DIPLOMAT: Dialogue-Span-Aware Direct Preference Optimization for Polite Persuasive Workplace Negotiation Dialogues
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Patna, India · GREYC Laboratory, University of Caen Normandy, France
Abstract
Effective workplace negotiation requires balancing multiple objectives, including achieving task goals, preserving professional relationships, and resolving conflicts constructively. However, misunderstandings, misaligned preferences, and interpersonal friction often impede successful outcomes. Politeness mitigates these challenges by fostering trust, reducing tension, and preventing escalation, and persuasive communication helps overcome resistance, align preferences, and guide participants toward mutually beneficial agreements. Motivated by these insights, we present DIPLOMAT, a dialogue system for polite and persuasive workplace negotiation. To support its development, we introduce PROWESS, a dataset of multi-turn workplace negotiation dialogues generated via a multi-agent framework and enriched withnegotiation strategies, politeness levels, persuasive strategies. DIPLOMAT is trained using Dialogue-Span-Aware Direct Preference Optimization (DSA-DPO), a novel preference learning objective that identifies key dialogue spans for preference alignment. This enables DIPLOMAT to generate contextually coherent responses that employ intended negotiation strategies, maintain politeness, and incorporate effective persuasion strategies throughout interactions. Automatic and human evaluation on PROWESS confirm that DIPLOMAT consistently outperforms baselines in generating coherent, polite, and persuasive negotiation responses.
Figures & tables
| Negotiation Aspects |
| benefits negotiation, bonus structure, career development, contract terms, equity negotiation, exit interview, flexible hours, health benefits, hiring decision, job responsibilities, onboarding, performance review, professional development, project assignment, promotion discussion, relocation package, remote work arrangement, retention offer, retirement plans, salary negotiation, team transition, training opportunities, vacation time, work equipment, work-life balance |
| Statistic | Value |
| # Negotiation Aspects | 25 |
| # Dialogues | 2,400 |
| # Utterances | 51,796 |
| # Words | 941,900 |
| Avg. Utterances per Dialogue | 21.58 |
| Minimum Dialogue Length | 18 |
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Negotiation Strategy | Definition | Example |
| Collaborative Style | Working jointly to find mutually beneficial outcomes and preserve relationships. | Given my experience, I was hoping for a two-year vesting or removal of the one-year cliff. |
| Active Listening | Demonstrating attentiveness and understanding to build rapport and trust. | Hi Ben, I’m excited about the possibility of you joining Innovatech. Your expertise in AI is impressive! |
| Win-Win Framing | Framing negotiation as a shared problem to solve for mutual benefit. | I see where you’re coming from. That would certainly provide immediate benefits, but let’s talk about long-term gains. |
| Principled Negotiation | Focusing on mutual interests and objective standards rather than positions. | I really value our dialogue, Ben. How about we agree on the standard vesting, with a performance review at 18 months? |
| Data-Driven Justification | Supporting negotiation points with evidence like market benchmarks and past performance. | I understand your perspective. May I explain why we maintain this vesting structure? It promotes team stability and fairness. |
| MESO | Proposing multiple offers of equal value to reveal priorities and increase agreement likelihood. | I appreciate your dedication, but how about we explore a performance-based bonus structure instead? It could complement the standard vesting. |
| Persuasion Strategy | Definition | Example |
| Rapport Building | Establishing trust and a positive relationship to enhance receptiveness. | Hi Ben, I’m excited about the possibility of you joining Innovatech. Your expertise in AI is impressive! |
| Concern Addressing | Actively listening to and resolving objections or hesitations. | I understand that the four-year vesting with a one-year cliff may feel lengthy, but let’s discuss this further. |
| Emotional Appeal | Connecting through emotions such as empathy, excitement, or urgency. | I understand the importance of long-term commitment, but I believe my skills warrant quicker rewards. |
| Credibility & Confidence | Demonstrating expertise and confidence to increase trust and influence. | Hi Ben, I’m thrilled about the possibility of you joining Innovatech. Let’s discuss your concerns regarding the equity vesting schedule. |
| Data-Driven Persuasion | Using evidence, facts, and benchmarks to strengthen arguments. | But wouldn’t an accelerated vesting schedule incentivize me even more to contribute significantly right from the start? |
