Posts

Posted on

Vegetius: trust, effort and expectations

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846

Abstract

This article examines several rules of war formulated by Vegetius and interprets them as principles of strategic action beyond the strictly military field. The analysis focuses on the importance of accurate information, strategic advantage, effort, expectations, confidentiality and surprise. Vegetius’s reflections show that successful action depends not only on strength or resources, but also on the ability to assess one’s own position and that of the opposing party with precision. In this sense, concepts such as BATNA and ZOPA help translate classical military insights into contemporary strategic and negotiation contexts. The text also highlights the role of hard work and disciplined habits as conditions for success, as well as the importance of positive expectations in shaping action and influencing others. At the same time, it stresses the need to control the information shared with opponents and to protect strategic plans from premature disclosure. Finally, the element of surprise is presented as a way to prevent the other party from preparing an effective response. Overall, Vegetius’s work remains valuable because it offers practical lessons on trust, effort, prudence and strategic judgement.

Keywords: strategy, expectations, negotiation, military tactics

ISSN: 3127-3416

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.14

In this post, I will continue to analyse the rules of war set out by Vegetius in the Compendium of Military Tactics, interpreting them with a view to their strategic application in other areas.

g) Having as much accurate information as possible about the other party – and about our own side – is the key factor (Vegetius, 2006, p. 310, III.XVIII).

Vegetius’s ninth rule of war states: “It is difficult to defeat someone who is able to make an accurate assessment of their own troops and those of the enemy” (III.XXVI).

This relates to the need to have the best and most comprehensive information about the parties in order to make a decision. It is also linked to how the ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) is defined in each situation – whether one actually has the necessary information to assess each party’s real options. This also means that all information and communication from the other party must be analysed and verified impartially.

h) Sometimes the strategic advantage is a given 

The tenth rule of war states that “courage is of greater help than the number of soldiers”. And the eleventh states that “position often provides a greater advantage than courage” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 310, III.XVIII).

Applied to other areas of strategy, one could say that strategic advantage stems from a better BATNA – the best alternative to a negotiated agreement.  But even in such situations, it is possible to engage in negotiation and explore common interests.

i)Hard work brings success; idleness does not

The thirteenth rule of war states: ‘The army thrives on effort, but is ruined by apathy”  (Vegetius, 2006, p. 310, III.XVIII).

This is linked to the view that hard work is more likely to lead to success than apathy. It is connected to habits and dispositions that shape character, which are known as virtues. If one works hard and practises these virtues, one eventually becomes virtuous.

j) Expectations are the key

The fourteenth rule of war states that “you must never lead a soldier into open battle unless you see that he has a chance of victory” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 310, III.XVIII).

This is excellent advice. You must expect to win if you want to succeed. In many situations, the key lies in our own expectations and, above all, in the expectations others have of us. If you are striving to achieve a goal, you must have the highest expectations and convey them to others, while still taking impartial information into account.

k) Be careful about the information you provide to the opponent

Vegetius’s twenty-eighth rule of war states that “when you realise that your plan has been revealed to the enemy, it is advisable to change your tactics” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 311, III.XVIII).

The information you provide to your opponent should be limited to that which works to your strategic advantage. It is important to know exactly what they actually know about your plans. You should interact with them in such a way as to convey only what works to your advantage.

l) Don’t reveal your plans to just anyone

The twenty-ninth rule of war states that “consult many people on what ought to be done, but consult only a very few whom you trust completely – or, better still, only yourself – on what you are actually going to do” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 311, III.XVIII).

It is important that, once the strategic objectives have been defined, the specific ways of actually achieving them – the detailed action plan – do not necessarily need to be made public. It is important to consult trusted experts to test ideas against their views. However, it is not wise to shout the action plan from the rooftops. A distinction must be made between deliberation and the actual taking of decisions.

m) Do not let your opponent prepare their defence against your predictable attack

Vegetius’s thirty-third rule of war states that “the enemy must not know how you intend to conduct the battle, so that they do not attempt to put up resistance by taking appropriate measures” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 311, III.XVIII).

This is the strategic advantage of the element of surprise: opponents prepare their defences for the points where they believe they will be attacked. This, for example, calls for creativity in devising various options and using arguments that have not been widely explored. The awkwardness of the situation may lead them to improvise a response, which can involve making concessions to the other party.

It can be concluded that Vegetius’s Compendium of Military Technique is a classic work on military strategy and also offers important lessons: the best way to tackle a situation is with confidence, hard work and a positive outlook.

References


Vegetius Flavius Vegetius Renatus (2006), Compendio de técnica militar, Cátedra, Madrid, trans. David Paniagua Aguilar.

Posted on

Václav Havel, Letters to Olga: Reflections from Prison

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This text offers a philosophical and ethical interpretation of Letters to Olga: Reflections from Prison, a work written by Václav Havel whilst imprisoned in communist Czechoslovakia. Drawing on the historical context of the repression against dissidents from VONS and the Charter 77 movement, the text analyses how Havel transforms his prison experience into a reflection on human dignity, moral responsibility and the search for meaning. The commentary highlights the author’s determination not to allow himself to be overcome by resentment or inner isolation, as well as his conception of faith as openness, constant self-examination and a quest for demystification. Furthermore, his thinking is linked to the Socratic tradition of the examined life and to virtue ethics capable of responding to the contemporary crisis of identity and responsibility. The text emphasises that, beyond its Christian roots, Havel’s reflection has a humanist and secular scope, which is particularly relevant in times of polarisation, moral relativism and cultural disorientation. His testimony demonstrates the possibility of maintaining ethical coherence even in extreme circumstances.

Keywords: prison, faith, responsibility, virtue ethics

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.13

In the early hours of 29 May 1979, the Prague police carried out one of their frequent raids; on that occasion, they arrested fifteen dissidents who were members of VONS — literally, the Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly Persecuted — an illegal organisation that had emerged from the equally illegal human rights movement known as Charter 77.

The court found the detainees guilty of subversion against the Czechoslovak Republic, which was then under communist rule. Václav Havel was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment in a first-class correctional facility (Zgustová, 1990, 5).

As explained in the introduction to Václav Havel’s book Letters to Olga: Reflections from Prison, his correspondence with Olga was the only form of written expression he was permitted during his time in prison. Censorship and regulations were very strict (Zgustová, 1990, 8). Olga was his wife, and only letters to family members were permitted; amongst other things, ironic language and jokes were forbidden. In those difficult circumstances, Havel’s prose – he was a writer by profession – moves through various styles and tackles themes such as the meaning of life and the crisis of values with great depth. What stands out in his writings is that his approach goes against the grain, yet is underpinned by great conviction; he demonstrates remarkable consistency between his actions and his words, and his strong sense of ethics is particularly noteworthy. This approach has led to his thinking being described as ‘subversive mysticism’ (Galaxia Gutenberg).

Below, we will discuss excerpts from Václav Havel’s book Letters to Olga: Reflections from Prison (1990), in the style of the Minerva Strategy.

“I have realised that sensitive people run the risk, during a long spell in prison, of becoming bitter, resentful, closed off, resigned and selfish. One of my main aims is not to succumb to this danger. I want to remain open to the world, not shut myself away in my introversion, and maintain my interest in and love for others. I have different opinions about different people, but I cannot say that there is anyone in the world whom I hate. In that respect, I do not want to change” (Havel, 1990, 61-62).

