Category: Negotiation

Introduction

Nowadays rapidly developing world sets new opportunities and challenges in the field of business communications. Following the requirements of the globalized community, people tend to interact with others more, using various strategies. One of these communication strategies is the phenomenon of extreme negotiations. In this connection, this paper aims at studying the notion of extreme negotiations and their application along with benefits and pitfalls.

Identification of Extreme Negotiations

Speaking of negotiations, people usually put them in the framework of business relationships, namely, seller-buyer ones. This term implies the achievement of mutual understanding between two sides the consequence of which is a compromise (Weiss, Donigian & Hughes 2010). However, in the conditions of modern business, it becomes difficult to establish good relationships and achieve a certain goal at the same time. Therefore, some representatives of the business world prefer to use extreme negotiations that refer to some level of pressure that makes a partner feel nervous, threatened, and even burdened, thus allowing the other partner to succeed. In other words, it is negotiation under duress. The initiation of such negotiations that are also known as dangerous ones requires an increased level of awareness from the party that intends to win (Weiss, Donigian & Hughes 2010). In particular, there is a need to be more motivated, more familiar with the peculiarities of the other party, and more focused on the ultimate goal.

Extreme negotiations as a process can be defined as “a set of activities to be performed in a disciplined way – getting instructions, developing a strategy, preparing, conducting negotiations, and review” (Weiss & Hughes 2011, para. 12). As a process, extreme negotiations imply relationships between people intended to reach the agreement when both parties have conflicting interests. These negotiations are projected primarily to help with the mutual exchange of views in the form of various proposals for the solution of the problem under discussion. Likewise traditional negotiations, extreme ones may consist of presentations and speeches, questions and answers, objections, and evidence. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and use special tactics and techniques for conducting for every negotiation.

Speaking of the organizational aspect of dangerous negotiations, it is important to answer the question of how to react to “take it or leave it” statements that are usually set by the other party. To address the challenge of extreme negotiations, a negotiator is to consider them as a business process. The next step refers to the necessity of sending clear and consistent messages. For example, it should be kept in mind that people tend to have different attitudes and perceptions, cultural peculiarities, and specific viewpoints. Besides, the counterparts that develop a common instrument and speak the same language with each other have more chances to come up with a solution that will be advantageous for both of them. It should be noted, however, that speaking the same language here should be understood as being on the same wavelength. Last but not least is the fact that the organization of extreme negotiations is to be systematic and comprehensive, thus embracing various aspects such as preparation, process, and communication.

Application Area

The method of extreme negotiations is widely used in various fields of business communication. For example, some companies can use it while discussing a profitable bargain or purchasing consignment. It should be noted that many CEOs and senior managers have limited timeframes and resources when they constantly are in the condition of negotiations with staff, customers, partners, and other interested parties. These circumstances create an atmosphere of continuous pressure that can lead to burnout (Graham, Lawrence & Requejo 2014). The situation is complicated by the fact that sometimes millions and even billions of dollars are at high stake. Thus, extreme negotiations force executives to adapt to the modern ever-changing environment to remain competitive and successful.

However, not only the business area involves extreme negotiations but also military communication. For example, the so-called hot spot territories like Afghanistan or Syria where hostilities occur permanently can be noted. The United States officers encounter this method of negations “attempting to persuade wary local leaders to share valuable information while simultaneously trying to distinguish friend from foe” (Weiss, Donigian & Hughes 2010, para. 3). This means that officers need to build stable relationships with the local population to support the United States. At the same time, they need to protect their troops and thus preserve their lives. Even though business and military contexts are quite different, it is possible to find a common feature between them: both of them aim at the immediate resolution of crucial issues when failure may cost either a business or a life.

Preparation to Extreme Negotiations

Before entering these negations, a negotiator needs to prepare himself or herself to cope with them. In one of their interviews with Harvard Business Review, Weiss and Hughes (2011) offer a seven-element checklist that provides a potential negotiator with valuable recommendations. It seems appropriate to consider each of the mentioned elements in brief. The first one refers to the interests of each party involved in negotiations. It is suggested by the authors that both similar and different interests are to be considered, thus revealing the conflict of interests. Second, it is essential to think about alternatives for each party and ways to improve the available solutions.

Third, a negotiator should brainstorm a range of possible solutions that are likely to lead to the agreement. Some criteria or standards that can legitimize the above solutions should be considered as the next step. After that, it is important to specify commitments each party can make and analyze the nature of relationships between them (Weiss, Donigian & Hughes 2010). Finally, a negotiator should plan his or her communication, including agenda, potential agreements and disagreements, and plan of action. In other words, preparation activities for extreme negotiations differ from the usual ones by the fact that the first requires a high level of awareness and excellent knowledge, skills, and strategy allowing adapting to changing conditions.

Implementation Strategies Leading to Success

The extremely high levels of uncertainty and risk cause pressure and stress in either both or a sole party involved in the process of negotiations. As a result, a negotiator tends to choose coercion rather than collaboration and one-sided concessions instead of compromise. Studying the behaviors of officers in hot spots, Weiss, Donigian, and Hughes (2010) identified the five most frequent strategies to deal with extreme negotiations. It seems appropriate to point out each of them in detail.

Understanding Big Picture

This strategy focuses on the consideration of broad perspectives based on a comprehensive analysis. To broaden his or her horizons, a negotiator is to pay attention to all the peculiar features of the opposite side, be it a point of view or non-verbal communication. Extreme negotiations usually make people speak in a hurry and miss an opportunity to evaluate the situation as a whole. In most cases, this leads to failure. Weiss, Donigian, and Hughes (2010) provide the following example: there was a need to respond to fighters’ actions quickly along with the shortage of properly trained people. Despite the fact, the command was given to local police representatives who insisted on a high probability of failure. In effect, they came back with too little information that turned out to be insufficient to decide on the issue.

To gather information, a negotiator should pay acute attention to his or her interlocutors and properly interpret their behavior. Another example of understanding the big picture method relates to business relationships. Two large companies were negotiating for half a year. During the final meeting, a new representative of one of the parties suddenly declared that they would collaborate only with a 20 percent discount (Weiss, Donigian & Hughes 2010). This predictably confuses and even shocks the other party. Instead of acting under the influence of emotions, the latter party understands that it was, probably, the personal initiative of a new representative who tried to make a name by such an action. It should be emphasized that the situation was understood due to the analysis of the whole picture. In other words, this method of extreme negotiations assumes that a negotiator continuously strives to understand the true incentives of the other party. Such competencies as being humble and curious make it possible.

Uncover and Collaborate

The second strategy refers to concerns and motivation on the other side. Being aware of the mentioned elements, it is necessary to create several solutions and offer them to the other party, resulting in the collective discussion. However, it should be kept in mind that “a threatening situation makes people want to look strong and more in control than they probably are” (Weiss & Hughes 2011, para. 16). This means that counterparts are at risk of taking rash actions and overestimating their potential. Discussions can become ineffective and aggressive. Let us consider the example described by Weiss, Donigian, and Hughes (2010). After one of the armed struggles, Captain wanted to visit the only hospital in the region, aiming at the establishment of his company’s authority. After meeting the rejection to enter the hospital, he forced his command and then encountered disturbance of the local population, especially elderly people. In the framework of the uncover and collaborate strategy, he explained to people that they need to work together to benefit both sides.

