This issue marks the beginning of Negotiation Journal’s silver anniversary year. Thanks to thousands of people, we have grown and prospered over those twenty-five years.
That count, of course, begins with our dedicated readers, who appreciate the importance of bridging negotiation theory and practice. Add to them our contributors: among them, scholars, teachers, and practitioners from diverse disciplines and fields all around the globe. Then there are our sponsoring colleagues at the Program on Negotiation (PON), which has been the convivial home to the Journal all this time. We tip our hat to Bob Mnookin, chair of the program’s executive committee, and Susan Hackley, its managing director, for their steadfast support.
First among equals, though, in this long line of individuals to whom we owe thanks are the late and much-missed Jeffrey Rubin, who founded this enterprise, and Bill Breslin, who, as managing editor, shepherded the Journal for nearly two decades. Their energy, vision, and good humor are still reflected in these pages.
That is literally true in this issue, as immediately following this note, you will find reprinted Jeff’s introduction to Negotiation Journal, Volume One, Number One. I urge you to read it carefully. It is an artifact that describes our genesis and goals, but it also reminds us how the field of negotiation itself has blossomed since the mid-1980s. The Journal— and most certainly the many people associated with it — played a significant role in that growth. The same influence will surely be felt in the years ahead.
Succeeding issues in 2009 will offer more opportunity to reflect back and look ahead. For me, rereading Jeff’s introductory note provided gratifying confirmation of the wisdom of our original mission. Cross-disciplinary work that informs both negotiation theory and practice remains as important as when we began.
The first note also refreshed my memories of our origins. For example, I was amused by Jeff’s account of the deliberations over what to name this new baby. Although I was on the scene at the time, I had forgotten how many other titles were in contention before we finally settled on what now seems the one obvious choice, Negotiation Journal.
Some people apparently regarded the word negotiation as being “too narrow” and somehow not encompassing forms of dispute resolution, such as mediation and arbitration. Consensus was reached by crafting a subtitle,“On the Process of Dispute Resolution,” which we carried until a few years ago.
That subtitle’s retirement was prompted by a sense that it actually was too limiting. After all, the Journal has been interested in transactional negotiations — deals, as well as disputes — from its inception. For example, our first issue included reflections on Getting to Yes, the classic book that encompasses negotiation in its broadest terms. Subsequent issues that inaugural year likewise dealt with general concepts (such as Howard Raiffa’s proposal for “post-settlement settlement”) and generic approaches to teaching, such as the use of scoreable games in the classroom.
Nevertheless, our founders’ belief in the need to be explicit about dispute resolution says much about what drew together the founders of PON and the godparents of this publication. They were legal scholars, policy analysts, psychologists, political scientists, management experts, and a host of other specialists. In spite of differences in training and outlook, however, they shared a belief that the individual and social costs of litigation, work stoppages, and even warfare can often be mitigated through the process of creative negotiation.
That focus on process remains our north star, even though that particular word did not survive when we housecleaned our masthead. Indeed, you can see that process is front and center in the collection of articles that we present in this current issue. For example, our lead research report, by Daniel Druckman, Mara Olekalns, and Philip Smith, explores breakthroughs and turning points in negotiation. In carefully crafted experiments, the researchers analyzed the effects of two types of precipitating events, external and internal changes of circumstance. They also examined how the climate (positive or negative) of negotiations affects how parties perceive and act upon events. This piece builds on Dan’s previous work on critical moments in negotiation, published in these pages five years ago.
Stephan Sonnenberg reviews the recent autobiography of Jan Egeland, former United Nations Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs. He notes that the domains of conflict resolution and humanitarian assistance may seem distinct at first glance. The former focuses on ending conflict, while the latter deals with protecting lives and dignity in the midst of turmoil. In practice, Sonnenberg sees considerable overlaps. Peacemakers must deal with temporary solutions while on the path to a comprehensive accord. Humanitarians, in turn, increasingly find themselves in the crossfire and thus must work with opposing parties to foster safe conditions. Again, process is a key factor regardless of role.
Jeff Pugh’s analysis of conflict in El Salvador in the 1980s and 1990s nicely bridges the book review and the study by Druckman and his colleagues. Specifically, Pugh examines linkages between bloody violence and long-term social reform. He notes how “indicators of ripeness” may be necessary for the initiation of fruitful dialogue but argues that they are not necessarily sufficient if they are misperceived or obscured by the fog of war.
In another research piece, Truls Erikson and Terje Berg-Utby present survey results that illuminate the management of venture-capital-backed firms. Their data focus on Norwegian companies, but the issue they explore is important in new venture management around the world — especially now that international financial markets are in such a state of turmoil.
Specifically, they hypothesized that collaborative relationships in the initial investment phase might lessen the likelihood of later, postinvestment firing of management teams and that positional bargaining in the early phases increased the risk of dismissal. They were correct on the second guess but found no correlation for the first theory. Past, in short, is only sometimes prologue in these high-stakes settings.
A third research report, by Rachel Ben-Ari and Itzhak Hirshberg, considers how adolescents’ strategies for coping with conflict are related to their attachment styles and general perception of conflict. Style in this sense encompasses a person’s basic temperament, for example, whether they are secure or anxious, and is generally thought to be resistant to change. By contrast, perceptions of conflict are cognitively based and somewhat more malleable. As a result, the authors conclude that well-designed conflict management training may help school-aged children (and others) deal with differences more effectively.
Ian Macduff’s teaching note describes his use of blogs in his law school classes on negotiation and mediation. He recognizes both the virtues of this new medium (self-expression and community) and its potential vices (self-indulgence and miscommunication) but on balance has found blogs to be a more powerful learning device than traditional journals kept by students. Blogs extend the educational experience by facilitating peer-to-peer exchange beyond the classroom constraints of time and place. By creating an electronic agora, they also intensify learning by encouraging prompt feedback by faculty and fellow students.
Many things have changed in the past quarter of a century of the Journal’s existence. Not only wasn’t the word “blog” coined till much later, but few people — if any — foresaw how new technology would one day enhance teaching and learning. Other things have changed as well. Nancy Waters now ably runs the office of managing editor in which Bill Breslin, first, and then Shannon Quinn, once worked. Our publisher for the last several years, Wiley-Blackwell, has helped us use electronic media and innovative distribution systems to reach an ever-wider readership. And, yes, I now serve in the editorial role that Jeff Rubin defined and that I was privileged to share with Debbie Kolb for too short a time.
As this last issue of the Journal demonstrates, however, many important things have been constant. Most important, we remain committed to the proposition that good theory is eminently practical and that practice is at its best when it is informed by insights drawn from a wide range of disciplines and contexts.
In launching this publication, Jeff wrote of looking “to the future with a shared sense of hope, unbounded enthusiasm, and tender concern.” Although the Journal is long out of infancy, we will hold true to those feelings and aspirations this coming year and well beyond.
