International Negotiations and Bargaining Skills

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Every passing day, opportunities that require the intervention of negotiation skills, as well as the art of persuasion, present themselves. The oxford dictionary (third edition) has defined negotiation as the ability to confer with another, with a view to arriving at the settling of a given matter(s). According to Fisher and Ury (1991), negotiations can be looked at as a basic means of getting from others what you need. As such, it is characterized by a back and forth form of communication, with the aim of getting to a desirable agreement, in a case whereby the two parties are characterized by opposing agreements.

To this end, a wide range of myths pertaining to negotiations have since been put forth. One of these is that good negotiators are not born so, but rather, they come about following study and practice (Aquilar & Gallucio, 2008). In other words, they are self-made. Looking at this myth, it would be important to note that negotiations, to some extent, requires experience in the matters at hand, if at all the skills of negotiations are to be improved. Even as experience may lead to improved confidence in the handling of negotiation matters, our effectiveness over the matter is not always tied o the experience that we have (Elkins & Richard, 1994).

Even as much as good negotiators take risks, such are often calculated moves, which they have often given a lot of thought, in a bid to not only evaluate a given situation but also arrive at an optimal choice. A good negotiator will always prepare before hand, aware of the fact that the issue at hand could either be a win-win situation or even a win-lose. At the same time, a good negotiator will not let his ego overcrowd his own judgments, but rather they tend o focus more on the expected results (Odell, 2008).

Elements of a negotiation process

For every negotiation, there is always a key element that defines it. One of these is information, which is viewed at as the lifeline for any negotiation. In this regard, the view is that knowing more about the opposing side will be beneficial. At times, one side of the negotiation may need to let the other side know some of the information, but not all. It has also been observed that for one party to get information, they are also expected first to provide some (Fisher & Ury, 1991).

Part of the work of an accomplished negotiator is to be on the look-out for some behavioral cues, verbal or unintentional cues, either of the party may display. On the other hand, time is also a crucial element in any given negotiations. So much so that a revealing of the deadlines to talks is sometimes not encouraged, or at least the other side may not know about it just yet. For this reason, an astute negotiator is called forth to obtain clues from the other side about a possible deadline of the talks (Mccallum, 2002).

Given that a lot of concessions are known to take place prior to the talks reaching a deadline, this is where then that patience is really desirable in negotiations. The best outcome of any negotiation are not born in haste, like the use of such tactics that have a connotation that the other side may either have it your way, or there is no deal. Use of power in negotiation is another key element. There are a number of things that normally impacts on the balance of power in as far as negotiations are concerned, and these includes among others the relationship between the opposing side, the cultural differences among them, the position and privileges of the negotiators, and the time and information available (Fisher & Glen, 2004)

Negotiations requirements

If at all any negotiation talks are to be appropriate, it is important then that there be the usual element that normally defines a conflicting situation, such as the presence of opposing interests from the two parties, the common interest between them notwithstanding. In addition, there ought to be the motivation that will lead to engagement among the different parties so that there should be no avoidances (Crump, 2008).

In any case, negotiations are often seen as a neutral ground between domination and avoidance. At the same time, it is important that there be a substantial balance of power that would enable a coming back to the negotiating table of the two parties. Another consideration for there to be a negotiation is a reaching of an active phase by the parties involved. (Fisher & Glen, 2004).

Negotiations perspectives

More often than not people have banked their hopes on the use of negotiation tactics as a tool to enable the reaching of an agreement with the opposing side. Sadly though, this does not always happen. In a lot of negotiation settings, the talks are often mired by controversies. In this regard, an indirect form of communication is usually employed. However, the negotiators hope to settle the conflict with no use of force or avoidance by either of the parties (Fisher & Ury, 1991).

In this respect, there are usually two main approaches that are often used in negotiations; collaborative and competitive. However, the two approaches could as well be combined to arrive at what is collectively known as the ‘principled approach.’ The differences that are there between the two main approaches to negotiations are with regard to content, relationship, identity, and the process itself. First, the content of negotiation is twofold; it can be a win-lose, or even a win-win situation (Crump, 2008).

