BA225

1. Because learning changes everything.®
Essentials of
Negotiation
Part 03: Negotiation
Relationships
Chapter 10: Multiple Parties, Groups,
and Teams in Negotiation
© McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom.
No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

2. © McGraw-Hill Education
The Nature of Multiparty Negotiations
A multiparty negotiation is one in which more than two interested parties
are working together at the table to achieve a collective objective.
Access the text alternatives for these images.
2

3. © McGraw-Hill Education
Differences between Two-Party Negotiations and Multiparty
Negotiations
Number of parties.
• Social roles may change the
power and status during talks.
Informational and
computational complexity.
• Tracking solution boundaries is
a challenge.
Social complexity.
• Small group dynamics affect
negotiator behavior.
Procedural complexity.
• Discussing multiple issues at
the same time leads to better
agreements.
Logistical complexity.
• Facilitate integrative agreement
by bringing parties physically
close—interpret if needed.
Strategic complexity.
• Dealing with each strategy may:
• Lead to distributive tactics.
• Strategic control of party
numbers.
• Lead to coalition building.
• “snowball” coalitions.
• Past or future relations may
shape current discussions.
3

4. © McGraw-Hill Education
What Dynamics Can Make a Multiparty Negotiation Effective?
• Test assumptions and
inferences.
• Share as much relevant
information as possible.
• Focus on interests, not
positions.
• Explain the reasons behind
your statements, questions,
and answers.
• Be specific—use examples.
• Agree on the meaning of
important words.
• Disagree openly with any
member of the group.
• Make statements; then invite
questions and comments.
• Jointly design ways to test
disagreements and solutions.
• Discuss undiscussable issues.
• Keep the discussion focused.
• Do not take cheap shots or
create irrelevant sidetracks or
otherwise distract the group.
• Expect to have all members
participate in all phases of the
process.
• Exchange relevant information
with parties not at the table.
• Make decisions by consensus.
• Conduct a self-critique.
4

5. © McGraw-Hill Education
Managing Multiparty Negotiations
There are three key stages to manage: the prenegotiation stage, the
actual negotiations, and the agreement stage.
• In the next section we address these three stages and identify what a
single negotiator can do in the following situations.
• They want to ensure their own issues and interests are clearly
incorporated into the final agreement.
• They want to ensure the group reaches the highest-quality and
best possible final agreement.
• They are responsible for overseeing a multiparty negotiation
process to ensure that many of the strategic and procedural
complexities are effectively managed.
5

6. © McGraw-Hill Education
The Prenegotiation Stage
This stage is characterized by a lot of informal contact among the parties.
Parties work on a number of important issues.
• Who is at the table.
• Whether coalitions can be formed.
• What member roles different parties will take.
• Understanding the consequences of no agreement.
• And constructing an agenda.
6

7. © McGraw-Hill Education
Prenegotiation Stage—Identify Participants
Parties must agree on who is invited to the talks, which may take time
with complex negotiations.
Participants can be decided on the basis of any of the following.
• Who must be included if a deal is to be reached?
• Who could spoil the deal if they are excluded?
• Whose presence is likely to help other parties achieve their objectives?
• Whose presence is likely to keep other parties from achieving their
objectives?
• Whose status will be enhanced simply by being at the table?
7

8. © McGraw-Hill Education
Prenegotiation Stage—Coalitions and Roles
Coalitions may form before negotiations begin or during negotiations.
Coalitions may form to promote or block a particular agenda item.
There are three types of roles members play.
• Task roles move the group toward conclusion.
• Initiating/offering, information seeking, opinion seeking, elaborating,
evaluating, coordinating, and energizing.
• Relationship roles sustain good relationships.
• Encouraging, harmonizing, compromising, gatekeeping, and standard
setting.
• Self-oriented roles bring attention to an individual, often at the
expense of others.
• Blocking, recognition seeking, dominating, and avoiding.
8

