Category: Negotiation

Negotiation is the process of initiating a dialogue through which differences or disputes between two or more parties are solved mutually. Developing an effective negotiating team requires the team leader to have a wide knowledge of negotiation process. Members of the negotiating team should also have a wide range of knowledge, skills and attitude required in the negotiation process. The members need to know the context of the negotiation and the subject matter to the negotiations. The team should be able to analyze the facts, objectives, interest and all the legal issues pertain to the subject matter of the negotiations. The members should be good listeners with ability to seek and give information. The team should be able to think creatively to persuade the other negotiating party into accepting your objectives. The team should be able to recognize when to admit the demands of the other party, when to stand your ground or when to move on. The team members should adopt positive attitude towards the other party, the process itself and the subject matter under negotiation (Churchman, 1993, p. 13).

The negotiators must have adequate knowledge of the background and factors that surround the negotiation process by carefully examining whether the subject matter of the negotiation requires situations where the relationship between the parties concerned has to continue or not. The team should find out carefully how or the tactics the opponents will use in the negotiations. All these factors will assist the negotiating team prepare themselves adequately for the negotiations. Trust is a very crucial element in any productive negotiation process. Without trust from all negotiating parties, the decision reached cannot hold. The parties involved in the negotiation process must show commitment and willingness to act based on positive expectations to the words and decisions of the negotiating parties. Sometimes, the outcome of a negotiation may not please both parties concerned (Lewicki, 1995 pp. 56-59).

One party may feel cheated or the other party may not honour the negotiation outcomes. In such situations, the aggrieved party may lack trust with the aggravating party. Clearwire Company has already lost trust with Sprint Nextel Company. In such a case, Sprint Nextel Company must repair its trust with Clearwire Company to restore confidence and facilitate smooth joint running of the companies. Sprint Nextel Company has a major influence on decisions made by the Clearwire Company, as it jointly owns the company. Good working relationship between these two companies is therefore a necessity not a priority. These two companies are interdependence and hence reconciliation and forgiveness is vital. We should start by examining all possible reasons that brought about the violation of trust and possibility of recurrence of the problem. I would persuade the Clearwire Company to form a negotiating team that would lead its company in negotiation with my team in an effort to reconcile the two companies. The negotiating teams should deliberate on issues that resulted to the damage of the relationship and how to settle those issues. The aim of the dialogue should be forgiveness and forging the way forward since the relationship between these companies cannot be terminated (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2007, pp.114-116).

Rebuilding trust is a demanding process and more difficult than building it the first time. As the leader of Sprint Nextel multiparty negotiating team, I would lead the negotiation by initiating the spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness. The starting point would be by admitting and owning the mistakes that led to the fallout and break of trust between the two companies. My team would immediately take action after the violation act by taking efforts to restore the situation to lessen the consequences of the violation to my victim. This should be through finding possible ways of dealing with stress the violation of trust brought into the relationship. My team would prepare to provide an apology. I would lead the team in stating regret for the damage endured by Clearwire Company as a result the action. The team must clearly explain the conditions that resulted to violation so that Clearwire Company can understand the reason behind our company’s actions. In all these efforts, my team would be sincere and act honestly in words and actions to earn the trust again. In order to demonstrate a tangible commitment to the healing process, I would advise Sprint Nextel Company to initiate concrete actions to reinforce the reconciliation process in a bid to compensate the Clearwire Company for the loss incurred because of violation of trust (Raiffa, 1982. p.24).

Considering the relationship between these two companies, it is imperative that they should reconsider and renegotiate their commitment to future relationship and interactions. The offending company should take practical steps to deal with the expectations of Clearwire Company by expressing standards that it expects to maintain and strictly adhering to these standards in future. The Sprint Nextel Company should re-establish a long lasting relationship by demonstrating emotional attachment to Clearwire Company and prove that the relationship is a total priority. The Sprint Nextel Company should strive to ensure that it builds a strong relationship. It should honor all its commitments on a daily basis to create a favorable environment for trust to prevail (Lewicki, & Wiethoff, 2000, pp. 115-118).

Reference List

Churchman, D. (1993). Negotiation Tactics. Maryland: University Press of America.

Lewicki, R. 1995. “Trust in Relationships: A Model of Development and Decline.” In Conflict, Cooperation and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewicki, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). “Trust, Trust Development and Trust Repair.” In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Morton and Peter T. Coleman, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lewicki, R., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. (2007). Essentials of negotiation (4th Ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: McGraw Hill.

Raiffa, W. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press.

Introduction

Conflict is among the challenges we face in our personal and professional lives. While we may try to avoid conflicts, the prevalence of disputes, in our society is indicative of the fact that conflicts are normal in our lives. As such, how we resolve conflicts determine our success or failure in society and at work. It is therefore important that we solve contentious issues in a constructive manner. Over the years, negotiation strategies and tactics that can be used during conflict resolution have been developed. This paper shall set out to explore negotiation strategies proposed by Kritek (2002), in her insightful book. This shall be done by highlighting and discussing three “ways of being” that the author explores in her book.

