A negotiation strategy is a sequence of actions in negotiations that will lead to the achievement of specific goals. Before conducting negotiations, it is essential to establish who will hold them (find out information about the opponent). Then, to determine what result should be achieved through these talks and determine the strategy on which the outcome depends. In practice, there can be no single strategy for pursuing negotiations, each case requires a different approach that meets specific conditions, but the most common policy is the one based on cooperation.
Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton proposed the most common classification of negotiation strategies the win-win classification. According to this classification, there are four main strategies: win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose, and win-win. In practice, it is possible to apply all these four variants in a variety of areas. The strategy is based on two parameters: the importance of the relationship and the significance of the result.
Win-lose is a strategy that is aimed solely at defeating an opponent as a rival. The result is most important, and the possibility of spoiling the relationship with the other party does not matter. A competitive negotiator is often willing to use any available means to get the desired agreement. People with this attitude use their strength of character, power, connections, the specifics of the situation, and any other advantages to achieve victory over their partner. Lose-win strategy leads to the tactical defeat of one side and the success of the opponent. The relationship is most important, and it is possible to make concessions about the result of negotiations. Lose-lose the simplest example of using a strategy is to avoid participating in talks when the position is weak. However, there could be situations when one of the negotiators deliberately provokes a mutual loss in the negotiation process.
At the heart of the win-win strategy is cooperation; the aim is to ensure that all participants in the negotiations will benefit as a result. It is essential that the opponents understand, respect, and consider each others interests. It is necessary to reach an agreement by going deep into the problem and finding the solution that best suits both sides. In a negotiated environment, a win-win strategy means that solutions are equally beneficial to all participants. In this case, both parties are satisfied with the result and ready to make every effort to implement it. For performing the win-win strategy, it is necessary to formulate a proposal that is profitable to both sides, provide the opponent with strong evidence of winning the situation, and be open and honest. It is also essential to prove a positive outcome for both parties, analyze further activities into stages, and be in constant contact. It is crucial to have a positive attitude and focus on results.
The negotiations themselves are communication between the two sides here and now. The process includes not only conversation with the interlocutor, but also preparation for it and analysis of the results. The ability to negotiate is a skill that can be developed like any other. It is essential to learn how to negotiate with opponents, and it is necessary to prepare for meetings where the parties exchange views and make decisions.
I have planned to hold talks with my friends about where we will spend our vacation. First of all, to prepare for negotiations, it is crucial to determine the border after crossing which I will not continue talks. I have decided that a vacation cannot be more than two weeks or less than one week. If I do not formulate the least acceptable result in advance, I may not notice how the borders will shift during the negotiations. I also need to prepare an alternative solution that will suit me either. I want to go to the sea, but I have determined that, as a last resort, I can go to the countryside, to enjoy nature.
Then it is necessary to make a map of positions and interests for myself and my opponents. My position is to go on vacation to another country, the position of my friends is to stay in the city, not go anywhere. Interests are, in this case, the reasons that formed the position: I need a change of scenery; my friends want to spend time in the city. Each side has its concerns possible consequences from the actions or omissions of the other hand. In my case: I will not get a proper rest unless I change my surroundings, and my friends are afraid that any trip will be expensive. Thus, during the negotiations, we need to focus on our common positions and interests and try to find an option that will suit both sides.
We started the negotiations with abstract topics, discussed the news, and then moved on to the subject of the meeting. I tried to get as much information from my opponents as possible by asking open questions: how they want to spend their vacation, where, on what dates, what budget. Then I tried to offer a mutually beneficial solution, recalling the alternatives that I had thought through in preparation for the negotiations. After that we participated in positional bidding, discussing possible options, and finally came to an agreement that satisfied all parties. It was decided to go to the countryside for one week this vacation will not be expensive, but it is also an opportunity to change the scenery, leave the city. After that, we recorded the results of the negotiations and agreements, saying all the key points to make sure that everyone understood everything correctly.
The results of the negotiations that I was preparing for must be analyzed and evaluated. I examined what arguments my opponents made during the talks and what arguments I made, as well as whether I was able to defend my interests and what results we eventually achieved. In our negotiations, we used a win-win strategy, and in the end, all the participants of the talks were the winners.
Thus, negotiations can be useful if they led to a reasonable agreement and did not spoil relations between the parties. However, what strategy to choose in a particular case depends on the context of the situation. It is necessary to use the information received at the stage of preparation for negotiations and to understand the significance of the relationship and the result. Nevertheless, if both the result of talks and the development of relations in the future are essential, then the most successful strategy is a strategy based on cooperation. This type of approach takes into account the interests of all parties to the negotiations and the search for mutually beneficial solutions.
Negotiation is a complex process of discussion and decision-making that depends on many factors, such as the parties purpose and motivation, their relationship and interdependence, resources, and negotiation skills. These factors determine what tactics and approaches are used by participants to finish negotiations successfully. This paper will discuss such fundamental aspects of negotiations as relationships and motivations of the parties to demonstrate their importance and impact on the communication process.
One of the most critical aspects of successful negotiations is the relationship of the parties. A friendly attitude developed in an informal setting, even in five minutes of communication, most often allows participants to trust each other and make concessions more confidently. As Salacuse (2020) points out, people tend to react to the actions of others analogically. Consequently, friendliness and trust induce a desire to be more amenable, and secrecy and irreconcilability are more likely to cause conflict. In addition, since negotiations between the parties usually mean further cooperation, trusting and friendly relations reduce the likelihood of non-compliance with agreements, the emergence of conflicts, and ensure a long-term partnership.
Moreover, most often, the parties are interdependent, since they intend to benefit from each others actions, but if only one party is dependent on the other, the negotiation is uneven and stressful. The relationship factor also changes the approach and success of conflict resolution. If the parties are inclined to cooperate, they can use the tactic of compromising, which means giving up part of their interests, or collaborating, which implies consensus (Smith et al., 2020). However, if one side depends on the other, or they are hostile, they are more likely to choose competing or accommodating tactics, which means that only one wins (Smith et al., 2020). Thus, the relationship between parties is critical to negotiating.
