Real World Coalition Context

Coalitions form when 2 or more people form a group who share similar interests and values, combining resources and create a more powerful position than they would hold on their own.   On a large scale gun violence is a national point of contention that will require negotiation to combat on a federal government level, on the smaller scale gun violence effects small high-risk communities.   In a recent article published by PennLive, a coalition group has formed in a once quiet neighborhood now plagued by drug activity, gun play and has left children ducking for cover from stray bullets.  Many citizens described a more prosperous time, but this blighted neighborhood has witnessed 7 shootings in 8 days, which resulted in several injuries and 1 death.   This is not unfamiliar occurrence to America’s underprivileged cities and has created an accepted numbness, but this neighborhood has come together to create a coalition to fight back, rather than become consumed by it.  Individuals on their own stand no chance in impacting change on this level, but have recognized an opportunity to come together.  It’s unlikely that these two groups will sit down at a table and negotiate between themselves and come to an agreement to curb the violence but the coalition group can exhibit its power over them though silent negotiation.  The group dubbed “the heart of Allison Hill Peacekeepers,” makes their power and presence know by walking the streets at night in hopes of dissuading violence and that some will take heed to their message of peace.  The coalition shifts the power from the thugs that have claimed the streets back to the residents that no longer wish to be prisoners in their homes, retreating indoors at sundown.

The common adversary is pitting neighbors against neighbors and breeding fear of retaliation, in turn keeping the innocent silent to the violence they witness and further weakening their individual bargaining potential.  Now, fed up, and fearing for further deterioration of their lives, a few have come together and have formed a loud voice.  Through their frequent evening walks they are positioning themselves to push back, and building an allegiance. Their selflessness is catching attention by demonstrating true leadership, and inspiring others to follow.

The common objectives of the coalition are the driving force that move the coalition forward.  The objective is for residents to take back control of their neighborhood and show young folks that they care and are focused on non-violent resolution, respect, and recreating value of life.  The group is working on grants to fund professional interrupters which would cost roughly $300,000 annually, but would relieve some of the responsibility of police.  The neighborhoods no longer trust the police and withhold information from them creating an endless cycle.  Not only is the group using their power to deter violence they are positioning themselves in an internal negotiation with fellow neighbors that may have similar fears but refuse to provide information due to lack of trust.   If witnesses won’t participate in a police investigation, the coalition may be able to negotiate with them to provide anonymous information to fellow members of their neighborhood whom they trust. Bringing in professional interrupters who would not carry a badge may restore the comfort level and allow the community to regain strength. The coalition and possible presence of professional interrupters may help curb the unhealthy behavior in the high risk areas and may in turn bring out the interests of the people engaging in the unhealthy behavior.  The youth’s committing gun violence may not wish to behave as they do but see no other choice but to sell drugs and engage in violence as they feel there is no potential otherwise.  The healthy presence and support of the community could turn around the life of someone that thought otherwise, even one life is success, and a step forward for this neighborhood. 

Ethics Questionnaire

The basis of my behavior and ethical values has a lot to do with past experience, relationships, and perceptions.  Learned behavior and personality, and concern as to how I am being viewed have an undertone in how I prefer to interact in a negotiation.   The importance of a relationship with the person you are negotiating with will clearly lead one to be more open, honest, accommodating, and willing to collaborate.  This is where I feel like I would normally land in any setting, even if the stakes were higher and the relationship was of little importance.  I prefer to avoid a tactically demanding setting, which would make me feel uncomfortable, anxious, and focused more on the negative feelings then the goal at hand.  I’m surprised that I scored higher on Traditional Competitive Bargaining, I think it’s more that I believe that tactic is acceptable, but I may not use it myself.  It seems rather obvious when one opens a negotiation with an extreme demand and more of a waste of time than anything, at least if the extreme is blatantly obvious. I agree that there are times where one would pressure the opponent and constraints such as time, or ego may be the underlying focus, but that seems like a waste of time as well.  I have experienced many situations where I have felt as though I am being pressured to concede to something and my thoughts are that it’s either annoying, too boastful by the other party, and unnecessary, but I don’t believe it to be unethical.  Most people in any sort of sales position will take this position initially.  It’s more of a turn off to whatever is being sold than it is a tactic, the reason I would prefer not to go that route, it sours my take on the negotiation.  

I scored rather low, under the average on; Attacking Opponent’s Network, False Promises, and Inappropriate Information Gathering.  All three of these seem rather unethical and based off a lack of confidence, preparedness, and little knowledge of what one is negotiating.  More of a tactic to strong arm an opponent and attack them with fear, bribery, and misrepresentation, none of which seem at all ethical.   One’s fear of an attack to paint them as weak is enough for some people to give in to a certain demand, money motivates some and leads to bribery, but does not mean that it’s the correct way to negotiate and false promises run along the lines of being intentionally untruthful, which may or may not be realized but it’s not the correct course of action.  Some negotiations, even those that produce great results, are based on a foundation misrepresentations which could eventually fall apart or gain someone a reputation of someone that is not trustworthy, effecting future negotiations.  There are times where untruths may be told, it’s unavoidable in some cases, as long as the untruth has no harmful effect, or is not a major misrepresentation of a promise being made, then it’s OK from time to time, if the untruth is meant to gain some advantage but will not have a negative impact.  Some untruths are expected in negotiation, more inflations of truth, if your opponent is expecting it and may be telling untruths themselves, then it can be considered a part of negotiation.

Overall I’m not disappointed how I scored in comparison to others who took the questionnaire.  Each negotiator has their own style, and this helps to understand that some folks are different in how they view ethical behavior in negotiation, no two negotiators are the same in their approach.  One has to be mindful that fellow negotiators can be more like sharks and you need to be aware of that behavior and adjust and other folks are more timid and that shouldn’t be taken advantage of for personal gain.  Knowing as much as you can prior to a negotiation in terms of topic and partner is key to a successful negotiation.