Actually in this negotiation we tried to create many opportunities to generate value. As there were more than three parties in this negotiation, o there were many interests, diffrences and of course each of them had priorities of their own. At the first I tried to manage the information coming from each party and ntegrated it with y own interest. I tried to listen actively and absorbed what others say that helped me to understand possible alliances as it will be good for protecting oneself from being overlooked. It allow us to reach an inclusive final decision and to distribute as many resources.
MULTIPARTY NEGOTIATIONS—in which more than two people
are bargaining on behalf of themselves or others—create
many opportunities to generate value. As the number of
people at the table increases, so does the potential to make wise tradeoffs across multiple issues. But group negotiations are also highly complex. Three or more individuals
may have more difficulty integrating and maximizing their
interests than a pair of negotiators would.
which included VPs representing finance, sales, marketing,
IT, and production, was charged with setting the content,
sourcing, and length of the training program.
Jesse had certain goals for the training program, and she
knew that the other VPs would have priorities of their own.
Clearly, substantial negotiation would be needed to reach
agreement. What bargaining process would optimize outcomes
for each individual and for the company as a whole?
Most negotiation advice focuses on dyads, or one-on-one
bargaining. When more than two people are negotiating, special guidance is needed. In particular, negotiators in a group
must devote greater attention to managing (1) information,
(2) alliances, and (3) decision rules. Using Jesse’s negotiation as a model, I’ll show you how to use the latest research in these areas to improve group negotiations in your workplace.
At the first I tried to manage the information coming from each party and ntegrated it with y own interest
1. Managing information
In a multiparty negotiation, you need to manage the myriad
information coming from each party and integrate it with
your own interests. To manage this complexity, create a payoff matrix of parties and interests before talks begin. During
the actual bargaining session, you can update the matrix on
a computerized spreadsheet. The table on the next page
shows what Jesse’s matrix looked like before her meeting.
Using such a spreadsheet may initially seem cumbersome.
Once they try it, however, my negotiation students
find it to be a valuable tool for managing a continual flow
of information. Indeed, the strength of real-time analysis
has been demonstrated by researchers such as Howard
Raiffa of Harvard Business School and Kathleen Eisenhardt
of Stanford University.
For any multiparty negotiation, begin your matrix by
listing the names of the negotiation parties (including
yourself) in rows. When the VP for legal affairs showed up
unexpectedly, Jesse added him to the matrix. Next, list the
negotiation issues as columns. Jesse knew that length of
training, content, and in-house training versus outsourcing
would be major issues. But during the negotiation, the
sales VP argued that training should take place on weekends, and the legal VP expressed his view that after the
training program the data should be destroyed. Jesse simply
added these issues to her matrix.
Next, prioritize issues for each party at the table. Before the negotiation begins, rank the issues of importance to you and then estimate how each negotiator would rank them. Jesse
cared most about the content of the training program, followed by keeping it in-house, and, finally, program length.
She estimated how others would rank these and other issues.
Finally, assign points to each issue to create a payoff system that will help you make comparisons across issues.
Jesse decided that content was worth 200...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document