Negotiating survival: The Coronavirus and Vaccination

In normal times we think of negotiation as a matter of life and death only when hostage takers or terrorists are on the other side. But this is not a normal time. The coronavirus forces even friends to negotiate survival.

Today´s New York Times points out that a global arms race for a coronavirus vaccine is underway: “In the three months since the virus began its deadly spread, China, Europe and the United States have all set off at a sprint to become the first to produce a vaccine. But while there is cooperation on many levels — including among companies that are ordinarily fierce competitors — hanging over the effort is the shadow of a nationalistic approach that could give the winner the chance to favor its own population and potentially gain the upper hand in dealing with the economic and geostrategic fallout from the crisis.”

The coronavirus puts a harsh spotlight on the paradox at the heart of every negotiation: We have to work both with the other side, as well as against them. And we know from the research that this is very hard to do. People’s negotiating behavior and decisions are very often suboptimal, even when they are experienced negotiators ( Hallam Movius and Lawrence Susskind, 2009, Built to Win. Creating a world-class negotiating organization. Harvard Business Press, Boston. Pg. 172).

In my forthcoming book “Learning to Negotiate” (Cambridge University Press, October 2020) I argue that this paradox is the primary reason why it is so hard to negotiate (and that it is even harder to learn because there are two more challenges). The paradox can be visualized as a Yin & Yang of cooperation and competition: Not only are the two opposites linked together. Each also needs the other. And each carries a kernel of the other side within.

For me, the two sides are perfectly embodied in the self-professed approaches of Donald Trump and Angela Merkel. You probably have, one way or the other, strong opinions about their politics. I certainly do. But that is of no relevance here. The two, in their own words, offer splendid and memorable examples of almost prototypical negotiators.

For instance, this is how Donald Trump characterized bilateral negotiations at a joint press conference with Angela Merkel (April 27, 2018): “I believe, you know, when I look at the numbers in Germany and some other countries – people may not like Donald Trump. But you have to understand: That means I am doing a good job, because I am representing the United States. Angela is representing Germany. She is doing a fantastic job. My predecessors did not do a very good job. But we will try and catch you!”

In a nutshell: Only one side can win. When it does, the other side has to lose. Negotiators have to compete!

Merkel of course holds the exact opposite view. This is what she said at another joint press conference (March 17, 2017): “I’m here as Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. I represent German interests. I speak with the President of the United States, who stands up for, as is right, American interests. That is our task, respectively. (…) We held a conversation where we were trying to address also those areas where we disagree, but to try to bring people together, try to show what is our vantage point, what is the American vantage point, and then try to find a compromise which is good for both sides (…) That’s the purpose of concluding agreements — – that both sides win.”

In a nutshell: What one side wins does not have to come at the expense of the other side. Both can win. Negotiators have to cooperate!

(In the book I argue that Trump and Merkel are both right. And wrong! This is the paradox of negotiation. And it´s made worse by the fact that no side can resolve the situation alone. This places them in a dilemma that requires each to rely on their intuition as well as their deliberation. No wonder most people are deeply ambivalent towards the whole process! And no wonder it is so difficult to learn. But that is not our topic here).

At the root of these approaches are different life philosophies. Far from being theoretical, they shape concrete administration policies: Even in times like these, Merkel counts on the voluntary restraint of individuals for the benefit of others. This became palpable in her (rare and unprecedented) televised speech on March 18, 2020. At a moment when most neighboring countries had imposed mandatory lockdowns, Merkel deliberately refrained from this step (which she could take in coordination with the German states). She merely appealed to citizens to help fight the spread of the coronavirus by sticking to social distancing rules: “We are a democracy. We do not live by compulsion but by shared knowledge and participation. (…) The situation is serious and it is open. This means that the outcome depends – not only, but also – on how disciplined each and everyone is in applying these rules.”

I believe that we can observe the different approaches of Donald Trump and Angela Merkel also in the race for a coronavirus vaccine. According to newspaper reports, German government officials alleged that President Trump tried to lure a German company, CureVac, to continue its research and production for the exclusive benefit of his country: “Trump was doing everything to secure a vaccine against the coronavirus for the US, “but for the US only”.”

The company, and U.S. Ambassador Richard Grenell, have denied any takeover offers. But its lead investor apparently made clear that there was some kind of approach: “Dietmar Hopp, whose Dievini Hopp BioTech Holding owns 80 percent of the company, said: “I personally didn’t speak to Mr. Trump. He spoke to the company and they immediately told me about it and asked what I thought of it, and I knew immediately that it was out of the question.”

Billionaire Dietmar Hopp was one of the founders of SAP SE. CureVac is developing vaccines with funding from the German government, the European Union, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It may be a while until we know the whole story. But one thing is for sure. Behind the scramble, as the New York Times points out, is a harsh reality: “Any new vaccine that proves potent against the coronavirus — clinical trials are underway in the United States, China and Europe already — is sure to be in short supply as governments try to ensure that their own people are the first in line.”

How can this be best ensured? By competing with one another? Or by cooperating?

The paradox of negotiation has seldom been more pressing. How our governments master the challenge will determine the survival of many.