included in this review. They are: NORMATIVE ARTICLE: Roderick W. Gilkey and Leonard Greenhalgh, "The Role of Personality in Successful Negotiating," _Negotiating Journal_. EMPIRICAL ARTICLES: Stephen Edward Weiss, _The Language of Successful Negotiators: A Study of Communicative Competence in Intergroup Negotiation Simulations_ (U. of Penn. Ph. D. Dissertation)(1984)(hereinafter "Weiss"); Joseph Bercovitch, "International Mediation and Dispute Settlement: Evaluating the Conditions for Successful Mediation," _Negotiation Journal_, January 1991, p. 17 (Hereinafter "Bercovitch")> 2. Weiss at 26. 3. Bercovitch at 28. 4. Gilkey and Greehalgh at 245. They acknowledge as helpful the following article: Rubin, J.Z. and Brown, B.R., _The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation_, New York, Academic Press, 1975. 5. The effect of anger on negotiations is the focus of an article by Joseph P. Daly, "The Effects of Anger on Negotiations over Mergers and Acquisitions," _Negotiation Journal_, January 1991, p. 31 ff. Daly infers that anger: (1) inhibits the ability to search effectively for mutually agreeable solutions, and (2) affects an angry negotiator's goal by introducing new motives to punish or retaliate "the offending party" (p. 31). Daly believes that anger is caused by external events and never occurs because of a dysfunctional personality pattern that could be altered through reflection and personal growth. He correctly observes that anger can be functional as an explicit and forceful way of countering "unacceptable" behavior; but he overlooks the possibility that a negotiator could attain enough personal insight to _choose_ whether or not to express anger in the negotiation process. This freedom to choose would be enhanced by the Tuck School process discussed by Gilkey and Greenhalgh. 6. Gilkey and Greenhalgh at 245. (Emphasis added.) 7. Gilkey and Greenhalgh at 251. (Emphasis added.) 8. See PROCAWA2.ZIP (PROCAWA2.ASC by Internet) on the TQM BBS, 301-585-1164.