The second important aspect of negotiations is parties motivation or goal as this determines their style and tactics. According to purpose, negotiations are divided into such as types, distributive and integrative, which are opposite to each other (Lewicki et al., 2016). Distributive negotiators aim to divide limited resources between the parties to satisfy their interests and get the most benefit. For example, such negotiations can relate to the division of territories after a military conflict. Integrative negotiation aims to achieve results that satisfy all participants and create value (Lewicki et al., 2016).
For example, building an international organization is the integrative goal of the founding countries. Consequently, the purposes of these types of negotiations explain their main differences; for example, their competitive and collaborative nature. Another difference is that distribution negotiations have only one winner, and integration negotiations have no losers. In addition, the first type of communication is based on secrecy and pressure, while the second is based on openness and discussion. However, none of these types of negotiations are more advantageous, since their use usually depends on the parties final goal.
Nevertheless, since integration negotiations are usually more beneficial to all participants, it is worth considering some of its tactics. The first tactic is to find a bridge solution, which means that negotiators must develop new ideas instead of the original ones that will satisfy all parties (Lewicki et al., 2016). However, it is necessary for this decision that participants understand the underlying interests and qualitatively reformulate a solution that will fully satisfy all participants. For example, one side wants to use only vehicles for delivering goods, since they are safer, and the other side requires the use of bicycles, since they are environmentally friendly. The bridge solution for them will be the use of electric cars because they satisfy both parties interests.
The second tactic is logrolling, which requires two or more concerns for discussion. This approach is based on the fact that the parties agree, and one gets the preferable solution on one issue, and the other receives the most appropriate decision for another problem (Lewicki et al., 2016). However, logrolling most often requires testing different options until the parties find the most convenient answer for them. For example, employees want a more extended lunch break, and the employer is not happy with employees frequent 15-minute breaks. The solution for them may be to extend the lunchtime by 30 minutes, provided that the breaks are reduced to 10 minutes. Consequently, both integrative tactics aim to ensure that the negotiating parties win, even if they make minor concessions.
In conclusion, discussion of certain types and tactics of negotiation demonstrates that the parties relationship and their motivation are crucial to determining their communication style. The goal of obtaining the greatest benefit for oneself with limited resources forces the negotiator to compete and leaves no room for a collaborative way of resolving conflicts. At the same time, the motivation to find the most beneficial solution for everyone reduces the likelihood of conflict and allows participants to come to a win-win situation. Nevertheless, regardless of the reason and style of negotiations, friendly and trusting relationships are extremely important for negotiators as they improve communication, avoid conflict and simplify the process of making a shared decision.
Every person has faced a situation at least once in his life where he had to defend his point of view. These cases can be considered cases of negotiations, the main purpose of which is to find a single solution. In other words, effective bargaining is a method by which people settle differences. This process may imply the achievement of either a compromise or the arrival of a desired result of one or another result. The development of negotiation techniques and strategies can become a valuable source of information for resolving everyday situations.
If there are any disagreements, the main goal for me is to achieve the best possible result. The main methods of negotiation include competition, accommodating, avoidance, compromise or cooperation (Brett & Thompson, 2016). The tactics that are most often used by me in everyday life are accommodation and cooperation. I believe these techniques help to find the most neutral solution to the conflict and maintain a positive relationship with another person. A helpful style of talking is effectively used in my life in cases when I do not want to spoil the relationships with loved ones or colleagues. Therefore, for example, in a dispute between my family members about the choice of a vacation destination, one of us and may give way to the other. Adhering to this style helps to smooth out tension and most of all, they care about maintaining good relations and meeting the needs of the opponent.
Another style that I use and that also implies maintaining relevant friendly and primitive relationships, is collaboration. This way of dealing with a conflict situation implies a special level of honesty and sociability. Therefore, using the example of relatives and the choice of vacation, they and I carefully discussed our wishes and came to a common solution that would consider both sides preferences. Furthermore, this style may involve finding new, more creative solutions so as not to hurt the feelings of opponents. Success in negotiations can be tactical or strategic, depending on the objectives of the negotiations and the characters of the negotiator. Tactical achievement involves the conclusion of a so-called deal. Strategic success, on the contrary, implies not so much coming to an agreement but also positive results from the decision taken. Depending on the chosen strategy, the outcome may have a different kind of result.
There is no denying the fact that any dispute or decision in an interpersonal relationship in which one individual is trying to influence another person is not a negotiation. Thus, it should be noted the use of negotiation techniques can contribute to my personal growth. Moreover, it is important to remember that with this method of resolving disputes with family or friends, it is necessary to take into account the opinions of both sides. In order to become the most successful negotiator, I need to understand and develop my own way of conducting a conversation, which can become a mixture of these styles. Of course, not all people are given the opportunity to conduct effective and productive negotiations from birth. For some, this skill requires constant work and labor. However, if successful, it can be very useful, especially in everyday life. Such styles as cooperation and accommodation are especially valuable for me as they can help maintain friendly and pleasant relations between the participants in the negotiations.
Reference
Brett, J., & Thompson, L. (2016). Negotiation.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 68-79.
Face-to-face meetings are an essential type of diplomatic negotiation with their specifics, which are studied using the theory of international relations, structural realism, and communicative action. Often the determinants are the emotions, personal qualities, and interests of the negotiators, which can distort the initially set agenda and motives of the parties to varying degrees (Wong, 2020). However, at the same time, these negotiations are necessary, as they are the most high-quality and accessible way of conveying the correct position of the state since the percentage of distortion when using impersonal channels is much higher than the errors in the emotions of the negotiators (Wong, 2020). In addition, half of the success in this stage of the negotiations is the formula, which should be as concise and specific as possible, eliminating ambiguity.
The priorities in around-the-table negotiations lie in the plane of the parties interests, determined in advance, at the previous stages by the formula. Unfortunately, even with a formula that meets all the requirements, reaching at least some kind of agreement is far from always possible. The parties are pre-configured exclusively for complete submission to their interests or have principled positions on which compromise is impossible (Berridge, 1989; Hussein & Malley, 2002). As a result, ideally, the priorities should be not only their interests but also reaching an agreement, ending the conflict, and other events that require the participation of two parties to complete the case.
