Agreement and Breakdown in Negotiation: Report on a State Department Training Simulation

Gilbert R. Winham and H. Eugene Bovis
Additional contact information
Gilbert R. Winham: Centre for Foreign Policy Studies Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
H. Eugene Bovis: US Department of State

Journal of Peace Research, 1978, vol. 15, issue 4, 285-303

Abstract: For the past six years the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State has used a simulation to train officers in negotiation techniques. This simulation models a negotiation between two fictitious countries over six issues, and the scenario realistically incorporates bureaucratic politics by building in internal disagreement on the issues. The simulation has been conducted 41 times, of which 24 exercises (59 %) have concluded in general agreement. This research examines the reasons for agreement and breakdown in this simulation, and draws analogies to real-world practices.The findings suggest that the process of negotiation is important in its own right in predis posing negotiators to accept a settlement, particularly where uncertainty or controversy exists over negotiating objectives. Elements in the negotiation process that tend to facilitate agreement are: (1) the establishment of trade-offs, priorities, and structure in the material being negotiated, which is difficult to accomplish when negotiators represent governments that are internally divided; (2) the achievement of efficiency in the bargaining interaction, especially in the early agenda setting phase of a negotiation; and (3) the movement from a negotiating mentality to a decision-making mentality, which requires negotiators to reorient their perspectives on the negotiation, and especially, to maintain effective communication between negotiating teams and their home governments. Breakdowns in the simulation are largely attributable to the failure of negotiators to set priorities and to define a quid pro quo relationship, with the result that the negotiating teams fail to establish leadership or managerial control of the process.The entire simulation is reproduced in the Appendix. It is suitable for practical training, as well as for conducting further research on negotiation.

Date: 1978
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/15/4/285.abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:joupea:v:15:y:1978:i:4:p:285-303

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Peace Research from Peace Research Institute Oslo
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().