From the above example, it becomes evident that a good negotiator sets side-by-side problem-solving strategy to engage the other party in collaboration. This can be achieved by asking the appropriate questions. For instance, instead of asking “what do you want”, it is better to wonder “why is it important to you” (Weiss & Hughes 2011). Besides, it is critical to remember that the other party also observes and interprets the behaviors of its counterparts. Therefore, simple agreement or denial may only worsen the situation, while strong and convincing arguments are likely to work otherwise. Instead, a range of options suggested for further conversation will show that a negotiator is interested in collaboration and ready to discuss its conditions.

Elicit Genuine Buy-In

It is widely known that fairness and facts persuade more than force and an aggressive manner. According to the third strategy, extreme negotiations are not an exception. However, dangerous consequences often make counterparts to apply a brute force that is caused by human instincts. Nevertheless, Weiss and Hughes (2011, para. 20) state that “the effective in extremis negotiator recognizes that his objectives will almost always be better achieved if he elicits true buy-in rather than grudging compliance from the other side”. Threats, arbitrary demands, and close-minded decisions are to be replaced by appeals to facts, logic, and fairness. Let us consider a real-life example where a company faces price erosion as many customers threaten it to choose its competitor. It should be stressed there that the company has a significant technological benefit as well as such a competitive advantage as the quality of products. Instead of responding in the same manner, this company uses mild strategy and focuses on the value of its products, thus preventing conflict. Using facts and pointing at standards and principles of the corresponding business area, the company persuades its customers in the effectiveness of their collaboration.

Build Trust First

Cooperation and trust are the two key issues that play an integral role in extreme negotiations. Weiss et al. (2012, para. 2) argue that “negotiating in high stakes, high-risk context frequently produces a temptation to buy cooperation”. Nevertheless, these attempts usually look cumbersome and lead to misunderstanding. The limited timeframe does not allow the negotiators to ponder over the problems and come up with the elaborate decisions. At the same time, there is a concession trap that is especially widespread among military officers. For example, the case presented by Weiss and Hughes (2011) seems to be quite important to understand the issue. The authors note a military officer who opened a female school in Afghanistan and was harassed by local military leaders. It is not surprising that this fact was detected by the police representatives and the officer was arrested and then justified, yet he experienced physical and mental harm and lost his reputation.

It should be noted that people who lead the dialogue create the so-called zone of emotional involvement the boundaries of which are defined by voice, volume, tone, statement of thoughts, facial expressions, gestures, speech pace, and so on (Weiss & Hughes 2011). The probability of emotional involvement of another person grows in a stressful situation, and, as a consequence, the ability to think and act rationally significantly decreases. Therefore, through building trustful relationships or preserving the existing ones, a negotiator can achieve cooperation. Usually, the most productive way to do it is to speak openly and simply so that the other party can see the real state of affairs. Besides, cooperation can be built with the help of a joint discussion of the perspective alternatives and subsequent consideration of their consequences (Weiss & Hughes 2011). Offering the idea and then attentively listening to the opinion of the other side, a negotiator will grab the attention of its counterpart and show awareness.

Focus on Process

The last strategy can be understood as one that integrates the process of negotiations and their outcome. These are the two core issues that require the attention of a negotiator. Sometimes extreme negotiations can be resolved by simple distraction from the topic and short break time to let both parties ponder over the problems that are to be addressed. According to Weiss and Hughes (2011, para. 32), “giving in on critical issues may create exposure to risk far beyond the immediate threat”. Let us consider the explanation of the above statement on the example. The challenge of merging was faced by the two companies concerning such aspects as organizational structure, budgeting, and personnel. They were missing the fact that generalized problems are much difficult to resolve. Instead, it was useful to focus on smaller issues and address each of them to agree. In other words, both parties worked jointly over the process of negations and, therefore, were able to merge with minimal losses as a result.

The mentioned case shows that it is of great importance to avoid speaking of benefits each decision may bring, yet focus on the process, answering the question of how one can achieve the best results possible. Slowing the pace of extreme negotiations down, the parties allow themselves to offer more relevant and properly organized suggestions related to the problem. Weiss et al. (2012, para. 15) claim that “by understanding the tactics used by the customer and then changing their preparation and negotiation process to respond to these tactics”, a skilled negotiator can achieve his or her preferred outcomes. Summing it up, it is essential to emphasize that several hours of aggressive negotiations usually lead to failure and broken relationships with the other party, while the adequate pace and conscious actions help to conduct productive interaction and collaboration.

Skills Required to Use Implementation Strategies

The positive outcome expressed in a compromise can be achieved because the partners agreed to collaborate, taking into account the discussed considerations. To get closer to the position of the partner, the other party needs to mentally anticipate the possible consequences of a compromise solution for both of them and critically evaluate concessions (Weiss & Hughes 2011). The situation when the proposed compromise exceeds one’s competence may also occur. To maintain contact with a partner, it is possible then to proceed with the so-called conditional agreement, for example, to refer to the agreement as a competent manager. However, it is sometimes difficult to quickly agree to concessions acceptable to both sides as one of them may persist in its opinion by inertia. Therefore, it takes patience, appropriate motivation, and the ability to engage the partner with strong arguments and creative ways to address a problem, using all opportunities arising from negotiations.

After identifying one’s strengths and weaknesses, a negotiator is expected to understand how he or she can influence the interlocutor, for example, pointing the prospects of cooperation with his or her company and the other party can put some pressure, for example, more favorable terms offered by the competitors (Weiss & Hughes 2011). In this connection, one of the skills requires to conduct effective negotiations is adequate preparation. In particular, employing the seven-element checklist provides a significant foundation. Another skill focuses on the practice of negotiation. A person can start with low-risk negotiations and then proceed with high-risk ones so that to be ready for different situations.

After extreme negotiations were finished, it is crucial to assess them including the very process, results, and problems that were faced in the course of the discussion. At the same time, it is advantageous to have a feedback from the other party that will allow a negotiator to take a new look at his or her communication strategy as well as techniques that were applied (Weiss & Hughes 2011). In response, a negotiator may also teach and provide feedback to the other side, thus promoting the perspective relationships, be it business or military collaboration. Finally, such competencies as attentiveness and responsiveness will show one’s partner that he or he is quite interesting and important.

How to Avoid Manipulation?

It goes without saying that suppressed people tend to act in the way their suppressor prefers. The same can be related to extreme negotiations. However, is there any way to avoid manipulation? Some strategies that were discussed above are undoubtedly useful, yet the following practical recommendations should be noted as well. The simplest way to avoid such a situation is not to engage in this type of negotiation. In case one feels uncomfortable and that he or she cannot handle the situation, it is better to break negotiations off and postpone them. If tension steadily grows, any drastic action can be useful to defuse the situation, be it a loudly sound or an unexpected comparison. In case a person is forced to make a decision based on some facts, it can be significant to write everything down and take time out to consider the situation (Graham, Lawrence & Requejo 2014).

At this point, it is crucial to remember that all the facts should be given concerning credible sources. Answering improper questions, it is possible to openly and immediately ask the so-called symmetrical questions. For example, in the framework of negotiations on cooperation, your opponent may ask: “Do you want to make money on us?”. It is better to answer in the following way: “Yes, we aim to make money. And you?”. As soon as it is pronounced, the possibility of manipulation by the interlocutor is significantly reduced. After that, extreme negotiations can be transferred into a peaceful course, if required.

