Allison Negotiation Model

LESSON FROM AN EXPERT

Reference: Thomson 2022.06: Negotiation Bias In Conflict

ALLISON NEGOTIATION MODEL

Three Pillar Modelling

A Brilliant Mind

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Throughout history, brilliant minds create breakthroughs in interpreting and understanding human behaviour. However, their theories are often excessively complex and difficult to apply to everyday life.

Graham Allison is a prominent American political scientist and educator, noted for his extensive work in the field of international relations and national security policy. Largely overlooked, Allison has a distinguished career, primarily associated with Harvard University and is author of multiple books, the latest, Destine For War.

Allison examined President John F. Kennedy's actions and decision-making process during the Cuban Missile Crisis and his skilled dealing with Russian president Nikita Khrushchev arriving at the Allison’s Organizational Process Model (also referred to as Allison’s Three Models). The model examines why results do not stem from rational decisions, (the rational actor) but from the outputs of organizational processes. Allison identifies that organizations act according to strict, pre-established structural behavioral routines involving people, structure, technology, and the external environment. By understanding how these elements interact with one another, improvements can be made assisting in co-operative planning, managed action and the creation of desired outputs.

This lesson note provides an overview of the three elements to Allison’s Model, The Rational Actor Model, Organizational Process Model and the Bureaucratic Political Model. If you are a professional mediator, negotiator, arbitrator or student of law, I recommend further researching the Three Allison Models.

Although these models primarily address decision-making processes rather than direct mediation or negotiation, they are valuable in understanding the context in which negotiations occur and the actors' motivations and behaviours. They should cause the negotiator to investigate the complexities of regulation, political influence, actor ambition, public interest influences, religious and cultural paradigms and individual motivations likely to affect a resolution outcome.

the greatest victory is that which requires no battle

Sun Tzu

Allison examined President John F. Kennedy's actions and decision-making process during the Cuban Missile Crisis and his skilled dealing with Russian president Nikhal Khrushchev.

Allison research analyzed the three model negotiation processes used and while complex, the fundamentals can be broken down and used at a micro level, one-on-one and face-to-face mediation process. A skilled negotiator should use Kennedy's experience when researching and preparing for resolutions under any regime, conflict mediation, negotiation, or arbitration and more so when involved with corporate clients.

The Rational Actor Model

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Rational Actor Model (RAM) is one of the cornerstone theories in corporate, governmental and international decision-making. This model assumes that actors, whether individuals, organizations, or states, make decisions by systematically evaluating available information to maximize their utility and understanding their behaviours based on the principles of rationality. As a negotiator it requires you to assess a strategic position within the negotiation process based on the four principal assessments: -

This involves assessing the potential costs and benefits of various options and selecting the one that offers your clients the highest benefits. Decisions should not be evaluated by the immediate results but by the long-term strategic position that evolves from the current outcome.
Comprehensive Information: This requires gathering accurate and comprehensive data on all possible options and their potential outcomes, as well as understanding the long term strategic probability of each outcome.
Objective Analysis: Actors must calculate the potential consequences of each option and choose the most logical course of action based on objective analysis, devoid of emotional or irrational influences.
Strategic Thinking: This requires strategic thinking, beyond the actors’ own actions, but also anticipating the actions and reactions of other actors. This is particularly relevant where multiple stakeholders or adversaries are in competitive business environments or others hold a balance of power.

The Rational Actor Model emphasises moderate rationality, utilising strategic thinking and utility maximisation to gain valuable insights into how actors make choices in complex and often high-stakes environments. As in a ‘litmus test,’ strategy must always be congruent on the question, ‘what if?’

In conflict negotiation, the Model is used to evaluate different strategies and may include whether to enter mediation talks, escalate to litigation, ‘surrender’ or ‘walk away,’ or seek partnerships across a wider long-term base. Each decision is based on an analysis of how it will affect the overall strategic goals.