Nelson Mandela adopted a similar approach; he too had been imprisoned and later became president of his country, governing – like Havel – on the basis of an experience that had been transformed into a positive lesson. It is all too human to succumb to resentment and harbour a vindictive attitude, but greatness in oppressive life situations lies in preventing them from altering one’s own outlook on life and one’s relationship with others. Such greatness is particularly commendable in times of polarisation.

“I’ve already told you what faith means to me: it is a state of mind, a state in which one remains open and active, in which one ceaselessly asks one question after another and feels the need to ‘experience the world’ again and again in the most direct way possible, so that the world does not enter into me through any specific external object. For me, continuity and perseverance do not arise from a fixation on a rigid ‘conviction’, but rather from a ceaseless process of seeking, of demystification, of penetrating beneath the surface of phenomena, independent of any pre-established and immutable methodology.” (Havel, 1990, 155).

This conception of faith as dynamic, demystifying and constantly seeking is an interesting one. It might bring to mind Socrates’ famous statement in Plato’s dialogue Apology, where he asserts that “life without examination is not worth of a man’s living” (Plato, 1997, 87, 38a). One learns from experience and, in particular, from one’s mistakes, and it is beneficial to continually re-examine things in order to improve. The broader perspective on things, which gives meaning to the whole, is usually reached with the passage of time.

“The search for the meaning of life is, therefore, a search for the absolute horizon; it is an unconscious intuition, a spontaneous experience and an act of faith. It is as though we were striving to attain something lofty, something beyond our reach, above us, something solid that we wish to possess so that it may serve as our support, and it seems as though we are succeeding. However, this is a deceptive and paradoxical sensation: we know that we must continue to lean on something if we do not want to fall, but, at the same time, not only do we not know — and this will always be the case — what it is we are leaning on, but we can never be sure that we are actually leaning on it; there is no way of verifying it, and we have no choice but to trust in our faith.” (Havel, 1990, 203-204).

It is curious that a political dissident should devote himself to writing about metaphysics to his wife in order to circumvent totalitarian censorship. Havel discusses the meaning of life and the foundations of faith, highlighting the eternal problem of the human condition, given that there are metaphysical notions which cannot be verified through the senses. The author refers to his Christian beliefs in the text, but his notion of faith and the meaning of life goes beyond a religious creed and contains a humanist message that even a secular person might embrace. The meaning of life, based on faith as a life of self-examination, is a state that guides human beings, even though, ultimately, its foundation is not empirically verifiable. And it is precisely from this that faith arises.

“We live in an age characterised by a general alienation from the self: our civilisation, founded on a magnificent flourishing of science and technology—those great intellectual guides to the conquest of the world, achieved at the cost of losing touch with the self—transforms man, its proud creator, into a slave to his consumerist needs; it breaks him down into isolated functions, dissolves him into his mere ‘being-there’ and thus deprives him not only of his human integrity and autonomy, but also of any influence over his ‘force of inertia’. The crisis of today’s world is, evidently, a crisis of human responsibility (both ‘towards’ and ‘before’) and, therefore, a crisis of human identity.” (Havel, 1990, 317).

We are living in times of great disorientation: decades in which the postmodern ‘anything goes’ attitude and moral relativism, in all their forms, have flourished. In this text by Havel, two key concepts for humanity come together: identity and responsibility. In this context, the emphasis can be placed on a shift towards the virtues and vices of agents when they act — the domain of morality — and when they know — the domain of epistemology. Based on this Aretaic shift, if we human beings practise moral and epistemic habits and dispositions—which are termed virtues—and avoid moral and epistemic vices, we will define our identity and be responsible for our beliefs and actions.

References

Galaxia Gutenberg (n.d.), “Václav Havel. Cartas a Olga”. Available:

https://www.galaxiagutenberg.com/producto/cartas-a-olga/

(last consultation n: 20/06/2026).

Havel, Václav (1990), Cartas a Olga. Consideraciones desde la prisión, Círculo de Lectores, Barcelona, trans. Monika Zgustová.

Plato (1997), Apology of Socrates, Aris& Phillips Ltd., Warminster, trans. Michael C. Stokes.

Zgustová, Monika (1990), “Introducción”, en Havel, Václav (1990), Cartas a Olga. Consideraciones desde la prisión, Círculo de Lectores, Barcelona, trans. Monika Zgustová, pp. 5-10.

Posted on

Vegetius: Learning Before Acting and Fostering Good Opportunities

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This article examines selected passages from Vegetius’s Compendium of Military Technique to extract strategic lessons that extend beyond the military sphere. It highlights the importance of learning before acting, systematic training, experience, information management, and the capacity to recognise and seize opportunities. The analysis also considers the limits of applying military logic to everyday life, where cooperation and competition often coexist. Through commentary on Vegetius’s rules of warfare, the text argues that preparation, prudence, alliances, and indirect forms of influence can provide decisive advantages in uncertain contexts.

Keywords: learning, strategy, war, technique, alliances

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.12

Among the works on military strategy from the classical period, one stands out above all: Vegetius’s Compendium of Military Technique (2006). Written at the behest of the Roman emperor, it compiles the military techniques and tactics of the time. One of the first points it makes is that the Romans achieved dominance over other peoples through their superior use of military technique.

Below, I shall analyse various passages from Vegetius’s work, particularly the rules of warfare he sets out, and offer my comments in the style of Minerva Strategy, with applications across a range of fields.

a) Learning before acting, and technique as a strategic advantage

“Knowledge of military discipline fosters the courage to fight: no one fears putting into practice what they are certain they have learnt well. And, indeed, in the heat of battle, a small number of well-trained soldiers are better equipped for victory, whilst a rough and untrained mob is always at risk of being massacred” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 135; I.7–8).

It is necessary to learn new techniques before putting them into practice. It is important to practise these techniques regularly. The use of techniques and tactics provides a strategic advantage.

b) War is a zero-sum game, but life is not quite so

At one point in the work, Vegetius sets out some rules of war that have an undeniable strategic dimension. The first states that “in every battle, the nature of the campaign is such that what favours you undermines the enemy, and what benefits him always harms you. Therefore, we must never undertake or neglect any action at the enemy’s behest, but only that which is useful to us” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 309; III.XXVI).

War is a zero-sum game, whilst life is usually a mix of cooperation and competition. In that sense, there is interdependence, and it is sometimes useful for us to take action to accommodate the other party’s wishes. What matters is that this forms part of a well-designed strategy or an agreement – whether explicit or implicit – involving mutual concessions.

c) The key lies in training and experience

The second rule of war, Vegetius maintains, is that “in war, whoever shows the greatest dedication and has made the greatest effort to train their soldiers will be exposed to fewer risks” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 309; III.XXVI). The third states that “you must never lead a soldier into battle whose ability you have not first tested” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 309; III.XXVI).

Taking action when the outcome is uncertain requires knowledge of the relevant techniques and adequate training. The best information, together with the ability to analyse situations, provides a strategic advantage. Experience is important when assigning responsibilities, and information must be verified impartially.

d) Circumstantial factors may determine the outcome more than the main activity

Vegetius’s fourth rule of war states that “it is better to subdue the enemy through starvation, surprise attacks or fear than in battle, where chance usually plays a greater part than valour” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 309; III.XXVI).

