When thinking of negotiations, most people envisage two parties hammering out a deal.  Often however, there are more than two parties, more than two places and more than one time period.

Some negotiators describe multiparty negotiations as being like herding cats.  When the negotiations become multiparty and multiphase, its like herding pigeons: just like herding cats, only in three dimensions.

Multiparty Negotiations

Most negotiations we deal with involve more than two parties and all of them involve more than two people.  What we find is that invariably some of the parties are already aligned with each other and often they form alliances along the way.  Thus a strong negotiating position in a two party negotiation can be weakened by a coalition of parties in a multiparty negotiation.  Even the weakest party in a three party negotiation can manoeuvre into a position of strength by combining with one of the other parties.

The Harvard Negotiation Project divides coalitions into at least two types:

• Natural coalitions of parties that share similar interests and outlooks.
• Single issue coalitions where parties that differ on other matters come together to either promote or deny a single issue.

The natural coalitions are often considered to be the more powerful.  Consider England and the US during the Second World War.  They both stood for democracy and freedom and opposed Nazi Germany on these grounds.  The two countries remain close allies to this day.

A single issue coalition, on the other hand, is often considered to be easier to break up.  Consider England, the US and Russia during the Second World War.  England and the US opposed Russia on philosophical grounds, but were united in the single issue of defeating Nazi Germany.  Sure enough, soon after the war, the philosophical differences reared up and the Cold War broke out.

One way of mapping out the coalitions is using a stakeholder engagement plan and adapting it to know who to deal with first.

Multiphase Negotiations

Multiphase negotiations take place over different times and usually have markers whereby the parties can see that previous agreements have been honoured and it is safe to proceed to the next phase.  This type of negotiation lends itself to the following strategies:

• Building trust in the early stages.  In Chinese negotiation, for example, this stage is more extensive than in the West and often involved long conversations about seemingly irrelevant matters such as family, sports, culture and hobbies.
• Following through early promises to show that you are reliable and worthy of the next step.
• Monitoring the other party’s follow through on early promises to decide whether they are reliable and worthy of the next step.
• Becoming familiar with the other party’s negotiating style.  This will be invaluable later.
• Putting the most important phases in the middle or two thirds of the way through.  This is so that you are not let down at the last moment.

Strategies and Tactics

Multiparty negotiations require that you get out of thinking like a two party negotiation and into thinking in terms of building:

• An offensive coalition to promote your interests, and
• A defensive coalition to block those opposed to your interests.

The thing to notice here is the number of interpersonal relationships you will have to manage.  You will have to decide whether to meet people you want for your coalitions together or one-on-one.  Beware of bringing a coalition together in a group only to find a few months later one or more start to dissent.  Now that they all know everyone in the group that you put together, it is easier for them to break away and change the views of people formerly in your coalition.

Tactics involve getting your coalition and the other parties into what negotiators call “the trading zone.”  This is where parties suspend their animosities or differences and come together to co-operate and create value for each other. In the trading zone, the parties acknowledge that their interests will eventually be promoted by helping other people meet their own interests.

To get them into the trading zone, it is important that you:

• Suspend criticism
• Put forward creative ideas in a way that is not binding on you or others
• Make sure those ideas contain something of value for the other parties.

You also need to spend as much time coalition building as you do in working out your own negotiating plan.  Be aware, however, in meeting with potential coalition partners, you will probably be asked to make commitments along the way.  It is human nature to want to be liked and to give small concessions along the way, but be aware that your coalition is not yet built.  Therefore you don’t know what the final outcome will be, so you should wait till then before giving preliminary concessions.

Remember also that until you have sounded out everyone, you might want to switch allegiances!

The Negotiation Manager

The more parties you have, the easier it is for matters to slide into chaos.  That is why I always appoint a negotiation manager.  The manager’s role is to agree and prepare the agendas, agree and enforce the ground rules for the group, research the issues and be the face of the group to the outside world using agreed statements.

So who should this person be?  The natural reaction is to appoint one of your own staff, or someone from one of the other parties who is also a natural ally of yours.  My suggestion, however, is to appoint a neutral expert in negotiation, mediation or arbitration.  Many barristers are also alternative dispute resolution experts and time and time again I have been amazed at the skill with which they hold together disparate parties even when tempers are running hot.  And that is just on our side.

It is usually just easier for all parties to accept the guidance of a trained, neutral negotiation manager who has no sides in your coalition or any other.

Group Decision Rules

The bigger the group, the more clarity you need with decision rules.  I find that requiring unanimous decisions is usually a mistake.  It can be a clear invitation to (usually minority) parties to hold the majority to ransom at the last moment unless one of their pet interests is satisfied.  Does that mean decisions should be by the majority?  Well, the problem there is that if the minority are continually blocked, they get upset and form their own coalition, or worse still, do a deal with the other side and defect.

One tactic is to agree by “overwhelming majority” or consensus.  This means that the parties try to get unanimous decisions, but settle for near unanimous decisions after making their best efforts to satisfy the dissentients’ interests.

Conclusion

As soon as you have more than two parties to a negotiation, you need to get into a new way of thinking.  You need to spend as much time managing your offensive and defensive coalitions as you do preparing and negotiating your own position.  When the parties get to a critical size, you should appoint an independent negotiation manager to hold things together for the duration.  Finally, you need to agree in advance how you are going to agree – then ensure that everyone sticks to this.