In terms of the relationship of the negotiating parties, it could be either a friendly one or unfriendly. Identity often involves the aspect of face-saving, and this could often be characterized by confrontational/rigid scenarios on the one hand or be supportive and flexible on the other hand. With regard to the actual negotiation process, the difference between competitive and collaborative approaches is that the former is characterized by bargaining for positions, while the latter bargaining is based on interest in a bid to build lasting solutions.

In a majority of negotiations, the position of this reflective essay is that to some extent; it would be prudent to consider the use of a collaborative approach. Sadly though, experience has taught us that collaborative negotiations are rarely sufficient, possible, or appropriate. Each party feels that they have a duty to protect themselves. Even then, it is still possible to combine collaborative and competitive approaches.

Negotiations criteria

The criteria for any one of the negotiation methods involves the use of a wise agreement, such as will lead to a reconciliatory agreement among the parties involved. At the same time, it is important that such a method be also efficient, while also try not to damage any relationships, by attempting to improve these. Clearly, the criteria so provided leaves no room for a bargaining over positions while also trying to be nice in a negotiation may not provide the much needed solution

Competitive negotiations

Competitive negotiations are characterized by ego-centered self-interests, with antagonism and competition being the underlying motives. At the same time, such negotiations rarely have an impact on the future and have few resources at their disposal. Competitive negotiation hopes to have a better win than the other side. In terms of communication, the approach not only places high demands, but the process of conceding is also slow. At the same time, such an approach attempt to exaggerate the offered value of concessions while also concealing or distorting information.

The approach is a ploy to manipulate the process and people involved through a distortion of goals, intentions, and resources. At the same time, the approach is geared towards resisting being persuaded on issues at hand. A drawback to such an approach is that they have the potential to hurt relationships, lead to communication distortions and breakdown, anger, and mistrust. At the same time, the approach may undermine compliance and commitment while also blocking a possible exploration f the contentious issues.

Collaborative negotiations

On the other hand, collaborative negotiations are based on the assumption that opposing parties have common as well as diverse interests. As such, these common interests are both valued and sought for. Consequently, it is assumed that such a negotiation approach may end up with both parties having gained something. Perhaps one should appreciate here that enlightened self-

interest revolves around the world of negotiations. As a result, this approach tends to recognize and appreciate interdependence. Although limited resources do exist, creativity and cooperation though can lead to their expansion (Crump, 2008).

An understanding of interests, as opposed to fighting for positions, is another characteristic of this approach. In terms of the communication pattern, use is made of collaborative tactics, like in the case of enquiring for honesty, concessions, a disclosure of statements, a request for feedback, responsibility acceptance, and supportive remarks. Through the use of brainstorming sessions, new options are often created, and such are often to the benefit of each of the party’s needs (Kliesberg, 2001).

In addition, there is often the use of the bridging practice in a bid to meet the needs of the other party while also minimizing the costs incurred by the other party when you accompany them on the negotiation process. However, the approach is also subject to drawbacks, such as the pressurizing of an individual to either accommodate or compromise against their self-interests. There is also an increase in as far as manipulation and deception vulnerabilities are concerned, from the other side of a competitive opponent. Also, there is the requirement of strong perception confidence of individual on one side, with regard to those of the opposing side.

Principled Negotiation

This approach usually has an orientation towards the collaborative approach but could as well find use in a competitive perspective. In this regard, this method rests on four considerations; people, interests, options, and criteria. First, the approaching fist attempt to separate the people and the negotiators, as it is evident that failing to do so will almost often lead to disastrous reactions by the human beings. At the same time, the approach is alive to the reality that it is better to prevent the occurrence of a problem rather than trying to repair the damages.

The several options that try to satisfy the interests of the parties involved are also explored. The negotiators are also encouraged to be more committed to their interests, as opposed to their individual positions, while at the same time staying open for consideration of their own interests. Also, the approach encourages the negotiators to be hard on the issues at hand rather than the people. However, it is important too that such negotiators are able to differentiate between positions, interests, strategies, and goals. At the san time, one should also appreciate that through integrative negotiations, it is still possible to reconcile two opposing parties. For one, a given side might be more concerned about, say, economic considerations of a country a stake, while the other party would be more into the political considerations.

1992-1993 Oslo negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians

The 1990s witnessed one of the most profound conflicts between the Israelis on the one hand and the Palestinians on the other hand. As a result of these antagonistic wars, it was thus deemed necessary that negotiation talks be held, and this culminated in the Oslo negotiations.

