Map The Players, Change The Game PDF

ID#140406
PUBLISHED ON
AUGUST 7, 2013
DECISION-MAKING
AND NEGOTIATIONS
CROSS-DISCIPLINARY
AREA SERIES
Map the Players, Change the Game:

Evaluating Who is–and Should Be–Involved in
Deals and Decisions
BY DANIEL AMES *
Introduction
Long before effective dealmakers arrive at the table, odds are high that they have asked
themselves a pivotal question: who can be involved, in what way, to serve or preserve my
interests? This question is a launching point not just for deal making but for influence and
leadership in general. Whether your goal is to ink a deal that delivers the best possible
financial terms, to champion a decision that you think is critical for your organization’s
future, or to pursue a necessary but potentially painful organizational change, the instinct to
think about and manage the parties involved has the potential to transform the odds of
success in your favor.
The larger process of managing parties has many parts, ranging from forming coalitions to
managing negotiating teams to crafting multiparty agreements. This note focuses on one of
the earliest steps in the process: party mapping. Party mapping involves thinking through
who is relevant, what they think and want, and how they might link up in ways that could
help or harm you. The sections that follow provide ideas for tackling these questions.
Whether you’re facing a situation involving individuals within your organization, dealing
with parties across organizational boundaries, or considering how organizations themselves
might link up and square off, party mapping can be a crucial early step in laying the
groundwork for the outcome you want.
Author affiliation Copyright information

*
Ting Tsung and Wei Fong Chao Professor of Business, Columbia © 2013 by The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New
Business School York.
This case is for teaching purposes only and does not represent an
endorsement or judgment of the material included.
This case cannot be used or reproduced without explicit permission

from Columbia CaseWorks. To obtain permission, please visit
www.gsb.columbia.edu/caseworks, or e-mail
[email protected]
Authorized for use only in Managerial Negotiations B8510 by Professor Mason in Summer 2018.
Who is Relevant?
When the stakes are high, a rigorous and detailed party map can be an invaluable tool. But
don’t dodge party mapping because it seems complicated or technical. You could start this
way: get a blank sheet of paper and a pen. Sketch out a constellation of the obvious parties
involved. Look at the names, reflect for a minute, and then add any other parties who are
relevant or have something at stake but who didn’t initially come to mind. That’s a great
start. There is value in going further, and in a moment we’ll describe how to do that; but this
basic process—noting the obvious parties, pausing for a moment to review the names you’ve
included, and then thinking again about who is relevant—is the heart of party mapping.
Investing even a minute or two in this process can have real rewards by drawing your
attention to a potentially essential but initially overlooked third party or to a connection that
might emerge which could ruin everything you hope to achieve.
There’s no reason not to do this most basic version of party mapping if you care even a little
about the outcome of a deal. But you can also do more and do it more systematically, first by
looking at your situation through the six lenses that are discussed below. Each one might
bring a different cast of characters into focus and add one or more parties to your map.
WHO STANDS You’ll obviously gain if you get your way—but who else will?
TO GAIN Some parties—business partners, your subordinates, other
beneficiaries—may share in your success. Others—such as those
who benefit from a precedent you might set or whose fortunes are
held hostage by the problem you’re trying to solve—may gain in
ways that are entirely separate from your own outcome. And for
some parties a gain comes simply from being included in a
winning coalition. The potential gains may be obvious to you and
to some of the parties, but some of the others may have little or no
clue that they may also benefit. Whether they know what’s at stake
or not, those who stand to gain should be on your map.
WHO STANDS Some parties may have nothing to gain but a lot to lose—
TO LOSE financially, emotionally, operationally, or otherwise—if you get
your way. They may be invested in the status quo or somehow
prefer no settlement or change. They may be your competition for a
deal. They may be your competition’s beneficiaries. Those who
stand to lose if you get what you want should also be on your map.
Map the Players, Change the Game: Evaluating Who is–and Should Be–
Involved in Deals and Decisions | Page 2
BY DANIEL AMES*
WHO IMPLEMENTS If the deal or decision goes your way, or the alternative wins out
AND ENFORCES instead, who will have to make it a reality? Who will bring it to life,
execute and operate it, monitor and enforce it? These are parties
who have something to lose or gain, but they might be overlooked
in a first pass through the lenses above because they might not be
the visible dealmakers and decision makers. Still, their support or
resistance can spell the difference between ultimate success or
failure. Their voice might have the potential to shift the outcome,
and perhaps they should be on your map.
WHO MAKES A Some parties belong on your map not because they stand to gain or
DIFFERENCE lose but because they can make the difference between winning or
losing. Think of the swing vote on a seven-person committee: they
may not have much at stake in the outcome, but their support can
put you (or the counterproposal) over the top. Parties whose
participation or endorsement can shift the outcome deserve to be
on your map, even if they don’t necessarily stand to prosper or
suffer from the outcome.
WHO HAS INFLUENCE Look back over the parties you have included so far. Now think:
AND CONTROL Who advises them on what to do? Whom will they call to report
their success or failure? Who has formal—and, at least as
importantly, informal—control over them? You don’t need to put
everybody’s boss’s boss on the map, but think about the key
players you’ve identified and consider who has influence and
control over them. Odds are that you’ll see one or more additional
parties who belong on your map.
WHO HAS This final lens draws your attention to parties who have
INFORMATION information that could help you or others achieve your goals. That
information might be exclusive market research, insight into
technology trends, or advice from a retired colleague on how to
win over a cantankerous counterpart. These players might not join
you at the table, and they may have nothing to win or lose by the
situation’s outcome. But they may help you as part of an
informational or reconnaissance coalition. You may want to get
their input before moving further, or to take steps to make yourself
the first or sole recipient of their information. Bottom line: sources
of critical information may deserve a place on your map.
Having looked at your situation through these lenses, you’ve likely identified the key
players who are, or could be, involved. There’s no one right way to put these down on paper
Page 3 | Map the Players, Change the Game: Evaluating Who is–and Should
Be–Involved in Deals and Decisions
BY DANIEL AMES*
or a white board, but you might want to arrange the names with natural allies closer together
and opponents further apart. Parties who are up for grabs might be listed elsewhere for the
time being. However you put the names down, expect your first draft of the map to be just
that: a draft. As you consider what the parties think and how they might link up, you’ll very
likely revise and reorganize your map.
What Do They Think and Want?

