1
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.
2
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.
3
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
(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.
5
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:
6
• 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.