| Problem-Solving Focus | Presenting ideas as solutions that address mutual challenges. | I understand your perspective. May I explain why we maintain this vesting structure? It promotes team stability and fairness. |
| Politeness Level | Definition | Example |
| High_Polite | Highly courteous language emphasizing warmth and rapport. | I’m glad to hear that, Maria. Your enthusiasm is contagious, and we’re excited about your potential contributions. |
| Moderate_Polite | Respectful and cooperative tone maintaining professional balance. | I appreciate your concern, Ben. Our past hires have thrived under this structure, which builds trust and shared goals. |
| Low_Polite | Direct and assertive language with minimal politeness markers. | A partial stipend is better than nothing, but I need assurance of full funding eventually. |
| Component | Aligned | Plausible | Misaligned |
| Utility Evaluation | 100.9 | 31.4 | 7.7 |
| Suboptimal Utterance Detection | 98.6 | 33.1 | 8.3 |
| Dialogue-Span Extraction | 101.2 | 30.5 | 8.3 |
| # Preference Pairs | PPL | B-4 | BS-F1 | D-2 | R-LEN | NSC | PSC | PA | AR (%) | |
| 0.4 | 935 | 9.9 | 0.438 | 0.624 | 0.627 | 18.7 | 0.681 | 0.596 | 0.878 | 78.9 |
| 0.5 | 822 | 10.7 | 0.446 | 0.627 | 0.632 | 19.2 | 0.706 | 0.614 | 0.880 | 80.7 |
| 0.6 | 700 | 8.6 | 0.452 | 0.630 | 0.635 | 19.8 | 0.724 | 0.628 | 0.882 | 82.3 |
| 0.7 | 391 | 9.8 | 0.444 | 0.626 | 0.631 | 19.1 | 0.702 | 0.611 | 0.879 | 80.4 |
| 0.8 | 548 | 9.1 | 0.431 | 0.621 | 0.623 | 18.4 | 0.672 | 0.587 | 0.876 | 77.6 |
| Speaker | Utterances generated by DIPLOMAT (F=5, CC = 5, E = 5, NSC = 5, PSC = 5, PA = 5, BE = 5, OF = 5, SC = 5, IE = 5) |
| Employer | I understand your desire for autonomy, Leo. Let’s explore how we can balance that with our overall strategic vision. |
| Candidate | I appreciate that, and for me, full creative autonomy isn’t just a desire, but a core requirement for leading effectively. |
| Employer | Absolutely, I see your point. However, having the partners involved can provide essential oversight on crucial accounts. |
| Candidate | I value the partners’ strategic insights, but true creative leadership requires final decision-making authority within my domain. |
| Employer | Consider this: giving you that authority could enhance your leadership role while still allowing us to guide key decisions. |
| Candidate | Precisely. The efficacy of a Creative Director lies in their ability to make swift, final decisions for their team’s creative direction. |
| Speaker | Utterances generated by DIPLOMAT (F=5, CC=5, E=4, NSC=5, PSC=5, PA=5, BE=4, OF=5, SC=5, IE=5) |
| Employer | Thank you for your proposal. We value your expertise greatly. However, I believe we could explore a more balanced approach. How about a substantial, yet phased RSU grant? |
| Candidate | I appreciate you offering a substantial grant. However, to truly compensate for my immediately lost CodeWeavers equity, a significantly front-loaded RSU structure is essential for me to feel appropriately valued and fully commit to this new chapter at Innovate Inc. This approach directly addresses the unique financial circumstances of the acquisition. |
| Employer | I understand your concern regarding immediate compensation. Our phased approach aligns with our broader goal of retaining top talent while ensuring long-term commitment. It allows you to share in the success of our integration project. |
| Candidate | I am absolutely committed to Innovate Inc.’s long-term success, especially with this crucial integration. |
| Employer | Absolutely! And your contributions will be pivotal. Would you consider a combination of an initial front-loaded grant and performance-based milestones linked to future RSUs? This way, you benefit as the project progresses. |
| Candidate | That’s a step in the right direction. To truly compensate for my immediately lost equity, the upfront portion needs to be meaningful. I am open to milestone-based RSUs if the criteria are clear. |
| Speaker | Utterances generated by DIPLOMAT (F=4, CC = 3, E = 3, NSC = 2, PSC = 2, PA = 4, BE = 2, OF = 2, SC = 3, IE = 2) |
| Employer | I understand your concern. However, our standard policy is three weeks. Let’s explore how we can make this work for you. |
| Candidate | Thank you for acknowledging my position. Five weeks of vacation is a critical component of my work-life balance. |
| Employer | Absolutely, and I respect that. Our culture emphasizes flexibility and growth, which fosters productivity and job satisfaction. |
| Candidate | Thank you. Five weeks of vacation is a critical component of my work-life balance, and I hope we can find a solution that respects this. |
| Employer | I completely understand. What if we offered you additional unpaid leave options to supplement that time? |
| Candidate | Thank you for considering that option. While I appreciate the offer of flexibility, additional unpaid leave isn’t a suitable substitute for the five weeks of paid vacation I require. This is a non-negotiable component of my compensation. |