Identifying the relevant parties is an important first step. Next, think through how they see
the situation. This process has much in common with preparing for a conventional two-party
negotiation: you want to know your counterpart’s priorities and alternatives. However,
given the potential for the involvement of multiple parties, there are a few additional issues
to consider. Think through the factors below. Not all of them may be relevant for
understanding each party in a given situation, but odds are that one or more of these factors
will drive how a particular party will act and how they might team up with others in ways
that could help or harm you.
INTERESTS AND Interests are underlying motivations: what a party wants, needs, or
INCENTIVES dislikes. These driving forces range from maintaining relationships
to saving face to getting every last cent possible from a deal.
Incentives include the ways parties are compensated and
when/how they get their payoffs. Incentives can also be important
in identifying parties who are in a formal or informal “agent” role
(such as when there is a commission arrangement or a bonus or
promotion on the line). Look at your map: What interests and/or
incentives drive the behavior of the key players? Who is involved
in providing those incentives?
POSITIONS ON THE While interests are the deeper “why” that drives behavior,
ISSUES positions are the surface-level “whats” that people ask for: a “no”
vote on a proposal, a 20% price reduction, a green light for the
advertising buy. Where do the parties stand on the deal or decision
at hand? What are their current offers or positions? And how
strongly held are their views? Can they be persuaded to change, or
are they immovable? Answering these questions can point you to
natural allies, fence-sitters, and intransigent opponents.
BY DANIEL AMES*
ALTERNATIVES Just as two-party negotiators prepare by considering their
counterpart’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (or
BATNA), you can consider the alternatives of each important
player on your map. Think about what each party’s alternative is if
your desired course of action (a particular deal, an organizational
initiative, etc.) doesn’t emerge. How attractive is it for them if you
succeed rather than fail to achieve your goal? They will inevitably
compare whatever you’re proposing to something else, and this will
shape their behavior. What comparison are they making and how
does it look to them?
ATTITUDES TOWARD Interparty attitudes, including both relationship potential and

OTHER PARTIES mutual awareness, are a final factor worth considering. A rational
analysis of shared interests could lead you to assume that two
parties are natural bedfellows, when in fact a history of animosity
runs deep between them. Or two parties whose interests in a
particular case seem opposed are, in fact, close friends who will
team up even if it costs one of them dearly. Consider the
relationship potential (the inclination to team up or square off)
between your key parties; emotions, history, and identity can
sometimes be more important than what would appear to be
logical interest-based links. In addition, consider the level of
mutual awareness. Opponents who recognize their shared interests
may start teaming up to thwart you; allies who don’t see that you
have interests in common may not rush to your side. In some cases,
you might want to promote mutual awareness. In other cases, you
might want to obscure it. As a final step in charting out your sense
of “what they think and want,” assess how your parties view one
another as relationship partners—and whether they recognize each
other at all.
How Might the Parties Link Up?