During dangerous negotiations, it is of great importance for a negotiator to learn to control his or her behavior. It can be beneficial to try to look at the situation and evaluate actions from different angles. This approach will help to determine the point at which one can become a “puppet” in someone’s hand. Besides, one should be concerned about his or her changed gestures or strange actions such as tapping on the table, unnecessarily rubbing their hands, etc. (Graham, Lawrence & Requejo 2014). For example, stroking the thighs with both hands is an unconscious gesture indicating that a person wants to leave negotiations. In this case, the subconscious mind alerts him or her of potential danger. Therefore, it can be the best solution to leave negotiations for a while to calm down and decide whether one wants to continue or not. It is also useful to wash one’s face, because the impact of water starts reflex mechanisms that soothe the heart and regulate metabolism, thus balancing your decision concerning the continuation of negotiations.

Considering typical negotiations between a seller and a buyer, the position of both sides becomes quite clear: a buyer wants to buy a product at a low price and pay for it later, while a seller wants to sell at a higher price and get money immediately. If a negotiator prepares for such negotiations and deploys them correctly, he or she can easily convert them into comfortable negotiations that will take into account the interests of both parties. It is necessary then to pay attention to two factors, including the price of a product and payment delay (Graham, Lawrence & Requejo 2014). Being a seller, a person can indicate the minimum price in advance at a minimum deferment of payment and openly report it to the partner. It will create a choice for the other party – to take a product at the lowest price but to pay immediately or do it later but at a higher price. As a result, the partner gets into a situation where extreme negotiations are meaningless. There is a minimum price below which a seller is not likely to fall. Therefore, the only decision is to discuss payment details.

Completing Extreme Negotiations

If the outcome of extreme negotiations was positive, then it is necessary to summarize and briefly repeat the main points that were discussed in the course of negotiations. Most importantly, the positive points on which the parties agreed are to be mentioned as well. This will ensure the fact that all the participants of negotiations clearly understand the essence of the key provisions of the agreement. It also seems advantageous to discuss the perspective of new meetings. In case extreme negotiations resulted in a negative outcome, it is critical to try to preserve the established contact with the negotiating partner. In this case, the attention is to be paid not on the subject of negotiations but in business aspects, allowing maintaining business relationships in the future. In other words, it is better to avoid debriefing of those sections that had no positive effect. It is desirable to find a topic that will be of interest to both parties, defuse the situation, and help to create a friendly and relaxed atmosphere. The final step of negotiations consists of a thorough analysis and subsequent conclusion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that the success of extreme negotiations largely depends on the level of preparation. During the process of negotiations, it is essential to be clear about the key subject, goals, and problems. It was revealed that extreme negotiations are composed of production and exchange of a particular set of promises that meet the fundamental interests of all parties involved in negotiations. Effective extreme negotiations usually contain the three processes such as proper communication; effective learning, and responsible use of power. The counterparts are to have sufficient competence, knowledge regarding the subject of negotiations, and be able to fully take into account both subjective and objective interests of the other side. To achieve a compromise, negotiating partners should trust each other by building open and collaborative relationships. Despite their dangerous and sometimes aggressive nature, extreme negotiations should present a dialogue that implies asking appropriate questions, listening to the partner, and applying various strategies. The positive outcome of negotiations should be seen as their natural completion, therefore, concluding remarks should examine the content of the agreement, reflecting the interests of both parties.

Reference List

Graham, JL, Lawrence, L & Requejo, WH 2014, Inventive negotiation: Getting beyond yes, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Weiss, J, Donigian, A & Hughes, J 2010, ‘Extreme negotiations’, Harvard Business Review. Web.

Weiss, J & Hughes, J 2011, ‘Implementing strategies in extreme negotiations’, Harvard Business Review. Web.

Weiss, J, Siddall, B, Glatz, K & Hughes, J 2012, ‘“Extreme Negotiations” with Customers’, Vantage Partners. Web.

Introduction

The ability to solve a disagreement between two people depends on the level of negotiation in terms of communication and the relationship between the two parties. When there is poor communication and bitter relationship between the parties, the possibility of failure in negation failing is high. The negotiation between two people cannot be successful without considering the element of power.

Negotiation power refers to the capability of the negotiator to challenge the behaviour of another person. The power is needed where there is need of one party to win in a contest. Power acts as a pillar in terms of structure, strategy, and approach to negotiation. The paper evaluates the influence of power in the process of negotiation to make one party win in a contest.

Power as a structure and a strategy in negotiation

The process of negotiation starts with the dissemination of power among the parties involved. The dissemination of power assists in the resolution in the whole negotiation process. For instance, some of the countries like US, which has more powers than the other countries, dominate in any kind of negotiations (Ḳupferberg & Green, 2005). This shows the level of power that each party possess results in either power symmetry or asymmetry. The most preferred structure of power for international negotiation is asymmetrical structure. However, the experts still debate on the best structure for effective negotiation.

Power has become like any other resource in an organization that the parties involved in a disagreement bring before the table of negotiation. Everybody considers its structure as the most powerful. For example, the research has shown that the small states having mediocre organization of power, do not succumb to the other nations that have strong structure of power. For clarity, power can be understood using two concepts namely relational and perception concepts.

We can deliberate on the relational concept. In relational concept, if there is one organization powerful more than the other organization to a level of getting the other organization to do something, the other organization would not do the task. For instance, private organizations have fewer assets than the World Bank but World Bank can expedite its legitimate roles by including the private organizations. Equally, it is also necessary to note that power is within the territory of the party possessing it.

The party can decide to influence the other person with the less power. For instance, Santos (2012) explains power as the capability of one party to produce an influence on another by the motive of utilizing resources. They expounded that the weaker nations can change the insight of the other stronger nations. Therefore, power is inclusive of static and structural conditions for negotiation.

Power as an approach in the negotiation

Power as an approach in the negotiation involves the competitive technique of negotiating with the hope of winning in the contest. Some of the techniques that a party may use as an approach to win in the contest include intimidation, sanctions, and taking the advantage of resources to outsmart the other opponent. For example, during Cold War, Khurshchev used a power-based approach to defeat Kennedy because he had the courage from the president of US (Weissenbacher, 2009).

During these days, negotiation was considered as part of the strategy in addition to other techniques like military team among others. However, one shortcoming of this strategy is that it is costly and may only last for short time. The high cost is caused by reciprocation of power and involve in competitions when provoked by aggressive rival. In addition, power-based approach is not harmful under all situations. For example, power tactics may be important in the presence of stalemate between the two rivals. It can be used for gaining from the results of negotiations. Strategy of power varies with period. If the weaker party can re-strategize and come up with stronger powers, they can influence the other party that had stronger powers.

Sources and types of power for negotiation

The power from the authority

This is similar to the structural power of negotiation. When negotiating on matters of territories, for example scientific community commands a significant challenge due to its authority. The source of power of authority is people in particular positions “legitimate power.” It is referred to power of authority because it influences on a high degree by encouraging obedience. Research has shown that most people submit in negotiation because of power of authority.

Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)

This is the second source of power in negotiation. The source sets the standards, which negotiated agreements should surpass. It is considered as the second option in negotiation to a party. The healthier the alternative to a negotiated agreement the more strong it becomes. For example, an employee from a company with more attractive offers will have an upper hand of bargaining than the other employee with less attractive features.

