In a world in which legitimate and nonlegitimate nonstate actors wield increasing influence and in which the result is too often polarization and division, Peter Coleman’s article in this issue of Negotiation Journal documents the growing disjuncture between legitimate conflict resolution tools (offered by established institutions such as the United Nations) and the realities of conflict on the ground. He draws on complexity science, psychology, and peace and conflict studies to identify two meta‐competencies, conflict intelligence and systemic wisdom, which he argues can bridge the gap between established methods and frustrating new realities.
The idea of conflict intelligence builds on the work that Morton Deutsch, Coleman’s colleague who died last year, did with constructive conflict resolution. Developing this meta‐competency involves developing such specific skills as optimizing in the context of mixed motives and adapting to diverse situations. The result, Coleman argues, is that the conflict resolver develops a capacity to recognize and redefine conflict and associated approaches to conflict resolution.
As a second meta‐competency, systemic wisdom draws on the work of Gregory Bateson and focuses on the nested, interconnected context in which conflict occurs, rather than the specific issues at any given time. Visualization and mapping tools, as well as analytic modeling methods, help parties to work with the complexity rather than being frustrated by it. Coleman argues that developing these two meta‐competencies is a way to better prepare future leaders and conflict resolvers to better navigate the conflicts they are likely to face in a fast‐paced, interconnected world.
In comparison to the vast array of two‐party negotiation simulations, relatively few multiparty simulations are available for negotiation training. In this context, the contribution by Arvid Bell and Brian Mandell to this issue is something of a unicorn. It is a 72‐party simulation inspired by the realities of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Central Asia. It is designed to illustrate unique challenges such as nested negotiation networks and cascading decision effects and what the authors term “cognitive maelstroms.” The simulation is positioned relative to the concept of complexity, which is frequently used in the negotiation literature – even if it is not defined in a consistent way. Because of the complexity, the simulation is designed to foster improvisation, flexibility, and creativity in the face of emergent dynamics. In this sense, it is a nice companion to Coleman’s analysis.
The co‐authors introduce a new label for exercises such as this: Systemic Multiconstituency Exercise (SMCEs). They characterize this as an immersive environment with emergent properties and a dynamic architecture. Of course, many classes will be unable to accommodate the full twenty‐four hours that this simulation runs or able to manage the game’s extensive space and staff resource requirements. But Bell and Mandell are to be commended for placing this teaching note in the context of the negotiations pedagogy literature – it is a valuable resource for that alone. Having run the simulation five times, they report some interesting patterns, such as the emergence of unexpected combinations of individuals who build high‐trust working relationships that span diverse roles. These types of arrangements occur in real life and the boundary spanners in these situations are insufficiently valued or understood in society. Similarly, individuals in relatively low power roles were more likely to pursue aggressive strategies that then impaired agreement.
Also in this issue, Jingjing Yao, Li Ma, and Lin Zhang contribute an article that seeks to bridge the gap between lab experiments and the real world of international commodities negotiations. As the authors note, the iron ore negotiations that they have analyzed make for an ideal real‐world case study: the results are not confidential, they happen annually (allowing for repeated observations), and there is a single issue (price) on which comparisons between the lab and the real world can be made. The article focuses on the role of first offers and best alternatives to a negotiated agreement (BATNAs), whose impacts have been well‐established in the experimental literature. The results support the generalizability of these findings in the real world. In this way, they also help confirm the value that research findings hold for practice.
Peter Coleman not only leads off this issue with his article on meta‐competencies, he also guest edited the special section honoring the work of Morton Deutsch, who died last spring. Susan Opotow begins the special tribute, observing that Deutsch’s “work on cooperation, competition, conflict resolution, negotiation, mediation, distributive justice, and peace had a practical goal: to bring about a more peaceful world.” After tracing Mort’s early studies with Kurt Lewin, she then quotes Mort on what he saw as his most important contributions, which include identifying the ways that cooperative conflict processes lead to constructive consequences (in contrast to competitive conflict processes). This insight is relevant in so many ways in today’s world. As she also notes, Morton’s contributions to theory included an appreciation for the dynamic relationship between attitudes and behavior, as well as the interaction between social processes and the larger social context. Finally, I particularly appreciate that Opotow draws a connection between Morton Deutsch and the founding editor of the Negotiation Journal, Jeff Rubin, who was Mort’s student and who Opotow quotes in her article. It is very special to see him back on the pages of the journal.
In their tribute, David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson highlight the ways in which Mort was both tough‐minded on ideas and tender‐hearted with respect to people, emulating his mentor Lewin. They particularly appreciate the rigor with which Mort approached the ideas of cooperation and competition. They also appreciate the way that he clarified conflict by defining it based on the presence of incompatible activities as well as the way he advanced understanding of distributive justice and destructive competition. They sum up Mort’s theorizing as powerful, strategic, and profound. Like other contributors to this special section, the authors note the important impact of his experimental field studies in the 1950s comparing segregated and interracial housing. This led to his contributions to the intergroup relations committee of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues which, in turn, contributed to the United State Supreme Court’s 1954 decision ending segregation in public schools.
In his tribute, Peter Coleman, who now directs the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, identifies ten major scientific contributions that Morton made, all designed to “promote a more just, peaceful, and sustainable world.” The twin anchors motivating Mort at the start of his career were the devastating impact of the atomic bomb and the draw of Lewin’s research as a foundation for preventing atomic warfare. Each of the ten lessons Coleman highlights has, at its root, a dynamic view of social relations, an appreciation for the mixed‐motive nature of negotiation, and a view that social science can be a force for good in society. While many of us reflect on the policy implications of our work, few of us are able to see their real‐world implications as fully as Mort did. Interestingly, Coleman also describes Mort’s contention that conflict has a lot in common with sex. (I believe this is the first time that such a claim has been made in the pages of this journal). Ultimately, the legacy of Morton Deutsch lives on not just in his scholarship and in the work of former students, but also through the annual Morton Deutsch Awards for Social Justice, which feature a distinguished array of awardees from all walks of life.
In his contribution, Dean Pruitt looks back to Mort’s 1958 prisoner’s dilemma studies as the foundation for the experimental understanding of conflict. Pruitt traces the development of the dual concern model to a desire to move beyond one‐dimensional behavior (cooperative or competitive) in the context of a prisoner’s dilemma. In doing so, he observes that it is not that the dual concerns model is superior to the one‐dimensional approach – it is just that each has its value in different contexts.
Finally, in his tribute, Daniel Druckman focuses on scholarly ideas in which he and Mort were both complementary and in competition – appropriate in the context of Mort’s pioneering work on these two constructs. On the complementary side, he notes how his work on equality as a key factor in the durability of peace agreements replicated earlier lab findings reported by Mort. On the competitive side, Druckman sees Mort as more focused on internal psychological antecedents to conflict, while his work is more oriented to situational factors. Druckman in particular notes the extraordinary legacies of Mort’s students, which is perhaps the best tribute any teacher can receive.