Personal relationships at this stage, involving face-to-face contact, promote trust. Trust, in turn, reflects the guarantor of performance, which sets the stage for further negotiations and reaching an agreement (French, 2019). Diplomats scale the interests of states, translating them into human language and using emotions and gestures for practical actions that involve compromises. At the round table stage, this aspect has the most significant field for deployment.
The relationship between Gandhi and Jinnah started in their youth, when Jinnah was actively looking to mobilize Muslims to lobby for the development of a special relationship with the colonists so that they could develop an independent state (Dar 137). Gandhi, on the other hand, was looking to enhance his influence on the entire nation because he believed that both Muslims and Hindus had the potential to collaborate in forming an administration that would efficiently enhance the quality of life for everyone by engaging in economy building and setting up political systems to foster harmony in the society.
Jinnahs youth was characterized with various attempts to increase his influence on the society. He encountered Gandhi in several occasions, but their political journeys diverged as Gandhis talent in leadership was polished by his father and the people around him. Gandhi was the man of the people, whereas Jinnah was looking to lure people into supporting his radical ideologies. The rivalry between the two leaders was a function of the different futuristic ideologies that they had, with respect to the relationship between Hindus and Muslims in the British colony (Parveen 134). Gandhi was always ready to help the nation to gain independence from the British, but Jinnahs main focus was to have Muslims being separated from their counterparts to implement self-governance. The interpersonal relationship between the two leaders had an influence on the resultant relationship between India and Pakistan, whereby citizens of the respective states have always pursued partisan interests and engaged each other in minimal diplomatic negotiations because they are aware of the differences in their political ideologies.
The Mandate
Gandhis mandate entailed a proposal for the Muslim portion of the society to accept a provisional government given by the British for the nation to gain independence. After his release from prison on 5th May 1944, Gandhi made contact with Jinnah to talk about the prevailing conflict of interest between them. He presented the CR formula which would facilitate negotiations between the two parties. Gandhi rejected Jinnahs opinion that the Indian Muslims constituted a separate country. He insisted that India was a family represented by many members of which Muslims were part and parcel.
Jinnahs mandate revealed that he wanted the entire population to recognize that Muslims made up their state, and they deserved independence from both the British and India. Jinnah rejected the CR formula citing that the split up could not be actualized. He also indicated that he felt both Hindus and Muslims voting did not support the Muslims in their quest of establishing an independent state (Singh 285).
Gandhi suggested the formation of a treaty of separation to facilitate collaboration between the two societies in the future. The talks did not succeed in harmonizing the two communities. The ruling viceroy was convinced that Gandhi and Jinnahs approach of uniting the Hindus and Muslims was not going to work (Parveen 142).
Stakeholders Relationship
Chakravarti Rajagopalachari was a very influential stakeholder in the political quest of both Gandhi and Jinnah. He was an ardent follower of Gandhi as well as a prominent Congress leader. He nevertheless contemplated the fact that Congress should not get opposed to the Muslim demand of partitioning of India. However, he faced severe opposition from the Congress which made him resign from Congress under the advice of Gandhi.
The Muslim league of 1906 that got established to protect the interest and aspirations of the Muslims was also a significant stakeholder in the negotiations. A disagreement between the league and the Congress led to a political conflict that further led to the formation of the Lahore resolution in 1940. Britain was also a high stakeholder as at the time India was under its rule (Guha 53). The British government was the primary external stakeholder because it had established its rule over India. Britain was looking toward granting independence to India, and it required the two political leaders to come to a consensus on the type of government to be formed after independence.
Relationship between Gandhi and Jinnah
Gandhi and Jinnah became integral parts of the quest for freedom for their followers, but they were different in many aspects. Gandhi was born in a prominent social environment because his father was a prime minister, but Jinnah was born in a normal family and only gained political power through protests. The two had met before the negotiation period, but they never agreed on each others quests and doctrines. It is apparent that the society viewed Jinnah as an extremist who was quite aggressive in his quest for political success, whereas Gandhi was portrayed as a compassionate leader. Jinnah made his political campaigns in the rural areas of India, whereas Gandhi was a state figure, owing to his background. Their first meeting was in 1915 in a ceremony where Gandhi was being welcomed from South Africa. Jinnah was the chairman of a committee set to welcome Gandhi. In his speech, Gandhi recognized the presence of a Muslim in his community, who was willing to take part in various political courses to enhance the quality of life for the people. Gandhi always showed that he subscribed to various stereotypes, with reference to religion, whereas Jinnah assumed a passive approach on the matter. This is one of the reasons that they two leaders were not compatible in negotiations.
Works Cited
Dar, Farooq Ahmad. Jinnah and the Lahore Resolution. Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan, vol. 52, no. 1, 2015, pp. 127-155.
Guha, Ramachandra. India after Gandhi. Pan Books, 2017.
Parveen, Kausar. Nature of Indian politics before 1947. Pakistan Vision, vol. 14, no. 1, 2013, pp. 130-182.
Singh, Amarjit. Gandhi and the Muslims of India: A Study on the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, vol. 13, no. 12, 2017, pp. 281-289.
The term negotiation refers to a dialogue between two or more parties or people. It is aimed to reach an understanding, gain advantage in the result of dialogue, produce an agreement upon courses of action, resolve a certain issue and bargain for an individual or group. Negotiations always aim at compromise. Negotiation usually happens in businesses, non-profit organizations, legal proceedings, among nations and even in personal situations like marriage, divorce and parenting (Sparks, 2003).
Because of the growing trends in business and globalization, negotiation is usually used in the market places. Teams can effectively come to a conclusion to break down a negotiation.
Partners must practice listening, writing and roles as team members (Sparks, 2003).Most of business and organizations are forced to merge and sell their businesses when they want to change their services or when they are faced with problems in the organization. This paper will discuss the negotiation of AT&T and T-Mobile and the United States government who want to block the merger between the two mobile carriers.