9. © McGraw-Hill Education
Prenegotiation Stage—Costs No Agreement
In one-on-one encounters, a BATNA is important during impasse.
• But what if a group of equals is assigned a decision and there is no
agreement—who decides?
Are the costs the same for every negotiator?
• Different agents have different costs associated with no agreement.
• Members with a BATNA are likely to have more power.
Do all parties perceive their agreement and no-agreement options
accurately?
• In multiparty negotiations, perceptual biases likely affect negotiators
by inflating their sense of power and ability to win.
• This may lead them to believe that the no-agreement alternative is
much better than it really is.
• Reality checking with others is important to keep biases under control.
9

10. © McGraw-Hill Education
Prenegotiation Stage—Issues and Agenda
There are many reasons why an agenda can be an effective decision aid.
• It establishes the issues that will be discussed.
• Depending on how the issues are worded, it can also define how each
issue is discussed.
• It can define the order in which issues are discussed.
• It can be used to introduce process issues as well as substantive
issues, simply by including them.
• It can assign time limits to various items, thereby indicating the
importance of the various issues.
10

11. © McGraw-Hill Education
Prenegotiation Stage—The Connect Model
In addition to creating an agenda, parties might also agree to abide by a
set of ground rules—ways to conduct themselves during the negation.
• The Connect Model is a proven approach to building effective group
relationships.
Table 10.2:The Connect Model and Requirements for Relationship Building
Four Requirements Process Model
Can we agree to have a constructive
conversation?
Commit to the relationship.
Optimize safety.
Can our conversation be productive
enough to make a difference?
Narrow the discussion to one issue.
Neutralize defensiveness.
Can we understand and appreciate
each other’s perspective?
Explain and echo.
Can we commit to making
improvements?
Change one behavior each.
Track it!
Source: From Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson, When Teams Work Best: 6,000 Team Members and Leaders TellWhat It Takes to Succeed (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001), p. 51. 11

12. © McGraw-Hill Education
Formal Stage—Appoint an Appropriate Chair
Multiparty negotiations benefit
from a neutral chairperson,
implementing the following tactics.
• Explicitly describe your role.
• Introduce an agenda based on
issues, concerns, priorities.
• Make logistical arrangements.
• Introduce ground rules.
• Create or review decision
standards and rules.
• Assure members they will have
opportunity to speak and get
their issues on the table.
• Be an active gatekeeper.
• Listen for interests and
commonalities.
• Introduce external information
that will illuminate the issues.
• Summarize frequently.
• Particularly when stalled,
confused, or tense.
12

13. © McGraw-Hill Education
Formal Stage—Use and Restructure the Agenda
An agenda is critical to controlling the flow and direction of negotiations.
• Introduced and coordinated either by the chair or by the parties.
• Provides low-power groups a way of getting their issues addressed.
How an agenda is built, and who builds it, will
greatly impact negotiation flow.
• Negotiators facing an unacceptable
preemptive agenda should let others know
they consider the agenda open to discussion.
• In other words, make sure that agenda
modifications are part of the agenda.
Agendas may
artificially partition
related issues.
• Be willing to
challenge and
reconfigure an
agenda if it
leads to an
integrative
agreement.
13

14. © McGraw-Hill Education
Formal Stage—Diversity of Information and Perspectives
A third way to facilitate the negotiation is to ensure the parties receive a
variety of perspectives about the task and sources of information.
• The nature of information changes depending on the task.
• The chair should ensure that input is received from everyone and that
relevant data is circulated and discussed.
Five key steps a chair can implement to ensure having an effective,
amicable disagreement on a team.
• Collect your thoughts and composure before speaking.
• Try to understand the other person’s position.
• Try to think of ways that you both can win.
• Consider how important this issue is to you.
• Remember that you will probably have to work together with these
people in the future.
14

15. © McGraw-Hill Education
Formal Stage—Consider All Available Information
Parties seldom consider what discussion norms they are going to follow
and there are several things that can undermine an effective discussion.
• Unwillingness to tolerate conflicting points of view and perspectives.
• Side conversations.
• No means for defusing an emotionally charged discussion.
• Coming to a meeting unprepared.
Strategies may manage these potentially destructive discussion norms.
• The Delphi Technique.
• A moderator sends a questionnaire to all parties, asking for input.
• Brainstorming.
• Parties define a problem and generate as many solutions as
possible without criticizing any of them.
• Nominal Group Technique evaluates brainstormed solutions.
15

