Readers’ questions: the emotions of diplomacy

“How do diplomats behave if they get annoyed with a person during negotiations?  Is it possible for diplomats to show their feelings or is there some technique they use to switch emotions?” — Lika Akubardia

Dear Lika: thank you for your questions – and for all of those who responded to our competition.  I hope to answer some of the others in the next few weeks.

I particularly liked the theme of your questions as they made me think – about my professional life, about the skills needed for diplomacy, and the psychology involved in diplomacy.

Diplomacy would not work without some feeling involved, because negotiations are between people, not automatons.  A human that doesn’t show any feelings is difficult to deal with.  As I’ve written in a previous blog, diplomats need to understand other people.  It helps if interlocutors express some emotion as it shows how they think and what matters to them.

Building rapport is often needed at the start of a negotiation.  Expressing some positive feelings can build rapport quickly.  Diplomats are especially good at showing interest in other countries.  It is, after all, why many of us become diplomats – because we enjoy experiencing other languages and cultures.

Within a negotiation, expression of emotion can advance negotiations.  A fleeting show of approval or disapproval can signal progress or problems – if the parties concerned are keen to find agreement.

There is sometimes advantage in displaying stronger emotions.  You may have to establish your credibility with interlocutors, show that something is unacceptable, or that you have reached the limits of your negotiating mandate.  A short burst of emotion can show you care, or that it matters to your country, or that you have reached your “red lines”.

So I think it’s to mutual advantage in any negotiation that those negotiating – diplomats or whoever else – show some feeling.  However, the thinking behind your question is quite right.  Diplomats don’t tend to show their feelings, as there are limits to the utility in expressing emotion.

An outside trainer once said to a group of colleagues that diplomats are unlikely to encounter “emotional incontinence” in their career.  We are not paid to behave like Hollywood actors.

Diplomats represent their countries and the policies of their governments.  We expect to face others who disagree with us, and who may want to provoke us, or seek a reaction.  So, by the nature of our work, we are (or learn to become) patient, to wait for the right moment when the interests and positions of our government start to converge with those of others.

We follow instructions from our capitals.  As with other groups of professionals, we have a bond with other diplomats.  We understand the constraints they operate under.  We don’t take disagreement personally.

Rather than show emotion if we get annoyed, we are more likely to be asking ourselves why a person is behaving in such a way, the reasons for their remarks, or whether they are simply expressing themselves in their normal manner.

And as I’ve alluded to above, the time factor may be important.  A negotiating position is weaker if one side needs to make an agreement quickly.  An expression of emotion can betray the pressure that you are under.

And then there’s the end point.  Negotiations usually conclude with a written agreement.  Diplomats draft agreements and negotiate the wording.  That’s best done with a clear, analytical brain, largely emptied of emotion.  But we also need to understand and take account of the psychologies of the peoples affected by the agreement, and use words and phrases that are acceptable to others.

I don’t think it’s disastrous if a diplomat completely loses their temper.  It does depend on the context.  There are cases when heated arguments ended negotiations that were going nowhere, and which led to useful cooling-off periods (the negotiations to end the conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990s for example).  Diplomatic negotiations are rarely simple and often need a series of formal meetings to come to a conclusion.

I’m not aware of any particular technique that diplomatic colleagues use to avoid showing strong emotion.  Much of our time is spent researching, double checking and explaining the positions of other countries, or our own, on specific issues – either in capitals, or where multilateral negotiations are taking place.  Emotions rarely come into play.

Finally, it’s worth considering the results of negotiations that we diplomats are involved in.  The best negotiations and resulting agreements are those where both sides feel they have gained something – or the “win-win” feeling.  That is more likely to be achieved if the negotiations are conducted in a friendly, positive and forward looking manner.

In sum:  it can be useful to show emotion to check the progress in negotiations, but emotions are better kept “in check”.