This special issue highlights critical moments in negotiation, revisiting the theme of Negotiation Journal’s April, 2004 issue. Both special issues were preceded by workshops—one in 2003 and the other in 2019—where the ideas were presented and debated. In revisiting the theme, some insights have been reinforced, beginning with the importance of recognizing and leveraging critical moments in negotiations. The improvisational and fleeting nature of critical moments was a theme in 2004 and it continues forward in this issue, as well as the importance—for theory and practice—of tracing the causes and consequences of critical moments. There are new insights as well. There is increased attention in this issue on the dynamics associated with critical moments (escalating and de‐escalating) and the ways of placing critical moments in a broader context (locating critical moments in the context of intractable conflicts and “infinite games”). In addition, some key insights are expanded, and the issue has contributions that bridge across micro, meso, and macro lines of analysis. There is a more detailed overview of each of the articles in the joint introductory note that Dan Druckman and I have drafted for this special issue.
Multiple Perspectives on a Documented Critical Moment
In addition to the many ways that critical moment’s theory, practice, and policy are advanced in this issue, we also offer up the results of an unexpected and delightful experiment. As part of the 2019 workshop, Jim Sebenius from the Harvard Business School shared with the participants a series of video clips featuring high‐profile negotiators describing critical moments they experienced. The clips made vivid the concept of a critical moment and, unexpectedly, elicited wildly different reactions from the workshop participants. Motivated by the reactions (our own critical moment, if you will), arrangements were made for one of the video clips—of Charlene Barshefsky discussing a critical moment in a U.S.–China trade negotiation in which she participated as the lead U.S. negotiator—to be available to the participants and then openly available for our readers. In response, five of the contributors to this special issue comment on this critical moment in their papers, all with completely different perspectives. Here is background on this critical moment, provided by Jim Sebenius:
In the mid‐1990s, a political furor arose over China’s “theft” of intellectual property (IP) from the United States, especially music, movies, and software. While China had IP protection laws on its books, then‐Acting Special Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky was tasked by the Clinton administration to persuade China to enforce these laws. This led her to orchestrate a lengthy negotiation campaign with fronts in the United States, in other countries that traded with China, and in China itself to achieve this desired result by a combination of incentives and penalties. Toward the end of the campaign, with pressure for results mounting, Barshefsky’s team engaged in a very tough negotiation with her Chinese counterparts. At a critical moment, her counterpart issued an ultimatum in a physically threatening manner and Barshefsky was calm in the face of this physical intimidation.
In this issue, Ken Sharpe finds in Barshefsky’s handling of the critical moment an example of the Aristotelian notion of “practical wisdom.” John Forester and Anne Kilgore consider this critical moment through the lens of gender, noting the ways that women too often must be calm in the face of intimidation. Deborah Kolb sees in this critical moment (and others) a human connection that is the basis for a pivot. Harborne W. Stuart uses game theoretic modeling to chart the sequence of events associated with this critical moment. Bill Donohue lifts up the role of politeness in negotiation as illustrated in this moment. Additional matters are also addressed in each of the articles, but we are delighted to highlight these five very different perspectives on what is a three‐minute description of a critical moment.
Because a hyperlink cannot be accessed through printed copy, here is the full URL for the video associated with this critical moment: https://www.dropbox.com/s/q9xyzpwhjcrkekn/Barshefsky%20lunge.mp4?dl=0. Readers may want to replicate our workshop experience, showing this in a class or workshop and inviting analysis. It is a powerful insight into this trade negotiation and a great way to open up appreciation for critical moments more broadly. For background details, see two Harvard Business School case studies on the broader negotiation within which this “critical moment” took place:
Sebenius, James K., and Rebecca Hulse. Charlene Barshefsky (A). Harvard Business School Case 801‐421.
Sebenius, James K., and Rebecca Hulse. Charlene Barshefsky (B). Harvard Business School Case 801‐422.
(HBS cases can be ordered at https://hbsp.harvard.edu/home/). A fuller analysis of these negotiations can also be found in:
Hulse, Rebecca G., and James K. Sebenius. 2003. Sequencing, acoustic separation, and 3‐D negotiation of complex barriers: Charlene Barshefsky and I.P. rights in China. International Negotiation: A Journal of Theory and Practice 8(2): 311–338.
Special Issues and Special Sections of Negotiation Journal
Negotiation Journal has a long history of convening workshops that lead up to special issues or special sections of the journal. However, this may be the first time that we have revisited a theme highlighted in an earlier workshop and issue. We are open to suggestions for other themes from the past thirty‐six years that warrant revisiting. As well, there are a number of new themes that are on the horizon. We have a workshop and series of articles coming on “AI and Negotiation” and discussions are taking place around “Entrepreneurship and Negotiation,” “Identity and Negotiation,” and many other topics. Our last special issue focused on negotiation in the era of Trump and it continues to have relevance. We also have a call out for contributions on the implications of Covid‐19 for negotiations and conflict resolution—submissions are due by July 1st.
We live in challenging and deeply troubling times. With the spotlight provided by these special issues and special sections, Negotiation Journal and the broader Program on Negotiation continue our commitment to advance theory, practice, policy, and pedagogy at a time when negotiation and dispute resolution are more important than ever.