AT&T and Mobile U.S. Mobile Carriers Case
The merger of AT&T and T-mobile started on March 20, 2011 and on 31st August the same year the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in USA resolved to block the merger and it filed a lawsuit in federal court. AT &T came up with the idea to buy T-Mobile for $39 billion from Deutsche Telekom (Weaver, 2011).
AT&T is the largest mobile company in the United Sates that has 33.7 million subscribers and if the deal were to succeed, AT&T would have a 43% market share of mobile phones. On March 20, 2011, Deutsche Telecom accepted the stock and cash purchase that was offered by AT&T for T-Mobile USA (Kent, 2010).
After introduction of iPhone in 2007, T-mobile USA lost most of the rewarding customers and it dropped to 78.3% of subscribers in 2010 compared to 85% in 2006. T-Mobile had to come up with comparison with other mobile supporters like Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility and it found that network upgrades and spectrum purchase were risky with the drop of customers and this led Deutsche Telecom to come up with the idea to sell.
The merge must pass through a regulatory review whereby the two parties expected it to take 12 months and the deal requires an approval by the Department of Justice and Federal Communication Commission in US. Hearing on the acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T was held in May by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights. During this hearing, senators raised questions to the companies CEOs about the effects of the merger and competition issues. The two companies denied the right that they were competitors (Kent, 2010).
The suit that was filed by the DOJ in the District of Colombia was to have the court stop the merger of AT&T with T-Mobile. It claimed that the combination of the two companies would lead to a situation where customers of mobile wireless telecommunications services would face higher prices, there would be less product variety and innovation and the services offered would be poor due to reduction in incentives to invest than would be without the merger.
The suit argued that the market of T-Mobile strategy had been to be the challenger brand hence it would bring new innovations and new prices to the market place (Leo 2001).
According to Andrade (2001), the proposed merger of AT&T with T-Mobile will improve the future for wireless consumers that will help the young people to have internet connections. The combination would also shape the future for wireless consumers. With the wide creation of devices and an increase in adoption rates of wireless service, the merger would lead to many arguments.
The representatives of the companies argue that it will be an advantage to merge the two mobile supporters. This is because they are convinced that combining AT&T and T-Mobiles mutually compatible networks will deliver numerous benefits to consumers especially for the Latino communities (Andrade, 2001). This is because the resources, skills and experiences of the workers will be merged to have one common mobile carrier that ensures quality services and prompt responses to customer care.
Merging the two networks will help the combined company to deliver the worlds best-advanced wireless services to all communities in America. This will enable people to have access to a wide variety of distance learning, telemedicine and applications of e-commerce (Andrade, 2001).It will create new opportunities of mobile broadband for Latinos who were underserved with the service.
The merging will benefit the citizens so matter where they live. Because large numbers of Latinos live a mobile life style, including many migrant workers, they must accept a transaction that would increase the ability of Latinos to keep in touch with their employers, schools, and family. The merger will add value and increase personal and professional opportunities for Americans. They will be able to have so many chances to enjoy their lives and take part in e-learning hence improving the living status of the citizens (Andrade, 2001).
It is argued that the merger would create many high quality jobs and provide access to new economic opportunities to the citizens. AT&T had announced to come up with 5,000 job opportunities to the jobless in the society and no job losses to the people who will be working in the wireless call centre when the merge will be approved. There were some people and organizations who criticized the merge with the argument that the merger will reduce employment (Andrade, 2001).
The promise of the merging the two companies and the expansion of wireless networks that support Latinos increasingly mobile lifestyle, the expansion of job opportunity, and AT&Ts performance in managing the job impacts of past mergers, has proven that the merger deserves support from Americans and the community as a whole (Andrade, 2001).
Public comments seem to be against the merger, but AT&T has been skillful to come up with support from all corners of the technology world. Microsoft, Qualcomm and Facebook joined with the technology giants to offer support t AT&T and T-Mobile merger (Kent, 2011).The combination of the countrys second- and fourth-largest wireless carriers would lead to violation of the antitrust law and lessen competition in the market place (Tom, Sara and Jeff, 2011).
A rejection of the merge by regulators would leave AT&T liable to pay Deutsche Telekom $3 billion in cash, to give T-Mobile USA wireless spectrum, and to reduce charges for calls into AT&Ts network, a package valued at as much as $7 billion, Deutsche Telekom place (Tom et al, 2011).
The acquisition would lead to AT&T displacing Verizon Wireless that belongs to Verizon Communities Inc and Vodafone Group PLC as the number one U.S wireless carrier. AT&T and Verizon would control most of the profits in the market place (Tom et al, 2011). The AT&T T-Mobile merger would be a major achievement for AT&T and it would make the mobile carrier the largest provider in the United States.
According to Leo (2001), AT&T has effectively neutralized T-Mobile as a competitor, especially since T-Mobiles current owner, Deutsche Telekom AG, has indicated that it did not plan to make any more investments in T-Mobile. AT&T enjoys many of the benefits of the merger like reduced number of competitors with paying billion for the acquisition.
If the merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is successful, Verizon will not have a rest.The deal would allow Verizon to maintain its spectrum advantage and negotiation leverage it currently enjoys. However, if the AT&T T-Mobile deal goes through, regulators likely will not approve consolidation.
If the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is approved by the Department of Justice and the FCC, they will review their combined network assets. (The Department of Justice sued to prevent the merger in August, so the merger may not go through or AT&T and T-Mobile may have to negotiate a settlement that involves the sale of some network assets to other wireless providers like Sprint or MetroPCS (David and James,2006).
AT&T and T-Mobile moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing that Sprint and Cellular South failed to adequately show the merger would cause them antitrust injury. Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle said the majority of the claims would actually be dismissed, but let a few of Sprint and Cellular Souths complaints stand.
According to Leo (2011), AT&T will not just walk away from the merger because if the merger does not occur AT&T has to pay a breakup fee of $ 3 billion in cash and make other allowances to Deutsche Telekom worth other $3 billion hence it will pay a break up cost of $6 billion.
Such a breakup would strengthen one of its main competitors in communication. AT&T will not surrender unless they see that the case is hopeless. AT&T will have to pose a challenge to the governments case. The major idea of the case is the concentration of the carrier in the market (Tom et al, 2011).
