Organization Theory The Interface of Structure, Culture, Procedures, and Negotiation Processes Ji-ae, PARK & Alberto Mondi

Index I.Why an Organization Theory is needed? II.What is an organization? III.Organizational Analysis: two perspectives for three dimensions IV.Application of theory: the cases of the Single European Act and the Uruguay Round of GATT V.Conclusions

Why an Organization Theory is needed? ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES strongly INFLUENCE and AFFECT NEGOTIATIONS

What is an organization?  “a formal social grouping which is established in a more or less deliberate or purposive manner for the attainment of specific goals”  “a group of people who have a particular shared purpose or interest” (Macmillian Dictionary)  “An organization is a social arrangement which pursues collective goals, which controls its own performance, and which has a boundary separating it from its environment” (Wikipedia)  “An organization is essentially a separate and distinct group of people (and resources) that have been brought together for a common purpose or objective.” (Organization Theory for Leaders, Frank R. Hunsicker)

For better understanding: organizations and their goals  Amnesty International : to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights.  APEC : cooperate on regional trade on investment liberalization and facilitation.  European Free Trade Associat ion: Liberalization of trade among the member states.  Consumers International : promote a fairer society through defending the rights of all consumers.  ADB : help its developing member countries reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of their people.  African Economic Community : establishing grounds for mutual economic development among the majority of African states.  … … …

Organizational Analysis: 2 perspectives for 3 dimensions STRUCTURALACTIONIST STRUCTURE DECISION-MAKING CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Two theoretical perspectives for analysis  Focus on the informal dimension of structure. Organizations are joined together by the choices individuals make and the actions they take;  Environment is a constraint to organizations;  Organizations seen as interacting individual and groups who seek to reach their own goals; ACTIONIST  Focus on the formal dimension of structure. Organizations are joined together by a formal structure and hierarchy;  Organizations integrally linked to the environments in which they operate;  Focus on the relation between the structure and the efficiency of decision making. STRUCTURAL

Three dimensions of analysis  the design of an organization and the degree to which its goal-setting processes and control mechanism are elaborated; Structural dimension  procedures, political situation and cultural values that influence the way decisions are made; Decision-making dimension  the causes of conflicts and the way they are tackled and solved. Conflict resolution dimension

An Organization Approach to Multilateral Negotiations

An organization approach to Multilateral Negotiations STRUCTURALACTIONIST STRUCTURE Formal Mechanism Allocation of work and regulations of activities; Bureaucracy and hierarchical structures; Existence of different stakeholder groups Adaptive, continuously changing Role of culture Shared culture Strong and developed past relationships Institutionalized informal norms Existence of diverse subcultures DECISION- MAKING Mechanism Rational Influenced by strategies and environment Political Highly adversarial Trade-off simplicity vs. optimization Goals Goal setting as a rationalistic and premeditate process Goals as the outcomes of a complex negotiation process Existence of unofficial goals CONFLICT RESOLUTION Dispute-resolution system Expertise mediation Conflict as an essential element Ad hoc mediation

Structure STRUCTURALACTIONIST STRUCTUREFormal Mechanism Allocation of work and regulations of activities; Bureaucracy and hierarchical structures; Existence of different stakeholder groups; Adaptive, continuously changing Role of culture Shared culture Strong and developed past relationships Institutionalized informal norms Existence of diverse subcultures

Decision-Making STRUCTURALACTIONIST DECISION- MAKING Mechanism Rational Influenced by strategies and environment Political Highly adversarial Trade-off simplicity vs. optimization Goals Goal setting as a rationalistic and premeditate process Goals as the outcomes of a complex negotiation process Existence of unofficial goals

Conflict Resolution STRUCTURALACTIONIST CONFLICT RESOLUTION Dispute-resolution system Expertise mediation Conflict as an essential element Ad hoc mediation

Application of theory: SEA and GATT’s Uruguay round in comparison

Application of Theory: SEA and GATT’s Uruguay round in comparison EC (SEA)GATT (UR) FORMAL STRUCTURE Structure Culture Goals Predict patterns of negotiations DECISION- MAKING CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Application of Theory: SEA and GATT’s Uruguay round in comparison EC (SEA)GATT (UR) FORMAL STRUCTURE Structure Well-articulated formal structure of and responsibilities; Set of formal rules and procedures; Lack of a defined structure; Individual actors often bypass the GATT’s Secretariat. Culture Shared information and past experiences; Shared culture of problem- solving; Absence of unifying cultural values; High possibility of misunderstanding Goals Goal-directed organization; Subgoals contribute to a well- defined overall goal. Many different goals; Inconsistency of the goals and disjoined activity. Predict patterns of negotiations Propensity to generate common deals and cooperative bargaining; Promotion of consensus. Division of task to deal with complexity; Negotiation similar to a coalition game.

EC (SEA)GATT (UR) FORMAL STRUCTURE Structure Well-articulated formal structure of and responsibilities; Set of formal rules and procedures; Lack of a defined structure; Individual actors often bypass the GATT’s Secretariat. Culture Shared information and past experiences; Shared culture of problem- solving; Absence of unifying cultural values; High possibility of misunderstanding Goals Goal-directed organization; Subgoals contribute to a well-defined overall goal. Many different goals; Inconsistency of the goals and disjoined activity. Predict patterns of negotiations Propensity to generate common deals and cooperative bargaining; Promotion of consensus. Division of task to deal with complexity; Negotiation similar to a coalition game.

Application of Theory: SEA and GATT’s Uruguay round in comparison EC (SEA)GATT (UR) DECISION- MAKING Aim of producing legislation; Procedures for facilitating decision- making; Reaching common consensus through negotiations; Leave aside issues that lack widespread support; Negotiation outside the structures. Aim of producing legislation; Cooperation and division of tasks with other specialized organizations; Reduction of complexity through segmented decision-making; Pre-negotiation; Negotiation outside the structures.

Application of Theory: SEA and GATT’s Uruguay round in comparison EC (SEA)GATT (UR) CONFLICT RESOLUTION Institutionalized use of mediation; Mediation as a role; Preference for problem- solving-Long-term commitment between members. Opportunistic use of mediation; Mediation as a function; Preference for improvised resolutions- “ keep the process going”.

Application of Theory: Some examples RED CROSSASEM FORMAL STRUCTURE Structure Assembly, Presidency, Assembly Council, Directorate; Defined regulations Secretariat that represents 45 countries; Culture Shared Different national cultures Goals 1949-Geneva Convention Strengthen Europe-Asia relationships Predict patterns of negotiations Adherence to a pre- determined strategy; Cohesion. Self-centered and adversarial; Coalitional attitude. DECISION- MAKING Structural and regulated. Division of tasks Consensual but slow. CONFLICT RESOLUTION Conflict-resolution is an intrinsic value. Mediation as a function.

Conclusions 1.Negotiations are organizations “in motion”; 2.Organizations affects negotiation: successes and failures; 3.Negotiations affects organizations: the process of institutionalization and learning; 4.The role of environment.

감사합니다. Thank You! 谢谢 Спасибо Баярлалаа