Although these negotiations were more of a multilateral component, one of the most intractable issues that faced these negotiations was the concern for the working group of refugees of Palestinian origin. In fact, the starting point of these peace process agreements dates back to the October of 1991 in Madrid.

As such, there was a multilateral agreement that was geared towards the achievement of prosperity and peace between the two antagonistic parties. However, the talks were not without criticism from proponents, who were the talks as being a seminal phase of the bid for a peaceful peace process. As such, they have seen the discussions involved as being a substitution of the substantive negotiations, as well as concreted initiatives. At the same time, there are those who viewed the negotiation talks as being more of a side-show. As has been noted, there was already an integration of the multilateral to the question of the peace process in the Middle East in the 1991-92 periods.

On the one hand, the Arabs participating in these talks were in need of an international and comprehensive negotiations process and one that would take into account the framework of multilateral negotiations. As such, these Arabs pooled to their disposal such negotiation resources as would be sympathetic to their issue. These included the United Nations and the then USSR (Kliesberg, 2001). On their part, the Israelites had also preferred negotiations dynamics with a bilateral perspective. As such, they had thus far been opposed to the involvements of all other external parties save for the United States. In addition, Israel had also sought their recognition and acceptance with regard to their positional standing in the region, a move that did not go down well with the Palestinians (Kliesberg, 2001).

Two-level games entanglement

The various parties that were playing the ‘two-level games’ in the Israeli-Palestine negotiations further complicated an already bad situation. These parties, by their participation in the refugee’s working groups, were seen as a complicating factor on the basis of the assessment of domestic politics. The senior decision-makers on the side of the Palestinians placed a low priority o the refugees’ question (Crump, 2008).

To them, they were more concerned with matters concerning the territory, as well as being able to mobilize economic and political support. On the part of the Israelites, they were very sensitive to the issue of the refugees, while they placed lower priorities on the broader issue of the negotiation talks between them and the Palestinians. Due to this, there resulted in low incentives as far as the attempt to energize the issue of the refugees working group was concerned (Odell, 2008).

The refugee issue has presented a magnitude of a problem that has as well made political progress almost untenable. However, there has been a bit of a breakthrough in the talks, as can be attested by the negotiation and interactions between the Israelis and Palestinians, in a bid to expand and implement the self-government in Palestine. Another one was the 1994 Jordanian -Israeli cooperation that was witnessed in the wake of the peace treaty of 1994 (Kliesberg, 2001). These improvements have partly been credited to the reactions of both parties to a 1995 vision paper whose attempt was to outline challenges that bedeviled the working group of the refugees while at the same time also offering responses to raised suggestions on the same issue.

Conclusion

In trade and political circles, conflicts of interest always abound as a result of either economic or political indifferences. In a bid to resolve such conflicts, negotiations have historically been employed. Two approaches are applicable in negotiations; competitive and collaboration, with the latter being preferred, owing to a possible win-win situation for either of the parties. Even then, negotiations are dependent on the elements of time, a balance of negotiating power and information. There have been a lot of real-life negotiation examples the world over, one of them being the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, over the plight of the working group refugees, and the issue of territory.

References

Aquilar, F., & Gallucio, M. (2008). Psychological Processes in International Negotiations: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives. ISBN 978-978-0-387-71378-6. Web.

Crump, L. “International Negotiation”. A Journal of Theory and Practice, 2003, (8) 2. Web.

Elkins, D., & Richard, E. National Culture and Inter ELGSTRÖM Cooperation and Conflict National Negotiations. ELGSTRÖM Cooperation and Conflict, 29 (1994): 289-301. Web.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes. New York: Penguin group. Web.

Fisher, R., & Glen, T. “International Negotiation. A Cross-Cultural Perspective”. Intercultural Press, 2004.

Kliesberg, L. “Mediation and the transformation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” Journal of peace research, 38(3) 373-392 (2001). Web.

Mccallum, J. “Breakthrough International Negotiation: How Great Negotiators Transformed the World’s Toughest Post-Cold War Conflicts?” Parameters, 32 (2002). Web.

International negotiations. [Online]. Available at: Odell, J. “Creating data on international negotiation strategies, alternatives, and outcomes. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!