Even if BATNA would influence the way of bargaining, it can also be a topic of strategic management. The party can improve its own BATNA and affects the value of the other party’s BATNA (Weissenbacher, 2009). One example under this was when China planned to inverse ambassadorial acknowledgment of allies of Taiwan which was an effort to deteriorate the administrative avenues of people of Taiwan.

Threat

This technique is coupled by power-based method. This involves the use of threats to achieve the objectives in a negotiation. For example, the second Kim Jong the head of North Korea is a perfect example that employs fears and incitements to gain in the field of politics. He achieves this because of his tough rhetoric and the massive development of missiles that threatens people. Santos (2012) opines that for the threat to achieve objectives, it has to aim at the target of interest like the security of a country. This type of power requires surety and courage while negotiating. However, this tactic of negotiation has one limitation; it can easily backfire hence risking the rapport.

Conclusion

In review, power makes parties to gain from various negotiations. In every negotiation, the party with the highest power wins the contest at the expense of the other party with weaker power. There are many types of powers from different sources making party to win in a contest. Some of the sources of power include power from authority, best alternative to a exchanged bargain and the threats. In addition, the paper has deliberated on power as a structure in the organization and power as an approach to the negotiation. Only the parties with the favourable structure and good approach win in the contest of negotiation. The parties that may gain from negotiation are like companies and countries with conflicting interests.

References

Ḳupferberg, I., & Green, D. (2005). Troubled talk: Metaphorical negotiation in problem discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Santos, M. S. (2012). Cleansing honor with blood: Masculinity, violence, and power in the backlands of northeast Brazil, 1845-1889. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Weissenbacher, M. (2009). Sources of power: How energy forges human history. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

In the article published by BBC News, Moylan (2015) reports that a significant discovery of oil was made on the Horse Hill near Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom. The discovery is characterized as a potentially the largest onshore discovery of oil on the territory of the UK. Since the discovery is recognized as the world-class source of oil, it is likely to change the position of the UK in the global oil market because this is the resource that it never had previously (Goodway 2016).

Much excitement was caused by the discovery near Gatwick Airport for both the UK government and UKOG, the company that will be extracting the oil. The process of negotiations of the oil contract will be heavily impacted by the current political situation in the country; namely, the recent Brexit that caused the significant drop in the domestic currency value (Negotiation of Oil and Gas Contracts 2009).

Some of the key aspects that need to be discussed during the negotiation are the environmental factor, alongside the political, social, and economical; however, the most critical sides are the technical and commercial spheres of the issue (Radon 2006). In the particular case of the Horse Hill discovery, UKOG will feel empowered and motivated to dictate its interests since it will be involved in the extraction of the resource that the government deems extremely valuable.

To be more precise, the technical side of the question will probably be the most important part of the negotiation because it will take up to 95% of all the operations and costs (Radon 2006). That way, the primary objective of UKOG will be to cover the costs of dry wells and exploration investments. The key goals of the contract negotiations will be the establishment of who and how will cover the costs of the oil extraction and how they profit from the oil will be divided between the negotiating sides. An agreement based on a mutual compromise needs to be reached; preferably, it has to be beneficial for both parties (Salih & Salih 2015).

First of all, the negotiating sides need to decide on the teams responsible for all the negotiation process. Further, the type of contract needs to be chosen. In this regard, the government is to ensure that the oil exploration results in the desirable return to the domestic oil industry and the state budget; it also needs to establish the regulations about the administrative burden, and avoid the resource speculation (Salih & Salih 2015). The stable income from oil is a desirable outcome for the government; however, it is likely to result in expropriations (Slippery Negotiations: The Give and Take of Oil Contracts in Foreign Countries 2012).

At the same time, the company is interested in receiving the coverage of their costs and the return on investment of resources as fast as possible, obtaining access to more resources, and making sure that their resources and costs are replaced (Salih & Salih 2015). Besides, the negotiating sides need to decide on the provisions that will be included in the contract (such as the actual negotiators, prices, taxes, regulations, governing laws and stabilization clauses, work program or plan, and the termination requirements).

It is crucial to include as many details as possible in the contract. For that, the experienced teams of negotiators are to be involved to discuss all the necessary terms and conditions for the agreement to be reached. The needs of both the government and the oil company are to be satisfied so that the parties are in agreement.

References

Goodway, N 2016, Gushing Gatwick ‘can supply 25% of UK’s oil’. Web.

Moylan, J 2015, Oil discovery near Gatwick airport ‘significant’. Web.

Negotiation of Oil and Gas Contracts 2009.

Radon, J 2006, Initiative for Policy Dialogue Working Paper Series. Web.

Salih, MS & Salih, RS 2015, ‘Strategy of Oil Contract Negotiation’, International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 168-175.

Slippery Negotiations: The Give and Take of Oil Contracts in Foreign Countries 2012. Web.

The main lesson that I was able to draw from this exercise is that companies do not operate in a vacuum since outside factors can have a considerable influence on internal operations. For instance, in this exercise, the points of contention involved salaries and work schedules wherein employees wanted better wages and more flexible work hours. On the other end of the spectrum, you have the company that wishes to maintain current operations since increased salaries and changes in work hours could have a negative impact on operations.

One way to resolve this conundrum is to realise that since companies do not operate in a vacuum, strategies and examples utilised by other firms could be used to influence the bargaining mix during negotiations. For this case, this came in the form of studies depicting the advantages/disadvantages of the proposed changes and how some kind of middle-ground can be achieved by both sides during the negotiation.

What this exercise taught me is that a compromise is often based on perception and how such perceptions can be influenced by information that is brought in from the outside (Fleck, Volkema, Levy, Pereira & Vaccari, 2013). Aside from this, the asynchronous text-based nature of this method was far from appealing. Yes, being able to read what was stated before was very convenient, but the sheer amount of information combined with not being able to see the person you are attempting to negotiate with detracts from the quality of the negotiation that you are trying to accomplish.

Planning preparation and performing workplace bargaining

While the goal of any negotiation is to reach an agreement, this exercise revealed to me that there are multiple ways that this can be achieved. For example, during the initial portion of the exercise, it was believed that we would be following a particular path based on our interpretation of the presented bargaining mix. However, when presented by the ideas by the other side, it became clear that alternatives may be necessary.

One saying that matches this particular situation is “no plan survives contact with the enemy.” I am not stating that negotiators should consider the other party as enemies; rather, it is better to believe that the plans you prepared and the points you initially developed may not hold as much weight as you realise. Instead, it is better to believe that negotiations are an exercise of flexibility in action (Maaravi, Pazy & Ganzach, 2014).

Both parties want to achieve the end goal of reaching an agreement but getting there often means revising what you initially believed and determining whether another path would be just as viable so that an agreement can be reached. Aside from this, the use of one-on-one video conferencing was definitely a step up from the text-based methods that were previously utilised. It really enhanced perceptions since being able to see the body language of the person you are talking to can really make a difference when it comes to realising whether they would agree or disagree to particular amendments to a contract.

Ethical dilemmas

The main lesson that I gained from this exercise was that flexibility and compromise are needed by both parties and not just the company. For example, if the employees wanted higher salaries, the company could have pointed out how the salaries provided for them are the same for other employees within the same industry. As such, to bring about the necessary salary increases, it would be required to terminate the available number of workers and increase working hours to compensate for the decline in personnel.

