Mastering Multiparty Negotiations
Negotiating a settlement between two parties is difficult enough, and the difficulty increases when three or more parties are involved, each with its own interests. Group dynamics also come into play: two or more parties may gang up against a minority interest, side deals are struck, and the entire situation becomes a huge entanglement of politics and backstabbing. Fun.
Coalitions
Coalitions are alliances among groups involved in a competitive negotiation. Generally, it is necessary to forge a coalition when an agreement cannot be reached among all members of the larger group, and smaller players need to consolidate their power to get their way.
The advantages of forming a coalition are:
- A coalition has more power than any of its individual members
- Coalition partners can work together to complement one another's strengths and weaknesses
- Within the coalition, you can collaborate to derive a solution that may not have arisen if they remained competitive
Forming an alliance is generally pretty straightforward: you negotiate a deal with one of the other parties involved in a negotiation. If you can arrive at an agreement with them, an alliance is formed, and the two parties can work together in the greater struggle.
To form a coalition, you must get a handful of parties together - whether a coalition is formed at the outset or other parties join the alliance. The agreement becomes a side-deal that still must be negotiated among the coalition members, but it is in any case easier than trying to reach an agreement with the larger group - due to the smaller number, and due to the predisposition of the coalition members to agree on certain aspects of the deal.
In some cases, a coalition is temporary; but in other cases, it becomes more long-lived (this is referred to as a 'durable' coalition). In either case, you must act in certain ways in order to preserve your esteem with other coalitions members - fundamentally, you must act as a collaborator: develop trust, share information, defining a common vision, and generally playing fairly with coalition members.
Managing Group Negotiations
In cases of collaborative negotiations among a group (such as a cross-functional team of employees of the same company), a different approach is needed. Some subgroups will form, and coalition dynamics may come into play, but they can be counterproductive. In general, there are three roles you may fill: self-oriented, task-oriented, or relationship-oriented.
The self-oriented role is appropriate only in defense: when a group is formed for "collaboration" but it quickly becomes apparent that you're on the menu instead of the guest list. Fundamentally, your goal in this situation is to protect yourself from the damage that the others are seeking to inflict on you and make sure that your own interests are served by the process.
A relationship-oriented role is used to create harmony among the group members. This is generally necessary early in the process, when the members of the group are awkward and wary. Some specific tactics in this situation are:
- Offer encouragement and support to others by agreeing with them
- Seeking to identify shared goals and steer away from points of contention
- Attempting to define a middle ground where conflict is likely
- Facilitating the interactions to ensure that each member of the group has input and buy-in
- Setting standards of conduct and methods of negotiating
Finally, a task-oriented role is necessary to move the group forward toward a constructive agreement. In some cases, this can be done by taking action and expecting or prompting others to follow suit. In others, it may be a matter of drawing information out of others.
Strategic Concerns in Group Negotiations
Most of the strategies that are used in two-player negotiation also apply to multiplayer negotiation, though the situation becomes difficult because you must consider the reaction that each party will have to any gambit, and there may be situations in which an action taken to make gains with one party will cause losses with another.
There may be instances in which the complexity of group dynamics should cause you to withdraw from group negotiations and seek other methods of accomplishing your goals, where possible. Your strategy may be to walk away completely, or to negotiate individually with one or more parties involved in the negotiation but remain distant from the remainder of the group.
Where you have (or wish to foster) good working relationships with all parties, withdrawal may not be an option, and you may have to play the role of peacemaker among them.
Alternately, if there are a mix of players and you wish to be collaborative with some and competitive with others, this supports a coalition approach, in which you make alliances to act collaboratively "on the side" and assume a competitive posture in the group.
The Stages of Multiparty Negotiation
The authors provide some random notes on the way that the three stages of negotiation are to eb approached in multiparty negotiations:
Pre-negotiation
- Who should be included or excluded?
- Is there potential to form a coalition?
- What is your relationship with each player? What are the relationships among them?
- What roles should you play?
- How much power or interest do you have in setting the agenda?
- What are your costs of withdrawal, in terms of both relationships and outcomes?
- What alternatives do you have to getting involved?
Negotiation
- Who should coordinate the negotiations? What is that party's bias toward you?
- Do you wish to follow or attempt to derail the agenda?
- Can you discern the underlying interests of each party?
- How will each party react to your overtures?
- Has a coalition formed?
- Do you need to participate in it?
- Do you need to work to strengthen it?
- Do you need to work to disband it?
- What strategy should you use with each of the parties?
- Do you need to change gears based on their behavior?
Agreement
- How amenable are the other members of the group to the solution that would work best for you?
- Do you want to close in a collaborative manner (making sure everyone gets want they want) or do you want to try competitive tactics (nibbling)?
- Would the damage done to relationships by disrupting the agreement (throwing the process back into negotiations) be worth the gains you stand to make by doing so?
- Has the group rushed to an agreement? (If so, you'd be wise to point out the flaws and insist on more clarification.)
- How formal should the agreement be? Can it be a handshake, an informal document, or must it be a legal contract?
- Are there any errors, misrepresentations, or ambiguities that make the agreement impractical?
- Is there any third party who can prevent them from fulfilling their obligations or otherwise block or veto the resolutions?
- What measurements are in place to monitor the implementation of the agreement? What are the consequences if one party fails to live up to its obligations?
- What recourse do the other parties have is one party decides to back out? Does that nullify the entire agreement, or just amend it to exclude them?
Additional Thoughts
Some random notes crammed at the end of the chapter:
- Multiparty negotiations take a lot more time than head-to-head ones.
- A "majority vote" is not sufficient. You must get complete agreement from every party involved, which can take a lot of time.
- The costs of failing to negotiate vary for different parties, and as in two-dimensional negotiation, those with the greatest need to come to an agreement are in a more desperate position than those who stand to lose less. Capitalize on the desperation of others while disguising your own.
- Political strength becomes important - a party who has good relations with others is in a better position to mediate, form a coalition, rally them against others, etc. Capitalize on your position, and look for cues as to the nature of the relationships between the other parties.
- Before withdrawing, consider the potential impact of a decision made in your absence. This is especially true in the workplace: it is often wise to attend negotiations even if you do not see an immediate goal for yourself.