In all of these cases, progression from one stage to another is accompanied by turning points, just as stalemates are accompanied by crises. Both turning points and crises are caused by identifiable events: One is regarded as a breakthrough; the other as an impasse that threatens the sustenance of the talks.
The speed with which a negotiation progresses toward an agreed package depends largely on the incidence of turning points relative to crises. Anything that negotiators can do to increase the size of this “ratio” should move the talks along.
Other renditions of the stage concept appear in the literature. Gulliver’s (1979) eight stages model is the most elaborate proposed to date. Pruitt’s (1981) distributive/coordinative distinction may be the most basic.
Certain elements are found in each of the schemes, including the following: (1) sequential progression in chronological and conceptual time; (2) alternating antagonistic and coordinative behavior within and across stages; and (3) partially overlapping stages rather than rigid and precise steps toward an outcome. Less agreement exists on whether the stages are prescriptions for attaining outcomes or descriptions of processes observed in diverse cases.
The stage concept can be a useful conceptual device for negotiators and analysts. It can be used to chart progress, to identify disjunctures in the process, and to provide a recognized pattern of expectations and behavior. Gulliver (1979) and Pruitt (1981) note the necessity of experiencing stages to know what is possible and to evaluate alternative agreements.
According to Gulliver: “The parties need to experience the process and gain the experience of each other and of themselves so that they come to accept a particular outcome as satisfactory”. It is also a tool for managing cognitive complexity, a function of particular relevance to multilateral international conferences.