“Ways of Being”: Summary and Response

Shamir (2003) defines negotiation as the process through which conflicting parties engage in communicative efforts aimed at finding an acceptable solution. “Ways of being” are strategies that can be used to “negotiate conflicts in situations where some participants are at a disadvantage that others do not acknowledge (Kritek, 2002, p. xiii).” She defines “ways of being” as approaches that parties in a conflict choose to present their argument at an uneven table (Kritek, 2002).

Way of Being Number Two: Be a Truth Teller

In chapter 18, the author discusses the importance of being truthful during negotiations. According to Kritek (2002), telling the truth about one’s position goes a long way in leveling the field and creating balance during the negotiation. In addition, she reveals listening as a tool that can be used to foster creativity during the negotiation process. She also highlights strategies that could be used to unveil the truth, and discusses truth telling as a measure of self-honesty (Kritek, 2002). Throughout this chapter, the author insists that being truthful and supporting other truth tellers can help people with a disadvantage negotiate more competitively, all the while providing them with the leverage needed to reach a mutually beneficial consensus.

Being truthful is imperative to any conversation. It helps foster trust among the parties involved, and enables each person to establish his or her position. In addition, it helps the negotiators to accept the limit to their knowledge regarding the issue being discussed. However, I believe that during negotiations one must be careful when unveiling the truth so as to avoid looking desperate. This is because desperation is a sign of weakness that can be used to strike unfair deals.

Way of Being Number Seven: Innovate

Shavinina (2003) asserts that innovativeness is an essential component in the management of competitive situation. The author attributes this to the fact that innovation helps individuals introduce new concepts and strategies even when faced with challenges. Kritek (2002) further collaborate Shavinina’s assertions in the 23^rd chapter of her book. In this chapter, she discusses the importance of knowing the rules, questioning illusions, being curious, having fun, and understanding humor during negotiation. This is because these aspects can help one manipulate the mood, come up with different angles of viewing issues, and persuade the other parties to buy into the ideas one is selling (Kritek, 2002).

Innovation presents one with an opportunity to educate others and translate what they are saying. As such, being innovative during a negotiation enables one to introduce compelling concepts at the table, thereby giving one the upper hand during the discussion. In addition innovation provides one with the opportunity to maneuver across set limits in a clever way, all the while ensuring that other parties’ needs have not been violated.

Way of Being Number Eight: Know What You Do and Do Not Know

Information is pivotal if success is to be achieved in any endeavor. Kritek (2002) states that having ample information during a negotiation may help achieve balance at an uneven table. In her book, the author asserts that it is always important to acknowledge the limits to one’s information. This means that during a negotiation, one should know what he or she knows and what remains unknown regarding the issue being discussed. With such knowledge, one is better placed to be discriminatory about their choice of words, know his or her illusions and time his or her arguments based on facts (Kritek, 2002). In addition, the author suggests that knowing one’s limit to information makes him or her a better listener, thereby enabling them to learn new facts during the negotiation.

Kritek’s point of view is very accurate. This is because most negotiations fail to reach a consensus due to lack of adequate preparedness. In most cases, parties to a negotiation feel comfortable when they deal with people who have extensive knowledge about the situation and its effects on their beliefs. As such, when a party appears to be guessing or unsure, the negotiation process is bound to be unfair or fail.

Conclusion

Throughout this paper, negotiation has been presented as an effective means to resolving disputes. An understanding of the various “ways of being” proposed by Kritek (2002) empowers parties during the negotiation process. While these strategies may prove to be effective, caution should be taken to ensure that they are used wisely.

References

Kritek, P. (2002). Negotiating at an Uneven Table: Developing Moral Courage in Resolving Our Conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Shamir, Y. (2003). Alternative Dispute Resolution Approaches and their Application. New York: PCCP Publications.

Shavinina, V. (2003). The International Handbook on Innovation. New Jersey: Elsevier.

Negotiations are an ever-present part of everyday life and essential to many professions. They occur whenever people try to achieve beneficial outcomes by talking to others. While this definition may make negotiating sound simple and straightforward, the opposite is often the case. Even a one-on-one negotiation between individuals sharing the same cultural background can run into many serious practical, ethical, and psychological complications. Cross-cultural negotiations involving multiple active parties pose still more significant challenges due to the introduction of increased complexity and cultural barriers. To successfully navigate those difficulties, professional negotiators rely not only on their strengths, such as character and social intelligence, but also on negotiation theory. By carefully analyzing available information, such as the participants and their goals, as well as any complicating psychological and cultural factors, a skilled negotiator can select an ideal approach for any negotiation. In this text, I will try to share my understanding of negotiation theory as it applies to your situation and offer insights based on my personal experience.

