The Conventional Perception of Bilateral Negotiation

Negotiations are typically depicted as involving one entity sitting across а bargaining table from а second. One side presents its demands or proposals tо the other, and а discussion or debate follows. Counter proposals and compromises are offered. When the offers are eventually accepted on both sides of the table, the dispute is settled and an agreement is signed.

Within this model, all the interesting and relevant actions are presumed to occur back and forth between the two sides. The model also assumes that both sides are monolithic, even if represented by bargaining teams.

At one world conference where Japanese delegation had 93 delegates and, when asked why, it turned out that they could not agree on who was going. So six different ministries went and sent back six different sets of telegrams to Tokyo.

At another conference, during each of the three weeks a different minister headed the West German delegation. They could not agree on which ministry was in charge. The net result was that the delegation had no impact whatsoever on the final outcome of the conference.

Unfortunately the conventional model of negotiation obscures much of the richness and complexity of the bargaining process. In actual practice, bargaining teams seldom are monolithic. Team members often have conflicting goals, strategies, objectives, tactics, perceptions, assumptions, and values. In order to have an effective negotiation, some sort of consensus must be developed.

1. How are the negotiations typically depicted?

2. What does the model of bilateral negotiation assume?

3. Will you give examples showing disadvantages of bilateral negotiation?

4. What can you say about unanimity of bargaining teams at the bargaining process?

5.What do you think of the conventional model of negotiation?

Multi-Party Negotiation

The most important difference between two and multi-party negotiation is that the latter opens up the possibility of various configurations or partial agreement. For example, if there are three parties — А, В and С — they may come to full agreement or nо agreement, but they also may be able tо forge alternative side deals. Any two parties may strike а deal that disregards the interests of the third party. Were А negotiating with just one other party, it could simply weigh any proposed settlement against the consequences of non agreement. Неге, however, А must also compare а possible settlement with both В and С with the advantages of different agreements with В alone or С alone.

Moving from three parties tо four, five, and beyond increases exponentially the number of theoretical alliances, the opportunities for partial agreements, and subsequent problems that may flow from а lack of full consensus. Even when the particular circumstances of а given case make some theoretical alliances unlikely, it should be clear that communication and fact-gathering become progressively more difficult as the number of negotiators increases, as necessary as they may be. Indeed, the complexity is even greater than might at first be apparent. Some соalitions may hold for the entire negotiation, but often alliances shift with various issues or over time, as events, personalities, and loyalties change. Full consensus-building among multiple adversaries thus is always а most difficult and delicate balancing act.

Finally, the presence of sо many parties at the table usually will mean that there is much more business tо transact.

1. What is the most apparent advantage of multi-party negotiation?

2. What occurs as the number of negotiators increase?

3. What are the main advantages and disadvantages of multi-party negotiations?

B. Increase your vocabulary.

Work with the synonyms and the words with a close meaning:

I. In this section you should use your dictionary. Match the words in the given list (1-5) with their equivalents in the bubbles (a- p). Find out as many words as you can.