Without T-Mobile, the market would have no effective check on price increases or technological stagnation by AT&T and Verizon. Frankens section on consumer prices concludes that Sprint places very little pressure on the prices of AT&T and Verizon, because it charges only marginally less than they do. The elimination of the lowest cost national wireless option likely explains why so many T-Mobile customers are opposed to this deal (Leo, 2011).
According to Tom et al, (2011) AT&T submitted new economic models to the FCC and it stated that the merger would lead a reduction of price and increase the services in the metropolitan markets. These models gave more detailed support for the arguments that the merger will reduce strains on the companys wireless network, lower costs and increase quality of services provided since the resources and personnel will be merged. It will also increase the number of expatriates in the communication sector.
The merge of AT&T and T-Mobile would lead to tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, there will be few choices and lower quality products for mobile wireless services. Consumers across the country even those who live in the rural areas and those who have lower incomes will benefit from the competition amount the wireless carriers.
The FCC cannot reject or accept the merger proposal but it has to be involved in the negotiation process because it helps in the regulation of wireless spectrum and since AT&T and T-Mobile have their license from FCC, it must approve the transfer of those licenses (Tim, 2002).
Communication has to be used as a link to have effective negotiations. Communication workers of America (CWA) reported that the merger would create new job opportunities and they had to support the deal.The AT&T/T-Mobile merger will save, and create more U.S. jobs than when T-Mobile is alone in the market.
On the other hand, some of the people including Sprit Nextel argue that if the two companies merge there will be reduced competition in the cell phone industry, it will raise cost of the services provided, there will be few choices of handsets, the quality of the services will be poor and less innovative(Tom et al, 2011).
The Justice Department will look for any violation of antitrust law. FCC has to evaluate whether the issue is in the public interest it will also take into account whether the deal will encourage competition and use of new services and whether it increase the prices or harm consumers through anti-competitive behavior in the markets.
If FCC sees that the merger is the best for the interest of the consumers, it would reject the merge and then AT&T would not be able to make a transfer the T-Mobile license and use of that spectrum and AT&T would appeal any decision by FCC.
The U.S. government does not have the power to approve or disapprove of a merger. Companies are free to merge if they like, but for mergers and acquisitions of a certain size, they are required to notify the government of the transaction. This requirement was established under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, which mandates that companies involved in the merger should provide the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice with information about the merger before it occurs (Tim, 2002).
If the merger occurs without divestitures, T-Mobile and AT&T are going to do away with some cell sites. The eliminating of these types of expensive redundancies was a large part of the merger with AT&T. Sprints and Cellular Souths complaints provide realistic support for the allegation that AT&T already has a significant market power as a purchaser of mobile wireless devices, and that the acquisition of T-Mobile would threaten them with harm.
Sprint alleges that the proposed transaction would add T-Mobiles 34 million customers to AT&Ts 95 million customers, leaving the merged entity with 129 million customers that is an increase (David and James, 2006).
Sprint alleges that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has found that while larger carriers can negotiate handset exclusivity agreements, smaller carriers such as Sprint cannot. Sprint cites Apples iPhone as an example. AT&T was the exclusive provider of the iconic iPhone from 2007 until early 2011, when Apple gave Verizon a time to-market advantage most likely because Verizon had the largest subscriber base in the United States.
The merger will provide T-Mobile management workers a voice in the work place
It will be neutral and allows workers to make their own decisions about whether or not to join a union. T-Mobile will actively intervene in this process through such practices as requiring workers to attend anti-union meetings, pressuring workers to report on any union contacts, and taking photos of workers accepting union literature. After the merger, T-Mobiles workers will be able to make their own decision without fear or management interference (David and James, 2006).
Phases of a Negotiation Process
According to Juan (2001), there are four phases of negation process namely; pre-negotiation, Conceptualization, Settling the Details and Follow-up and these will be discussed.
Pre-Negotiation
This is the phase whereby the partners determine whether there is a good reason to conduct the negotiation. The parties come up with the specifics that they want to negotiate about, and then establish an agenda before they commence the talks. It is in this phase that the identification of the people who will take part in the talks is done considering their authority and responsibility in the talk.
It is essential to collect the information of the interested parties, their companies, and the individual interests. This is a critical process as it aids in the formulation of the goals and objectives that are to be achieved. It is also in this phase where time, location and date for the process of negotiation are determined. This can be done though faxes, phone calls and e-mails. The two parties have already passed this phase.
Conceptualization
This is the second phase of the negotiation process. Here, the basis of the negotiation is created with the use of the issues at hand. Discussions are held to have a common understanding of the basic concepts of agreement sought. Definition of goals and objectives of the parties is done though establishment of compatibility.
Both parties have to be satisfied with the agreement reached and if not terms of partnership have to be reframed until they are in agreement. In the case of AT&T and T-Mobile case, the two carriers have already reached a consensus for the agreement and the problem is not the government that has filled a case to block the merger.
Settling the Details
This is the final stage of the agreement. External specialists are involved to complete the details of the business enterprise and risks that are to be taken. The possible problems that may occur are discussed and possible solutions are formulated. Details relating to production, task responsibility, management and authority are discussed. The last part of the agreement is left for the legal experts.
These individuals critically scrutinize the document and come up with final draft that clearly states the rules, regulations and obligations of each party to the contract that legally binds them. In the case of AT&T and T-Mobile, they are in the phase of settling details where the government is giving the possible risks of the merge, the problems and how it will affect the state negatively. The government is claiming that, services will be poor after the merge.
Follow-up
The two parties have not reached this phase that is the final phase in negotiation process. There will be no follow-ups because the negotiations and contract between the two parties has not been resolved. Government officials were involved in the process and there are those who supported and those who opposed the merger idea.
The attorneys general of Arkansas, Utah, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming wrote a joint letter of support to the FCC on July 27. In addition, on September 16, the attorneys general of California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington sent their letter opposing the merger.
Months earlier, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman made an announcement that his office was to take a thorough review of T&Ts acquisition of T-Mobile and come up with an analysis of the effects anticompetitive effects of merger on businesses and consumers (German, 2010).