Preparing for Negotiations

As is the case with many other activities, preparation is the key to success in negotiations. An adequately prepared negotiator has a better chance of controlling the course of the proceedings and resisting pressures caused by interfering factors and actions of other negotiators. While it is impossible to be ready for everything, anticipating the complications that are likely to come up makes it easier to concentrate on creating solutions for unexpected problems.

Preparations should begin with establishing the essential characteristics of the negotiation. For example, is the negotiation supposed to resolve just one issue or several? How many parties are going to participate in the discussion? When two or more parties are involved, the number of issues and the complexity of the process are likely to increase accordingly. If negotiations are going to take place across cultural lines, additional factors such as cultural barriers and biases will need to be taken into consideration. Having assessed those aspects, it becomes possible to predict the problems that might arise.

Negotiation theory recognizes two main styles of negotiations: the distributive style and the integrative style. Whereas the former is competitive and focused on maximizing value for the party using it, the latter is collaborative and seeks mutually beneficial solutions for all parties involved. Dividing limited resources between parties that might not deal with each other again is a typical scenario for the distributive style. The integrative method is applied when more resources can be created and the parties are interested in cultivating long-term relationships. The distributive style is also referred to as value-claiming, while the integrative style is often called value-creating. In practice, those who use the latter approach usually engage in both value creation and value claiming, as the parties are still interested in securing specific benefits for themselves. However, an integrative strategy requires a more balanced approach to claiming value and forfeits the more aggressive distributive methods. The chosen style will shape both the preparations carried out beforehand and tactics followed during the negotiation.

Your situation, a multi-issue multi-party integrative negotiation across cultural lines, is particularly complex, but it can be simplified and managed effectively with proper analysis. The next step in preparation is to identify the interested parties and their interests, along with how those interests interface with the issues discussed. It is vital to remember that important actors in negotiation include more than just the people at the table. Constituents, superiors, and clients are interested parties “behind the table” that seldom get directly involved in the negotiations process but can implement or block the decisions reached. The wider industry, media, and family members are entirely outside of the negotiation, but their opinions and interests can affect it as well. Identifying the personal and organizational relationships between actors is necessary to gauge the influence they may exercise on the negotiation.

Negotiation theory offers several concepts that can help assess the relative power and likely actions of participants. Each party has an aspiration point or the best realistically attainable outcome of the negotiation. The reservation point is the most substantial concession they are willing to make. Taken together, the reservation points of all parties define the boundaries of the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) in a negotiation. The best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) denotes the most advantageous course of action that they can pursue if the talks fail. All other things being equal, parties with good BATNAs will have more power than parties whose best alternatives are inferior. Any gains from bargaining during the negotiation are compared to the BATNA and referred to as the bargaining surplus. Those concepts can be applied to claims on quantifiable resources or attempts to raise status or build relationships with other parties. Defining the negotiator’s aspirations, reservations, and BATNAs, and estimating as far as possible those of the other interested parties, is a crucial part of preparing for negotiations.

Multi-party negotiations make it necessary to plot out possible coalitions to achieve desirable outcomes. The negotiator needs to figure out whose support is required to attain their goal. Some parties at the table may seem like natural allies, while others are likely blockers or neutrals that can be convinced. Understanding their motives and how to engage them is vital for creating an effective coalition. Since coalitions are seldom free from internal tensions, they require a sufficient basis, such as substantial common interests, to sustain them. A stable core coalition makes it possible to integrate new members and ensure a desirable outcome effectively.

Special care must be taken to review the issues on the table, keeping in mind the goals and interests of all participants. Since an integrative negotiation focuses on creating value, it would help to identify further issues that can be added to the agenda, and that might offer fruitful opportunities for cooperation between interested parties. The negotiator should also decide what items they and their allies can afford to compromise on to gain a better overall result through trade-offs. This deliberation would yield both a useful set of tools for the negotiation and a clear list of priorities that would inform tactics.

In cross-cultural negotiations, it is particularly important to watch out for possible cultural misunderstandings. The negotiator should research the cultural backgrounds of all participants in advance to avoid gaffes. Something that is considered polite or acceptable in one culture might be a severe breach of etiquette in another. Cultural barriers can go much deeper as well since cultures can also have very different customary approaches to hierarchies, communications, and relationships. If not accounted for, such differences can mislead even an experienced negotiator, both before and during negotiations.

Carrying Out Negotiations

Before negotiations commence, it may become necessary to put in additional effort to bring all of the parties whose participation is required to resolve the issues to the table. With appropriate use of strategic moves, even those who are reluctant to negotiate can be persuaded to do so. Making the benefits of cooperation and the downsides of the status quo visible is often the optimal course of action. Depending on the situation, the negotiator can augment it by appealing to emotion, establishing their credibility, and enlisting the support of other interested parties. By offering an unexpected angle, even a reluctant negotiator can be turned into a useful partner.

