by Nora Bergner
Whether it’s resolving global conflicts or making everyday decisions with others, negotiation shapes interactions at every level of life. Following the success of our previous Negotiation Skills Workshop in Fall 2024, we were excited to welcome back Dr. Jack Williams from the Institute for Global Negotiation for a new edition on 27 May 2025 —this time focused on the complexities of multilateral negotiations.
To kick things off, we revisited two familiar exercises from the last workshop (read more in Marie’s blogpost): introducing ourselves in pairs and collaboratively developing a definition of negotiation – an activity in which we (consciously or not) used many of the same skills and tools used in real negotiations. For example, arriving at an agreement (the formulated definition in our case) is often achieved by negative consent – a dynamic where agreeing to something is more about not objecting than actively endorsing it. As Jack pointed out, it’s often easier to say “I don’t hate it” than “I like it”. During our reflection round afterward, another one of Jack’s phrases stuck with me: “Amateurs talk about strategy, experts talk about logistics”. Seemingly minor factors—such as the location, access to food, sleep, or who is taking notes (the power of the pen)—can significantly influence the outcome of a negotiation.
“Negotiating” a negotiation definition
A recurring theme throughout the workshop with a mix of general input and interesting anecdotes of Jack’s work was the importance of uncovering shared interests between parties and understanding the deeper motivations and identities behind each position.
To practice understanding the underlying motives, we took part in a “reframing exercise” centered around resistence related to climate change projects in Africa. In pairs of two, one of us read out a statement, such as “If the West used fossil fuels to grow, why shouldn’t Africa do the same?”, the other person had to reframe it, revealing the underlying interest. A potential reframing in this case could be: “You want Africa to develop and improve living standards, and feel the West is being hypocritical by discouraging fossil fuel use.”
For reframing, the COPE strategy is a useful tool: Concrete, Open to multiple solutions, Positively framed, and Emotionally resonant. This approach helped show that we had truly heard and understood the speaker’s concerns, while also guiding the conversation towards constructive and solution-oriented dialogue. During the debrief, most participants found reframing surprisingly effective. Still, a question emerged: What happens when you’re emotionally invested in a real situation – not a controlled exercise? Jack’s advice: take a deep breath, paraphrase before reframing to buy yourself time, and above all – practice.
A new exercise asked us to consider: Should the UNFCCC invite oil and gas companies to participate in climate negotiations? We physically positioned ourselves along a spectrum of opinions – from strongly in favor to strongly opposed. I was surprised seeing people on both ends – especially considering our shared commitment to climate action. Jack facilitated the discussion by having people on each side explain their position, and let the other side respond. Also in this context, it proofed helpful to first repeat and paraphrase the previous person’s argument. When asked what might shift our opinions, the consensus was in the case of this exercise: access to more information and a clearer context under which conditions and settings companies would participate.
Participants positioning themselves
This workshop offered helpful insights into the art and practice of negotiation. It reinforced how relevant these skills are—not just in international forums, but also in everyday interactions. Many of the techniques we learned can be easily practiced in daily life and may prove especially useful when emotions run high or the stakes are greater. It’s clear there is still much to learn about negotiation—and it surely won’t be the last time we invite Jack.