Steps in Negotiation Process
The negotiation process has to involve many steps for them to come up with a partnership. According to Calum (2010), there are five styles of negotiation namely, compete, accommodate, avoid, compromise and collaborate. These styles will be discussed to see the styles that are applicable for the AT&T and T-Mobile case.
Compete (I win You lose)
This is where the negotiators follow their own needs even if it means the others suffer. The negotiators are focused on their shorter terms gains, they use powers, personality, market share, economic threats, brand strength. In the case of AT&T and T-Mobile, the parties can negotiate with the government with the argument that AT&T is facing economic problems and cannot meet the market demand. The parties can use this style of negotiation because they need immediate compliance Calum (2010).
Accommodate (I Lose You Win)
This is the style whereby relationship is everything. The negotiation aims at giving people what they want. In the case of T-Mobile and AT&T versus the United States Government, they would conduct a negotiation process that will benefit the citizens because most of the citizens are for the idea of the merge so that there can be improved services. So in this case the government will lose and the mobile carriers (AT&T and T-Mobile) will win the case and embark to merge their services (Calum, 2010).
Avoid (I Lose You Lose)
This is also referred to as passive aggressive negotiation whereby the parties do not want conflict. This can be used when the value of investing time to get a negotiation outweighs the benefit or when the case is trivial to both parties.
Because the two parties do not want to lose, then they should not apply this style in their negotiation process. If this style is used it will lead to a loss because AT&T owes T-Mobile a check for $3 billion and reduced charges for dialing into AT&Ts network as part of a package thats worth somewhere around $7 billion (Calum, 2010).
Compromise (I Lose / Win Some You Lose / Win Some)
This style involves splitting the difference that results to half way to both parties. This is where both parties win and lose. In the case of AT&T and T-Mobile if this style is used it will not have good results because the resources will not be merged fully (Calum, 2010). The US government should look at a situation whereby each party will win and lose a situation so that the best services can be provided to the citizens.
Collaborate (I Win You Win)
It is also called win-win style whereby negotiation make sure that both parties have their needs met. The two mobile carriers can use this style to come up with a situation where neither of the party will lose. They can negotiate and make some adjustments and the partnership can make a contract to provide high quality services after the merger.
In this case, it means that the government will win for the services and the mobile carriers will win to merge. This should be a negotiation in which both parties feel positive about the situation when the negotiation is concluded. This helps to maintain a positive working relationship afterwards. If the styles are used appropriately, the negotiation process will be successful
Conclusion
Every negotiation starts with a process followed by a strategy because without either, then it would be just a disagreement with any kind of resolution to the issue. Making sure that you get what you set out for is important but does not necessarily mean that the other person has to lose in the negotiation so making sure to go through the process and then coming up with a strategy ensures that all parties come out with a win-win rather than a win-lose negotiation.
Quality of Service for AT&T Will Improve because of a reduction in the number of dropped calls, less network congestion and an increased speed of connections due to added spectrum from T-Mobile, increased cell tower density and broader network infrastructure. In the long term, a post-merger AT&T will be better able to retain and increase jobs because it will be in a more significant position to expand and extend its business than either AT&T or T-Mobile could as separate carriers.
References
Andrade, J. (2011) AT&T/T-Mobile Combination Is A Good Deal for America And For Latinos. Fiercereason. Web.
The article Conflict management through the negotiations canvas: getting participants to understand by Carrie Blair and David Desplaces (2018) explores how the use of the negotiations canvas, a visual tool for structuring and analyzing negotiations, helps students better understand and apply the concepts of conflict management. The authors argue that the canvas can assist students in knowing the various elements of a negotiation, including the interests, alternatives, and criteria of the parties involved and how these elements can be used to manage conflicts efficiently.
One main takeaway from the article is the importance of using visual aids like the negotiations canvas to apply conflict management concepts. The authors suggest that the use of visual aids provides an opportunity for students to grasp the complexity of negotiations and conflicts and to develop a deeper understanding of the key elements that are involved. Another crucial takeaway is the importance of involving students in the negotiation process through simulations and role-playing exercises. The authors argue that in these activities, students develop their negotiation skills and become more confident in dealing with conflicts. The authors also suggest that instructors should encourage the use of the negotiations canvas in class and provide response and direction to students as they work through the various stages of the negotiation process.
In summary, the article highlights the benefits of using the negotiations canvas as a visual tool, allowing students to learn conflict management methods. The authors suggest that involving students in simulations and role-playing exercises, providing feedback and guidance, using visual aids, and encouraging the use of the negotiations canvas in class, can lead to a greater understanding and success in the field of conflict management.
A win-win negotiation is a pact that benefits all the parties involved in an equal manner. As such, both the sides in the negotiation produce a pact that is workable and advantageous to them (DInnocenzo, 2011). This essay seeks to discuss a concrete case that involved a win-win negotiation.
Challenges Facing Microfinance Institutions
Most Microfinance institutions face similar challenges. Key among these challenges is the inability to reach new customers due to cost implications (Kumar, Claudia, & Sarah, 2010). Secondly, most Microfinance Institutions are unable to cope up with growing customer demands in areas where they are already established (Kumar, Claudia, & Sarah, 2010).
One of the best-known methods of solving such problems is adopting a money banking system commonly known as m banking. M banking refers to the process of conducting financial transactions by logging into the website of a financial services provider like a bank using a cellular phone (Gusain, 2009). It allows the subscriber to make withdrawals, pay bills, and check account balances as well as transfer of funds from one account to another (Gusain, 2009).
Tameer Microfinance Bank and Telenor Pakistan Negotiations
Tameer Microfinance Bank operates in Pakistan where statistics show that only 14 percent of the total population is banked (Kumar, Claudia, & Sarah, 2010).
Tameer needed to reach the unbanked through a relatively low cost method as putting up of structures and deployment of staff would be very costly (Kumar, Claudia, & Sarah, 2010). In addition, potential customers shy away from the banks either due to distances from the banks or the cost of banking. Telenor Pakistan is the second largest mobile network operator based in Pakistan.