After ensuring that negotiations take place, the next concern is to make sure that they are integrative. Even when all parties agree to cooperate, there are multiple sources of tensions that need to be resolved. I have sometimes struggled with the use of aggressive, distributive negotiating tactics by other participants. Such challenges should be addressed immediately, both to improve the negotiator’s position and to demonstrate the integrative nature of the process. Identifying those tactics directly or deflecting them with alternative suggestions would allow the negotiator to gain control over the conversation. I have also encounter passive behavior that may speak to a lack of trust. That is also counterproductive; for integrative negotiations to succeed, trust must be fostered, and relevant information needs to be shared by all sides, even if it weakens their bargaining positions. By demonstrating empathy and trust and offering concessions from a position of power, reluctant participants can be drawn into the discussion, and viable angles of cooperation can be identified.

The integrative style calls for principled negotiations, which means not only adhering to basic rules of ethics such as honesty but also systematically putting the parties’ broader interests over specific issues and their relationships over immediate gains. Agreements should be acceptable and fair to all sides, practically and politically sustainable and implementable. One way of cultivating the trust necessary for success under this framework is to offer contingent contracts, in which parties agree to carry out certain actions only when specific conditions are met. Another useful tool is the post-settlement settlement, where the issues are revisited after an initial agreement has been secured. It can help identify other possible benefits after the psychological tensions have been defused by altering the participants’ BATNAs to the original settlement.

A host of unconscious factors can make all parties at the table act less rationally, such as ethnic, gender, and professional stereotypes, emotional triggers, and cognitive biases. Confronting stereotypes directly during negotiations may not always be viable. Still, the negotiator should be mindful of perceiving and being perceived through a stereotypical lens and can try to adjust them through positive cues. Emotional triggers can be defused by acknowledging them directly and staying focused on the principles of negotiation. Cognitive biases can include the sunk-cost fallacy (refusing to cut losses), the availability heuristic (privileging available information), confirming evidence bias (seeking to confirm hypotheses), and biases created by initial framing of negotiations. Anchoring is an example of the latter, in which the initial proposal frames subsequent expectations, making subsequent negotiations revolve around it. Such biases can be controlled by being aware of them and focusing on previously established targets and priorities rather than immediate impulses. If there is an opportunity, it can be wise to consult with extraneous advisors who are under less pressure about possible errors in negotiations.

To sum up, negotiations can pose many obstacles, but they can be dealt with by acknowledging influencing factors, focusing on principles and priorities, and carrying out the necessary preparations. The goal of a negotiation is not a quick agreement, but one that is viable and beneficial. When using the integrative style, it is even more important to emphasize long-term interests and relationships over short-term gains. With the appropriate strategies and tactics, it is possible to efficiently carry out complex negotiations and obtain lasting and mutually beneficial results.

Introduction

There are two main negotiation strategies that organizations can use in their negotiation processes, for example when hiring employees. These include distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining. From the scenario, the most appropriate negotiation strategy for Jim to use in the negotiation process for the new job is integrative bargaining. This is because integrative bargaining results in the attainment of a satisfactory outcome. According to Singh (2010, p. 317), integrative bargaining is aimed at developing a win-win situation.

In this situation, Jim has an interest in being employed in the firm for several reasons. For example, the firm will present a learning opportunity on the best practices about accounting. In his job application, Jim expects the firm to increase his salary to $ 60, 000 to enable him to complete his MBA and CPA programs. This indicates that Jim’s negotiation is skewed towards the attainment of his career objectives.

On the other hand, Sharon who is conducting the negotiations on behalf of the firm should adopt distributive negotiation. Despite the expertise, experience, and credentials Jim, the firm is facing a resource constraint about finances. The firm has fixed the salary to employees at $50,000 which is inclusive of the benefits. For the negotiations to be successful, the two parties should establish a point of concurrence to create value for each other.

Factors to consider in determining the salary for new hires

There are several factors that the accounting supervisor and her manager will consider in determining the salary to be offered to Jim as a new hire. Some of the factors relate to Jim’s experiences, knowledge, skills, and abilities in his accounting profession. Additionally, they will also consider the firm’s financial stability. Currently, the firm is experiencing a budget constraint as a result of a reduction in its client base.

If the firm is not able to meet Jim’s salary demands, the firm should formulate strategies to entice Jim. One of the strategies that the firm should consider is the incorporation of a work-life balance strategy to enable Jim to complete his MBA and CPA programs. Additionally, the firm can also consider developing a training program that will contribute towards Jim attaining his career objectives as an accountant. Jim intends to be a professional accountant while the supervisor’s interested in developing a high competitive advantage by developing a strong human capital that will contribute towards the firm increasing its client base.

HR interests

The human resource director’s interest in this scenario is for the Accounting Supervisor to be successful in hiring and retaining the firm’s accountants. This will contribute towards the development of the firm’s human resource base hence improving its effectiveness and efficiency in serving its clients. Additionally, HR desires that the supervisor will be successful in hiring Jim without stretching its financial constraints further. If the firm has to hire Jim to attain a competitive advantage in human capital, the HR Director and the accounting manager should adopt an integrative negotiation strategy. This arises from the fact that the negotiation will contribute towards the two parties benefiting.