16. © McGraw-Hill Education
Formal Stage—Manage Conflict Effectively
The parties must generate many ideas and approaches to a problem—
which usually creates conflict.
• When done well, conflict is a natural part of the decision-making
process.
• When done poorly, conflict actively disrupts all processes.
One study examined three kinds of conflict typical to work groups.
• Relationship conflict—interpersonal incompatibilities.
• Task conflicts—differences in viewpoints about the group’s task.
• Process conflicts—conflict on how task accomplishment will proceed.
High-performing groups had the following characteristics.
• Low, but increasing levels of process conflict.
• Low levels of relationship conflict with a rise near the deadline.
• A moderate level of task conflict at the midpoint.
16

17. © McGraw-Hill Education
Formal Stage—Decision Rules
Decision rules must be managed—how the group will decide what to do.
• Decisions can be made by dictatorship—one person decides.
• By oligarchy—a dominant minority coalition decides.
• Simple majority—one more person than half decides.
• Two-thirds majority.
• Quasi-consensus—most of the parties agree, and those who dissent
agree not to protest or raise objections.
• True unanimity.
• Consensus—everyone agrees.
Determining decision rules before talks start significantly affects the process.
• If simple majority rules, coalitions may form before deliberations.
• If consensus is the rule, the group must work hard to reach agreement.
17

18. © McGraw-Hill Education
Formal Stage—First Agreement
If the objective is consensus or the best quality solution, negotiators
should not strive to achieve it all at once.
• Instead, strive for a first agreement, then revise, upgrade, improve.
• Under multiparty conditions, achieving true consensus becomes more
difficult, even if a true consensus solution exists.
• It is often better to set a more modest objective: to reach a preliminary
agreement or a tentative consensus.
The drawback is that many parties may be satisfied with the first solution.
• Resistance to further deliberations may be overcome by taking a
break, encouraging the parties to critique and evaluate the agreement.
• With plans to come back for second-agreement negotiations
(renegotiations).
18

19. © McGraw-Hill Education
Formal Stage—Problematic Behaviors
Individual behaviors may create difficulty in achieving an effective
group—arriving late, coming unprepared, and causing distractions.
• Here are a number of tactics for dealing with problematic behavior.
• Be specific about the problem behavior—offer clear examples.
• Phrase the problem as one that is affecting the entire team, rather
than just you—use “we” instead of “you” to avoid defensiveness.
• Focus on behaviors the other can control.
• Wait to give constructive criticism until the individual can truly hear
and accept it.
• Keep feedback professional. Use a civil tone and describe the
offending behavior and its impact specifically.
• Make sure the other has heard and understood your comments.
19

20. © McGraw-Hill Education
The Agreement Stage
Parties choose an alternative and four key problem-solving steps occur.
• Select the best solution.
• The fairness of the solution should be one of the primary criteria for
selecting this package.
• Develop an action plan.
• This increases the likelihood a solution will be implemented
completely, effectively, and on time
• Implement the action plan.
• This is likely to take place after the group disbands but it needs to
follow the established guidelines.
• Evaluate outcomes and the process.
• Evaluation of the process and outcome can be critical for surfacing
data about the effectiveness of the process followed.
20

21. © McGraw-Hill Education
Agreement Stage—What the Chair Can Do to Help
Move the group toward selecting one or more of the options.
• Use the process rules to reach an integrative agreement.
• Permit and encourage packaging and trade-offs.
Shape and draft the tentative agreement.
• Write it down, work on language, display and edit freely.
Discuss whatever implementation and follow-up steps need to occur.
• Make assignments to ensure key action steps are executed.
Thank the group for their participation, their hard work, and their efforts.
• A celebration and formal thank-you notes or gifts may be in order.
Organize and facilitate the postmortem.
• Bring the parties back to discuss the process and outcome and to
evaluate what might have been done better or differently the next time.
21

22. Because learning changes everything.®
www.mheducation.com
© McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom.
No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.