Download the Week 2 Field Analysis Assignment (Links to an external site.). Complete the field analysis, which will assist you in understanding the key parties and their roles in negotiations.

Remember to submit your assignment for grading when finished.

9. Assessing the Social Context of Negotiation

When people are negotiating for themselves—for example, buying a used mountain bicycle or exercise machine—they can determine the bargaining mix on their own. But when people negotiate in a professional context, there may be more than two parties. First, there may be more than two negotiators at the table. Multiple parties at the table often lead to coalitions of negotiators who align with each other in order to win the negotiation (cf. Wheeler, 2004, and our discussion of coalition dynamics in Chapter 12). Second, negotiators also have “constituents”—bosses, superiors who make the final decision, or other parties who will evaluate and critique the solution achieved. Moreover, there may be observers of the negotiation who also watch and critique the negotiation. When one has a constituent or observer, other issues arise, such as who conducts the negotiation, who can participate in the negotiation, and who has the ultimate power to affirm negotiated agreements; these issues are addressed in Chapter 11. Finally, negotiation occurs in a context of rules—a social system of laws, customs, common business practices, cultural norms, and political cross-pressures.

One way to assess all the key parties in a negotiation is to complete a “field analysis.” Imagine that you are the captain of a soccer team, about to play a game on the field (see Figure 4.5). Assessing constituents is the same as assessing all the parties who are in the soccer stadium:

Who is, or should be, on our team on our side of the field (e.g., Side A)? Perhaps it is just the negotiator (a one-on-one game). But perhaps we want other help: an attorney, an accountant, or an expert to assist us; someone to coach us, give us moral support, or listen closely to what the other side says; a recorder or note-taker.

Who is on the other side of the field (Side B)? This is discussed in more detail in the next section.

Who is on the sidelines and can affect the play of the game (Side C)? Who are the negotiation equivalents of substitute players, owners, managers, and strategists? This includes one’s direct superior or the person who must approve or authorize the agreement reached. Most importantly, these considerations directly affect how decisions will be made about what is acceptable or unacceptable to those on each side.

Who is in the stands (D)? Who is watching the game, is interested in it, but can only indirectly affect what happens? This might include senior managers, shareholders, competitors, financial analysts, the media, or others. When multiple parties enter the negotiation—whether they are parties on the sidelines who are active in the negotiation or “interested parties” who may be affected by the settlement—negotiations will become more complex. The nature of these complexities is explored in Chapters 11, 12, and 13.

What is going on in the broader environment in which the negotiation takes place (Space E)? A number of “context” issues can affect negotiation:

What is the history of the “game” relationship with the other party, and how does it affect the overall expectations he or she brings to this negotiation (see Chapter 10)?

What kind of a relationship with the other party is expected or desired for the future, and how do these expectations affect the current negotiation (see Chapter 10)?Page 137

How often do we expect to negotiate in the future—that is, how many rounds of negotiation will there be? Multiround negotiations create issues of managing precedents, planning future agendas, and ensuring that current agreements are enacted and monitored (Wheeler, 2004).

What are the deadlines or time limits? To extend the game metaphor, games have a finite time period that is broken down into periods or segments. Are there similar constraints that bound this negotiation?

What are the “rules of the game” by which this agreement will be managed? Is there a set of fixed rules, such as a legal structure that will bind and enforce contracts? What are the common and acceptable practices in the legal system in which the deal is being done? Is the rule structure itself negotiable so that we can make up our own rules about how certain problems and situations will be handled? Will one party try to impose rules unilaterally, and what can the other side do? Are negotiations occurring across cultures, and what cultural rules or practices may apply (see Chapter 16)? Finally, is there a forum in which certain negotiations should take place—a public space, a private office, a lawyer’s office, a courthouse—and are there dispute resolution mechanisms in place to guide how we should behave if we cannot agree? Are referees, or “third parties,” available to officiate the game and intervene when there has been a breach of the rules (see Chapter 19) (Watkins, 2002)?

What is common and acceptable practice in the ethical system in which the deal is being done (see Chapter 5)? How will we decide if one party “cheats”—are there clear rules about what is and is not fair?

FIGURE 4.5 A Field Analysis of Negotiation

Considering these questions is important to the progress of the negotiation process. A negotiator bargaining on behalf of others (a company, union, department, club, family, etc.) must consult with them so that their concerns and priorities are included in the mix. In the house-buying illustration used earlier, let us assume that one member of a couple is doing the negotiating, and the other can’t attend the meeting. If that person fails to consider his partner’s concerns about the condition in which the house is left, or their children’s wish that the move not occur during the school year, then the negotiated resolution may be rejected by the constituents. A negotiator who is representing a constituency is accountable to that constituency and must include their wishes in proposals—subsequently either fulfilling those wishes for them through negotiation or explaining why their desires were not met. When negotiating for a large constituency, such as an entire company, a union, or a community, the process of consulting with the constituency can be elaborate and exhaustive. The negotiator may recognize that the constituency’s wish list is unrealistic and unobtainable, requiring the negotiator to negotiate with the constituency over what should be included on the agenda and what is realistic to expect. It is also critical to understand what happens when the two parties get close to an agreement. Does the negotiator have authority to reach agreement, or does the approval of the constituents have to be obtained? Constituents control negotiators by limiting how much they can decide on their own, and understanding these limits will keep negotiators in alignment with their constituents. (We explore this further in detail in Chapter 11.)