Tameer really wanted an m banking platform to reach the unbanked population in Pakistan to increase its customer base and revenues too (Kumar, Claudia, & Sarah, 2010). The regulator in Pakistan made it mandatory for an MNO to come up with m banking services by collaborating with a financial institution (Kumar, Claudia, & Sarah, 2010).
In 2007, Tameer initiated negotiations with Telenor Pakistan with the aim of taking advantage of the over 30 million customers belonging to Telenor, its agent network of over 180, 000 and its national advertising and market presence (Kumar, Claudia, & Sarah, 2010). Telenor Pakistan needed a bank to collaborate with as per the regulations.
The following year, Telenor Pakistan bought 51 per cent shareholding in Tameer Microfinance Bank. They worked together to enhance m banking by creating the easypaisa brand money transfer service.
Problems Overcome: Win-Win
The negotiated partnership enabled Tameer reach new customers in an easy way. Secondly, Tameer Microfinance Bank is able to afford convenience to existing customers by reducing the cost of doing business since they do not have to go the branches but can access financial services from the comfort of their cellular phones.
On the other hand, Telenor Pakistan has increased its Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) and hence continued growth at Telenor Pakistan (Kumar, Claudia, & Sarah, 2010). ARPU is a measure of revenue used by telecommunications companies.
The partnership has also enabled Telenor Pakistan new sources of revenues since it charges a premium for the m banking platform (Kumar, Claudia, & Sarah, 2010). Just like Tameer Microfinance Bank, Telenor has afforded convenience to its existing clients since they can access banking services through their cell phones (Kumar, Claudia, & Sarah, 2010).
Conclusion
Tameer Microfinance Bank and Telenor Pakistan thus reached a win-win situation as they collaborated to solve the problem of a large unbanked population in Pakistan. Both benefitted from the partnership as does their respective customers.
References
DInnocenzo, L. (2011, May 31). Sales Skills Development Blog. Web.
Gusain, P. (2009, August 26). Mobile Banking-Definition and advantages. Web.
Kumar, K., Claudia, M., & Sarah, R. (2010). Microfinance and Mobile Banking: The Story So Far, Focus Note , 62.
At the moment a great number of Western companies are trying to enter the Chinese markets which are growing at a very rapid pace. Many of these organizations have to struggle with the cultural differences, existing between them and their Chinese partners.
This paper is aimed at discussing the negotiations between Ericsson and local telecommunication companies. In particular, it is necessary to single out those strategies which proved to be useful and those which did not succeed. We are going to focus on such aspects as communications and relations.
The first thing that we should mention is that the management of Ericsson took a very thoughtful approach to building rapport with their Chinese companies. In particular, they realized that it had been of no use to hasten the negotiation process and at the beginning they invited their partners to Sweden to show them facilities and plants (Ghauri & Fang, 2001, p 12).
This gesture of hospitality proved to be very beneficial because their Chinese partners began to put more trust in them. Additionally, the representatives of Ericsson paid close attention to the indispensible values of Chinese culture, in particular, the importance of keeping and saving ones face or reputation (Ghauri & Fang, 2001, p 8).
For instance, during one of negotiation sessions, one of Chinese managers made a serious factual mistake; yet his Swedish counterpart did not argue with him. This tactics also turned out to be helpful since it furthered friendly relations between the two sides. Overall, it is possible to argue that the representatives of Ericsson were quite versed in intercultural communication.
Nonetheless, they overlooked some very importance differences existing between Sweden and China, and this presented them with several difficulties. First of all, China is a bureaucratic state with a very complex workplace and governmental hierarchy. This is a country where a power distance is very high which means that the subordinates are very reluctant to make any independent decisions and take initiatives (Ghauri & Fang, 2001, p 17; Mead & Andrews, 2009).
In fact, such behavior may contradict their value system and ethical principles. Many scholars argue that in Eastern cultures the subsidiaries do not usually take the responsibility of their managers since such a decision can result in punishment or at least reprimand (Samovar, Porter & McDaniel, 2009, p 203). The key problem is that the Ericsson representatives had to negotiate with people who were fully authorized to sign the contract or were afraid of doing it.
As a result, they had to make the same presentation more than twice. These peculiarities of Chinese bureaucracy led to considerable delays and expenses. Therefore, prior to conducting negotiations with Chinese partners, the managers of Western companies should make sure that the counterparts are sufficiently empowered to take any initiatives and decisions. Unfortunately, Ericsson managers did not take this precaution.
On the whole, Ericssons experience should be taken into account by other European or American enterprises which are planning to operate in China. This case can assist those people, who intend to conduct negotiations with Chine organizations or want to work as managers in this country.
These people should always remember that the idea of employee leadership or empowerment is alien to Chinese business culture. Moreover, one will to learn more about the bureaucratic culture of this country since this knowledge will enable him/her to establish better relations with governmental agencies.
References
Ghauri Pervez & Fang Tony. 2001 The Chinese Business Negotiation Process: A Socio-Cultural Analysis. Journal of World Business. 36 (3). pp 1 29. Web.
Mead Richard & Andrews Tim. 2009. International Management. NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Samover Larry, Porter Richard, & McDaniel Edward. 2009 Communication Between Cultures. NJ: Cengage Learning.
The success of negotiation totally depends upon the efforts of both sides. Generally, the approaches the applicant and the manager rely on are considered the basic factors, which determine the winner of the negotiation. Win-lose negotiation means both sides to be ready to understand and accept all pros and cons of the salary. In contrast, win-win negotiation provides beneficial terms for each part concerned.
In this respect, the role-play negotiation will help to define different effective tactics and strategies with regard to the goals pursued by the negotiators. A careful analysis of practices and observations will help define which tactics and approaches are the most effective ones.
Distributive and Integrative Negotiations
First of all, there is a need to point out that successful negotiations depend upon the strategies the sides rely on. They say that the so-called win-lose approach is mostly based on negative perspective. It means that in most cases any side will win. However, one the other hand, one is to keep in mind that a person who negotiates a lot has more chances to succeed.