Negotiation outcomes

There are three main possible outcomes of this scenario.

Supervisor and Job Applicant

A win-lose outcome is likely between the supervisor and the job applicant. This outcome will result from the remuneration constraints for each party. The supervisors are required to stick to the firm’s budget for hiring. On the other hand, the job applicant is demanding higher pay and is not likely to give in.

Supervisor and Accounting Manager

A win-win outcome is likely between the supervisor and the accounting manager. This is because the two parties are constrained by two critical factors which include the need to fill the vacant position and the need to operate within the financial limits.

Accounting Manager and Human Resources

A win-win outcome is likely between these parties. This arises from the fact that they have to fill the position despite the constraints.

Reference

Singh, K. (2010). Organisational behaviour; text and cases. Chandigarh: Pearson.

Role in Negotiations

My role as a negotiator in this job offer negotiation is to understand and satisfy the interests of the recruit – Leslie, and the company at which I am working. Accordingly, in order for the interests to be satisfied, they should be brought to the table and acknowledged by both parties. My interests in this negotiation were in making a contribution to the annual bonus for hiring perspective recruits, who will at the same time maximize the benefits for the corporation, due academic achievements. Leslie’s interests can be seen through working in the R& D department of the company and potential enrolment in PP supported PhD scholarship program.

Goals/Strategies/Tactics

The goal of the negotiation is to find a way to bring Leslie on board, while being consistent with Purezza Pharmaceuticals (PP) precedent and policy. The main strategies that will be used in an integrative strategy will be to emphasize win-win situations. In that regard, the strategies that might be used might be seen through taking the perspective of the applicant, identifying interests and priorities, expressing interests and priorities, identifying several issues to discuss, rather than focusing only on a single issue, offering package deals, and logrolling. Other tactics can be seen through cutting the costs, expanding the pie, bridging solution, and non-specific compensation.

The issues that can be identified in the process include the following:

• The starting salary.
• The starting title.
• Scholarship support.
• The signing bonus.
• The start date.

Two important tactics that can be used in negotiation are package offers and logrolling. For the package offer, the main emphasize will be in providing.

For logrolling, I will try to concede on low priority issues in exchange for issues that are of high priority for the company. The issues that can be conceded might include scholarship, as a low priority issue, versus, for example giving up the European trip. The interview should indicate the high priority and low priority for Leslie, while at the same the flow of the interview shall indicate the distribution of the priority for the company. One of the advantages of logrolling is that opening offers with it is stated to be leading to more integrative agreements (MORAN and RITOV, 2002). Such advantage can be seen in that “logrolling initial offers result in higher combined profits for the two parties, and higher effectiveness (higher valued counter-offer from the initiator’s perspective) than distributive offers” (MORAN and RITOV, 2002). Despite such advantages, there are no social message conveyed in the logrolling and thus, open flow of the conversation and the types of question might be used to build trust with Leslie.

For package offers, such strategy implies making multiple offers simultaneously. In that regard, such strategy will complement logrolling, where the high priority and low priority issues reached can be offered at different packages. With the increase of number of issue negotiated simultaneously, better agreements can be reached by negotiators (Lewicki et al., 2010). Both strategies can be implemented at the same time, along with other strategies such as emphasizing commonalities, and expressing interests and priorities to Leslie.

BATNA

BATNA in this negotiation can be seen through other candidates, in case Leslie does not elect to join PP. Such alternative is acceptable, with its own strengths and weaknesses. The strengths can be seen through the fact that the company might settle to more modest conditions for other candidates. At the same time, the company will not have to change its recruitment policies, make exceptions, or set precedents in terms of starting salaries, bonuses, and/or starting time. The main weakness, however, can be seen through Leslie’s credentials, which make him the preferred candidate for the position. Relying on other alternatives will mean that the company will lose Leslie, as a candidate with very high potential in the scientific side.

Alternatives

In addition to the alternatives of logrolling and integrated packages, other alternatives might be considered as well. One alternative is cutting the cost for compliance for Leslie. The costs that can be cut for Leslie might include promising Leslie a transfer to the R7D department in the future. Another option can be seen through expanding the pie, which is adding more resources and more uses for those resources, e.g. additional $5000 as a starting salary and/or guaranteed 10% percent first year’s bonus.

Unfolding the Interview

• Building trust – discuss the relationship with Leslie in the past
• Express concerns with Leslie’s welfare
• Show interest in recruiting
• Emphasize common interests
• Diagnostic questions –Ask about expectations
• Career progression
• Priorities in career
• Mutual issues
• Differing issues
• Providing information –the nature of the job
• The benefits
• The advantages offered in the long-term
• The offer – Multiple offers at the same time
• Offers in packages
• Trading issues (e.g. bonus for shifting start date)

References

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B. & Saunders, D. M. 2010. Negotiation, Boston, McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Moran, S. & Ritov, I. 2002. Initial Perceptions in Negotiations: Evaluation and Response to ‘Logrolling’ Offers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 101-124.