As the Spanish king Philip II said, “I did not send my ships to fight the elements”, referring to the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Every situation has a main action and a series of attendant circumstances. Sometimes, the final outcome is determined by those circumstances rather than by the central dynamic itself.

Another way of interpreting Vegetius’s desire to avoid pitched battles is to view it as an appeal to manage conflict by avoiding direct confrontations and seeking to exert influence through other means.

e) Creating good opportunities

The fifth rule of war, according to Vegetius, states: “There is no better plan than one which the enemy is unaware of before you put it into action” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 309; III.XXVI).
This means that one must be very careful about the information provided to the enemy, particularly regarding future plans that concern them. However, it is also possible to make strategic use of this principle and deliberately mislead the enemy.

The sixth rule of war states that “seizing opportunities is often more helpful in war than courage” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 309; III.XXVI).

It is certainly true that luck plays a part in life. But sooner or later, a significant opportunity arises, and one must be prepared to make the most of it. It is essential to ensure that it is a genuine opportunity and not a trap. What matters is the process of preparation – study, analysis, training – so that one can make the most of life’s opportunities.

f) Building alliances and weakening your adversary

Vegetius’s seventh rule of war states that “one must place great trust in luring and harbouring enemies, provided they come in good faith, for deserters inflict greater losses on the enemy than casualties do” (Vegetius, 2006, p. 309; III.XXVI).

It may be a worthwhile strategy to form alliances with people who were previously part of an opposing group, provided their intentions are good. The first step is to impartially verify their account of events. The second is to be generous, ensuring they feel better treated than they did in their original group. The result is to weaken the opposing group through diplomatic means.

References


Vegetius Flavius Vegetius Renatus (2006), Compendio de técnica militar, Cátedra, Madrid, trans. David Paniagua Aguilar.

Posted on

Antonio Pérez, the art of governance

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This paper analyses the figure of Antonio Pérez and his political thought on the basis of several passages from The Works and Treatises of Antonio Pérez, included in The Art of Governance: An Anthology of Philosophical and Political Texts from the 16th and 17th Centuries. Following a brief biographical overview, marked by his rise at the court of Philip II, his involvement in the Escobedo affair and his subsequent downfall and exile, the text examines some of his reflections on the exercise of power, monarchical legitimacy and prudence in government. Through his warnings, Antonio Pérez criticises the abuses of absolute power and defends a limited and responsible conception of authority, linked to the prestige of institutions and the favour of the people. Furthermore, the text highlights the relationship between political theory and practice, as well as the importance of rulers’ personal virtues over mere strategic calculation. Finally, the commentary connects these ideas with contemporary debates on leadership, populism, political communication and the pursuit of the common good, demonstrating the continued relevance of these reflections for contemporary political analysis and governance.

Keywords: art of governance, legitimacy in exercise, spin doctors, demagoguery, common good

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.11

Antonio Pérez del Hierro was born in 1540 in Madrid and died in 1611 in Paris, France. He was the son of Gonzalo Pérez, who served as Secretary of State to Felipe/Philip II, and probably of Juana Escobar y Tobar. When she gave birth to Antonio, his father must already have been a member of the clergy and his mother a married woman. Some therefore consider him to have been an illegitimate and sacrilegious child. 

When his father died in 1556, he took his place in the Royal Secretariat, initially on an interim basis, and was confirmed in the post in 1567. His political decline was linked to his instigation of the murder in 1578 of Juan de Escobedo, who was secretary to Don Juan of Austria, the illegitimate son of Carlos/Charles I. The court intrigues, double-dealing and unspeakable secrets associated with this event led to a slow decline for Antonio Pérez, who was also persecuted by the Inquisition and ended his days in exile in Paris.  

Below, we will discuss excerpts from some of the letters written by Antonio Pérez, taken from his work “Las obras y relaciones de Antonio Pérez”, compiled by J. A. Santos Herrán and M. Santos López in the book entitled El arte de gobernar. Antología de textos filosófico-políticos. Siglos XVI-XVII (2008)/The art of governance. Anthology of philosophical and political texts. XVI-XVII centuries, in the Minerva Strategy blog style.

“This is from a wise counsellor who spoke to King Felipe/Philip II, not least regarding the various blows he had dealt to him on different occasions, seeing that they were leading him towards the freedom of absolute power. Sire, be calm, be temperate, acknowledge God on earth as in heaven, lest you grow weary of monarchies (a gentle form of government, if used gently) and cast them all aside, disillusioned by the abuse of human power” (Pérez, 2008, 51).

These lines can be interpreted as evoking the classic themes of absolute power and the relationship between temporal and divine authority, in the context of legitimacy of origin – “how was power attained?” – and legitimacy in practice – “how is that power exercised?” –. Antonio Pérez’s great lesson is that human power is limited and must be exercised without committing abuses. The legitimacy of monarchies – “gentle government” – stems from the fact that their power is exercised through setting an example and even through charisma, whilst fostering the prestige of institutions.

“What I said in the Tenth Admonition is that princes ought to have at their disposal a person of good character, prudent, well-informed about kingdoms and kings, and generally well-liked, to whom they might specifically entrust the task of dealing with the discontented.” (Pérez, 2008, 51).

The theory and practice of politics have been intertwined in various ways. Today, spin doctors or political communications advisers seem to dictate to politicians what they should do or say to maximise their electoral gains. Following Machiavelli’s precedent, it is argued that, if good results are achieved, the means employed will always be praised. However, from other perspectives, this political pragmatism is rejected and it is argued that politics based on moral convictions is preferable.  

“For if this responsibility falls to a single person, may they possess the grace of heaven in the eyes of the people—which is one of the qualities I mentioned above; there is no antidote so universal or so natural against the poisons of human life as this quality is against the poisons that threaten the preservation of kingdoms and kings. I said ‘favour of heaven’ and ‘natural’, because princes cannot bestow or withdraw it, for it is a gift from above, though they may bestow the respect of the people, which results from their favour. The evidence of this is plain to see every day. All the authority a king bestows upon a minister is not enough, not only for him to be loved, but for him to cease being hated; just as neither disfavour nor open persecution can prevent one who possesses the natural favour of the people from being loved and esteemed.” (Pérez, 2008, 52).

In these lines, the favour of the people is referred to as a natural quality of certain individuals, transcending the king’s authority. The preservation of the kingdom—the key objective of politics—would depend on certain personal qualities, which might be termed virtues, possessed by rulers who thereby attract the favour of the people. However, ever since the origins of democracy in the Athenian polis, we must be wary of the danger posed by those who manipulate the people for their own spurious interests. These demagogues have regained relevance today in the form of various populist movements.

“And he concludes this section with a natural example: I have never seen or read of a lion or any other wild animal bowing down to a person for the food they gave them; for food, and even grass and hay, are kind words from ministers and a breath of air that seems to refresh the thirsty a little, but do not quench their thirst; and for having removed a great thorn from them, for having delivered them from great pain or danger, I have read of miracles of nature, and ones very natural to the nature of their nobility, which, for such merits, I mark with the prize” (Pérez, 2008, 53).

