Chapter 10: Multiple Parties, Coalitions, and Teams Flashcards
(45 cards)
a group of three or more individuals, each representing his or her own interests, attempting to resolve perceived differences of interest.
multiparty negotiation
(more complex, corporate negotiations)
Negotiation situations often involve more than ____ parties, and involve a myriad of _______ and _______.
two; relationships; issues
Look at Exhibit 10-1 in camera roll. (Levels of analysis in a multiparty negotiation)
Okay
T or F: For a multiparty negotiation, there are 3 different perspectives, with 3 different priorities
True
A _______ is where 2 sides team up on one side in a multiparty negotiation; where two groups team up as a partnership.
coalition
What are the 4 key challenges of multiparty negotiations?
- Dividing resources (potentially evenly divided, or some other way, which you have to discuss.)
- Coalitions
- Formulating trade-offs (what you will give up v. what to try to acquire)
- Voting and majority rule (How will you vote..Majority rule? Simple majority? Unanimous?)
T or F: If not used wisely, voting rules and the use of majority rule can thwart effective negotiations.
True
- Groups negotiating under unanimous rule reach more efficient outcomes than groups operating under majority rule.
Majority rule fails to recognize the strength of ______ ______. Consequently, majority rule DOES NOT promote ________ _______ among issues.
individual preferences; integrative tradeoffs
Groups negotiating under (majority/unanimous) rule reach more efficient outcomes than groups operating under (majority/unanimous) rule.
unanimous; majority
Match the following descriptions to majority rule or unanimous rule:
1. over 50% of the vote count = pass
2. all participants agree 100%
- majority rule
- unanimous rule (ex of unanimous rule: all 12 jury members have to agree that the party is guilty for him to go to jail. (very hard and challenging)
Voting Paradoxes (ON TEST!):
A variety of paradoxes can affect groups aggregating the preferences of team members through voting, such as (4 paradoxes):
- Condorcet paradox
- Impossibility theorem
- Strategic voting
- Consensus agreements
Match the following definitions to which voting paradox they describe:
1. vote outside of top preference to eliminate worst option
2. public agreement of the group
3. alternatives proposed later than sooner tend to become agreed to
4. the larger the group, the less possible a group outcome will satisfy members preference
- strategic voting
- consensus agreements
- condorcet paradox
- impossibility theorem
Which voting paradox does this description and example describe?
When there is a negotiation going and ideas flowing, ideas and concepts that come out later into the negotiating process tend to become more suitable and agreed upon than the ones given early. (ex: friends going out to dinner and the first ideas of where to eat are like ehhh but the ones given later on are like yeah alright let’s just do that)
Condorcet paradox
Which voting paradox is this an example of?
A ballot if you’re voting and you have choices A,B, and C. Your top choice is A, but you vote for C to cancel out choice B, since you already know that A is pretty popular.
Strategic voting
T or F: Consensus agreements are the same as unanimous rule.
False
Strategies for Successful Multiparty Negotiations:
The following are strategies to enhance a negotiator’s ability to expand the pie in a multiparty context:
a. know who will be at the ______.
b. manage the ______ and systemize _____ _______.
c. brainstorm options ________
d. develop and assign ______ _____.
e. stay at the ______.
a. table
b. information; proposal making (aka have a game plan)
c. independently
d. process roles (aka everybody should have and know their role)
e. table (don’t get up and walk away)
Strategies for Successful Multiparty Negotiations (cont.):
a. strive for _____ ______.
b. allow for some points of _______, even if only on process
c. avoid the “_______ ______” bias
d. avoid the _______ bias.
e. avoid _______ _______.
a. equal participation
b. agreement
c. “equal shares”
d. agreement (aka acknowledge differences/different ideas bc this can strengthen health)
e. sequential bargaining (sequential bargaining = sort of isolating the conversation to one negotiation at a time. Don’t do this. Integrate the different topics of conversation into one conversation for a more integrative outcome)
T or F: Discussing one issue at a time leads to a reduction in integrative outcomes vs. discussing all issues at the same time.
True (discussing one issue at a time = sequential bargaining)
Coalitions face 3 sets of challenges:
- The formation and SIZE OPTIMIZATION of the coalition (aka how big is the size of the coalition; (ex: 2 groups v. one? Five groups vs. two?))
- Trust formation and maintenance in coalitions.
- The complex distribution of resources among members.
There will be an even more complex distribution of resources in (coalitions/multiparty negotiations) than in (coalitions/multiparty negotiations).
coalitions; multiparty negotiations
In coalitions, you should avoid _________ ______ and ________ _______ of resources.
preconceived bias; equal distribution
Coalitions of negotiators have 3 methods by which to divide resources. What are the 3 methods?
- Core Solution model
- Shapley model
- Raiffa’s Hybrid model
Match each description to which method of dividing resources for coalitions that they describe:
1. payout via power; prorated based on the power of people involved.
2. equal distribution; dividing it by 2 or 3 or however many people; total distribution divided by number of people involved.
3. the average of the core solution and shapley model; combination or average of this power and equality distribution. (Merging the core solution and Shapley model)
- Shapley model
- Core Solution model
- Raiffa’s Hybrid Model
Maximizing Coalitional Effectiveness:
The following 3 things are BEHAVIORAL strategies for effectively navigating coalitions and maximizing their effectiveness:
1. Make your _______ ______.
2. Seek _______ ________.
3. Use ________-________ rationale to divide the pie.
- contacts early (ex: the successful people on Survivor usually start making alliances early on, not waiting for the last second)
- verbal commitments (ex: in Survivor, asking people to be in an alliance)
- unbiased-appearing (do the best you can to appear unbiased. Put the effort in to come across publicly as unbiased)