Peter Barron Stark & Associates. 2000. Negotiating Win/Win Deals .

Valle, T. 2006. Using Integrated Employment Negotiations to Achieve Long-Term Employment Relationships. Web.

Part of the assessment criteria for Interpersonal and Organisation Negotiation was a group analysis of a case study, which required intense discussions. As per instructions, we formed a group of four members consisting of the following individuals: Vicky Phan, Tom Tchung Tu Lay, Sultan Alanazi and Risto Jon Angeloski. A suggestion was raised that we select someone to head the group but after careful deliberation, we came to the agreement that being a small team, all members should be regarded as equals and as such there was no point in appointing a group leader.

Overall as a group, we worked fine and the cohesion among members was superb. We did not hold regular meetings but we made creditable steps every single time we met. Most of these meetings were brief discussions that we mostly held after class. The primary reason as to why we could not find better times to sit as a group was that all the group members had previous work commitments and because of the disparity in the units we take, we all had different class schedules.

However, we were under regular communication with each other via e-mail, text messages and phone calls; media through which we were able to comfortably share tasks and ideas. At one point we had to engage in group chats over the internet, an experience that helped us exposed us to creative methods of using available technology in the attainment of educational objectives.

After initial discussions, the group decided that the best way to tackle this assignment was that every group member prepare a draft of the entire assignment. The reason for this was that it would have been extremely difficult to divide the work evenly based on the complexity of the topic question. The method that we chose also ensured that each member had an idea of the other members’ thought patterns as well as the compounding effect of enabling all of us to generate a concrete understanding of the subject matter. This was a factor that immensely increased our combined group knowledge and intelligence.

After preparing the drafts, we then sat down and each member presented his/her findings. We then actively debated the presentations while pointing out the shortfalls and even adding more information to drafts that did not sufficiently exhaust certain points. We also had to select a method for how the information would be collated. As a group, we decided that one person should combine all the work completed by individual members and prepare a final draft, with group members volunteering to complete areas of the assignment where more in-depth information was needed.

The core factor that united us as a team was that all decisions were made with every group member present. Each member was given a chance to air his/her views and no meeting was closed without each member satisfactorily voicing his/her concerns. At no point were decisions made without the consent of each and every group member. The members were all open-minded and whenever contention arose we discussed the possible options and arrived at the best possible option. We came to the agreement that the final draft of the assignment had to be complete and ready for presentation to the assessment panel by a certain date and time, and we all applied ourselves fully to see the realization of this objective.

Negotiation for a contract is an extremely involving process, which demands substantive knowledge and experience. The preparation process plays a critical role towards the success or failure of winning a contract. Under the preparation process, a negotiator, who is the supervisor of the whole activity, takes into consideration the starting point of planning, source of information, time management planning and essential sources of power. By trying to answer these questions, a negotiator enhances the possibility of undertaking a successful contract negotiation. Adequately planning and preparing for a contract improve the winning chances of a negotiation process.

The initial stage of planning and preparation for a contract involves deciding on the planning. This involves the process of brainstorming to find out the needs of the contract, compromise to be taken into account and the schedule by the team members. After analysing these significant elements of a contract, the team members will then determine and understand the objectives of the contract. In addition, an outline of the main and minor objectives will be clearly listed. The Identification of the main and minor components of the contract enables the team to come up with a definitive and defensive position during negotiation (Raiffa, 1982). Adequately covering the components of the contract gives the negotiating team humble time to identify the expectations and demands of the contracting team. The evaluation and measurement of these facts contributes significantly to the negotiation process, as the negotiator will have confidence in presenting the terms and conditions of the organization. Additionally, the negotiator will have a deeper insight to reflect, formulate, and streamline any issue that might not have been mention in the contract.

The acquisition of relevant and essential information for the contract is critical to the success of the negotiation process. A negotiator should identify the possible sources of relevant information that gives sufficient data and facts. The necessary information is obtained from thorough research on similar experiences and earlier documented contract processes. Acquiring this information imparts the negotiator with tangible facts and data that give him or her detailed contents of the contract to be negotiated. Data and facts can be obtained from several sources, which include educational books, journals, magazines, reports, and any other relevant materials (Sist, 1984). To supplement the information obtained, it is vital to have skills and experience in the contracting process in order to boost the chances of winning contracts.

Another element that is critical in the preparation of the contracting process is time management. Proper time utilisation in tackling critical and crucial matters of the contract promotes the chance of establishing sound and reasonable agreements (Guth, 2008). On this perspective, it is necessary to look into matters relating to the time devoted to contract planning, identification of the demands of the contract, and search of information.