This shows how outside information and the development of a compromise as a direct result of such information is an integral aspect of any negotiating process and is a factor that all companies should take into consideration when conducting any form of negotiation (Weingart, Thompson, Bazerman & Carroll, 1987). Any party to a negotiation should not enter into it and expect all their demands to be met; rather, it is better to create a list of what you can be flexible about and what is non-negotiable.

This creates sufficient leeway for negotiations to be successful instead of them being stalled. One factor that contributed towards a successful negotiation, in this case, was the use of an online video conference for multiple parties. The lack of delay between the presentation of ideas during the negotiation made it far easier to understand the point of view that was being expressed and, as such, was conducive towards making the talks easier (Rivers & Volkema, 2013). However, the drawback of this method was the interruptions that were experienced since when one person was attempting to prove a point, another individual in the conversation would interrupt resulting in a loss in the flow of ideas.

Enterprise bargaining

The final exercise involving enterprise bargaining can be described as an extensive collection of actions whose primary goal was to bring about an agreement that all parties involved can agree with. What this exercise taught me was that outcomes are rarely as you imagine them to be and that preparation is key to any negotiation. For example, during the initial research stage, a considerable amount of effort was made to examine the different policies that applied to employees, the salary ranges and the different timetables that applied to a particular position. Other aspects that were examined focused on how experience translated into increased value when it came to employees.

All these factors were considered to determine the best way of approaching negotiation. A plan was developed and a strategy created to deal with the bargaining mix; however, what the group discovered was the plan was lacking in sufficient accommodation since the other side had issues that were not originally anticipated and we only assumed what would be best under the context we had to work with and not what they thought.

This particular situation is similar to the principle of the “prisoner’s dilemma” wherein a lack of information and insight from both parties leads to an initial disagreement over the desired outcome or even a lack of trust. What this taught me is that no matter how much planning you will do, there is always the very likely possibility that there are facets to it that the other party will not agree with (Banai, Stefanidis, Shetach, & Özbek, 2014).

Through this exercise, I realised that while planning is the key to a negotiation, it is also important to know how much leeway you are willing to give. Negotiations cannot be “absolute” in the sense that one party is unwilling to accommodate so that they can “win”. There is no “winning” when one party refuses to accommodate the other; the most likely result is that negotiations will break down, and no agreement can be reached (Seung Hwan, 2016). From what I learned during the exercise and the conversations I took part in, a compromise can be described as both parties not getting what they want but getting a sufficient semblance of it that they can agree to honour it.

While there are instances where entering into a negotiation can result in you getting exactly what you want, these are few and far between. It is more accurate to assume that you will be able to reach a halfway point and be able to build upon the specifics of the arrangement from there. Through this realisation and the steps taken during the negotiation, I realised that there is one aspect of the planning session that was not covered in the class lessons, and this was to create lists of what are acceptable and what are not when it comes to the negotiations.

Under the concept of being flexible, parties who enter into a negotiation should realise that there are aspects in a bargaining mix that can and cannot be addressed. I noticed this during the exercise wherein certain aspects of the negotiations involving employee experience and proper financial restitution can be dealt with while others remained firmly unacceptable. The apparent “trick” to a successful negotiation with another party is to sufficiently allow certain provisions while stating that others cannot be given up. This strategy allows the other party to realise that while you are firm in certain matters, there are factors that can be negotiated upon (Stefanidis, Banai & Richter, 2013).

Such a method creates a better back-and-forth conversation rather than appearing to be obstinate and unwilling to cooperate. Another lesson that I learned from this exercise was that open-mindedness is key to any successful negotiation. Throughout the engagement, I noted that some of the ideas that were presented by the other party went against our original plan or were somewhat inapplicable to what we had in mind. There were two choices in this matter; we could have simply ploughed straight ahead and enforced what we wanted, or we could have taken the ideas into consideration and formulated a new outcome based on them.

For example, during the negotiation process, it was clearly shown that employees should receive wages that are commensurate with their developed skills and expertise. While it may seem obvious now, the fact remains that there were other factors at work that prevented this realisation such as the cost of such as step and whether it would even be necessary. What this shows is that open-mindedness allows both parties to realise the potential problems with their positions and adjust accordingly.

I realised that negotiation is not just presenting what you want, it also involves helping the other party understand that their position has several mistakes that can be addressed. By focusing on this aspect, the process of negotiation becomes more than simply a presentation of desires; rather, it becomes a way for those involved to inform and help them evaluate what they believe. Sometimes, some people miss the most obvious elements of a problem since they are on the “other side of the table” so to speak (Hatfield, Agoglia, & Sanchez, 2008).

It is at times necessary to bring to light issues that are not apparent to them which can lead to better negotiations since the other party will understand where you are coming from when it comes to the problems that you have brought to the table. Overall, it can be concluded that being open-minded and flexible when it comes to negotiations can lead to better outcomes for all the parties involved. The worst possible outcome would be if no resolution to the issue is developed and that is why the parties who are part of the process are jointly responsible for creating a result that they can agree upon.

Towards the end of this exercise, another important lesson I learned is that nothing can truly beat a face-to-face conversation when it comes to negotiations. When I compared the interactions via online asynchronous text and a face-to-face conversation, I noticed that people are more willing to accommodate each other when talking directly rather than when they are speaking impersonally over a digitally created message.

This difference could be attributed to the back and forth interaction between the parties involved that is a lot smoother when done face-to-face rather than through emails. I realised that the problem with using impersonal methods is that this leads to indifferent actions that are based more on logical thinking rather than having an undercurrent of mutual understanding (Yiu, Cheung & Siu, 2012). When people respond to a digital message for a negotiation, they do so from a position that lacks sufficient empathy.

They are focused more on their wants and needs rather than attempting to accommodate the other individual. This is why face-to-face interactions can be considered as being superior since both parties can communicate with both logic and emotion. The result is a greater likelihood of them acquiescing to particular requests. As such, I have come to the conclusion that face-to-face negotiations are a much better method as compared to the others that were utilised in the other exercises.

Reference List

Banai, M., Stefanidis, A., Shetach, A., & Özbek, M. (2014). Attitudes Toward Ethically Questionable Negotiation Tactics: A Two-Country Study. Journal Of Business Ethics, 123(4), 669.

Fleck, D., Volkema, R., Levy, B., Pereira, S., & Vaccari, L. (2013). Truth or consequencesThe effects of competitive-unethical tactics on negotiation process and outcomes. International Journal Of Conflict Management (Emerald), 24(4), 328-351.

Hatfield, R. C., Agoglia, C. P., & Sanchez, M. H. (2008). Client Characteristics and the Negotiation Tactics of Auditors: Implications for Financial Reporting. Journal Of Accounting Research, 46(5), 1183-1207.

Maaravi, Y., Pazy, A., & Ganzach, Y. (2014). Winning a battle but losing the war: On the drawbacks of using the anchoring tactic in distributive negotiations. Judgment & Decision Making, 9(6), 548-557.

Rivers, C., & Volkema, R. (2013). East-West Differences in ‘Tricky’ Tactics: A Comparison of the Tactical Preferences of Chinese and Australian Negotiators. Journal Of Business Ethics, 115(1), 17.