You’ve mapped out who the relevant parties are and filled in some details of what they think
about the issues and one another. A final step in the analysis is to think about how these
parties might draw together and where the fault lines might emerge. The factors described
above should give you a feel for the forces that could bring parties together or keep them
apart. The matrix shown below in Table 1 poses questions that might help you identify four
kinds of coalitions: transactional coalitions that might help you; relational or other coalitions
that might help you; transactional coalitions that might threaten you; and relational or other
coalitions that might threaten you. Of course, some coalitions are both transactional and
BY DANIEL AMES*
relational, and some coalitions both help and harm you. Still, looking for these four types of
coalitions can help start your process of thinking through who might team up with whom.
TABLE 1. TYPES OF COALITIONS
Supportive to you Hostile to you

A group that can advance A group that can thwart
your interests your interests
Transactional coalition What parties share your specific What parties oppose your
A transitory link based on a positions or your underlying positions or stand to lose if you
limited set of shared interests interests? Are these parties get your way? Are these parties
aware of one another and able to aware of one another and able to
coordinate? coordinate?
Relational or What parties have loyalty to, or What parties have loyalty to, or
other coalition shared identity with, you or shared identity with, others who
A bond that transcends the others who share your positions oppose your positions?
immediate context or interests?
Review your map with these possible coalitions in mind. You might take a minute to scan
the parties for each of these four types. The result could be identifying a set of links you want
to foster or defend against. Identifying potential ties can also lead you back to adding more
parties to the map. If you spot the potential kernel of a coalition, think about who might
naturally be drawn in by those parties, even if those coalition members weren’t initially on
your map.
Having thought through who is relevant, what they think and want, and how they might
link up, you’re now in a more informed and prepared position for a deal or decision. The
Appendix presents an illustration of how this process can widen your view in advance of
coming to the table.
Taking Action
The emphasis of this note has been on party mapping as an important first step in a high-
stakes multiparty deal or decision situation. It’s worth stressing that almost any deal,
decision, or initiative can be extended beyond two parties, and party mapping can help you
see who might be involved in a beneficial way. But once the mapping and analyzing is over,
most dealmakers and leaders are eager to take action, often to start forging links. Coalition
building and maintenance is a vast and important topic. This note offers four quick thoughts
on how to move ahead.
• Early moves matter. This is true for overtures as well as for information gathering.
Your map likely relies on a number of assumptions about interests, attitudes, and
other factors. What moves can you make now that will enable you to start testing
your assumptions and gathering information? In terms of overtures, people are often
surprisingly loyal to partners who approach them first. Think about whom to reach
out to and start moving to connect with them.
BY DANIEL AMES*
• Lock in allies. While there’s no universal best answer to “whom should you talk to
first,” there is a strong case to be made for beginning by reaching out to allies. One
reason for this is to secure their support rather than leave them open to being
poached by opponents. Another is to tap your allies’ ability to help configure other
parties.
• Enlist others’ help with coalition building. One crucial form of help is information
gathering. Your allies and other early coalition members can improve your
knowledge of the situation and other parties, including who wants what and who is
talking with whom. Another kind of assistance is delivering value to new coalition
partners. Rather than you promising something of value to your second coalition
member, and something else to your third, and yet another thing to your fourth,
think about what your second member could offer your third. Once you have people
in your corner, think about what they can offer that has value to incremental coalition
members.
• Craft attractive appeals. You’ve already mapped out the parties’ interests, positions,
and alternatives. And you’ve thought about who likes—and dislikes—whom. Turn
that knowledge into an appeal that is tuned to each potential partner. For some, it’s a
rational calculation of increasing the odds of getting the financial or operational
outcome they desire. For others, it’s a matter of honor or maybe even payback.
Recognize that different parties may join you for different reasons—and their reasons
for wanting a particular outcome might depart significantly from your own. Calibrate
your appeal accordingly.
Some Words of Caution