There has been much reflection on the value of fine words and the impact of actions in politics. This passage by Antonio Pérez invites us to reflect, on the one hand, on the tendency to focus on short-term policies—promoted to generate media attention or boost poll ratings—and, on the other hand, on policies that tackle the country’s serious problems, seeking solutions that build consensus beyond electoral cycles. Democracy would be strengthened if politicians acted with the common good in mind, even if this might harm their party interests. 

References

Pérez, Antonio (2008), “Las obras y relaciones de Antonio Pérez” en Santos Herrán, J.A., Santos López, M. (eds.), El arte de gobernar. Antología de textos filosófico-políticos siglos XVI-XVII, Barcelona: Anthropos, pp. 44-57.

Escudero López, José (n.d.), “Antonio Pérez”, Real Academia de Historia, available:

https://historia-hispanica.rah.es/biografias/35285-antonio-perez (last accessed 30-5-26).

Posted on

Machiavelli, pragmatism and power

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This paper examines Niccolò Machiavelli’s political thought through the lens of pragmatism and strategic power, drawing primarily on The Discourses alongside the more familiar claims associated with The Prince. It outlines how Machiavelli can be read in two registers: as the supposed advocate of ruthless expediency and as a republican thinker concerned with civic virtue and the preservation of the state. The discussion highlights a further, influential interpretation—Machiavelli’s separation of politics from ethics and religion—arguing that political action follows distinct rules shaped by uncertainty, conflict, and changing circumstances. Selected passages from The Discourses are used to illustrate concrete strategic lessons: when to temporize rather than suppress emerging tensions; why agreement is easier on generalities than on particulars; the importance of adapting to the “times” as a condition of continued success; and the claim that defending one’s country may justify extraordinary means when the state itself is at risk. The text also stresses the informational dimension of strategy, including skepticism toward apparent opponent errors and the need for verification mechanisms. Overall, Machiavelli is presented less as a theorist of cynicism than as an analyst of decision-making under pressure, where ends, means, and context must be aligned.

Keywords: political pragmatism, strategy, power

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.10

The best-known work by Niccolò Machiavelli is The Prince; however, it is perhaps in this work  The discourses (2003 )that his political ideas are most clearly revealed. Some people see two sides to Machiavelli: a) The Machiavellian Machiavelli of The Prince, where ‘the end justifies the means’; b) The republican Machiavelli of the Discourses, who is a patriot concerned with civic virtues.

Another interesting interpretation of Machiavelli is the view that he was the first to separate politics from ethics and religion. He claims that politics has its own rules, which are different from ethics.

In this post, I have selected several topics addressed by Machiavelli in The discourses, which have an undeniable strategic background and numerous applications.

I.33.- When either within a State or against a State an inconvenience has made headway, the safer course is to temporise, not to supress it (Machiavelli, 2003, 190).

Machiavelli’s advice is that, when a source of conflict arises, one should try to adapt to it rather than confront it head-on. Facing the problem may escalate it, while avoiding it may eventually cause it to fade away for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons.

A well-known Spanish politician often uses this tactic to manage conflicts, although rather than attributing it to his reading of Machiavelli, people tend to put it down to his personality. This strategy has its pros and cons, which should be analysed on a case-by-case basis.

The main concern will be the assets at stake and the potential losses or damage if the conflict succeeds. If the conflict is of minor significance, it may be advisable to avoid it. However, when it comes to matters of vital importance, it is better to confront it, even if this does not always mean launching a direct attack. It does, however, involve a plan of action based on the best strategy available.

I.47.- Though men make mistakes about things in general, they do not make mistakes about the particulars (Machiavelli, 2003, 225).

There is a certain tension between discussions of abstract issues and those concerning specific matters. When it comes to the former, people tend to say a great deal and may even reach a consensus. What Machiavelli points out is that when the discussion turns to specific matters, it becomes more difficult to reach agreement and easier for someone to be misled.

It is worth recalling the rule of the Harvard Method Focus on interests, not positions. Behind individual positions lie underlying interests, and these must be properly explored to reach effective and sensible agreements.

III.9.- That is behoves one to adapt oneself to the times if one wants to enjoy continued good fortune (Machiavelli, 2003, 425).

One definition of intelligence is the ability to adapt to change. Any good strategy is based on the understanding that the current situation is not permanent. The key issue addressed by strategic intelligence is how to manage change in such a way as to achieve the best possible results.

Situations of change often involve tension and uncertainty, but the key is to be clear about the objectives that really matter and to devise an appropriate strategy.

III.41.-The one’s country should be defended whether is entail ignominy or glory, and that it is good to defend it in any way whatsoever (Machiavelli, 2003, 514). 

This would be the version of ‘the end justifies the means’ that appears in The Discourses. If the State is in danger, any means are justified. The statement could be interpreted in a Machiavellian light or, alternatively, as the view of a true patriot. According to the latter interpretation, this would not be applicable to other spheres and could only be applied when the State, as the highest interest, is in danger.

This view of means and ends is characteristic of Machiavelli. But the alignment of means and ends is precisely the key element of strategy. In other posts, I have outlined the deontological, consequentialist, Machiavellian and virtuous ethical models, where each one addresses the ethical dimensions of various strategic approaches. Strategy aims for victory or success, but each ethical model involves a qualitatively different way of achieving it.

III.44.- Results are often obtained by impetuosity and daring which could never have been obtain by ordinary methods (Machiavelli, 2003, 519).

In a dynamic environment, it is crucial to thoroughly evaluate all possibilities, even those that may initially appear improbable. One should aim for the highest possible expectations once the data has been thoroughly and realistically analysed.

It is essential to clearly understand your priorities and what you value. You need to know your desired outcome and the non-negotiable points. Strengths depend on the parties’ needs, which may not always align, and that’s where agreement can be found.

III.48.- When the enemy is seen to be making a big mistake, it should be assumed that it is but an artifice (Machiavelli, 2003, 524).

Having the most and best information about the other party enables one to assess their actions and statements. It is important to understand their intentions, views, and character. One should be wary of the possibility of deception or some other subtle form of pretence. Mechanisms should be established to verify data, statements or assessments impartially. It is necessary to cross-verify accounts between people with differing strategic interests.

Occasionally, some people take these impartial checks as a sign of mistrust. However, one must separate personal relationships from the subject of the negotiation. Verifying the relevant facts is the duty of any good strategist. 

References

Machiavelli, Nicolò (2003), The Discourses, London New York: Penguin Books, trans. Leslie J. Walker. 

Posted on

Václav Havel, responsibility as destiny

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

Václav Havel (1936–2011), a Czech playwright and dissident, embodied the union of moral thought and political action in the face of communism in Czechoslovakia. After supporting the Prague Spring, he suffered censorship and imprisonment and became a symbol of the struggle for freedom. With the weakening of the Soviet bloc, he helped found the Civic Forum and led the Velvet Revolution (1989), which peacefully dismantled the dictatorship and initiated the transition to democracy, culminating in his election as president. Drawing on passages from Responsibility as Destiny (1991), the text analyses totalitarianism as a bureaucratic and ideological power that invades private life, substitutes truth for fiction, and produces fear and self-censorship. Havel proposes an ‘anti-political politics’, understood as service to the truth and to others. In this context, dissent becomes an ethical imperative: to denounce oppression, even if it is a solitary task.

