76 The European Business Review July - August 2019
cycle, named after the 18th-century French
philosopher Nicolas de Condorcet, the marquis
de Condorcet. In a Condorcet cycle, choices are
cyclical in nature (A > B > C > A), so there is no
clear winner. To take advantage of such a situ-
ation, some negotiators sometimes present the
situation in a way that limits the choices avail-
able, putting others in a position where they may
be unable to make the choice they would actually
prefer. You should always be very careful not to
fall victim to such a trick (like the cunning dad’s
trick) in a multiparty negotiation.
Setting the Agenda and Presenting the Choice
Other important elements in a multiparty nego-
tiation are setting the agenda and presenting
choices. Given that there are multiple parties at
the negotiation table, it is extremely important
to have a say in setting the agenda and also in
presenting alternatives. In other words, for a
more effective multiparty negotiation, greater
control over the process is definitely required.
Another reason why it is important to present
options is because a negotiator develops a
limited perspective when there are multiple
options on the table. In a study conducted by
Leigh Thompson, participants in a multiparty
negotiation were asked, upon finishing the
negotiation, how many potential solutions they
thought were possible. The negotiation dealt
with five different issues and each issue had four
or five clearly identified alternatives. The partic-
ipants’ response was one! On average, people
estimated that there were about four alterna-
tive solutions possible. In reality, the exercise
offered about 50 potential solutions. We call this
problem a problem of bounded negotiability.
Bounded negotiability refers to our ability to see
a limited range of issues as “negotiable.” It is
largely influenced by our preparation and how
issues are presented in a negotiation. That is
why it is important to understand all the issues
beforehand and to try to get the complete
picture before the negotiation begins.
We often recommend that our participants and
students use the VIA framework for analysing the
needs of different parties at the table. In the VIA
framework, participants are encouraged to classify
the needs at hand as vital (V), important (I) and
additional (A). This classification helps a negotiator
manage the time available properly and it helps the
negotiator focus on issues that are more important
than others.
Let’s look at an example. An executive once
told us about a multiparty negotiation in which
he had taken part. Imagine that, in a pharmaceu-
tical company, an important negotiation is taking
place to decide how much of a budget should be
allocated to a new cosmetic product. The issues
to be decided are the budget allocation, the allo-
cation of human capital, the purchase of new
equipment and the lead time for launching the
product in the market. Which issue is likely to
generate the most debate in this case? Generally,
when we ask this question, the answer we receive
is: “The budget allocation of course!” However,
the executive who was sharing the story with
us drew a VIA chart for all the issues and all
the parties present. The following negotiators
were present at the meeting: the CEO, the chief
financial officer, the chief operating officer, the
chief research and development officer, the
chief marketing officer, and the chief human
resources manager. In this scenario, the allo-
cation of human capital is a vital decision for
the CEO, COO, and CHRO. The budget alloca-
tion is an essential decision for the CEO, CFO,
and chief R&D officer. Here is a complete list
of how each individual ranked each issue. (See
Figure 4 next page.)
What do we see in this chart? Well, apparently
the decision about whether to buy new equip-
ment for the research project was a vital issueNegotiation