Approaching Diamond Point Diplomacy

A new reflection on inter-entity transactions

Introduction
What is being proposed is a fresh look at the process of diplomatic facilitation. Much work has been
done in the area with regard to tactics and stances to adopt, yet the fundamental principles of
interpretation and translation have been left largely unchallenged. This concept evokes a hard point of
reflection against which the players in a negotiation are able to test and evolve their messages. The
process of negotiation is thereby enhanced, and, more importantly, greater clarity with regard to
contexts, motivations and internal processes can be achieved.
The observant synthesist will note the specific touchpoints with: the principled negotiations of Getting
to Yes; mathematical group theory; game theory and transactional analysis - as well as other more
general correspondences in systems thinking, and related fields in psychology & sociology, including
the stringent psycho-evolutionary processes of traditional sources of wisdom such as Sufic and
Vajrayana thought.
The proposition is structured in several descriptive paragraphs with accompanying slides (diamond.ppt)
followed by a table of correspondences and finally a few closing comments. Parties in the negotiation
are refered to as players throughout.
The concept is still very raw and requires much refinement as well as evolution of practical tools for its
enactment.

Rhino
In a classical un-mediated negotiation, player A has an intention to communicate a particular
proposition to another player B. His context, conscious or unconscious bias, and other factors
conspire to create a message that is corrupted. When this message arrived with player B, the
corruption in the transmission as well as the noise engendered by his own context, so garbles the initial
intent of player A, that B is unable to respond constructively or accurately.
Generally the outcome is
1. a more or less overt power struggle to impose the acceptability of one context over another.
2. a blunt and groping attempt to find a middle ground
3. an agreement in word but not in deed.
This process can be seen at work daily, with the skill of the engagement being in the manipulation of
the other to come to a verbalised or written agreement. Aspects of coercive persuasion can be used to
speed the process which we will characterise as Rhino diplomacy.

Susanne Williams - susannewilliams@skynet.be

Susanne Williams - susannewilliams@skynet.be

Chameleon
In the next case, it has become clear that assistance is necessary to bridge the gap of context. Both
players strongly intend an actual workable agreement, and seek the help of a third party to mediate.
This third party (the Chameleon Diplomat) spends time with each party on their own to understand their
intentions, their motivations and their general context. The chameleon takes on the form, language and
other attributes that are appropriate to the context of the player he is dealing with, and forms a view
of how to interpret and translate the players propositions. A code-book, or dictionary.
When it comes to the actual negotiation, the chameleon listens to the propositions of player A, and,
stripping them of their contextual trappings, transliterates them into the context of player B. Player
B readily accepts the proposition, and intending a constructive, co-evolving solution, brings his own
builds to bear. The chameleon once again interprets and translates the message and finds player A to
be in accord with the content of the proposition as interpreted for him by the chameleon.
In this way, both players agree, at a level they are willing to act upon, with the propositions as
explained to them by the chameleon, under the assumption that the chameleon has accurately translated
both their own and the others intentions.
The agreement seems very real and can be workable initially, but is in fact illusory. It is based on a
belief in the interpretations of a third party, and the agreement is with the words that the chameleon has
said, not the direct communications between players, or even an direct experience of the others intent.
The agreement is also static - that is to say that any evolution is entirely dependent on the renewed
intervention of the chameleon. The tendency is for the agreement to degrade over time as the
practicalities of implementing the agreement require confirmation of the principles of the agreement
and generation of details, which the static nature of the agreement inhibits.
The danger is the dependency on the chameleon, who himself is at risk of being the bad guy if the
agreement disintegrates - at best well-intentioned but two-faced, perhaps duplicitous, at worst explicitly
treacherous. The chameleon is intimately entangled and implicated in the continuing process and in its
outcome.
This is a tempting role for professional mediators and consultants as the ongoing dependency secures
future involvement and revenue as well as flattering the ego.

