Two-Party, Coalitions, and Multi-Party Negotiations
Multi-party negotiations involve groups of three of more individuals in which each one of them represents their own interests, and who strive to settle perceived differences between them or who seek to work together to attain a specific set objective. Contrarily, two-party negotiations involve two parties who may also be trying to settle their differences or to collaborate on certain tasks. In multi-party negotiations, it is likely to have some groups or individuals siding to increase the likelihood of their interests being attended to at the expense of the others. Where such scenarios emerge, literature calls the resulting negotiating environment as containing coalitions (Lax & Sebenius, 2006).
Because of diversity in the workplace, negotiations are normal since they help in the realization of consensus and common goal. However, when not managed properly, negotiations may result in more issues. An example of the types of negotiation may be seen in organizations that seek to expand their product portfolio. A manager of a company, for example, may call their supervisor to ask them for an opinion about the type of product or service that should be launched to expand the service and product portfolio. When the supervisor realizes that they may not be in the right position to recommend the product or service to their manager, they may suggest that they involve the R&D manager for a more feasible solution. Since the company could be having a culture of inclusivity, the R&D manager may suggest the involvement of the rest of the staff. After realizing stalled progress, the management may ask the employees to vote for some identified services and products, and they may attempt to influence each other’s opinions about the best item to be chosen.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The first step that the manager takes to involve the supervisor represents a two-party negotiation while the involvement of the R&D manager depicts a multi-party negotiation scenario. Lastly, the call for the rest of the employees to vote for their favorite product or service may indicate the idea of coalitions since some of the employees may collaborate to affect the opinions of the rest.
Social Complexities in the Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion
The social environments transform from one-one-one dialogues to small-group discussions. Consequently, each of the small group dynamics starts to influence the manner in which the negotiations behave. The way the negotiation processes proceeds may rely on the motivational orientation of the parties involved towards each other (). The cited literature suggests that social pressures could develop for the groups involved to act cohesively when the individual members are at conflict with each other and they cannot attain cohesion unless they realize an acceptable solution.
The idea of social complexity can be deduced from the case study of the challenger space shuttle disaster. First, it should be understood that the launch of the space shuttle was managed by a small group of people, which included the senior managers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, and the engineers who had been working on the project. It is reported that the director of NASA was not in agreement with the rest of the team since he disliked delaying his programs. Consequently, the director pressured the rest of the team to move on with the scheduled launch of the shuttle despite concerns from project engineers for the success and readiness of the flight. The results of the pressure could be described by the term groupthink.
Literature describes groupthink as a phenomenon that results when well-intentioned persons make non-optimal or irrational decisions that are often spurred by their urge to discourage or to conform to dissent (Lax & Sebenius, 2006). The cited author suggests that the premature of problematic decisions may be fueled by specific agendas or by the fact that members of the group value coherence and harmony at the expense of rational thought. In groupthink, members always refrain from expressing their judgments, disagreements and doubts. In furthering the interest of a reaching a decision, group members may overlook the moral and ethical implications of their decisions.
The ideas of groupthink apply to the case study of the challenger space shuttle. Precisely, it is notable that the NASA director was concerned with meeting the scheduled deadline for the launch of the space shuttle, which is why he could not buy any suggestions to delay the program (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2015). Despite the fact that the rest of the team had clear concerns about the safety of the flight based on the weather conditions of the time, they refrained from suggesting to the director that they delay the launch. Part of the reasons given for the delayed launch was that the manager disliked bad news, such as that concerning past-scheduled launching of the space shuttle. Therefore, the team chose to ignore the ethical and moral implications of their decision—which primarily concerned the safety of the crew and the passengers aboard the space shuttle—and proceeding with the scheduled launch. It is reported that the space shuttle exploded only a few seconds after it had been launched and killed all persons on board. The case study, therefore, proves that groupthink always leads well-intentioned persons into making irrational decisions. If I were in the challenger meeting, I would have formed a coalition with the engineers and forced the director into considering the technicalities of launching in bad weather conditions.
References
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2006). 3-D Negotiation: Powerful tools to change the game in your most important deals . Harvard Business Press.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2015). Negotiation (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