However, it is crucial to recognise the Model's limitations and supplement it with other theories and perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding of decision-making behaviour.

Critiques and Limitations

Despite its widespread use, the Rational Actor Model is not without its critics. There are several notable limitations to the mode:

Actors rarely have access to complete, comprehensive information, leading to suboptimal choices. Human decision-makers are subject to cognitive biases and emotional influences, which can lead to irrational decisions. Factors such as overconfidence, loss aversion, and group-think can all skew the decision-making process.

The model assumes that actors have clear, consistent preferences, but in practice, these preferences can be complex and conflicting, which often leads to more complicated issues in the future.

The Organizational Process Model (OPM)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OPMs work well in highly structured environments, such as the financial services and investment markets, food production and health services where compliance and adherence to tightly controlled or regulated processes are critical.

At the heart of all OPMs are Standard Operating Processes (SOPs), predefined methods for carrying out recurring tasks. These procedures ensure consistency, efficiency, and predictability within the organization. While individuals within an organization aim to make rational decisions, their rationality is bounded by limited information, time constraints, and cognitive limitations. SOPs help simplify decision-making by offering a standard response to everyday situations, reducing the need for complex analysis.

During crises, organisations rely heavily on emergency SOPs. For example, hospitals have standard procedures for handling medical emergencies, while corporations have protocols for data breaches or natural disasters. These SOPs are designed to provide clear guidance under stressful conditions, helping maintain order and effectiveness. While I was a Search and Rescue Coordinator, our SOPs included time frames within which specific processes had to be implemented, at timings for engagement with other organisations. A compliance officer would then check and sign off on those obligations and duties as done.

The benefits of OPMs are that operations are streamlined, clear instructions are provided for routine tasks, activities are conducted consistently and efficiently, and they serve as valuable training tools for new employees, providing them with a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities.

Critiques and Limitations

The adage, ‘the more rules there are, the more likely you are to break them,’ however applies to the Organizational Process Model (OPMs). Problems can include misinterpretation of instructions, misunderstanding of relationships between parties, cultural insensitivity, and inflexibility when unique or unexpected situations arise, compounding problems (ripple effect) because operatives lack flexibility due to excessive micro-management or dependence on deeply entrenched prescriptive processes.

In a recent example of rigid ‘in-house’ narrow regulatory processes, Main Roads undertook a $14million road upgrade without consultation with City Water, who, within six months, dug part of the road up to replace aged water pipes because traffic volumes and weights exceeded pipe structural integrity. City Water sued Main Roads and won in a highly embarrassing action resulting in the dismissal of the CEO and senior staff at Main Roads.

Because of their rigidity, OPMs become quickly outdated as environments change, becoming less adaptable to new or unforeseen circumstances because they cannot cover every possible scenario as it occurs. Modifying established procedures can be challenging, disruptive, and resistant to innovation or change.

This is particularly evident in highly organized social environments where religious and cultural challenges undermine innovation and progress. Individuals often feel threatened and insecure and find accepting new realities challenging.

Upside and Benefits

The organizational process model underscores the importance of structure and routine within organizations, pointing to the challenges these systems can present and explaining how decisions often result from established procedures rather than rational, strategic planning.

Bureaucratic Politics Model (BPM)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you have walked into a Government Office and asked a simple question, only to be referred to three more people before finding out who can answer the question, you will understand the Bureaucratic Model.

Utilising a plurality of actors, decision-making is not centralised but dispersed among numerous actors and can include politicians, bureaucrats, government officials, and other interest groups. Each actor has interests, agendas, and constituencies, which influence their behaviour and decisions but cannot make the final decision without consultation with others. Finding the person who can act with authority or make a decision on behalf of an organisation can often be complex.