At the end of the planning and preparation of a contracting process, it is sufficiently vital to highlight the sources of power that gives the team better chances over its competitors. This refers to the abilities that will influence the outcome by use of logic and validity or legitimacy of a position without forcing any action (Marsh, 1990). There exist numerous sources of power. These include persistence, competition, expertise, legitimacy, involvement and the right attitude. The ability to acquire these skills prior to and portraying them at the time of the contracting process will contribute enormously towards successful negotiations. Similarly, a negotiator can present the demands of the organisation and guide the whole group involved in the negotiation in an objective and impartial manner. The stimulation and involvement of every person involved in the negotiation process gives a sense of appreciation and importance to the participants.

From experience that I gained while undertaking a negotiation process involving a contract to supply foodstuff to a college, I noted that adequate planning and preparation for a contract procedure is rewarding. It gives a negotiator robust and defensive grounds that meet the demands of the team overseeing the negotiation. At the same time, my negotiation skills played a significant role in my successful winning of the contract.

References

1. Guth, S. R. (2008). The contract negotiation handbook: an indispensable guide for contract professionals. Morrisville, N.C.: Lulu Press.
2. Marsh, P. D. (1990). Contract negotiation handbook (2. ed.). Aldershot: Gower.
3. Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
4. Sist, A. J. (1994). Understanding and avoiding the contract negotiation impasse. Monterey, Calif.: Naval Postgraduate School.

Introduction

This paper seeks to discuss the multi-party negotiations concerning the case of Rock and Roll Negotiator. In this case, the contracts of Bobby Singer and The Constituencies with Rock and Roll Label expire this year. To gain strength, the two clients need to have agents, and Agentville and Agentopoly have been contracted. In any multi-party negotiation, the negotiators will go through three relevant stages before making a contract. The first section of this paper will discuss the three steps of multi-party negotiation: pre-negotiation, formal negotiation, and agreement stage. The following section will explore the different strategies applicable in multi-party negotiation with a major focus on the win-win strategy. Finally, the paper will establish the role of coalitions in multi-party negotiations.

Pre-Negotiation, Formal –Negotiation, and Agreement Stage

The first stage for any multi-party negotiation is the pre-negotiation stage, which comprises of two levels- assessment and preparation. Assessment involves establishing whether the conditions are ripe for negotiations. Under the assessment stage, the person in charge seeks to know whether to proceed with the negotiations or not. If the conditions are conducive for the negotiations, then the assessment stage will be responsible for laying the groundwork for deciding how to proceed with the collaborative process. Here, the role of the negotiator is to ensure that the party does not feel uncompetitive for the process. In regards to the above case, the agents must portray their clients- Singer and Constituencies very competitive for a new contract. In this case, the early stages of the negotiation process should have terms that will see Singer’s money increase by 15%. The agents will have the duty of asking questions regarding their clients’ interests and alternatives, providing background information on the matter, and finally gauging the potential for the agreement. On the other hand, preparation involves the acquisition of necessary knowledge, skills, and resources to allow the relevant party to negotiate on an equal footing with each other. Preparation is an essential step in the pre-negotiation stage, as each participant needs to equip himself with relevant information before deciding to enter the negotiation process (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2010).

Formal Negotiation comes after the pre-negotiation stage, and it will involve the broader principles of negotiation. These will comprise matters that will be responsible for the beginning of the negotiation process and the appropriate style or method of negotiation. The formal part of the negotiation will also involve the creation of the rules and guidelines of the participants. At this stage, R n R will negotiate the terms of the two artists and the agents will look out for the R n R reactions to these terms. In the event of a coalition, there will be similar terms and conditions in the formal agreement, which will cover the common interests of all individuals. Finally, we have the agreement stage of multiparty negotiation that will see the sealing of the deal. The agreement stage calls for the creation of drafts for the agreed terms and conditions and then handing it out to the clients. Once the clients approve the contents of the draft, the deal will be sealed, and the concerned parties will have a contract. In the event, the clients are not contented with the terms and conditions then it will call for a new negotiation process because R n R in this case stands to lose their most profitable clients- Singer and Constituencies (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2010).

Strategies Used to Manage Negotiations

Negotiation strategy calls for a strategy that will see both Singer and The Constituencies achieve their goals and sign new contracts with R n R. The first useful strategy is building the negotiation strategy that brings together all the clients- Singer and Constituencies to fight for one goal. The focus of this strategy is to win, and it will involve planning and implementing. This strategy also has bottom lines and targets which if not met then will call off the whole negotiation process. The win-win strategy evaluates the negotiation outcome and in the event, it does not seem achievable, then there will be no deal. Advanced negotiation strategy seeks to find a mutual ground for the two parties that will see that they both gain from the contract. The agents will seek to unify the needs of their clients to have a common goal. This strategy equally employs planning and implementation steps that will be through a negotiation team- the agents. In this case, for the contract to be lucrative there will be incentives offered by the relevant parties while at the same time managing agent’s ethics. A replication with principals and agents will lead to a successful deal and hence the signing of the contract. On the other hand, we have a cross-cultural negotiations strategy. Cultures affect negotiation contexts and the negotiator’s interests and strategies. In this strategy, proper communication and confrontation of inter cultures will ensure the client’s needs are met, and the contracts become efficient. In most cases, a win-win strategy is applicable in most contracts because this leads to both or more parties benefitting their clients. More so, a win-win strategy helps the parties to stick together to meet the clients’ needs and demands (Guasco & Robinson, 2007).

