Whether the aim is to establish a humanitarian aid corridor or to ensure access to vulnerable people, negotiation is a crucial part of the work of frontline humanitarian staff. Yet the outcome of any negotiation is often undermined by a lack of trust between the two sides, with counterparts deeply suspicious of the intentions of humanitarian organizations.
Depending on their aim, humanitarian negotiators rely on three types of negotiations:
- Transactional, for example: exchanging resources or delivering goods, with minimal expectation of maintaining a relationship following the negotiation.
- Adversarial, such as a hostage situation or extortion, which aims to terminate the power relationship.
- Relational, where the focus is establishing and maintaining connections through a series of agreements.
The added challenge is that even for transactional or adversarial negotiations to succeed, you must establish a baseline of trust and a relationship with your negotiating party.
For those working in a business environment, you will likely negotiate with peers, team members, and other stakeholders throughout your working day. Although you hopefully won’t be facing the same conditions as those operating in war zones, some negotiations can be more fraught than others. Research has found that internal team dynamics is a frequent source of pressure, requiring similar negotiation skills as those used in the field or on the frontline.
Imagine, for example, that you need to find time for a difficult conversation with a stakeholder whose behavior risks undermining the success of a project and causing significant reputational damage to your team or organization. What lessons from frontline humanitarian negotiation practices could be applied to your situation?