He learned from the police and the American FBI how to negotiate with hostage-takers and extortionists – among other things, he used his knowledge as chief negotiator at the Federal Ministry of the Interior. Today he advises companies, the UN, but also political parties in difficult negotiation situations.
In the Handelsblatt, he explains how the upcoming coalition negotiations should run in his opinion: “The coalition members should lock themselves away until white smoke rises – as in the papal election,” says Schranner. In addition, there had to be a clear timetable. “If I sit at the table until five in the morning, it doesn’t get anyone any further.”
The complexity of negotiations is too often underestimated, he criticizes: “If you are not a professional, you shouldn’t negotiate.” People are too easily stressed or provoked with emotional issues – this also applies to party leaders. They should therefore stay out of the coalition negotiations as much as possible.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
Read the entire interview here:
Mr. Schranner, when the parties meet for coalition negotiations, are they partners or opponents?
The counterparts are definitely partners – if only because you will need them for the next few years of cooperation. In addition, there is a certain dependency and the need to get along with the other. But of course there is always a history between the negotiating partners and positions that were already expressed during the election campaign. They then have to be made negotiable.
However, some parties have already drawn red lines in advance. Was that tactically unwise?
There are two problems with red lines. First of all, I can then no longer move in terms of negotiation without losing face. The second is that the other side will then try everything to crack this line.
Matthias Schranner believes that the chairpersons should hold back in the negotiations.
(Photo: imago images / Chris Emil Janßen)
The attraction of the forbidden, so to speak?
Exactly. You motivate the others to make a point there.
And if you can’t get away with it, do you only have the option to get up and walk?
Either I enforce my demands. If I can’t do that, I have to get up and say: ‘We won’t let us do that to us.’ A third possibility would be to find a way to dissolve such red lines again.
What can that look like?
The best way to do this is to link them to parameters. For example, you could say that if the economy grows by ten percent, then we can pay more. This is how you make a set goal interpretable.
So conditionality is required.
This is always needed in negotiations, because otherwise you will bite and only have the option of getting out to save face.
Who do you think are the best negotiators among the parties?
From my point of view, these are the ones who keep conversations going and drive them forward. A Mr. Habeck from the Greens, for example, who wasn’t in the limelight that much. In the SPD and FDP, the general secretaries Klingbeil and Wissing could protect their party leaders and act as negotiators.
So don’t the party leaders negotiate themselves?
Party leaders should be visionaries who can paint the big picture. But negotiators are needed who are less in the limelight and can test more – this is where the general secretaries, for example, come in handy. People like Scholz, Lindner and Baerbock are already very firmly established in their positions. They are also emotionally vulnerable. If you ask Ms. Baerbock during the negotiations: “Well, have you written that off somewhere again?”, She will probably react emotionally.
Would it do the parties any good to have a professional negotiator like you on hand?
At the Jamaica negotiations in 2017 there would certainly have been a great need, everything went haywire. This time it looks a lot more disciplined. In politics, the idea of bringing in someone from outside is generally not yet as pronounced – the economy is more advanced there.
A lot of information was made public in 2017. How does this affect the negotiations?
This means that I can no longer test anything – but this must be allowed. Should someone push through contested solutions to the press, there will be a huge shit storm. Then nobody would test anything anymore, because then distrust arises and people withdraw. The consequence of this is that it then comes to a power struggle – I think it’s insanely dangerous when it comes to power and no longer about content.
Greens clear the way for the traffic light coalition
At that time the negotiations also failed.
Yes, exactly. I cannot say whether it was the right decision politically. But the FDP’s communication at the time was wrong. The cancellation came as a surprise and snubbed the others. The negotiators should all have announced that together.
You negotiated in much more precarious situations – such as hostage-taking. What is the technical difference to the coalition negotiations?
The biggest difference is that in a hostage situation there is only one negotiator who is very much under stress. In politics, on the other hand, you have to bring a lot of interests to a common denominator. What they have in common is that in both cases it is only people who make negotiating errors. In times of stress, they often become even more pressing, bite and give up. Others switch to pulling through when the conflict becomes too much for them.
Do you have any tips for negotiations that are not conducted by professionals?
If you’re not a professional, you shouldn’t be negotiating. Most people completely underestimate this. Negotiating is complex: what can be good in one phase is bad in another. At the beginning you have to set yourself a clear framework, but then there is also a phase in which you have to listen. Only a few can negotiate strategically; most are guided by their intuition.
Are there no secret tricks? About Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, it is said that she has a lot of sedentary meat and that she can wear down her negotiating partners until they give in.
In my view, tricks are always wrong because they are manipulative and negatively affect long-term relationships. I prefer to be ruled by people who can negotiate professionally than by those who are particularly good at sitting. At a certain point, a negotiation doesn’t get any better. What do I win if I sit at the table until five in the morning? In the end, that doesn’t get anyone any further.
Does that mean that a clear schedule is required that is also adhered to?
It would be good for the coalition negotiations if you lock yourself away until white smoke rises, as in the papal election. Ideally in a place steeped in history like Heiligendamm, where the G8 meeting took place in 2007. Then you have to take the negotiations really seriously, put your cell phones down and set a timeframe, around 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Then there has to be a recovery phase, which can also be used to build relationships.
The cardinals in the papal election are sealed off until they have a result. Are you asking the coalitionists to do the same? To withdraw until it says: Habemus Chancellor?
Yes, I would ask. It’s mid-October now, and the big question is who, as Chancellor, will deliver the New Year’s address. I don’t think the voters will understand if the coalition negotiations drag on for an incredibly long time. As a country, we cannot afford to be unable to act for six months in view of the current crises.
Mr. Schranner, thank you very much for the interview.
More: All power for the little ones: A game theory analysis based on the election results