Seung Hwan, L. (2016). Learning beyond Negotiation Tactics: The Sales Marketplace. Journal For Advancement Of Marketing Education, 24(1), 22-28.

Stefanidis, A., Banai, M., & Richter, U. H. (2013). Employee attitudes toward questionable negotiation tactics: empirical evidence from Peru. International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 24(4), 826-852.

Weingart, L. R., Thompson, L., Bazerman, M. H., & Carroll, J. S. (1987). Tactics in Integrative Negotiations. Academy Of Management Best Papers Proceedings, 285-289.

Yiu, T. W., Cheung, S. O., & Siu, L. Y. (2012). Application of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory to Examining the Choice of Tactics in Construction Dispute Negotiation. Journal Of Construction Engineering & Management, 138(3), 331-340.

Introduction

Bechtel occupies a highly competitive position in the world market, so it is possible to consider the company’s existing negotiation strategy fairly efficient. However, there are two issues that were not discussed in detail in the initial Stakeholder Analysis, although they need more thorough consideration. The first thing to be analyzed is the company’s sustainability efforts. The second one is the opportunities for employment in local communities.

Negotiation Strategy and Plan for Reducing the Environmental Footprint

1. First of all, Bechtel needs to evaluate what types of footprints are left as a result of its work process. Čuček, Klemenš, and Kravanja (2012) differentiate between the following kinds of environmental footprints: carbon, water, energy, emission, nitrogen, land, and biodiversity. Therefore, in order to arrange negotiations concerning its sustainable development, the company will need to assess the major types of harmful outcomes of its operations.
2. The next step will be choosing the most appropriate tools for footprint evaluation. According to Čuček et al. (2012), there are many ways of assessing one’s environmental footprint, the most popular of them being calculators for energy, carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints. There are also different types of software developed for calculating and reporting the companies’ environmental footprint: SPIonExcel, RegiOpt, PNS solution, Bottomline³, and mathematical programming tools (Čuček et al., 2012).
3. After choosing the method of evaluating its environmental footprint, Bechtel should launch the assessment program and find out the most adverse outcomes of its operations.
4. Further, the process of negotiating the ways of reducing the most dangerous footprints should be arranged with stakeholders and managers.
5. Due to promoting sustainability and transparency of its work, Bechtel will become able to predict and resolve any issues and operate efficiently in any environment.

Negotiation Strategy and Plan for New Employment Opportunities

1. Prior to launching a new project in developing regions or communities, the company should perform the analysis of the workforce in these areas. It may happen so that hiring workers on the site will bring advantages both for Bechtel and the local people.
2. In order to make the analysis more accessible, the company may contact local unemployment offices to find out whether there are people with sufficient professional skills necessary to perform some types of work that Bechtel is planning to do in the region.
3. To make the process of search and negotiation easier, it is possible to place adverts in local newspapers or on community websites. By doing so, those who get interested in being employed in the company’s project will be able to contact the HR manager, provide information about their skills and competencies, and explain their desire to participate in the project. The HR manager will obtain an opportunity to ask additional questions and make a conclusion about the applicants’ fitness to do the job.
4. Upon collecting relevant data about the prospective employees, the company will decide how many vacancies can be filled by people from local communities and how many specialists will need to travel to work on the site.
5. The positive outcomes for the company will be as follows. Bechtel will gain an opportunity of finding new eager employees to support the company’s successful strategies. Also, the organization will be able to save on travel and accommodation costs for the employees that will not come from local areas.
6. The benefits for the community will concentrate on the possibility of developing its infrastructure and provide employment opportunities for local people.

Reference

Čuček, L., Klemenš, J. J., & Kravanja, Z. (2012). A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 34, 9-20.

Some of the vital skills needed in life are bargaining and negotiation skills for the purpose of settling disputes since disputes may arise at the work place, at home, at schools or even at the community and the national level. Disputes are not always bad since they may lead to progress while solved. Some of the institutions that solve disputes are courts, regulations and also traditions. This means that every person or group needs to have bargaining and negotiating skills for disputes to be settled at the group or the persons favor. An explanation of the process of negotiating and bargaining between NHLPA, a hockey team union and NHL, the owners of the hockey team helps in understanding this concept.

In the presented case, NHL and NHLPA are bargaining towards are leveraged agreement between the team and the union. Essentially, the union is interested with a better salary that increases with the increasing market performance. The negotiating and bargaining presented has a long history since it was started in the 1950s before the union was formed. However, the successful formation of the union led to a better bargaining power where several incidences of successful negotiations were witnessed.

In the case at hand, NHL came up with several proposals that were meant to increase competition in hockey by aiding small uncompetitive teams to become more competitive. Although the proposal seemed sensible at first, it was somehow delimiting the union because the three proposals laid down by NHL did not favor NHLPA. For example, the team owners wanted to come up with a tax system that would tax the large teams where tax obtained would be used to boost smaller teams. The rest of the proposal seemed to affect the new entrants since it was meant for curbing what they made and limit their mobility at earlier times in their career in order to reduce player bidding.

Through bargaining, the two parties came up with an agreement where the payroll taxes were removed from the proposals. However the team owners won the third proposals where the union allowed NHL to restrain the salaries of runaway players. While this settled the matter for a short time, the team owners felt that the union had outwitted it since it removed payroll taxes and allowed rockie player’s salary to be based on performance. On the other hand, the union felt that the decision of the union owners to restrain the salaries of run way players was delimiting them. Because of this, the two parties needed a renegotiation (Hout, 2006).

In this renegotiation, the two parties should reach an agreement since lack of coming up with an agreement means that the season will be cancelled and there will be no games. One of the barriers to reaching into a conclusive agreement was the fact that the persons representing the two parties were not good communicators. In most cases, the two would end up not coming up with a reasonable agreement. The other barrier was the lack of the team owners to display the real costs incurred by the team and the real revenues earned by the team. Because of this, the team failed to understand why the team owners wanted to cut their salaries. When an audit was done, there was also no proper communicating of the results of the audit results.

Bettman and Goodenow are the ones that represent the two parties. As a result, they are the ones that are supposed to overcome any barriers for the benefit of all groups. As seen in the report, the team owners were billionaires that would not be affected by any decisions made by the two. On the other hand, the hockey players had earned enough revenues during their sports career and were only being motivated by the love of the game. With this reasons in mind, the two ought to realize the situation and overcome any barrier to avoid any loss that would result if they do not come up with a conclusive agreement.

In this negotiation, both parties had their powers and weaknesses. The teams as represented by the union had the power of the union. As seen earlier, negotiation was not favorable for the team since they did not have a union. On the other hand, the team owners’ claim that the costs were higher and the revenues were higher created a powerful bargaining end for NHL.

However, every team had a limiting side in this negotiation. Earlier on, the union had threatened to call a strike if NHL failed to come up into an agreement. This was taken seriously by the team owners where the union won leading to an increased salary. At that time, the team’s BATNA was higher than that of the union owners since its decision to strike was made at the right time before the beginning of important games. However, the current situation was tough since the costs incurred by the hockey teams lowered their BATNA meaning that they had to reconsider their bargaining stand. For the team owners, their failure to disclose the information about the revenues and costs earned by the teams fully limited their bargaining power.