| Prompt for Negotiation Scenario Generation |
| Variables in curly brackets are populated at runtime. |
| User Prompt: |
| Generate strictly {scenarios_needed} number of detailed, UNIQUE workplace negotiation scenario for the negotiation aspect: "{domain}" |
| # UNIQUENESS RULES |
| 1. Each scenario must differ in context, characters, and challenges. |
| 2. Vary company sizes, industries, departments, and job roles. |
| Prompt for Persuasion and Negotiation Strategy Labeling |
| Variables in curly brackets are populated at runtime. |
| System Prompt: |
| You are an expert of workplace negotiation. Analyze the give round of utterances and identify politeness level, persuasion and negotiation strategies used by BOTH the employer and the candidate in each of their turns. |
| User Prompt: |
| Analyze this entire workplace conversation rounds and identify politeness levels, and persuasion and negotiation strategies used by BOTH the employer AND the candidate in each of their turns. |
| # CONVERSATION ROUND: |
| Prompt for Agreement Quality (AQ) & Mutual Satisfaction Session Judge |
| Variables in curly brackets are populated at runtime. |
| System Prompt: |
| You are an expert evaluator of job negotiation dialogues. Your task is to assess the negotiation outcome and the perceived satisfaction of both parties. You must strictly follow the scoring rubrics and return numeric scores between 0.0 and 1.0. |
| User Prompt: |
| You will be given a complete negotiation dialogue between a candidate and an employer for a job position. Your task is to evaluate TWO aspects: (1) Agreement Quality and (2) Mutual Satisfaction. |
| # ADDITIONAL CONTEXT (FOR INTERPRETATION ONLY) |
| Prompt for Negotiation Breakdown Session Judge |
| Variables in curly brackets are populated at runtime. |
| System Prompt: |
| You are an expert evaluator of negotiation dialogues. Your task is to detect whether the negotiation exhibits conflict, coercion, or breakdown behaviors. Focus on escalation, threats, ultimatums, hostility, or termination signals. |
| User Prompt: |
| You will be given a complete job negotiation dialogue. Evaluate whether the dialogue exhibits any of the following: explicit or implicit threats; ultimatums or coercive language; hostile escalation; abrupt termination of negotiation; relationship breakdown signals. |
| # IMPORTANT GUIDELINES |
| Prompt for Persuasion Strategy Alignment (PSA) & Negotiation Strategy Alignment (NSA) Judge |
| Variables in curly brackets are populated at runtime. |
| System Prompt: |
| You are an expert evaluator of negotiation dialogues. Your task is to assess whether the strategies used by the negotiators align with effective persuasion and negotiation principles. You must strictly follow the scoring rubrics and return numeric scores between 0.0 and 1.0. |
| User Prompt: |
| You will be given a complete negotiation dialogue between a candidate and an employer. Your task is to evaluate TWO aspects: (1) Persuasion Strategy Alignment (PSA) and (2) Negotiation Strategy Alignment (NSA). |
| # ADDITIONAL CONTEXT (FOR INTERPRETATION ONLY) |
| Prompt for Politeness Trajectory (PT) Judge |
| Variables in curly brackets are populated at runtime. |
| System Prompt: |
| You are an expert evaluator of negotiation dialogues. Your task is to analyze how politeness and interpersonal tone evolve throughout the negotiation. You must strictly follow the scoring rubric and return a numeric score between 0.0 and 1.0. |
| User Prompt: |
| You will be given a complete negotiation dialogue between a candidate and an employer. Your task is to evaluate the Politeness Trajectory (PT) of the dialogue. |
| Politeness trajectory refers to how politeness, respect, and cooperative tone evolve across the interaction. Focus on whether the dialogue: maintains professional respect; escalates or de-escalates tension; sustains constructive conversational tone; avoids rude or dismissive behavior. |
| Prompt for Suboptimal Utterance Selection |
| Variables in curly brackets are populated at runtime. |
| System Prompt: |
| You are asked to perform suboptimal utterance detection for a polite persuasive negotiation dialogue agent. |
| User Prompt: |
| You are asked to perform suboptimal utterance detection for a polite persuasive negotiation dialogue agent. The goal is to identify the agent’s response in the conversation that could have been improved to achieve a better negotiation outcome. |
| Input: A conversation in JSON format, which includes: |
| Prompt for Dialogue-Span Extraction |
| Variables in curly brackets are populated at runtime. |
| User Prompt: |
| You are analyzing two workplace negotiation conversations to identify the key segment that makes one better than the other. |
| # SCENARIO |
| Negotiation Aspect: {aspect} |
| Employer: {employer} |
Automated Negotiation
Automated negotiation studies computational agents that bargain over prices, preferences, and agreements in human, market, and multi-agent settings.
See all 44 papers