Coalition-building can change the game in your favor. But it’s important that you keep two
potential downsides in mind: one has to do with whether you’re pursuing the right deal or
decision and the other has to do with how you’re seen.
This note has focused on situations in which you know the outcome you want and are taking
action to bring it about. But in some situations, dealmakers and leaders must first learn from
the others involved in order to craft the best deal or make the right call. Bear in mind that
coalition-building can come at the expense of such learning and might impede creative,
collaborative problem-solving across the set of players involved. An “us versus them”
dynamic can short-circuit effective decision making if parties are put on the defensive. You
could craft a winning alliance that champions the wrong course of action. If there are things
you must learn from others in order to act effectively, be cautious about making those others
feel they’re on the opposite side from you in a battle.
Even if your deal or decision is unquestionably the right one in your mind, there can be risks
in how your behavior is seen by others. Think through how your coalition-building
overtures might look to constituencies that you care about. One person’s “building support”
may look to someone else as scheming, rigging the system, or buying votes. Consider how
BY DANIEL AMES*
observers might react and even misunderstand your coalition-building. Your alliance activity
might win you a short-term battle, but undermine your longer-term goals, relationships,
reputation, and even organizational culture. Reflecting on how coalition-building would
appear to others may lead you to take a more subtle approach—or even regard some
overtures as out of bounds.
Bear these caveats in mind as you consider reaching out to others. But note that these risks
come from attempts to orchestrate the parties. There are few risks in the first step of party
mapping itself: simply being aware of who is and could be involved has virtually no
downside and could protect you from being blindsided by alliances that threaten your goals.
In Sum
The best dealmakers, decision makers, and leaders don’t take the “game” as it’s given to
them. They see the whole playing field and set of players and they often change the situation
to their advantage. Some times that process is as simple as asking a third party to put in a
good word for you. At other times it means taking months or years to build a coalition. One
of the most potent and practical ways of doing so is to begin by rethinking who is involved
and mapping the parties. This note attempts to give you some encouragement and tools—
and the Appendix provides an illustration of the process. The next time you confront a deal,
decision, or initiative where the stakes are high, practice your ability to map the players and
change the game.
BY DANIEL AMES*
Appendix
A Party Mapping Illustration: RackCo and BikeCo
To illustrate the process of party mapping, let’s consider someone—in this case, a vice
president at RackCo, a company that makes car racks for mountain bikes—who is facing a
negotiation with a potential strategic partner. RackCo is considering a marketing initiative
that would involve bundling one of its rack models with a particular mountain bike by
BikeCo and promoting and selling the two products together for a limited time through
retailers. This would be a great way for RackCo to move some of its excess inventory. At first
glance, the negotiation appears to be a two-party situation between the VP at RackCo and
her counterpart VP at BikeCo.
The RackCo VP begins her party mapping and realizes that there are a number of parties
away from the immediate negotiating table who are also relevant. When she thinks about
influence and control, she recognizes that the two companies’ CEOs, to whom she and her
counterpart report, also play a role. In addition, thinking about who has to implement the
agreement, she realizes that the support of retail dealers will be crucial for success. She adds
“key dealers” to the map. Thinking about who stands to lose, she sees that a competing rack
maker would be eager to push RackCo out and offer to bundle its own product with BikeCo
instead. She adds the competing rack maker to the map as well.
BY DANIEL AMES*
With some players added to the map, the VP at RackCo considers what the parties think and
want and how they might link up. She realizes that the competing rack maker has strong ties
to the key dealers, in part because of a history of joint advertising with them. If the
competing rack maker leveraged these dealers, it could drive a wedge between BikeCo and
RackCo, but she suspects the competitor isn’t yet aware of the potential bundle. RackCo’s VP
therefore decides to reach out discretely to a contact she has at a major dealer in advance of
the negotiation to gather information and enlist their support. Having them on board with
the initiative could make the deal more attractive to BikeCo. She also looks at the players
through the lens of relationship potential. Her CEO at RackCo is on great terms with the
CEO of BikeCo. Perhaps just as importantly, the CEO of BikeCo has had a public falling out
with the leadership of the competing rack maker. RackCo’s VP decides to talk with her CEO
to see if there’s a way for him to lay some groundwork for the deal with his counterpart at
BikeCo at an upcoming industry conference. She also realizes something she doesn’t know:
the relationship between the BikeCo VP and the competing rack maker. As a result, she
makes a plan to learn more about the BikeCo VP’s attitudes, perhaps with an indirect
question in their next conversation.
Having worked through the party mapping process, the RackCo VP widens her view of the
deal to include other parties that she’ll monitor and attend to. She’s also taking actions to lay
the groundwork for success before she even arrives at the negotiating table.
BY DANIEL AMES*
Additional Resources
For further thoughts on coalition and multi-party dynamics, see David Lax and James
Sebenius’ book 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important
Deals, Michael Watkins’ book Breakthrough Business Negotiation and Herminia Ibarra and
Jennifer Suesse’s Harvard Business School background note Building Coalitions. For
suggestions on team negotiations, see Jeanne Brett, Ray Friedman, and Kristin Behfar’s
Harvard Business Review article, “How to Manage Your Negotiating Team.”
Page 11 | Map the Players, Change the Game: Evaluating Who is–and
Should Be–Involved in Deals and Decisions
BY DANIEL AMES*

Map The Players, Change The Game PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Map The Players, Change The Game PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Map The Players, Change The Game PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ID#140406

Map the Players, Change the Game:

Author affiliation Copyright information

This case cannot be used or reproduced without explicit permission

What Do They Think and Want?

ATTITUDES TOWARD Interparty attitudes, including both relationship potential and

How Might the Parties Link Up?

Supportive to you Hostile to you

Some Words of Caution

You might also like