In negotiation, a BATNA or a best alternative is a situation where two negotiating parties has a number of alternatives to chose from, which will influence the best decision that will close a deal or will cause a walk away. As seen earlier the team owners were billionaires, meaning that money was none of their problem. In fact, the high costs being incurred by the teams in relation to revenues were not inviting. Because of this, the owners could do away with the hockey business without any harm on their side. On the other hand, the team players had earned a considerable amount of income in their career meaning that they could force a better agreement through strikes.

However, the problem with the current agreement for the players is that it is not as favorable as the other since NHL is ready to cancel the remaining games in the season.

The bargaining method used in this case is integrative bargaining since every party is trying to consider the plea of the other party. The party uses integrative bargaining in the hope that an agreement that does not harm either of the two parties is reached upon. This is what is known as a win-win situation.

As seen in this case, the parties would have reached into an agreement earlier before the season was canceled if the two parties had communicated effectively. In addition, if the parties being represented in the bargaining process would have spoken out like they did after the season was canceled, an agreement would have realized early enough.

Reference

Hout M. (2006). Negotiating on thin ice: The 2004-2005 NHL dispute (A). [Class Handout].

As a matter of fact, the ability to negotiate appropriately and use reasonable arguments seems especially significant in the modern world. In spite of the fact that the society has already made a long way of development and evolution, the fundamental aspects that influenced the life of the society hundreds of years ago, still have a significant impact on human’s life, namely persuasion and building a successful coalition. The primary purpose of the paper is to provide the reflection on the power point presentation related to the international negotiations.

As for me, the success of the coalition is highly dependent on the techniques and methods of persuasion as well as arguments the parties are using during negotiations. First and foremost, persuasion through the process is essential to be taken into consideration. The power point presentation is focused on this aspect. According to the presentation, there are four major steps that contribute to the establishment of positive connection between the parties, namely the following ones:

1. Identifying of the person that is responsible for making decisions and discuss issues with him or her;
2. Addressing the needs of every person in the team;
3. The ability to offer those decisions and solutions that will be beneficial for both parties;
4. Share problems in order to create support.

Although the stated above aspects contribute to the establishment of the relationships between the parties based on trust and respect, it should be stressed that communication plays a crucial role in the process of negotiation. The power point presentation examines verbal and nonverbal types of communication that can influence the coalition building process.

It is of paramount importance to stress that knowledge regarding the stated above aspects is essential for taking into consideration as these aspects impact the process of negotiation in a great way. Non-verbal communication can tell even more than the human’s words, and thus, close attention to eye contact and gestures should be dedicated.

Coalition-building tool-box is a perfect guide that outlines the most significant questions that should not be forgotten for the coalition to be successful. The ability to identify influential people who make decisions, potential alignments, winning and blocking coalitions seems one of the most vital elements in building a successful coalition. However, it should be stressed that it is not enough for building a coalition and performing successful negotiation. The parties should be united by the common goal in order to cooperate together and function as one organism. There can be several reasons for collaboration; however, the coalition should be beneficial for all the parties.

According to the power point presentation, the following aspects are essential to be taken into account, namely:

1. Shifting the balance of forces;
2. Shaping the program or agenda;
3. Altering the perception of alternatives;
4. Exploit the power of deference. Influence is a fundamental factor that is used by a variety of countries during negotiations. Due to influence, successful cooperation is possible.

It should be noted that the power point presentation provides some insights on how successful coalition should be built. The coalition-building tool-box aims to help the viewer to focus attention on relevant aspects that should not be forgotten during negotiations and trying to build a coalition. The presented information is interesting and is centered on the most vital points. The ability to negotiate receives priority in the modern world, and thus, the principles provided in the presentation are actual.

In business, the negotiation process is one of the most important elements of managerial work. Organizational dialogues can be structured to promote problem-solving and the development of consensus on the basis of a full airing of the merits and interests involved. This type of dialogue ideally meets the needs of the organization. The organization can benefit from good negotiators only if negotiation is institutionalized as part of the process of management. The essential compatibility of the effective negotiation system and management process lies in the fact that effective negotiation is flexible enough to accommodate the changing bargaining needs of management.

The definition of negotiation also contains a general formulation concerning the use of the process to attain desired objectives. Whatever the preferred operating system or approach to negotiation, there is usually a follow-on statement concerning how to process objectives are to be attained. “The process essentially involves dialogue management and control through the orchestration, exploitation, and manipulation of perceptions, uncertainty, expectations, and apprehension concerning the situation in the direction of the desired consensus” (Raiffa 2005, p. 5).

Distillable from the effective negotiation system is the following operational elements: dialogue management and control; exploitation and manipulation of perceptions, uncertainty, expectations, and apprehension; and consensus development based on friendly or pressured persuasion. Cohen defines negotiation as “a pervasive process in which people ultimately attempt to reach a joint decision on matters of common concern in situations in which there is initial disagreement” (Cohen 2007).

As negotiation is a process for developing consensus and is already in the workplace in the form of managerial bargaining, consideration should be given to institutionalizing it as an adjunct process of management. Institutionalization makes sense because the organization badly needs an operational process (Lewicki et al 2006). Also, the basic compatibility of the negotiation and management processes assures the feasibility of combining the two. The principal considerations in institutionalization are that the negotiation process must be

1. understood by all managers, preferably as a result of formal trainind,
2. appropriately structured to serve the interests of the organization.

In effect, institutionalization would be a reform of current managerial bargaining by limiting its use to organizational rather than personal interests (Lewicki et al 2006).

Unlike the management process, negotiation has operational techniques associated with effecting friendly or pressured persuasion. The negotiation process’s concern for continuing relationships is an important element in friendly persuasion, the preferred basis for consensus. A good workplace relationship softens the impact of pressured persuasion when friendly persuasion does not produce the desired consensus.

The pressuring possibility permits negotiation to go beyond friendly persuasion and function as a system for controlling situations and relationships. As a control system, negotiation can be a most useful tool of consensus development because of the premium it places on the maintenance of a good workplace relationship. Management process also stresses the use of relationship nurturing and maintenance to influence desired behavior (Raiffa 2005)

The basic negotiating technique is to think in terms of wants and needs and trade one’s wants for one’s needs, which usually results in a bargaining advantage. Power, information, and timing are three crucial variables that help a manager to negotiate and solve problems. Timing is important for a negotiator because more than two-thirds of the time is spent in dialogues with subordinates, peers, and supervisors.

The principal medium is oral communication in the form of daily instructions and other communications to subordinates; staffing and networking discussions with peers; and feedback and other reporting to supervisors (Lewicki et al 2006). These dialogues have an interest dimension for the managers involved because they constitute the principal means for controlling workplace relationships and activities.

Negotiators have to work and bargain for acceptance when attempting to exert their positional power and authority. Noncompliance requires the use of pressured persuasion. Perception creation and manipulation are key factors in pressuring persuasion (Cohen 1982). The approach, based on the principle that perception is reality, reflects the essence of the concept of negotiation as a mind game. Controlling and constructing perceptions through “impression management” has recently been recognized as a useful technique for influencing organizational behavior.

Management’s need for additional techniques for consensus development and its ability to borrow them from the negotiation process assures that the management process will continue on a convergent course with negotiation. The culminating result should be the institutionalization of negotiation as part of the process of management. The dialogues of management can, through friendly persuasion (based on personalization and other relationship nurturing) or pressured persuasion, be used to influence desired action or inaction.