Susanne Williams - susannewilliams@skynet.be

Diamond - Point
In the case of the Diamond-Point model, the diplomat takes on the office of supreme neutrality. Their
job is to cause the players to become aware of the corruptions in their own process and messages,
brought about by their context, conscious and un-conscious motivations etc.
The interaction between the Diamond-Point diplomat and each player starts with the player A stating
his conscious intention. He then formulates the message that he will use to transmit this intention to
player B. But in this case the diplomat does NOT go directly to B with the interpretation of the
intention, rather reflects back to A, the message exactly as it is, including the noise in his signal.
Player A is then led through a process of refining the message, and in the process uncovering some of
the hidden contextual influence that was corrupting the transmission. When the diplomat is satisfied that
a clear enough message has been achieved, player A is encouraged to deliver that message directly
to player B. Player Bs response, as can be predicted, will be coloured by his own context, and once
again the Diamond-Point must act with the same extreme steadiness and determination to guide player
B through the complex maze of his own reactions, before formulating an intent and, eventually, an
accurate message with which to respond to player A.
The key difference is that the Diamond-Point diplomat does not convey messages and is not involved in
the content of the propositions. Their purpose is to be a ruthless and accurate reflecting mirror with
whos aid, greater personal clarity can be achieved. Clarity regarding the nature of reactions, the
unknown but powerful influences of context, clarity even, in terms of the nature of that players
evolution as a person.
As can be imagined, the process is likely to be extremely provocative to the players, as their inability to
formulate clear messages in accord with their stated intentions is brought under bright scrutiny.
For the Diamond-Point diplomat to succeed, he must have complete steadfastness and confidence to
mirror the players accurately. He must be able to weather the reactive storm and remain entirely
uninvolved in the content of the negotiation. He must have the power to confront the players, regardless
of their resistance, to keep them in the process - bound by their stated intentions to reach a solution. He
must also posses the subtlety to gauge the pressure being brought to bear on each player by the
reflection process. Resistance and evolution are carefully weighed.
The trust is in the process of the Diamond-Point diplomat, not in the accuracy of their translations, nor
the trustworthiness of their transmission to the other. There is complete transparency between the two
players, as they communicate their improved messages to one another.
The foundation of understanding that comes from such direct communication enables the players to
evolve their agreements over time. The solution is generative and dynamic.
The process of increasing clarity in their own self-perception and the perception of their effects on the
world around them, is of course a very welcome evolutionary side effect.
Diamond-Point diplomacy clearly requires considerable maturity that may seem unattainable. Here,
the Office of Diplomat itself can render some assistance. The clear and stated strictures and
requirements of the Office of Diplomat, explicitly constrain and banish from the process, the context,
bias and other issues of the person fulfilling that Office. The players are dealing with the Office and the
Process not the Individual.
Clearly the incumbent should need to be able to be aware of the grossest of these context impurities and
not be their plaything, but the rules of the process greatly assist mindfulness and strongly help to
prevent their intrusion.
Thus, though the Office does require attainment that cannot be learned step-by-step, once embarked
upon, the Diamond-Point process itself provides a significant part of the structure and solidity required
to contain the unruly energies that are inevitably released when such an uncompromising light is cast on
the imperfections of any person.

Susanne Williams - susannewilliams@skynet.be

It is notable that the demands of fulfilling the Office of Diamond-Point Diplomat have, of course,
their own evolutionary (and often uncomfortable) effects on the incumbent.

Susanne Williams - susannewilliams@skynet.be

Table of Correspondences
Mode of
operation
Effects
Context

Agreement
based on

Rhino
Corrosive

Chameleon
Metabolic

Diamond
Catalytic

No actual
agreement
Imposed

Single solution solved

Evolved process &

players
Diplomat provides the
initial context
Players are then able to
generate own context
Actual clear direct
communication

Spoken agreement
based on power
inequality in
players
Intuitive skill

Co-evolved but dependent

on Chameleon

Third-party interpretation

Structured / Learned skill

Ability / Attainment

N/A

Ability to engender trust in

each player
Desire for positive outcome
Ability to show acceptable
face to each party
Interpretation
Translation/transliteration

Dangers

No actual
agreement
Say Yes - do
No
Deteriorating
relationship
between players

TA relations

Between the
players Parent/Child or
Child/Child

Chameleon can be seen to

be duplicitous (which is
actually necessitated by the
process) & process relies on
trust in chameleon
Mis-interpretation on part
of chameleon
Agreement is not sustained
in absence of chameleon
Between players Child/Child, Parent/Child,
depending on process.
Between Diplomat and
players - Parent/Child

Ability to Take
Office
Authority to provoke
players with hard
reflection
Non-evocation of own
bias (conscious or
unconscious)
Indifference to
outcome
Ability to reflect with
clarity in a way that is
understood by players
Extreme stress on
players due to ruthless
reflection
Authority/Office of
diplomat is under
constant pressure

Group theory
equivalents

Monomorphic

Type of
evolution
involved
Pre-requisites
for facilitator

Epimorphic

Between Diplomat and

players - Adult/Adult
(ruthlessly so)
Between players
evolving to
Adult/Adult
Isomorphic

Diamond Point form perfections

Ideally the players and the Diplomat resolve onto one point of clarity, but more often the reflection is
on a plane, rather than on a point. The players are each able to move a small way towards more clarity
in their own process and in their dealings with one another, but they are not yet able to manifest the

Susanne Williams - susannewilliams@skynet.be

indifference to their own bias which is shown by the Diplomat. The extent to which the players are
evolved depends on the intensity and duration of the process, but mainly on the ability of the Diplomat.
The theoretical infinitely powerful and infinitely enlightened Diplomat would instantaneously evolve
the players to her own state. In practice there is of course a gradation and a gradual though
unmistakable evolution.

Concluding words
The Diplomat Supreme
The unique vanishing point of identity on the part of the Diplomat as she attains to the Total
Assumption of Office proves the greyness inherent in all partial viewpoints, and does so while
providing their limitation and constraint. The Diplomat is the mirror of Form, is the Office and not the
Identity, thereby the perfect point of reflection for the self-identified players and their context-laden
propositions.

Susanne Williams - susannewilliams@skynet.be