Negotiation, by nature, is complex. It just is. You bump up against your own psychology (insecurities, desires) and experience level (pro, neophyte, anywhere in between). Meanwhile you have to contend with your counterpart’s psychology and experience level. Then there are cultural issues to consider… And, you’ve got to keep track of tangibles (money, goods, services) and non-tangibles (feeling satisfied that you’ve made the best deal).
These aspects are present in the simplest negotiations between just two parties.
How much more complexity is added with a third, fourth, fiftieth party?
A lot.
Here at The Persuasion Lab, we believe that
- you can negotiate successfully exactly as you are, if you prepare well and leverage your strengths, and
- predictable and reliable negotiation success is possible, regardless of the complexity of the negotiation.
This article (the first in a series of two) will address the latter point.
By the end, you’ll have a clear understanding of how to map relationships, minimize complexity, and stay nimble throughout the course of your negotiation. These basics provide a scaffolding on which to begin to structure the nuances of your most complex, multiparty negotiations.
And while the blog, checklists, and tools are here to provide as much information and support as these things can, there’s no shame in admitting that this one’s just got you flummoxed. You’re staring down the barrel of the most complex negotiation, and don’t think you can get that positive outcome this time. You absolutely can. All you need to do is schedule a complimentary call with Martin Medeiros, Chief Negotiator at The Persuasion Lab. He can coach you through and create a bespoke negotiation plan of action designed for your success.
Now, back to the task at hand.
When we’re talking about complex multiparty negotiations, there are a few building blocks to keep in mind. These are, broadly speaking*:
- Primary party relations
- Cooperative relations
- Non-cooperative relations
- 3rd party relations
- Supporting primary party relations
With that in mind, let’s sift through these in a way that simplifies your negotiation.
Before you can start to make sense of the relations between and within parties, you must first identify the parties. Who has a seat at the table?
The term ‘party’ is tossed around very loosely when it comes to negotiation, and in essence refers to any participant in a negotiation. This may be an individual, group, company, community, state, or nation.
In addition to participating in a negotiation, strictly speaking, parties must be able to both make decisions that impact the course of the negotiation and communicate those decisions to all other parties involved. If an individual or group is interested in the negotiation, but doesn’t have the ability to make any decisions about it, they aren’t a party – they’re an observer or an agent.
The most commonly given example is that of union negotiations. Union rep(s) conduct the negotiation, and have been given power to make decisions and communicate those decisions. Union members are obviously interested in the outcome of the negotiations, but may or may not have the authority to make meaningful decisions that move the negotiation along.
Similarly, senators in the state and federal legislatures have the power to make decisions for their constituency. They deal with any number of other politicians, locally, nationally, and globally. Only those who have the authority to make decisions and communicate them on behalf of their constituents are considered party to the negotiation.
[Note: the presence of an audience or constituency matters for the outcome of a negotiation – more on that next week.]
Once you know who the involved parties are, consider: how cohesive are each of the parties (including your own)?
A ‘unitary party’ has high internal cohesion. Members are all on the same page, have clear roles, and are able to carry out their roles relatively seamlessly.
A ‘complex party’ is comprised of two or more monolithic parties. There may be far more dissension within the ranks of a complex party, and/or variance of interest and/or priorities for the deal at hand.
While it is absolutely important to consider what you know about internal relationships of other involved parties (and your own), it’s also important to understand that, particularly in complex negotiations, parties and their relationships shift. A unitary party can dissolve into a complex party; a complex party may have a key issue they rally around and become unitary. It all depends on how the situation evolves.
Next, consider: who’s (or what’s) not party to the negotiation, but can influence the outcome?
Are there constituents or an audience, as mentioned above? Is there the potential for economic upheaval or supply chain disruptions? Might the budget change and hamper progress if negotiations are conducted into Q4? If you bring in an expert or consultant will that change the game? What if another party brings in their own expert? Is any party an agent, speaking on behalf of a constituency, but unable to make decisions? Will there be a direct audience in the room? Will the media be privy to the workings of the negotiation, and thereby introduce a much broader audience?
Start with what you know you know. Do you already have a legal representative on retainer? Include that in your calculus. Do you know you need to get a CPA on board to review financials for the company you’re looking to acquire?
Once you know what you know, make some conjecture about what you don’t know. Who the other side may or may not have. What possible events might knock them of course.
As you think through the non-party influences of your negotiation, you can begin to make contingency plans. If they have expert x, so too should you for a second opinion. You’ll need to use timing and budget concerns as a tactic if things run long. Operations will need to shift to a more ‘unofficial’ strategy if media coverage is a concern, so that you can stay off the radar… etc, etc.
Alright… once you have a sense of exactly who the parties are, what the intra-party relationships might look like, and non-party influences on your negotiation, you can get to work on exploring what relationships look like between the parties.
Have you done deals with these people before? Do you have a solid working relationship, or not so much? Have some parties done deals, while others are new to the table? Do you have clear allies and clear opposition? Is everyone working together towards the same goal?
Remember, a “relationship is a pairing of entities that has meaning to the parties, in which the understood form of present and future interactions influences behavior today.”* Understanding how the relationships between the parties concerned works is foundational to making good strategic and tactical decisions from opening the discussion through to inking the deal.
Clearly there’s a great deal to consider. Are there ways you can you minimize complexity?
Absolutely, yes. But you need to have the lay of the land before you can hope to do so. If you followed along, you have a pretty good topographical map of how you can expect things to shake out.
So how exactly do you minimize complexity?
- Clearly define roles. At a minimum, within your own team. Use the checklists in your dashboard to make sure everyone knows what they need to know, and is able to speak intelligently to their piece of the puzzle. As negotiations unfold, roles might be assigned for various other tasks.
- Innovative, inventive thinking. Negotiation isn’t about strong arming folks into getting your way. We’ve all done it that way, and it leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. Get creative! Get collaborative! What are new ways to solve the issue? What questions haven’t yet been asked? Can you get to the essence of the issue?
- Creative problem solving. It’s worth harping on for another moment. How might you create more value for everyone at the table? Is there someone not in the room who might have good insight? Diagram, storyboard… whatever, but creative problem solving has an incredible potential to make things simple.
- Tie relevant issues together. Say there are 5 parties and 50 identifiable issues on table for discussion. Which ones can you tie together? Say a, b, and c can all go in a tidy pack together, meanwhile d, s, t, and z can get tossed together. Don’t force issues together that don’t naturally fit, but logrolling both increases collaboration, the likelihood of coming to a mutually agreeable deal, and often skyrockets the amount of value on the table. Worth considering, at least.
- Tactical ability to broker and make deals. Should be obvious. The better able you are (or your party is) to broker and make deals, the more seamless the whole thing is going to be. This boils down to strategy, tactics, and sometimes, experience. (Check out the searchable tactics library to read up on key tactics)
For the time being, we’ll leave it there. Stay tuned for next week’s article, in which we’ll explore the keys to strategic communication, and the role of having an audience (or not) in complex negotiations.
Wishing you winning negotiations!