First, which organizations represent potential coalition partners for 

 one's own organization? These groups need to be identified so that they can 

 begin to communicate among themselves, identify common goals, develop 

 strategies for the pursuit of those goals, and formulate compromises where 

 differences do exist. Those organizations located closest to one's own group 

 on the role map should be examined individually to determine what common 

 interests exist among them. The information contained in the Phase I analyses 

 lists the goals identified by the analysts for the various organizations. The 

 behavioral descriptions associated with each of these organizations can provide 

 additional information in this regard. 



Once mutual goals have been identified and categorized, it is important 

 to examine the types of power these groups have to pursue those goals. Groups 

 that have complementary bases of power are not only more likely to join the 

 same coalition to begin with (Smith 1985), but are able to achieve more 

 together than alone, at less overall cost to the coalition as a whole. Another 

 reason it is important to examine the power columns and indices of potential 

 coalitions members is to identify those areas in which the coalition is weak. 

 If, for example, a coalition has adequate funding and personnel, but little 

 public, political, or interest group support, attempts can be made to 

 strengthen the coalition's power in this latter category. Other players may 

 be willing to provide the necessary element of power, in exchange for 

 concessions later in the negotiation process. A campaign could be initiated 

 to increase public awareness and sympathy for the values represented by the 

 coalition, thereby expanding the conflict (Cobb and Elder 1983). Resources 

 from one power source can be converted into another type of power. For 

 example, money can be used to purchase outside expertise or information if the 

 coalition has plenty of the former, and very little of the latter. 



Second, what is the probability of an opposing coalition forming among 

 the other participants in the conflict? The most likely candidates are those 

 organizations located in the quadrant opposite the one in which one's own 

 organization is located. These groups should be examined in a similar manner 

 to that outlined above. In spite of the fact that the two sides represent 

 seemingly polarized viewpoints, an attempt should be made to identify areas in 

 which agreement may be reached. Potential tradeoffs can be identified early- 

 on, which could help set the stage for compromise between the two sides of the 

 conflict. More difficult issues can be postponed until later in the negotia- 

 tion process, after communication has begun between the parties, some degree 

 of trust has been established, and a climate of cooperation engendered. 

 Moderate players, located inside the arcs on the role map, can also be 

 encouraged to work together to pull the more extreme players closer to the 

 middle — and towards compromise. 



Third, are there potential coalitions between the organizational partici- 

 pants and their interest group allies? The importance of interest groups in 

 policymaking should not be underestimated (Greenwald 1977; Cummings and Wise 

 1985; Smith 1985). A careful examination should be made of this element of 

 organizational power to determine not only which interest groups are already 

 allied with various organizational participants in the conflict, but to 

 ascertain the likelihood of currently noninvolved interest groups being pulled 

 into the conflict. Interest groups are likely to be the most politically 



75 



