Kellogg's Cynthia Wang uses hostage diplomacy to argue dealmakers must read the people behind the counterpart

Hostage diplomacy is a useful model for managers because so many parties have a stake in the result. The Kellogg Insight account defines it as a government detaining a foreign national on ordinary-looking charges, securing a conviction, then using the prisoner as a bargaining chip ^[4]. A single case can involve adversarial diplomats, anguished families and rival bureaucratic factions inside one government, each with its own definition of a good outcome ^[6]. The account says such cases are increasingly common ^[17].

Wang, who directs Kellogg's Dispute Resolution Research Center, and Gilbert argue that the same structure shows up in a labor dispute or a merger ^[1][10]. In both there are many stakeholders and high stakes, and someone always has to work out what the other side is thinking ^[10]. "While I was writing and thinking about this, I was regularly struck by how our findings applied to the world of management, too," Wang said ^[11].

For a business deal, the account's list includes the counterpart's CEO, legal team and board, and even prospective customers after the deal is done ^[12]. Few of those people will sit at the table. "Sure, you're negotiating with the person across the table, but maybe that person's decisions are being influenced by their boss or by a competitor," Wang said ^[13].

The list also points back at the negotiator's own side. "Or, similarly, I've been in negotiations where I arrived at a deal that I wanted to strike, but it was very different than the deal my bosses wanted. We need to be mindful of bringing in these different perspectives," Wang said ^[14]. The decision about whom to consult comes before the first meeting. In Wang's example, the cost showed up afterwards, once she had a deal that differed from the one her bosses wanted ^[14].

The second part of the framework creates choices of its own ^[2]. A team that reads one party four ways can get four answers, and then has to decide which one sets the plan ^[8]. Wang expects the reads to diverge. In her view, looking at someone's strategic approach to a hostage negotiation or a business deal leads to different conclusions than considering their emotional, cultural or moral viewpoint ^[15].

The trade-off is preparation. Take the account's business example. The counterpart plus a CEO, a legal team, a board and prospective customers makes five parties. Reading each of them four ways means 20 separate assessments before talks open ^[1]. In return, the account says, perspective-taking done properly can help negotiators better manage power dynamics, help opposing parties reach agreement and potentially anticipate future crises ^[16]. The case for the framework rests on hostage diplomacy cases such as Griner's and on Wang's own negotiating experience ^[3][14]. The account does not include a measured comparison of outcomes between negotiators who used the framework and those who did not ^[16].