For this reason, one can state that a person who is more skilled and experienced will be the winner of negotiations. Of course, there is a great difference between distributive negotiations and integrative ones. There are also mixed-motive negotiations, but the company doesnt rely on them, unfortunately. So, the first two approaches are to be discussed.
When win-lose tactics take place, for the applicant it is better not to answer the question, or answer the question in a special manner, so there could be no harm for negotiation position of the applicant. On the other hand, there is also an opportunity to respond with another question, or just listen to the negotiator (Hiring Manager: So, what salary do you expect to get? Applicant: I would like to listen to your offers).
This answer means listening and gives an opportunity to respond with another question. On the other hand, the negotiator thinks that he or she has some advantages over the applicant; or he/she understands that the applicant wants to analyze the given information in the first place.
Another approach, which is to be discussed, is win-win negotiation. One of the most well known tactics integrate negotiation depends on is the so-called forbearance. One can see that the applicant is searching for the issue the manager can agree with.
In this case, one can understand that delaying action or the so-called procrastination gives the applicant and the manager some more time to consider unresolved point differently. When analyzing the applicants interest in another question, one can admit that the applicant wants to obtain specific information. It is one of the win-win purposes.
Adjustment and Concessions Made and the Strategies and Tactics Used By Each Side
While analyzing the responses of all the team members, it has been stated that adjustment and concessions are primarily made while using the tactics of integrative negotiation. Specifically, the respondents apply to assumptions and judgments leading to an agreement and compromise.
This is explicitly seen from the first remark of Hiring Manager ( Mr. Applicant, what salary do you expect ), as well as the one expressed by Applicant ( Sir, what is the best salary you offer for the position of HR Officer? ).
Adjustment statements are also represented by each side of debate while making arrangement concerning when it is possible to start working (Hiring Manager: Can you start by tomorrow? Applicant: Yes I can start tomorrow ).
Regarding other responses presented by team members, features of adjustment are presented in the distributive negotiations, particularly on the part of the Applicant who accepts all the conditions offered by the Hiring Manager, even if not all of them are suitable.
Regarding the distributive bargaining represented by Team Members, the concession was made at the end of the dialogue that was accompanied by an ultimate alternative (Applicant: If you agree to pay me $ 40000, I will accept your offer otherwise I leave ).
In such a manner, the initial target point made by the Hiring Manager was an effective strategy because the probability for the Applicant to move closer to a resistant point ($ 50000) was low.
There are many other tactics and strategies used by each side of the negotiation, which are specifically revealed in the distributive negotiations. Because distributive bargaining is often associated with competition, both the Hiring Manager and the Applicant compete with each other for better conditions.
Sources of Power and the Application of Power Influences Employed by Each Side
While being involved into negotiations, the opponents should have sources of power that are usually presented as best alternative to a negotiated agreement , or BATNA (Lewicki et al., 2010, p. 21). The stronger BATNA the opponents have the more chances to win the negotiations.
In this respect, the distributive bargaining represented by Team Members provides a bright example where each side takes advantage of different alternatives to gain more power in discussion. Hence, the applicant applies to general statements about qualifications and salaries, as well as companys reputation.
In addition, the applicant makes the Hiring manager face a difficult choice to accept his/her offer, or lose an experienced and qualified employee. In response, the Hiring Manages makes use of facts about their own company, as well as applicants situation (The Hiring Manager: We know you present boss, Mr. Anderson.
He may actually discharge you. There is reconstruction in your company ). Judging from the given situation, good distributive bargainer identify their realistic alternatives before starting discussions with the other part so they can properly gauge how firm to be in the negotiation (Lewicki et al., 2010, p. 21).
In this respect, the Hiring Manager has less realistic alternative and, as a result, he/she has failed to stand for the initial target point.
Use of Central and Peripheral Route Influence Principles to Effect The Negotiation Outcome
Distributive Negotiation
While using the tactics of distributive negotiation, peripheral rout is used to convince the applicant to accept a lower salary. This strategy has been used in the discussions by the Team Members who exemplify managers of higher positions, but with low salary levels.
In such a ways, they display the situation and distract the applicant from this intention to increase the salary minimum. Using both central and peripheral routs of influence can maximize the value of deal and provide beneficial option for either of the parties.
Integrative Negotiation
Indirect approaches have also been used in the integrative bargaining when the Hiring Manager applies to neutral and inviting phrases to make sure the participants that the terms and salaries are beneficial.
A central route, therefore, is used to influence the applicant through direct addressing, as it has been presented in the integrative negotiation when the Hiring Manager has immediately proposed to start working the next day right after the job interview. Besides, the Manager has successfully used his/her power and authority to influence the Applicants decision.
The Ethicality of the Negotiation Tactics of Each Side
Achieving the highly beneficial terms is among the priorities of negotiation. However, the negotiation should take into consideration ethical and moral concerns while using specific arguments in favor and against. In this respect, the ethicality of the argumentation should also come to the forth; alternatively, improper responses can lead to a conflict, which can bring in no benefits of either of the opponents.
The probability of conflict emergence is higher while conducting distributive bargaining because it presupposes that one side of debate will lose and another one will gain much more beneficial terms.
Regarding the case under analysis, the distributive bargaining has certain inconsistencies in terms of argumentation, which turned out unethical on the part of the Applicant who failed to provide evidence of his/her qualification and experience. Instead, the candidate forwards an ultimatum without reasoning.
As per the integrative negotiation, ethical concerns are slightly revealed because both the Applicant and the Hiring Manager seem to agree on the identified terms. Nevertheless, exposing managers from other organizations who took on a salary cut to work at Z-firm could be considered unethical. In addition, this can increase pressure over the candidate and make him/her accept a salary cut.
Conclusion
Regarding the observations made, it should be concluded that both negotiation strategies have strengths and weaknesses. The study of role-play negotiations has revealed that better terms can be achieved if using persuasive argumentation (central route) and apply to convincing arguments that are not rely on empty promises but known facts and logically constructed justifications.
With this in mind, distributive bargaining seems to be more beneficial because it provide more privilege for either of the debating sides. Moreover, it also generates competition and desire of the opponents to prove their assumptions.
Reference
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2010). Negotiation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.