The agenda is formed in advance for more effective negotiations. Participants can agree in advance on a plan in which the topic of the agenda can be expanded to reach critical points or minimize risks by hiding the most important topics (Stein, 1989). Given that the negotiation process may not be as deterministic and inclusive, setting at least an initial framework in the initial stages is a search for a compromise that can lead to more productive negotiations at the final stage (Greig, 2001). Attention to this issue is increasing in proportion to the potential conflict of interest and risks associated with these negotiations.
Potential dangers may lie not only in the plane of the agenda but also in the participants and boundaries of the negotiations. Participants become a problem at large conventions of representatives of various countries when, for example, political reasons can become an obstacle to holding an event (Stein, 1989). Boundaries always reveal certain compromises that must be left off the table in negotiations. Such compromises often make the negotiations themselves impossible due to the high degree of conflict between the parties and require additional external intervention, for example, a general crisis or a change in the situation between the parties (Stein, 1989). In this regard, parties with equal power and resources are often more likely to move directly to negotiations from the pre-negotiating stage than participants with a substantial spread of power (Greig, 2001). Preliminary measures are precisely designed to determine the need to transition to a further stage.
It is worth noting that any situation of pre-negotiation and the negotiations themselves should be considered individually due to many subjective factors. Success in finding a compromise at an early stage increases the chances but is not a sufficient or necessary condition for success in the negotiations themselves (Greig, 2001). However, the advantage of pre-preparation lies in saving resources for further negotiations, starting from the fact that the lack of agreement in principle can postpone the next stage, up to creating a plan for the final stage for more effective interaction between the parties. The creation of backchannels at this stage contributes to a more sincere dialogue and the prevention of unscrupulous conspiracies and omissions that lead to misunderstanding.
References
Greig, J. M. (2001). Moments of opportunity: Recognizing conditions of ripeness for international mediation between enduring rivals. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(6), 691-718. Web.
Stein, J. G. (1989). Getting to the table: the triggers, stages, functions, and consequences of prenegotiation. International Journal, 44(2), 475-504. Web.