Thread by @Usherwood

A pertinent Q on negotiations: how many people in the room?

1/

As you'll have noticed, it's a critical week for Art.50 negotiations

As you'll also have noticed, no-one (on the inside) is talking about it much

2/

As various people have commented, this is because it's crunch time, so keeping out of the limelight is helpful

3/

Broadly speaking, negotiation theory offers two reasons as to why this might be:

de-conflictualisation and issue management

4/

As we've seen, when the political heat gets turned up, it can be difficult to find agreement

The more people metaphorically in the room, the more chance that mutual incompatibilities will present themselves and that things will be said

5/

By 'things', I mean the kind of stuff that makes negotiation much harder: either ad hominem or positional bargaining

6/

Moreover, letting others in can also make it hard for negotiators to work on their common ground, as they're distracted by calls from their side to just stick to their guns

7/

Having a bit of private space allows negotiators to get on the same side of the table, to solve the problem that confronts them, and then to come back out with a deal which they can help each other sell back to constituents

8/

Of course, this is why negotiators sometimes get a bad name; they don't stick up for their side.

That's to misunderstand how negotiation works

9/

Solving a problem doesn't mean making concessions, or being soft

Instead, it's about understanding each other's interests and objectives and looking for ways to get mutual gains, while protecting your own situation

10/

That's much easier if you don't also have to actively manage comms or 'helpful' interjections from others.

11/

Which is where the second aspect - issue mgt - comes in.

More people means more interests and more stuff on the table

12/

Negotiation theory is ambivalent about 'more', since the better the scoping you do, the more chance of finding a creative outcome. But here 'more' means more points of blockage

13/

By having a more precisely and narrowly-defined agenda, it's potentially possible to have a more manageable chance of reaching an agreed conclusion. You're not trying to solve everything, just something

14/

As a final point here, closing the doors also serves as a signal of seriousness. It demonstrates intent and engagement, as well as seriousness

15/

Given the level of political tetchiness in Art.50 to date, that might - by itself - be a positive development

/end