Chapter 10
Multiple Parties, Groups, and Teams in
Negotiation
Overview
In this chapter,
we will note the factors that make multiparty negotiations more difficult to
manage than one-on-one negotiations. We will comment on some of the key stages
and phases of multiparty deliberations. For each phase, we will consider a
variety of strategies that can be used to manage multiparty negotiations
effectively. We will show the ways that multiparty negotiations are complex and
highly susceptible to breakdown and that managing them effectively requires a
conscious commitment from the parties and a facilitator as they work toward an
effective multiparty agreement.
Learning Objectives
1.
The nature of multiparty negotiations.
2.
Managing multiparty negotiations.
3.
Interteam negotiations.
I.
The Nature
of Multiparty Negotiations
Multiparty
negotiation is defined as one where more than two parties are working together to achieve a collective objective.
A.
Differences between two-party negotiations and
multiparty negotiations ̶ The differences are what make multiparty negotiations
more complex, challenging, and difficult to manage.
1.
Number of parties.
a) Multiparty
negotiations have more negotiators at the table.
2.
Informational and computational complexity.
a) With
multiparty negotiations there are more issues, more perspectives on issues and
more total information are introduced.
3.
Social complexity.
a) Social
environment changes from a one-on-one dialogue to a small-group discussion. As a result, all
the dynamics of small groups begin to affect the way the negotiators behave.
(1)
How the process evolves may depend on the motivational
orientation of the parties toward each other.
(2)
Social pressures may develop for the group to act
cohesively, yet the members are in conflict with each other and cannot be
cohesive unless they can find an acceptable solution.
4.
Procedural complexity.
a) More
complex than two-party negotiations in that the process they have to follow is
more complicated.
5. Logistical
complexity.
a) Physical
distance can affect how much the parties trust each other, the ways they
interpret unclear or ambiguous behavior of the other parties, and the willingness
to continue negotiation with each other as a conflict resolution strategy. This
distance—whether physical or psychological—seems to affect how parties make
sense of and interpret what others are doing and whether “signals” are interpreted as indications of cooperative or competitive behavior.
6. Strategic
complexity.
a) In
a group negotiation, complexity increases significantly. The negotiator must consider the strategies
of all the other parties at the table and decide whether to deal with each of
them separately or as a group.
b) The actual
process of dealing with each of them usually evolves into a series of one-on-one
negotiations, which can have several consequences.
(1) First, these
exchanges are subject to the surveillance and audience dynamics
(2) Second,
negotiators who have some way to control the number of parties at the table
may begin to act
strategically, using this control to serve their objectives.
(3) Third,
negotiators can explicitly engage in coalition building as a way to marshal
support.
B. What is an
effective group? Schwartz (1994)
suggests that effective groups and their members do the following things:
1. Test assumptions and inferences.
2. Share all relevant information.
3. Focus on interests, not positions.
4. Explain the reasons behind one’s statements, questions, and answers.
5. Be specific—use examples.
6. Agree on what important words mean.
7. Disagree openly with any member of the group.
8. Make statements, then invite questions and comments.
9. Jointly design ways to test disagreements and solutions.
10. Discuss undiscussable issues.
11. Keep the discussion focused.
12. Do not take cheap shots or otherwise distract the group.
13. Expect to have all members participate in all phases of the process.
14. Exchange relevant information with nongroup members.
15. Make decisions by consensus.
16. Conduct a self-critique.
II.
Managing
Multiparty Negotiations
A. The
prenegotiation stage. This state is
characterized by a lot of informal contact among the parties.
1. Participants – the parties must agree on
who is going to be invited to the talks.
2. Coalitions exist before negotiations
begin or for coalitions to organized in anticipation of the meeting of all the
parties.
3. Defining group member roles – Group members can
play a number of different roles in a group.
Three types of roles that members can play—
a) Task roles, which move the group along toward a decision or conclusion;
b) Relationship roles, which manage and sustain good relationships
between group members; and
c) Self-oriented roles, which serve to bring attention to the individual group
member, often at the expense of group effectiveness.
4. Understanding
the costs and consequences of no agreement.
a) In
multiparty negotiations, the perceptual biases that negotiators are prone to,
are
likely to affect negotiators by inflating their sense of power and ability to
win—leading them to believe that the no-agreement alternative is much better than it
really is.
5. Learning
the issues and constructing an agenda.
a) There are many reasons why
an agenda can be an effective decision aid:
(1) It establishes the
issues that will be discussed.
(2) Depending on how
the issues are worded, it can also define how each issue is discussed.
(3) It can define the
order in which issues are discussed.
(4) It can be used to
introduce process issues as well as substantive issues, simply by including
them.