The same is true for negotiation: there need not be a formal dialogue or a formal conclusion of the dialogue. Accordingly, it is no great stretch to treat action or behavior in support of a manager’s policy or request as the consensus result of the manager’s bargaining effort to influence or motivate the behavior of his subordinates. The absence of a formal dialogue does not change the basic nature of the bargaining process which produces compliant behavior (Lewicki et al 2006).

Information “is the heart of the matter” (Cohen 1982, p. 101). The decision-maker identifies dialogues with staff members and others involved in collecting information, analyzing issues, and recommending decisional options. The decision maker’s interest here is to assure that he is getting maximum staff support for his decision-making. There is also dialogue with those involved in implementing the decision or having the standing to contest or criticize it.

By conducting these covered dialogues, the manager, in effect, controls the input of all the organizational elements involved in the decision-making process. The result is a better decision for the decision-maker and his organization. ”The more information you have about their financial situation, priorities, deadlines, coats, real needs and organizational pressures, the better you can bargain” (Cohen, 1982, p. 104). Another aspect of the negotiation process is that it includes mediation, a form of negotiation which involves the basic parties and a third party who assists them (actively or passively) to develop consensus. Mediation is best understood as assisted negotiation. The active mediator sees to it that the parties observe all procedural deadlines and requirements, and attempts to bring them together with substantive suggestions and proposals.

A good negotiator is a person who understands the process, who objectively analyzes the weaknesses and strengths of other parts, and who can reach the best results in the shortest period of time. Successful performance as a manager requires the acquisition of special managerial skills. The interchangeability of managers as they progress in their careers calls for their having certain technical, human, conceptual, and diagnostic skills.

Following Cohen’s negotiation skills are extremely important because ‘people may have different functions or different disciplines… They may even be in different parts of town… You need negotiation skills to obtain their help and support” (Cohen 1982, p. 19). Technical skills are defined as understanding, knowledge, and proficiency in techniques and procedures related to a specialized field. Human skills are those interpersonal techniques and abilities which enable the manager to motivate, lead, and work effectively with individuals and groups. Negotiation is based on the technical skill of the manager because of the increased importance of his role as a negotiator (Cohen 1982).

Furthermore, negotiation is a skill implied in most of his other roles and activities. It is an essential part of his ability to develop the consensus associated with authority acceptance in the organizing, controlling, and leading functions. Negotiation also provides a process for managing and controlling his workplace relationships. Also, it is possible to single out the following qualities of a good negotiator: a quick mind, patience and endurance, flexibility and impartiality, language skills (knowing how to use hyperbole and exaggeration) (Cohen 2007)

A good negotiator should have good decision making which depends on responsive and complete staff support, and managers at all levels must control the quality of this support. A distorted picture of the issues and the costs and benefits involved in a proposed policy or action, prompted by a desire to influence the decision for career or other personal interests, does not serve the organizational interest (Lewicki et al 2006). Breakdown of supervisory control at this point should carry serious consequences for those who fail to perform their duty to the organization. Again, the control process cannot eliminate informal lobbying and other forms of politicking to influence senior-level decision-makers to protect career and parochial interests (Raiffa 2005)

In sum, the negotiation process has built-in controls in the form of counterproductive effects of certain bargaining behavior and tactics. The negotiating cost these actions impose for the abuse of organizational process pressures the bargaining manager to avoid them in conducting his dialogues. Starting with dialogues to develop a commitment to the organization and ending with the proper use of mediation in conflict-resolution situations, these controls provide a discipline based on bargaining self-interest.

References

1. Cohen, H. (1982). You Can Negotiate Anything, Bantam.
2. Cohen, H. (2007). Negotiation and Selling. Web.
3. Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B., Saunders, D.M. (2006). Essentials of Negotiation. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
4. Raiffa, H. (2005). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Belknap Press.

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.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Conducting cross-cultural communication in the context of the global economic environment is a challenging task. Because of the necessity to take into account a vast range of culture-related factors to avoid cross-cultural conflict, organizations need to carry out a comprehensive comparison of states participating in international interactions (Wilhelm & Chaichompoo, 2015). Created by Geert Hofstede, the Cultural Dimensions Theory and corresponding tool facilitate identifying differences and similarities in the cultural characteristics of different countries. Thus, they provide the opportunity to develop trust-based relationships and avoid cross-cultural clashes (Özdasli, Penez, & Koca, 2016).

Chart Analysis

As Figure 1 shows, a vast number of differences exist across the key dimensions among the United States, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and China. For example, the level of indulgence varies significantly among the different countries, with Mexico showing the highest rates and China having the lowest. The levels of indulgence are also significantly different in the identified states. For example, Mexico and Saudi Arabia tend to avoid uncertainty quite often, whereas the United States and China are less concerned with the specified issue.

The results of the comparison also show notable points of contact among the various states. For instance, power distance is equally high in all countries except the United States, where it is moderate. Uncertainty avoidance, in turn, reflects similar levels in all countries. By focusing on qualities held in common such as power distance and masculinity, the United States, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and China will be able to identify common ground and build a constructive dialogue.

Implications of Communication

The outcomes of the analysis indicate the existence of a strong need to introduce a homogenous framework for managing relationships among the United States, Mexico, China, and Saudi Arabia. Because of the differences in culture and worldview exhibited by the specified countries, it is critical to creating a uniform approach toward managing the conversation (Blut, Chowdhry, Mittal, & Brock, 2015). Adopting a negotiation approach based on the principles of compromise and cooperation should be regarded as a primary change that must be implemented to encourage successful business operations between the specified states (Bo, 2014). Introducing a multicultural approach based on the process of unceasing learning and appreciation for the cultures of other states should be considered another crucial step in maintaining stable relationships among the United States, Mexico, China, and Saudi Arabia (Zourrig & Cosentino, 2017). Without a profound study of those issues that have the potential to spark a massive conflict, the participants in an international dialogue will not be able to progress in terms of communication.

Cultural Characteristics

While negotiations based on the avoidance of uncertainty, as well as awareness of power distance principles as one means of communicating with representatives of Chinese, Saudi Arabian, and Mexican organizations, would be expected to have a positive effect on economic and business relationships, it would be incorrect to claim that the adoption of the specified tools would immediately lead to success. However, by taking into account the fact that power distance and uncertainty avoidance play an important role in the cultures of the countries under consideration, the United States will be able to build a connection with them and thus avoid possible confrontations. Furthermore, misunderstandings concerning the intentions of these countries and the organizations that represent them will be managed successfully. As a result, opportunities for successful negotiation will emerge.

References

Blut, M., Chowdhry, N., Mittal, V., & Brock, C. (2015). E-service quality: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Retailing, 91(4), 679-700.

Bo, T. (2014). A study on advertisement translation based on the theory of eco-translatology. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(3), 708-713.

Compare countries. (2018). Web.

Özdasli, K., Penez, S., & Koca, M. B. (2016). The cultural dimension levels of Turks in the United States. Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance, and Marketing, 8(1), 36-52.

Wilhelm, W. J., & Chaichompoo, P. (2016). We are not like them. They are not like us. Cultural dimensions and moral reasoning in Thailand and the United States. The Journal of Research in Business Education, 57(2), 57-81.

Zourrig, H., & Cosentino, J. (2017). Perceived deceptiveness of insurance fraud: A cross-cultural perspective. ASBBS Proceedings, 24(1), 567-578.