I AM puzzled when I hear business people refer to the 'negotiating table'. Things will improve if they can just get the other side to 'sit down at the table'.
I don't know about you, but negotiations in which I have been successful have rarely been conducted around a table. More likely, the nuts-and-bolts have been hammered out on the telephone, over a friendly meal, through letters and faxes, or by middlemen (agents, brokers, attorneys, etc).
As far as I can tell, only diplomats and labour leaders like deal-making around a table. I'm not sure if they do this as a public relations stunt (so they can be seen to be doing something), but the futility of most of these negotiations - they rarely satisfy both sides and take weeks, months, sometimes years to resolve - just may be related to the presence of a table.
Almost any negotiation will go more smoothly without a table. Putting people on opposite sides of a table creates a divisive barrier. It formalises the proceedings and, if it's a big table, draws extra people into the negotiations - and additional people tend to complicate rather than simplify the process.
I think you can accomplish much more outside the traditional business environment, which is why I've always liked restaurants, sports events and other hospitable settings for my negotiations. The social environment seems to put people at ease and makes them more agreeable.
For example, a few years ago I went to a jewellery shop on New York's Fifth Avenue with a friend who was much wealthier and more interested in fine jewellery than I will ever be. Let's call him the Mogul.