All the talking and sending of documents was not successful. We must make a clear statement so the other side knows where they stand. Threats are sent with clear consequences and an ultimatum. The threat leads to a counter-threat. The lawyers take over the negotiation process, pushing the escalation to new heights. Those who threaten must also be able to enforce. Enforcement is not possible. If it had been possible without negotiation, asserting one’s interests without negotiation would have been at the beginning. An agreement that saves face for everyone involved is no longer possible.
Further reading regarding threats:
Definition of a threat: Pruitt (1981: 77) says that, “a threat is a communication of intent to punish the other if the other fails to concede.”1
Threats in negotiation: Galinsky and Liljenquist (2004) identify key attributes for effective negotiation threats:2
- Commitment to follow through: Ensure that your threats are credible by being willing to act on them if the other party does not comply. Empty threats will not be taken seriously.
- Careful planning: Develop threats thoughtfully and strategically in advance. Avoid making threats impulsively out of anger.
- Face-saving opportunities: Structure threats so that both parties can maintain their dignity. Provide a way for the other side to meet your demands without losing face, and respond graciously if they comply.
- Clear consequences: Articulate the specific repercussions of failing to meet your demands. Clarity in your expectations makes it easier for the other party to understand and comply.
Political or military threats: Since political or military threats can escalate into full-scale wars, leading to significant destruction and casualties, political leaders must distinguish between their perceptions of a threat and evidence-based threatening actions.3; 4 In a highly complex and interdependent global landscape, such threats are generally ineffective and may even be counterproductive.
Political leaders may resort to threats to advance their interests and to gain influence on the international stage. The effectiveness of these threats depends on both the perceived willingness and the capacity for military follow-through.5 Interestingly, the threat of using nuclear weapons is seen as both alarming, due to the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war, and misleading, as it represents an ultimate and final act.
References:
1 Pruitt, D. G. 1981. Negotiation behavior. New York: Academic Press.
2 Galinsky, A. D. & Liljenquist, K. A. 2004. Putting on the pressure: How to make threats in negotiation, Harvard Business Review.
3 Stein, G. 2013. Threat perception in international relations. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (364–394). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4 Cohen, R. 1978. Threat perception in international crisis. Political Science Quarterly, 93(1): 93–107.
5 Davis, J. W. 2003. Threats and promises: the pursuit of international influence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Follow us on LinkedIn for more insights.
