In Practice

A Special Section
Negotiating and Psychoanalysis: Some
Common Aspects of Practice
Guest Editor: Kimberlyn Leary

t is my pleasure to introduce readers of the Negotiation Journal to this

issues special section on psychoanalysis and negotiation. Negotiation theory
and practice have long been influenced by interdisciplinary work in the
social sciences. This has been particularly so with the advent of negotiation
perspectives and models of mediation extending the frame of reference from
game theory and economic rationality to accounts of mutual gain and integrative bargaining. For example, research findings from social and cognitive
psychology have deepened our understanding of such things as the role of
emotion in negotiation and the automatic processes that under gird partisan
perceptions. Insights from systems theory and family therapy have enabled
mediators to better appreciate repetitive relationship patterns, the generational transmission of conflicts and the transformative potentials in dispute
resolution practices. Many negotiators and mediators now view conflict as a
social process in which people shape the nature of a dispute by how they
talk about it as well as by how they relate to one another.
The articles in this special section build on this foundation. Stewart
Gabel, Jenai Wu & David Laws and Stuart Twemlow & Frank Sacco introduce
readers to concepts from contemporary forms of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy they find relevant to everyday problems of dispute resolution
practice. Each of these contributions is mindful that traditional psychoanalytic formulations, with only a few notable exceptions,1 do not have wide
currency within the negotiation literature in part because these concepts
Kimberlyn Leary, PhD., a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst, is adjunct associate professor of
psychology at the University of Michigan and associate director of the University of Michigan Psychological Clinic. She is also a senior researcher at the Program on Negotiation (PON) at Harvard Law
School.
0748-4526/03/1000-0311/0 2003 Plenum Publishing Corporation

Negotiation Journal

October 2003

311

typically model the mind of a single person, rather than the concerns of partners in dialogue. In the last ten years, however, contemporar y
psychoanalysis has redefined the clinical encounter as a negotiation in an
effort to describe the intersubjective and interactive aspects of psychoanalytic treatment that are mutative. This has occurred at the same time that
some negotiators and mediators have begun to deploy clinical and relational
vocabularies to better capture the process by which people engage in
addressing their grievances.
Stewart Gabels essay considers the resonance existing between the
domains of negotiation and different forms of psychotherapy. He identifies a
number of commonalities and distinctions between the two fields including the ways in which therapists concern themselves with the emotional
interests of their clients before taking up substantive issues while mediators
generally are attuned to the parties feelings to the extent that they are relevant to the problem at hand. At the same time, although clear differences
exist between the goals and methods of each profession, practitioners in
each discipline share the goal of developing relationships that are designed
to make a difference. He asks whether mediation and therapy are best understood as two sides of the same coin.
Jenai Wu and David Laws note that the work of resolving disputes and
the work of psychoanalysis usually involve interactions between differently
situated and differently intentioned others. Drawing on attachment theory,
they attend to the ways that effective clinical work and the effective resolution of conflict always confronts the participants with the anxiety of the
other. Even in the midst of efforts to build common ground, the other
party is frequently experienced as a potential threat, with the capacity to
provoke and destabilize the relationship. In response, Wu and Laws identify
trust as a critical consideration. They define trust as a property of the negotiation relationship, rather than a state existing in the mind of one or the other
parties. Exploring that most contemporary of forms electronic mail
Wu and Laws focus on the dynamics of conflict escalation in a software company and specify the steps that negotiators may take to reduce their anxiety
of the other.
Stuart Twemlow and Frank Sacco offer the reader a psycho-dynamicallyinformed model of mediation-consultation they use in resolving disputes
within municipalities. They show how a change-agent familiar with contemporary psychodynamic principles can substantively alter the ways people
function within imperfect bureaucratic structures to promote more effective
work and coping.
Two of the papers in this special section (Wu & Laws and Twemlow &
Sacco) were originally presented to the Program on Negotiations Working
Group on Psychoanalysis and Negotiation. This interdisciplinary group consisting of psychoanalysts and psychologists, mediators and negotiators has
met since 1999 to explore problems of practice common to the clinical
consulting room, the negotiation table and the classrooms where negotia312

Kimberlyn Leary

Negotiating and Psychoanalysis

tion and psychotherapy are taught.2 Although Stewart Gabels work developed from a different context, the emergence of these papers suggests that
it may be an auspicious time for negotiators, mediators and clinicians open
up the borders of their respective practices and examine anew the potentials for imaginative dialogues. This special section begins one of those
conversations.
NOTES
1. For example, see Negotiation Eclectics: Essays in Memory of Jeffrey Rubin (Kolb, 1999)
published by PON Books.
2. A series of papers produced by members of this PON working group will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Psychoanalytic Inquiry.

Negotiation Journal

October 2003

313