Keywords: totalitarianism, dissent, freedom, responsibility

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.09

Václav Havel, a Czech politician and intellectual, was the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first president of the Czech Republic. He was born in Prague in 1936 and died there in 2011. He attended the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague to study theatre and had a distinguished career as a playwright.

His opposition to the communist government of Czechoslovakia led him to take action after having been a writer. As the leader of the Independent Writers’ Club, he backed the ‘Prague Spring’ (1968), leading to the subsequent ban on his books from publication. He became a symbol of the struggle for freedom and was imprisoned for five years. In 1989, Havel played a part in the creation of the Civic Forum, which served as the platform where most of the opposition gathered, following Gorbachev’s reforms in the Soviet Union that weakened the communist dictatorship in Czechoslovakia. He led the so-called ‘Velvet Revolution’, which took place that year, and, with the backing of a massive popular uprising, succeeded in dismantling the dictatorship without bloodshed and establishing a democratic system in Czechoslovakia. Havel was elected president.

Below, I will discuss excerpts from Václav Havel’s work Responsibility as Destiny/La responsabilidad como destino(1991), which brings together various letters from his time as a dissident, in the style of Minerva Strategy. 

“It is a totalitarian government of an impersonal, bureaucratic power, anonymously bloated, not yet unconscious, yet already operating beyond all conscience; a power based on the omnipresence of ideological fiction, capable of motivating everything without ever having to resort to the truth; power as a universe of control, repression and fear; power that nationalises and, therefore, immunises thought, morality and private life. Power that long ago ceased to represent the cause of a group of arbitrary rulers occupying and absorbing everyone, so that in the end everyone participates in it in some way, even if only through their silence; power that in reality belongs to no one, since it alone has taken possession of everyone” (Havel, 1991, 75-76).

These words of Havel aptly capture key aspects of totalitarianism and its exercise of power over people’s lives. Words and discourses lose all connection with the concrete reality of individuals, who are subjected to various forms of control over their public and private actions and even their thoughts. Under a bureaucratic and impersonal guise, founded on an ideological fiction, individuals’ freedom is curtailed. 

“I am an advocate of ‘anti-politics’. That is to say, of politics that is not merely a technology of power and the manipulation thereof—as a form of cybernetic control over people or as an art serving specific, practical ends or intrigues—but rather of politics as one of the ways of seeking and attaining the meaning of life, of how to protect it and how to serve it; politics as practised morality, as a service to the truth, as concern for our fellow human beings, genuinely human concerns, governed by human measures. It is a form that is somewhat, very slightly, impractical in today’s world and difficult to apply to everyday life. Nevertheless, I know of no better alternative” (Havel, 1991, 85–86).

This text was written in 1984; the Berlin Wall had not yet fallen. This historic event can yield various interpretations. Some might see it as a precursor to the anti-politics experiment in Italy with the Five Star Movement or as a precedent for certain populist positions so much in vogue today. It would be worth contextualising these words of Havel in that the search for alternatives to the Soviet conceptual framework must inevitably have human dimensions, linked to a practised morality and a notion of truth. Although this approach may appear distant from everyday politics and may sound somewhat utopian, like Havel, “I know of no better alternative”.

“I wouldn’t presume to comment on relations across the entire Soviet bloc. But I do think I can say, at least with regard to the Czechoslovak citizen, that his world is characterised by a constant tension between ‘their’ omnipotence and his own powerlessness.”

Since this citizen knows that ‘they’ can do anything: confiscate his passport, sack him from his job, order him to move from one place to another, task him with collecting signatures against the Pershing missiles, prevent him from studying, strip him of his driving licence, tap his phone and read his correspondence, build a factory under his windows that produces mainly sulphur dioxide, contaminate his milk with chemicals to an unbelievable degree, arrest him simply for attending a rock concert, arbitrarily raise the price of anything at any time, reject any humble request he makes without explanation, tell him what he must read first, why he has to demonstrate, what he has to sign, how many square metres his flat can be, who he can be in contact with and who he cannot’ (Havel 1991, 105). 

In this paragraph, Havel summarises how totalitarian power—which, by definition, is power without limits—can manifest itself in people’s lives. It is particularly relevant today to be able to distinguish between the rule of law, an autoritarian state and a totalitarian state. For example, in certain contexts, an authoritarian drift occurs that jeopardises the progress of the rule of law. Totalitarianism, however, goes further: it denies rights—such as civil and political rights—persecutes dissidents and censors critical voices. 

“We know that the dissident is a bit of a Don Quixote by the very nature of his cause: he writes his critical analyses and demands freedoms and rights alone, and alone—with nothing but his pen in hand—facing the colossal power of the State and its police; he writes, protests, shouts, pleads, and invokes the law; and he knows that sooner or later he will be imprisoned for all of this” (Havel, 1991, 130).

For Havel, this is the responsibility that comes with one’s fate: if one lives under a totalitarian regime, what Muguerza termed the imperative of dissent arises. This entails speaking out and fighting, to the best of one’s ability, against oppression, injustice, and human rights violations. Although this task is, at times, solitary and goes largely unrecognised, we must not lose sight of the fact that historic changes require courageous pioneers.

References

Havel, Václav (1991), La responsabilidad como destino, Madrid: El País/Aguilar, trad. Jana Novotná.

Fernández, Tomás, Tamaro, Elena (2004), “Biografía de Václav Havel”, Editorial Biografías y Vidas, available in https://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/h/havel.htm [Visited: 1 May 2026].

Spanish version: https://webphilosophia.com/estrategia/vaclav-havel-la-responsabilidad-como-destino/

Posted on

Never Split the Difference

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This paper reviews Chris Voss’s Never Split the Difference through the lens of the Minerva Strategy Blog, contrasting the “art” of negotiation derived from hostage-crisis practice with the “science” of negotiation associated with the Harvard Negotiation Project. It highlights how Voss challenges rational-actor assumptions by foregrounding empathy, emotional attachment, and perception management as decisive factors in bargaining. Central to the analysis is Voss’s claim that eliciting “that’s right” signals genuine understanding and can unlock cooperative behaviour more effectively than a simple “yes” or “you’re right.” The discussion also examines Voss’s scepticism toward “middle ground” compromises, juxtaposing this stance with standard negotiation concepts such as BATNA and reservation thresholds. Additional attention is given to time pressure and deadlines as drivers of impulsive concessions, and to emotionally loaded terms—especially “fair”—as rhetorical devices that shift leverage by forcing defensive reactions. Finally, the paper considers “anchoring” as a method for shaping the counterpart’s reality by setting extreme reference points that make subsequent offers appear reasonable. Overall, the text presents Voss’s techniques as a pragmatic, psychologically informed toolkit that complements, and sometimes conflicts with, orthodox negotiation theory.

Keywords: empathy, negotiation tactics, anchoring, BATNA

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.08

In the opening pages of the book Never Split the Difference. Negotiating as if your life depended on it, the author, Chris Voss, is set to meet with several professors from the Harvard Negotiation Project. Chris Voss was a local police officer who had been promoted to the FBI and was part of a team that used hostage negotiation techniques. He embodied the art of negotiation, which is the practical application of various techniques and principles to strategic scenarios. The Harvard Negotiation Project represents the science of negotiation, where categories, terminology and analysis are established and based on certain assumptions, such as the idea that human beings are rational. 