Four key elements influence the bureaucratic politics model decision-making processes. Examples are;-

Decisions result from a political process where actors use their power and influence to advance their bias or vested interests. Power can come from formal authority, control of resources, expertise, or strategic alliances and are relative when determining whose interests prevail in the decision-making process.
Decision-making is characterized by bargaining and negotiation among actors. This process often involves trade-offs and compromises as actors seek to secure the best possible outcome for their individual goals while accommodating others' demands.
The political environment, including public opinion, media coverage, pay off’s and political leaders' positions, plays a critical role in shaping the decision-making process. Actors consider the broader political context and how it affects their individual strategies and actions. Most pronounced amongst those seeking high profile executive positions, ambition often clouds rational judgement as personal goals dominate those individuals’ inputs into any negotiation process.
An actor's position and specific role within the organisational hierarchy can significantly influence their perspectives and priorities. For example, a military leader may prioritize national security, while a treasury official may focus on economic stability

Critiques and Limitations

The model highlights the importance of political considerations and external environments that shape policy makers decisions, which are often overlooked in more abstract models. The Bureaucratic Model is invariably complex and ambiguous due to the multitude of actors and interactions involved making it challenging to create clear, predictive models of decision-making.

Principal actors are constantly balancing their decisions between democratic support (being promoted or voted into and holding office) and autocratic governance and policymaking (the need to be seen as a decision maker). This focus on political processes and bargaining makes it less helpful in predicting specific outcomes compared to more structured models. A further real risk exists, that after a decision has been made, the decision maker is removed from office, and the ‘new broom’ sweeps the floor clean, making prior decision-making processes null-in-void.

Notwithstanding its weaknesses, the Bureaucratic Politics Model provides valuable insights into the complexities of governance and policymaking by focusing on the plurality of actors, power dynamics, bargaining processes, and the broader political context. While the model has limitations, particularly in complexity and predictive power, it remains an essential tool for understanding the intricate interplay of politics and bureaucracy in shaping governmental and corporate decisions.

Summary

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In his classic 1969 article, Conceptual Models (and the Cuban Missile Crisis) Allison identified the three pillars of organizational negotiation.

The Classical Rational Actor Model (RAM) identified the State as a unitary rational actor making all the decisions. Kennedy represented the State within the United States while Nikita Khrushchev represented all people of the Russian States.

The organisational process (OPM) identified how sub-units of the state act according to pre-determined procedures to produce an “output.” The state is still essentially a unitary actor, but the analogy is now of a team game. The team captain calls specific (pre-planned) plays involving all players to move the ball forward.

The Bureaucratic Political Model (BPM) implies “where you stand, depends on where you sit.” Those in charge of various responsibilities make predictable arguments based on their present position. Policy “outcomes” result from negotiations among those who wield degrees of authority or influence.

The Bureaucratic Model dispenses with the “unitary” management, instead decisions and actions are essentially intra-political outcomes, guided by what happens but resulting from compromise, coalition, competition, and confusion among power brokers who see different faces of an issue.

George W Bush and his successor, Obama's management of international conflict could not be further apart. Bush made decisions mainly on his own, leading to the invasion of Iraq. Obama managed on an entirely consensus basis, choosing not to intervene in the invasion of Crimea in 2014 fearing a public backlash.

As a mediator and negotiator, it is critical to identify predispositions and dependence upon individuals’ preferential decision-making styles. At an individual level, a spouse may act autonomously or in tandem with their partner or in a business dispute; the C.E.O. may make a ‘call’ with or without consultation of shareholders. It is your responsibility to understand the dynamics of those involved.

References and Definitions

Graham T Allison Jr. is an American political scientist and the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (Born 1940: Aged 84 years at time of writing)

Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap? (2017)

the fearful wounded human soul is the most unpredictable element in creation

John Thomson - When Trouble Comes

Killing The Pig

In the novel, a significant character and moral identity change occurs when the boys successfully kill a wild pig. They celebrate with wild dancing, painting their faces with blood and chanting kill, kill, kill, denoting changed self-perceptions, transitioning from childish innocence to self-determining adults.

