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. 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.. 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. Assessing constituents is the same as assessing all the parties who are in the soccer stadium: 1. Who is, or should be, on my team on my side of the field? Perhaps it is just the negotiator (a one-on-one game). But perhaps we want other help: an attorney, 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. 2. Who is on the other side of the field? This is discussed in more detail in the next section. 3. Who is on the sidelines and can affect the play of the game? Who are the negotiation equivalents of 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. 4. Who is in the stands? 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. 5. What is going on in the broader environment in which the negotiation takes place? A number of “context” issues can affect negotiation: • What is the history of the relationship with the other party, and how does it affect the overall expectations they bring to this negotiation? 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? 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. • 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? 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? • What is common and acceptable practice in the ethical system in which the deal is being done? How will we decide if one party “cheats”; are there clear rules about what is and is not fair? 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’s 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 or 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.

FIELD ANALYSIS
UNDERSTANDING THE KEY PARTIES AND THEIR ROLE IN A NEGOTIATION
General information and instructions:
The field analysis tool is helpful when negotiators have to consider multiple parties—on their own side and on the other side—who can affect a negotiation outcome, and whose needs and interests must be considered.
Take note that the soccer field (see diagram below) is a metaphor for a two-party multi-stakeholder contract negotiation.
Specific information and instructions: use information in number 1 and 2 to complete the questions 1-8 on the table.
You need to understand the Soccer Field Metaphor in order to respond to the instructions in the first paragraph of the assignment. Your task in responding to the questions is to determine who all of the interested parties to the negotiation are between a county government and the Sheriff's Office including those who directly negotiate the contract and others who may have an "interest" in the negotiation and the outcome to the negotiation. The negotiating "teams" will be the County Government led by the Mayor (employer) and the Sheriff's Office (union).
1. Assume that you are the negotiator who is tasked with a salary (on call time, step increases, overtime for captains and majors) and benefits (insurance while employed, insurance after retirement, accrual of leave time, retirement multipliers) dispute between a large municipal county with a strong mayor and the sheriff’s department for the county.
2. You are negotiating the contract on behalf of the sheriff’s office. The purpose of this activity is to give you an opportunity to construct a field analysis on your relationship with a specific other negotiator. This tool should be helpful when negotiators have to consider multiple parties—on their own side and on the other side—who can affect a negotiation outcome, and whose needs and interests must be considered.
Soccer Field Metaphor

3. The field has the following stakeholders.

a. On the field would be members of your team and members of the other team (A, B).

b. On the sidelines are backup players, coaches, trainers,and other team personnel (C).

c. In the stands are fans who are watching the negotiation, members of the media, and other direct observers (D).

d. The elements outside the stadium—the location of the stadium, the weather, and other “context factors” which can shape how the game evolves and is played (E)

4. Questions are presented in identical pairs (1, 2; 3, 4; 5, 6;and 7, 8) but answers will not necessarily be the same.

5. Questions 7 and 8 have four sub-parts, which require answers in each sub-part.

6. Place your answers in the boxes provided in this form.Boxes will expand as needed.

YOU/YOUR TEAM	OTHER/OTHER’S TEAM
1. Who is on my team on the field? (A)	2. Who is on their team on the field? (B)
3. Who is on my sidelines who can affect the play of the game? (C)	4. Who is on their sidelines who can affect the play of the game? (C)
5. Who is in my stands that are involved and interested, either directly or indirectly? (D)	6. Who is in their stands that are involved and interested, either directly or indirectly? (D)
7. What elements outside the stadium have an interest in the game, or can affect our game in positive or negative ways (E)? a. Affect the rules? b. Change the climate? c. Other competitors? d. Industry shifts and changes?	8. What elements outside the stadium have an interest in the game, or can affect their game in positive or negative ways (E)? a. Affect the rules? b. Change the climate? c. Other competitors? d. Industry shifts and changes?

Transcribed Image Text:

A в A в

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In the field of negotiation the role of A refers to the Aspiration or Ambition of a party involved in the negotiation It represents the ideal or desir... View the full answer