Below, I will analyse Chris Voss’s book Never Split the Difference. Negotiating as if your life depended on it from the perspective of the Minerva Strategy Blog. It is remarkable because the Spanish title translation of this book is slightly different: Breaking Through the ‘No’ Barrier. 9 principles for negotiation as if your life depended on it. This implies some different nuances from languages perspective.

In the chapter Trigger the Two Words That Immediately Transform Any Negotiation, Voss carries out an analytical exercise in which he links the positive affirmation of empathy with the emotions and emotional attachment involved. He states: “Creating unconditional positive regard opens the door to a changing thought and behaviours. Humans have an innate urge toward socially constructive behaviour. The more a person feels understood, and positively affirmed in that understanding, the more likely that urge for constructive behaviour will take hold” (Voss, 2016, 112).

In short, when someone feels understood, they adopt a more constructive attitude. The conclusion is that the key words in any negotiation scenario are ‘that’s right’. Voss adds, “’That is right’ is better than “yes”. Strive for it. Reaching ‘that’s right’ in a negotiation creates breakthroughs.” But he clarifies that a ‘that’s right’ is not a ‘yes’ or a ‘you’re right’ (Voss, 2016, 112)

In the chapter entitled Bend Their Reality, Voss focuses on the topic of true interests and how differing perceptions and signals can sometimes distort approaches in negotiation scenarios. It is interesting because Voss’s views stem from the art of negotiation and his professional experience in FBI negotiation teams, and some of them are at odds with what is usually said in the science of negotiation.

It is one thing for the parties to make statements in formal settings, but quite another to understand their true interests. Before entering into negotiations, it is important to be clear about one’s own interests and to have the best possible information about the other party’s interests. It is also important to be clear about the best strategy for mutually defending the interests of both parties or, at least, the best way to reconcile them.

In another part of the book, Voss states: “Splitting the difference of wearing one black and one brown shoe, so don’t compromise. Meeting halfway often leads to bad deals for both sides.” (Voss, 2016, 139)

The middle ground is usually seen as an impartial basis for reaching an agreement. Before any negotiation begins, each party must be clear about: a) what their best alternative to negotiation (BATNA) is; b) what their satisfaction threshold is, or their specific minimum and maximum objectives in the negotiation. Negotiating involves giving something up to obtain, in return, something desired. It is a kind of transaction. To this end, information regarding the interests and expectations of both parties is key. This is what the science of negotiation would say; however, as we have seen, the art of negotiation is wary of middle ground.  

Later, in Never Split the Difference, we read that the looming deadline urges people to try to wrap up negotiations as quickly as possible and to act impulsively in ways that go against their own interests.

Ultimatums and deadlines are sometimes a negotiation tactic or gambit. On other occasions, they provide a good excuse to move the negotiation forward. Here, Voss warns us about the tendency to make concessions—which would otherwise not be made—under the influence of these time-sensitive circumstances. One must remain vigilant and know not to give in on points previously deemed non-negotiable.  

Voss also argues that the ‘J-bomb’—the term ‘fair’—is a concept with great emotional impact for people, who often use it to put the other party on the defensive and force them to make concessions. If the other party drops that bomb, don’t fall into the trap. Instead, ask them why they claim you are being unfair to them (Voss, 2016, 139).

Another negotiation tactic or gambit involves manipulating the perceptions and emotions of the parties by using emotionally charged terms such as fair, objective, impartial, neutral, etc. Although this may be a good way of reaching agreements in this manner, it is always worth analysing who stands to lose and who stands to gain from the application of these ‘abstract’ criteria, which are presented as magic potions for solving problems. 

In another passage of the book Never Split the Difference, Voss states that it is possible to shape the other party’s reality by setting their starting point. Before making an offer, you can emotionally anchor their mindset by making them believe they are about to receive a terrible offer. When the time comes to put a figure on the table, you set an extreme benchmark to make the ‘real’ offer seem more reasonable, or you offer a range to appear less aggressive. The true value of anything depends on the perspective from which it is viewed (Voss, 2016, 139).

References

Voss, Chris, Raz, Tahl (2016), Never split the difference. Negotiating as if your life depended on it, Harper Collins Publishers, Kindle edition. 

Posted on

Francisco de Quevedo, advice on politics and government

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

The text presents Francisco de Quevedo (1580–1645) as a central figure of the Spanish Baroque and notes that, in addition to his literary fame, he had a lesser-known political side. Drawing on passages from The Politics of God and the Government of Christ, it highlights advice on the exercise of power and the virtues of a ruler. Quevedo warns against the ambitious minister who considers himself equal to or superior to the king: envy and greed turn him into a disloyal servant and a potential tyrant, which is why responsibility must be exercised with integrity and loyalty. He also maintains that reigning is a demanding task: public life requires constant work and rejects idleness, an analogy which the author links to the academic vocation understood as total dedication. A key idea is ‘obedience’ as the king’s foremost virtue, understood not as humiliation but as submission to reason, piety and the law; he who obeys these criteria governs better than he who commands without limits. The example of Alfonso of Aragon illustrates patience and a willingness not to demand obedience when what is ordered is unjust, which connects with classical debates on the authority, validity and justice of rules.

Keywords: Philosophy, loyalty, obedience, idleness

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.07

Francisco de Quevedo y Villegas was born in Madrid in 1580 and died in Villanueva de los Infantes, Ciudad Real, Spain, in 1645. He distinguished himself as a nobleman, politician and one of the most significant writers of the Baroque period in Spain. He studied Theology at the University of Valladolid, where he became a poet of great renown and wrote in opposition to his contemporary, Luis de Góngora. He cultivated all literary genres, but stood out chiefly for his great mastery of language, including his highly ironic style.
Francisco de Quevedo’s political side is largely unknown to the public.

Below, we will discuss excerpts from his work Política de Dios y gobierno de Cristo, sacada de la Sagrada Escritura para acierto del Rey y reino en sus acciones (1986)/ God’s policy and Christ’s rule, drawn from Holy Scripture to guide the King and the kingdom in their actions in the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog.

“No servant, nor minister of the King, is one who displays such grandeur that he is not merely equal to his king, but superior to him; such a man covets the crown; he is a rival for power; a tyrant, raised on the breast of favour, and nourished and grown by the arrogance of ignorance and greed” (Quevedo, 1986, 55). 

Envy is a poor guide. In this case, the minister is eager to take the crown and acts with duplicity and disloyalty. Each day has enough trouble of its own, and it is good to know how to fulfil one’s responsibilities at every moment, with diligence, integrity and loyalty. Positions are a learning experience for the future.

It is often said in Spanish, “Do not serve those who have served.” This phrase is attributed to Antonio Cánovas del Castillo and implies a certain notion of elitism, whereby only those of the same standing should be able to hold positions of influence. In my view, it is precisely because one has served that one can set a good example of how to treat a subordinate.

“Reigning is a task; that the duties of a ruler demand more sweat than the plough, and sweat drawn from the very veins; that the crown is a burdensome weight, which wearies the shoulders of the soul before it does the body’s strength; that palaces, for the idle prince, are tombs of a dead life, and for the one who attends to them, a scaffold of a living death—this is affirmed by the glorious memories of those enlightened princes who did not tarnish their legacies, counting among their crowned years not a single hour without labour.” (Quevedo, 1986, 144-154).