(5) It can
assign time limits to various items, thereby indicating the importance of the
different
issues.
B. The
formal negotiation stage – managing the group process and outcome.
1. Appoint
an appropriate chair.
2. Use
and restructure the agenda.
3. Ensure
a diversity of information and perspectives.
a) Manz, Neck,
Mancuso, and Manz (1997) suggest key process steps that a chair can implement
to assure having
an effective, amicable disagreement on a team:
(1) Collect your thoughts and composure before speaking.
(2) Try to understand the other person’s position.
(3) Try to think of ways that you both can win.
(4) Consider how important this issue is to you.
(5) Remember that you will probably have to work together with these people
in the future.
4. Ensure
consideration of all the available information.
Group norms can undermine an effective discussion.
a) Unwillingness
to tolerate conflicting points of view and perspectives.
b) Side
conversations.
c) No
means for defusing an emotionally charged discussion.
d) Coming
to a meeting unprepared.
5. Bazerman, Mannix,
and Thompson (1988) reviewed several group decision-making and brainstorming
techniques that are frequently used to achieve this objective.
a) The
Delphi technique – a moderator structures an
initial questionnaire and sends it out to all parties, asking for input.
b) Brainstorming
– parties are instructed to define a problem and then to generate as many
solutions as possible without criticizing any of them.
c) Nominal
group technique – typically follows brainstorming.
6. Manage
conflict effectively – groups must
generate many ideas and approaches to a problem—which usually creates
conflict—while not allowing that conflict to either disrupt the information
flow or create
personal animosity.
7. Review
and manage the decision rules – the parties also need to manage the decision
rules—that
is, the way the group will decide what to do (Brett, 1991).
8. Strive
for a first agreement – consensus or the best quality solution, negotiators
should not strive to achieve it all at once.
9. Manage
problem team members – Manz et. al (1997) suggest the following tactics for
dealing with problem team members:
a) Be specific about
the problem behavior—offer clear, specific examples.
b) Phrase the
problem as one that is affecting the entire team, rather than just you.
c) Focus on
behaviors the other can control.
d) Wait to give
constructive criticism until the individual can truly hear and accept it.
e) Keep feedback
professional. Use a civil tone and describe the offending behavior and its
impact
specifically.
f) Make sure the
other has heard and understood your comments.
C. The
agreement phase.
1. During
the
agreement stage, the parties must select among the alternatives on the table.
2. Schwartz
(1994); Thompson et al., 2012 suggest that four key problem-solving steps occur
during this phase.
a) Select the best solution.
b) Develop an action plan.
c) Implement the action plan.
d) Evaluate outcomes and the process.
3. What the chair can do to help.
a) Move
the group toward selecting one or more of the options.
b) Shape
and draft the tentative agreement.
c) Discuss
whatever implementation and follow-up or next steps need to occur.
d) Thank
the group for their participation, their hard work, and their efforts.
e) Organize
and facilitate the postmortem.
Summary
Most
negotiation theory has been developed under the assumption that negotiation is
a bilateral process—that there are only two focal negotiators opposing each
other. Yet many negotiations are multilateral or team deliberations—more than
two negotiators are involved, each with his or her own interests and positions,
and the parties must arrive at a collective agreement regarding a plan,
decision, or course of action. In this chapter, we explored the dynamics of two
forms of multiparty negotiations: when multiple parties must work together to
achieve a collective decision or consensus and when two or more teams are
opposing each other in a negotiation.
One
theme that runs through all forms of multiparty negotiation is the need to
actively monitor and manage negotiation process because these negotiations are
significantly more complex than two-party negotiations. We present here a brief
set of questions that any participant in negotiations involving coalitions,
multiple parties, or teams should keep in mind:
• What are the consequences of the parties failing to agree due
to the increased complexities we identified here? What happens if there is no
agreement?
• How will the parties involved actually make a decision? That
is, what decision rules will be used? Why are these the best possible rules?
• How can the parties use iterations—multiple rounds of
discussion—to achieve their objectives? (This may be particularly appropriate
when the decision rule is consensus—or the best-quality agreement—because
consensus may not be achievable in a single iteration.)
• Do we need a designated chair or facilitator? Should it be a
neutral outsider, or can one of the parties fill this role? What tactics can a
facilitator use to manage the process in order to ensure that the best decision
is reached? (These tactics might include ensuring that the parties are exposed
to a variety of information sources, managing the process to make sure that the
group considers and discusses all available information thoroughly, and
structuring the group’s agenda with care.)
If
these issues are raised and thoughtfully considered, the parties involved are
considerably more likely to feel better about the process and to arrive at an
effective outcome than if these factors are left to chance.