When acting for disparaging sides of a conflict, understanding the depth of life experience is critical. Often found in socially alienated communities and rigid secular and religious groups, many have limited life experience, underdeveloped cognitive reasoning, and rigid emotional regulation, which shapes their responses to conflict and power dynamics. Their reliance on binary thinking, tendency to impulsivity, and susceptibility to group influences developmental constraints, reasoning abilities and negotiation capacities.

Impulsivity toward uncharacteristic behaviour is a symptom of acute anxiety and insecurity. Killing the pig provides an insight into this common behavioural trait and underscores the importance of developmental and contextual considerations in negotiation training and practice. Recognizing that individuals’ abilities to negotiate effectively evolve with learning, experience and maturity

In-Group vs. Out-Group Dynamics

Social identity theory attempts to identify environments that create individual and group thinking. In those environments, individuals derive self-identity and confidence from group memberships, influencing their ability to negotiate within evolving social, work, and family environments.

Jack’s authority becomes absolute after the killing of the pig, and he attracts weaker boys to his group. The dichotomy between Ralph’s democratically governed group and Jack’s autocratic tribe illustrates in-group vs. out-group dynamics. In-group favouritism and out-group hostility, driven by perceived threats, reduce the willingness to engage in cooperative negotiation. The boys’ increasing dehumanization of the ‘out-group’ highlights how entrenched group divides can obstruct meaningful negotiation and lead to conflict escalation.

Developing strategies to humanize the out-group requires finding common ground emphasizing shared identities or goals to bridge divides and foster cooperation.

Moral Ambiguity

We all face moral dilemmas, balancing wants and needs, affordability and desire while grappling with the wider cost of survival versus ethical considerations. A common example is where a relationship collapses but parties weigh up the impact on their children and economic outcomes verses moving on into more amicable relationships.

The movie series 'Mad Max', (drawing from the 'Lord of the Flies,) ' is a powerful allegory for the confrontational challenges to societal order when order collapses. It vividly portrays the moral and ethical dilemmas that arise when survival becomes the paramount concern, often leading to actions that would be deemed unacceptable in a stable society. This moral ambiguity, born out of the need to survive, challenges and compromises traditional moral frameworks.

The global culture of 'prepping' is a direct response to perceived threats. The 'prepper movement' is energised by fear, preparing for worst-case scenarios. The underlying culture is a survival-at-all-costs mentality, potentially compromising ethical standards, such as prioritising one's group over others, using lethal force to protect resources, or exploiting others for gain. The darker aspects of a collapse of structured order raise important questions about societal resilience, ethics, and our collective response to potential crises.

Social Cohesion vs. Individualism

Every conflict generates anxiety, fear, and insecurity for those involved. Acute anxiety often leads to extreme behaviours, including violence (both individual and group-based), destruction of property (such as arson), relationship abuse, and social breakdowns. Persistent anxiety can further alter personal behaviour, causing both psychological and physical health issues.

When conflict arises, the immediate reaction can trigger a fight-or-flight response. This response promotes a mindset of 'us versus them,' impacting perceptions of loyalty, faithfulness, and friendships. It also causes the creation of strategic alliances, drawing others into the 'us—v-them' culture of division.

Those who experience ongoing fear, ambiguity, betrayed confidence, or bias often display heightened individualism. This individualism, influenced by predefined psychological paradigms, can propel the likelihood of paranoia—the unfounded or delusional belief that one is being persecuted, harassed, or betrayed by others.

While diversity is something to be celebrated, entrenched and fearful, individualism is often characterized by transience, stubbornness, selfishness, and a lack of empathy towards others. Resolving conflicts with such individuals requires high trust and stable communication processes to prevent irrational communications and actions that could escalate the conflict.