Those who devote themselves to public life should spend their days working, not idling away. This reminds me of a story I heard at the University of Oxford about the scholarship profession being viewed as a kind of priesthood, where academic life demands calling/vocation and total dedication, which is reflected in the personal and formative influence on students that goes beyond simply delivering lectures. Once again, the question arises as to what virtues those in government should have, and what virtues professors should have.

“The foremost virtue of a king is obedience; for, being well aware of the value of temperance and moderation, it enables him to rule with gentleness whilst exercising supreme power. Obedience is no humiliation for monarchs, who, as men of great spirit, recognise their subjection to reason, piety and the Law. He who obeys these rules, rules well, and he who rules without having obeyed them torments rather than governs” (Quevedo, 1986, 162-163). 

This is a reflection on Political Philosophy that challenges the notion of unlimited power. It sounds paradoxical to advise the king —the sovereign— on the virtue of obedience, but Quevedo makes it seem reasonable. First, by appealing to temperance and moderation, virtues already highlighted by Aristotle, and, second, by setting reason, piety and the laws as a guide.

That those in power obey the Law is a fundamental principle of the Rule of Law. It is desirable that they act rationally, as it would be hard to accept being ruled by someone like Nero. It would be commendable if they were compassionate, as the plight of the most vulnerable would be taken into account.

“The great and magnanimous King Alfonso of Aragon (whom all nations rightly call the Wise) possessed such learned and unyielding patience that he not only tolerated being defied—as was seen in the case of the soldier who insolently stopped him in public in Naples— but, not content merely to forgive them, he rewarded those who spoke ill of him; nor did he permit others to be spoken of in his presence, as happened with those who remarked on Nicolo Pichinino’s low birth. Not only did he not object to them disobeying him, but he commanded all his advisers not to obey him in matters where he ordered contrary to reason; and to the ministers who were subject to these superiors, he commanded that they should not obey them in matters that were not just” (Quevedo, 1986, 195-196). 

This reminds me of the Euthyphro dilemma, which Plato first raised. There is a version involving God, which would ask: “Is the good good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”

There is another way of framing this dilemma in terms of the concept of sovereignty, which might be: “A rule is valid because the sovereign authority enacts it —Hobbes, Austin—, or the authority enacts it because it is just —Thomas Aquinas—.”

King Alfonso of Aragon urged people not to obey him in matters that were neither reasonable nor just. It would seem, then, that obedience may involve further considerations beyond mere legal validity. Entire libraries are devoted to debating these issues, which are of interest to the Philosophy of Law. This dilemma is typically addressed from either a formalist or a material perspective.

References

Quevedo y Villegas, Franciso de (1986), Política de Dios y gobierno de Cristo sacad de la Sagrada Escritura para acierto de rey y reino en sus acciones, Swan, Real Sitio de Lorenzo del Escorial. 

Posted on

3-D Negotiation

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This text presents key ideas from David A. Lax and James K. Sebenius’s 3-D Negotiation framework, which views negotiation as the interaction of three simultaneous dimensions: tactics at the table, deal design that uncovers true economic and non-economic interests, and the broader setup that shapes the situation off the table. Focusing on interests is central to this approach because stated positions often mask implicit goals, constraints, and concerns. The discussion highlights perspective-taking, careful assessment of one’s own priorities, and the use of classic tools such as BATNA and ZOPA, while warning against reducing analysis to a single distributive variable such as price. The text also identifies wider contextual factors that influence outcomes, including relationships, emotions, and cultural orientations toward either results or relationships. It stresses the role of the “social contract” or spirit of the agreement in establishing expectations, trust, and conflict-resolution norms, and it notes how process choices and tactics (e.g., anchoring) can distort results. Finally, it addresses ethical tensions in negotiating behaviour through deontological, consequentialist, Machiavellian, and virtue-based lenses, and it concludes with four practices to safeguard interests: ask and probe, map interests using public information, leverage internal sources, and consult knowledgeable advisers.

Keywords: principled egotiation, BATNA/ZOPA, Deal design, emotions, tactics

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.06

Professors David A. Lax and James K. Sebenius, who are involved in the Harvard University Negotiation Project, in their book 3-D Negotiation. Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals (2006) offer new perspectives when it comes to conducting negotiations.

According to this approach, negotiations should be understood as three-dimensional, with three elements occurring more or less simultaneously throughout the actual negotiation. These dimensions are: a) Tactics, which involve persuasive manoeuvres and give-and-take. It is worth noting that poor tactics can ruin a negotiation; b) Deal design: beyond the obvious, this involves uncovering the parties’ true economic and non-economic interests; and c) Setup: off the table, which shapes and reshapes the situation (Lax, Sebenius, 2006, 9). . 

Below, we will examine the topic of exploring interests from the perspective of the Minerva Strategy Blog.

Lax and Sebenius begin by defining interest as whatever you care about that is potentially at stake in the outcome (Lax, Sebenius, 2006, 76).  Their entire approach is based on the observation that the interests stated at the negotiating table are one thing, whereas the parties’ actual or implicit interests are quite another, whether or not these have been clearly articulated. 

When exploring these interests (whether explicit or implicit) in the handling of information about the other party, it is essential to practice, at various stages of the negotiation process, the exercise of putting oneself in the other person’s shoes. It’s also vital for oneself or the negotiating team to calmly assess the true interests at stake: what one wants from the negotiation, what could be gained, and what could be lost. In the standard terminology of Negotiation Theory, what is the best alternative to a no-deal outcome (BATNA), and how is the Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) established between the parties? 

However, Lax and Sebenius’s emphasis on the importance of (actual) interests within the framework of three-dimensional negotiation highlights the fact that focusing all one’s attention in negotiations on linear distributive dimensions—such as price negotiation—can cause one to lose sight of a range of potentially richer interests.

From this perspective, analysing BATNA and ZOPA can be useful tools, but not by focusing on a single variable; rather, by taking into account all the factors at play within the negotiating context.  

In many negotiations, relationships are a key factor to bear in mind. Sometimes, emotions guide the parties’ behaviour, and such feelings can distort certain expectations. On other occasions, poor or mediocre results are accepted simply to maintain the relationship. On this point, Lax and Sebenius distinguish between countries that focus on relationships—such as those in Southern Europe and Latin America—and others that focus on results, such as Anglo-Saxon and Northern European countries  (Lax, Sebenius, 2006, 74). 

Another factor to bear in mind is the social contract; beyond its strictly economic dimension, this governs people’s expectations regarding the nature, scope and duration of the agreement, the process to be followed, and the way in which unforeseen events are handled. As Lax and Sebenius state, it is “the spirit of the agreement.” It is important to clearly understand this broad framework to avoid conflicts or to resolve them without too much difficulty. It is about establishing relationships within a framework of trust, within the framework of a shared negotiating culture, where the obligations of the parties and the usual way of resolving potential conflicts are clearly established (Lax, Sebenius, 2006, 74).