Balancing individual preparedness and collective resilience is a critical factor in conflict resolution. While self-sufficiency is essential, overemphasising individuality can undermine social cohesion and cooperation. Effective conflict resolution strategies must balance personal preparedness with principles prioritising human dignity, social justice, and compassion

This involves advocating for equitable resource distribution, non-violent resolutions, and inclusivity in the aftermath of conflicts to strengthen community, social, and individual relationships. Ethical preparedness helps mitigate the potential for further conflict, ensuring that personal efforts do not compromise ethical principles. By fostering ethical preparedness, promoting social cohesion, and implementing supportive policies, we can address the challenges presented by conflicts. This approach ensures that our efforts to manage and resolve conflicts do not erode the very principles that sustain a just and humane society.

Summary

"Lord of the Flies" serves as a compelling allegory for negotiation within evolving social dynamics. It illustrates the intricate interplay of power, conflict, cooperation, social identities, and psychological influences. The novel's portrayal of the boys' descent into chaos underscores the challenges and critical principles for effective negotiation in real-world contexts.

By embracing adaptability, inclusive dialogue, emotional intelligence, bias awareness, and sensitivity to group dynamics, negotiators can navigate complex social landscapes to achieve more harmonious and productive outcomes.

First published in 1954, immediately after the Korean War and at a time of heightened anxiety in response to a perceived aggressive communist threat and an all-out nuclear war, "Lord of the Flies" serves as a compelling allegory for negotiation within evolving social dynamics, illustrating the intricate interplay of power, conflict, cooperation, social identities, and psychological influences.The novel's portrayal of the boys' descent into chaos underscores the challenges and critical principles for effective negotiation in real-world contexts.

The five Keys are; -

Adaptability: Effective negotiators must continuously and quickly adapt strategies to align with changing social dynamics, addressing emerging needs and motivations through flexible approaches.

Inclusive Dialogue: Democratic and inclusive negotiation processes foster greater buy-in and cooperation but must be balanced with assertive leadership to address crises and conflicts and ensure the mediator maintains civil conduct between all parties.

Emotional Intelligence: Understanding and managing emotional states are crucial for mitigating conflict and fostering constructive negotiation, particularly in high-stakes and volatile environments.

Bias Awareness: Awareness and mitigation of cognitive biases enhance negotiation objectivity and decision-making quality, facilitating more balanced and effective outcomes.

Group Dynamics: Recognizing and addressing in-group vs. out-group dynamics can bridge divides and promote collective goals, emphasizing shared identities and mutual interests.

Additional Information

Def: 'prepper:' a global trend where people prepare for perceived threats, many with obsessive fervour, storing food and resources from possible war, natural catastrophic events, civil unrest, financial collapse and secular persecution.

References

Golding, W. (1954). Faber and Faber.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Penguin Books.
Thompson, L. (2011). Pearson Education.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. , 33-47.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Press.
Goleman, D. (1995). Bantam Books.
Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M. A. (1992). Free Press.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. (1991). McGraw-Hill.
Axelrod, R. (1984). Basic Books.
Lencioni, P. (2002). Jossey-Bass.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Pearson Education.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), , 150-167. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. (1), 1-39.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). Gulf Publishing Company.

About John Thomson

John Thomson is an keynote, session and plenary speaker, authour and mediation and negotiator lecturer and teacher. A successful practitioner since 1985 John is Senior Partner at N.Z. Mediation Services and consultant mediation and arbitrator at John Thomson Consulting (Aust). He has personally closed over 3,000 contracts across all property, business and proprietary sectors and has a 94% closure rate in mediation. Based in N.S.W. Australia, John is a frequent flyer between Australia and New Zealand managing and advising a professional team of qualified mediators, negotiators and arbitrators in both countries.

Lesson notes from THE NEGOTIATOR, are part of the CODE RED Training Program written and published by John Thomson Consulting. All rights reserved. International copyright and trademark laws cover the contents of this publication John Thomson (John Thomson Consulting: ABN 74325624056.) Students of Social Sciences, Law, Negotiation or Mediation may use material extracted from this note for learning and academic use with reference to John Thomson 2020:5

References and Definitions

Graham T Allison Jr. is an American political scientist and the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (Born 1940: Aged 84 years at time of writing)

​