The third factor is the process itself. Certain negotiation processes often influence the outcome, and sometimes negotiators employ tricks and tactics, such as anchoring. These tactics can be particularly detrimental to one of the parties, who must be able to identify them and defend their position, especially when they are unaware of these strategies or lack experience in negotiation scenarios. Another important point is to distinguish the negotiating table from the wider negotiating context. It is usually easier to make progress in negotiations in informal settings (Lax, Sebenius, 2006, 75).    

Finally, one factor to bear in mind is ethics. Certain aspects of some negotiations may be morally controversial; for example, some negotiating tactics that involve withholding or manipulating information from the other party. From an ethical standpoint, the response will differ between the deontological model, with its duty to always tell the truth; the consequentialist model, which advocates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people; the Machiavellian model, focused on success; and the virtuous model, which proposes acting as a virtuous person would in that situation  (Lax, Sebenius, 2006, 75).

Lax and Sebenius argue that we should not confuse negotiating positions with a broader set of actual interests, and they propose four practices that will help you safeguard your interests:

–Ask, listen and probe

Information about the other party’s interests is essential. The best way to get this is to listen carefully and gauge how they might respond to the negotiation map’s options. 

–Use public sources to map interests

When important decisions need to be made, it is advisable to consult public records and the relevant institutions to gather objective information. Having reports from independent bodies and other credible sources of information is also beneficial.

–Tap internal sources

Naturally, if you can obtain firsthand information from someone who understands the other party’s interests, this can be particularly useful. It is also important to have information about the negotiator and the people involved, as well as their explicit, implicit and underlying interests.

–Tap knowledgeable advisers

In complex business situations, people often turn to professionals such as lawyers or intermediaries. Lax and Sebenius recommend asking them about their experience in such situations. Perhaps this is because – as Aristotle pointed out many centuries ago – experience can help one to better understand a particular situation (Lax, Sebenius, 2006, 77-79).

References

Lax, David A., Sebenius, James K. (2006), 3-D Negotiation. Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals, Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. 

Posted on

Nelson Mandela, Life, Love, and Courage

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

The text presents Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (1918–2013) as a key leader in the struggle against apartheid and, following 27 years in prison, as the architect of South Africa’s first democratically elected government committed to racial equality (1994–1999). It highlights the decisive role of his negotiations with F. W. de Klerk in the early 1990s in dismantling segregation and facilitating a peaceful transition, an achievement that culminated in the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize. Drawing on passages from Richard Stengel’s book, the article analyses how his prison experience shaped his character: the absence of external control forced him to exercise self-discipline and moderate his reactions, fostering virtues such as prudence and temperance. Courage, in his view, is not innate, but a choice demonstrated through decisions that challenge one’s own well-being. The essay also highlights a leadership style that combines symbolism and teamwork: Mandela understands that a collective goal requires empowering others, delegating and sharing responsibility. Finally, he is described as a man of an unwavering principle—equal rights—and of great tactical pragmatism, reconciling the ethics of conviction with the ethics of responsibility.

Keywords: courage, ethics of conviction, ethics of responsibility, leadership, moderation and prudence, teamwork

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.05

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was born in Mvezo, South Africa, in 1918, and died in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2013. A South African activist and politician who led the movements against apartheid and who, after a long struggle and 27 years in prison, presided over the first government, from 1994 until 1999, that respected racial equality, which affected the majority of the Black population.

His negotiations in the early 1990s with South African President F. W. de Klerk helped bring an end to the system of racial segregation known as apartheid in the country and paved the way for a peaceful transition to majority rule. In 1993, Mandela and De Klerk received a joint Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.

In this series of posts on leadership, we will now examine passages from the book Richard Stengel titled Mandela’s Way. Fifteen Lessons on Life, Love, and Courage, from the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog

“How did his passionate revolutionary become a measured statesman? In prison, he had to temper his responses to everything. There was little a prisoner could control. The only thing you could control – that you had to control – was yourself. There was no room for outbursts or self-indulgence or a lack of discipline. He had no zone of privacy” (Stengel, 2009, 15). 

There is a reference to a shift in Mandela’s character towards moderation as a result of his 27 years in prison. It is difficult to imagine how one might adapt to such a prolonged period of imprisonment and what consequences this has for one’s view of the world. It is certainly worth reflecting on the role of hardship in shaping one’s education and character. Exceptionally difficult situations require the development of coping mechanisms and, in this way, shape one’s character. One becomes virtuous by acting virtuously. The moral habits and dispositions that are forged in the face of adversity will serve as the best reminder, shaping one’s character, that the difficult period has been overcome.

A saying attributed to Aristotle states that ‘the roots of education are bitter, but its fruits are sweet.’ Moderation is linked to the virtues of prudence and temperance. Mandela’s many years in prison transformed him into a moderate statesman, which speaks volumes about his human values. It is his characteristic leadership style. Others, by contrast, would foster division in a spirit of vengeance.

“Most people would say that Nelson Mandela personifies courage. But Mandela himself defines courage in a curious way. He does not see it as innate, as a kind of elixir we can drink, or as something we learned in any conventional way. He sees it as the way we choose to be. None of us is born courageous, we would say; it is all in how we react to different situations” (Stengel, 2009, 23).  

Courage is demonstrated through actions, not rhetoric. Every biography has examples of courage, even if the events are later disputed. Courage is evident in situations where the decisions involved conflict with one’s own well-being. Being courageous thus becomes the difficult path, and there are usually fewer who choose it.

“He understood that some part – quite a large part – of leadership is symbolic, and he was a splendid symbol. But he knew that he could not always be in front, and that one great goal could die unless he empowered others to lead. In the language of basketball, he wanted the ball, but he understood that he had to pass to others and let them shoot. Mandela genuinely believed in the virtues of the team, and he knew that to get the best out of his own people, he had to make sure that they partook of the glory and, even more important, that they felt they were influencing his decisions”  (Stengel, 2009, 75).  

An essential part of leadership is knowing how to share it, even if that sounds somewhat paradoxical. There are people with vibrant, charismatic and unique personalities, but at the end of the day, we are all human beings, and that means we have limitations and are subject to circumstances. It is good to know how to work as a team and how to delegate. Creating a working culture based on shared values and sharing successes collectively and with those who make decisions, as well as knowing how to take responsibility when something goes wrong.  

“Nelson Mandela is a man of principle – exactly one: equal rights for all, regardless of race, class, or gender. Pretty much everything else is a tactic. It seems like an exaggeration – but to a degree very few people suspect, Mandela is a thoroughgoing pragmatist who was willing to compromise, change, adapt, and refine his strategy as long as it got him to the promised land” (Stengel, 2009, 103). 

This reminds me of Max Weber’s discussion of ethics and politics. The ethics of conviction is based on ideals and beliefs and applies to everyone. The ethics of responsibility is based on the consequences of actions and is a form of ethics specific to politicians. The question arises as to whether these two forms of ethics are compatible in politics. Nelson Mandela’s approach is that his ethics of conviction lead him to defend equal rights based on the inalienable principle of equal human dignity. At the same time, he advocated an ethics of responsibility, whereby politicians must evaluate their actions in terms of their consequences. And this implies a specific choice between means and ends, a strategy, a key element of political rationality.

References

Stengel, Richard (2009), Mandela’s way. Fifteen Lessons on Life, Love, and Courage, New York: Crown Publishers, preface by Nelson Mandela.