Role of Coalitions in Negotiations

Coalition refers to the coming together of individuals and groups intending to attain a similar goal in the contract. The above case of Bobby and The Constituencies saw the coming together of their Agents to increase their negotiating power. Coalitions are responsible for increasing the power of the negotiators, and the coming together of participants in multi-party negotiations increases pressure on the other party- R n R Label. This pressure in turn leads to better deals from the negotiation process such as the two artists getting their money increases. When several parties come together in any negotiation process, then coalitions will ensure that there is adherence to the terms and conditions that will be beneficial to the parties. Another important role of coalitions in negotiations is to increase their power. When two or more groups or individuals come together in pursuit of a given goal, then they will have more power to make negotiations for the contracts. Coalitions bring people together with different individual differences that also increase the bargaining power in the negotiation process.

Negotiation is a social encounter that makes use of cognition, perception, and emotion. For this reason, coalitions will help increase the perceptions and cognition of the individual participants. Negotiators approach different negotiation processes with different perceptions and, therefore, when two or more individuals or groups come together, then their perception will be high. On the other hand, coalitions help minimize emotions in negotiations. Dealing with similar situations with others, several people helps individuals to have little or no emotions that come with the negotiation process.

Conclusion

Following the above stages of negotiation will ensure that Singer and Constituencies sign new contracts with R n R Label. Multi-party negotiation is a demanding process that requires several inputs from the participants. For an effective and successful process, multi-party negotiations will have to go through the three stages of pre-negotiation, formal negotiations, and agreement. In addition, the win-win strategy is effective in reaching a beneficial agreement between the negotiators. The aspect of coalitions can also play a significant role in achieving the agreements in multi-party negotiations.

References

1. Guasco, M. P., & Robinson, P. R. (2007). Principles of negotiation: strategies, tactics, techniques to reach agreements. Irvine: Entrepreneur Press.
2. Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2010). Negotiation (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
3. Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2010). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Negotiations play a decisive role in the life of any person living in a society as long as the interaction between people involves communicative means. Moreover, the trends of globalization that impact economy, politics, trade, business, labor, and many more spheres particularly affect negotiations or bargaining to achieve agreement between parties. The choice of strategies and appropriate techniques commonly depends on the time, power, and information and the context and participants of the bargaining process (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). Therefore, this paper aims to explore negotiation strategies and techniques to assert that the variety of negotiation approaches allows for meeting different bargaining goals depending on agents’ interests.

Importance of Negotiations and Strategy Choice

The bargaining process has proven to be an omnipresent attribute of the everyday life of both the private and professional lives of people. The achievement of agreement over household decisions commonly involves similar communicational tactics as labor-related issues (Fisher et al., 1991). The relevance of negotiations to the sphere of labor and management is validated by the continuous emergence of problems and questions related to the quality of workplace conditions, wages, workers’ safety, development, and other pivotal issues. Qualitative and goal-oriented interactions between employees and employers are inherent in adequate well-structured negotiation of fundamental problems that play a decisive role in the prolonged cooperation of the parties on mutually beneficial terms (Huang et al., 2017). Thus, the ability to engage in the bargaining process on terms that allow for presenting one’s requirements and interests constitutes the essence of a democratic workplace setting.

Although the interaction between employers and employees is commonly regulated by labor law, the processes related to negotiation are not strictly defined since parties might select any strategy or tactics they consider relevant in a particular situation. At the same time, “National Labor Relations Act requires that the parties bargain in good faith,” which is why the agents of the negotiation process must meet at a bargain table (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013, p. 172). Moreover, this regulation “provides that neither party has to agree to any particular proposal as long as it continues to bargain in good faith” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013, p. 172). In such a manner, the negotiation process is defined and imposed by boundaries and general principles; however, there are several strategic options for parties to consider depending on their goals, interests, and resources.

The choice of a negotiation strategy depends on the timing, information, and power as essential elements; it is also predetermined by the context in which the negotiations are undertaken. According to Carrell and Heavrin (2013), information, time, and power are essential elements of negotiations. Firstly, the information factor “shapes individuals’ assessment of reality, their negotiation strategy, and their expectations of what can be achieved, and thus the outcome of a negotiation” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013, p. 168). Since the exchange of information is the core of bargaining, its quantity and quality defines the type of strategy used by the parties. Commonly, the integration of information into the bargaining process involves the evaluation of BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement) and ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement) (Sebenius, 2017; Yao et al., 2020). Secondly, the time factor involves deadlines and timing frames for both sides, within which decisions should be made, which triggers the choice of a certain strategy. Thirdly, power distribution sets the leverage opportunities for the bargaining sides; it predetermines whose interest might be dominating within BATNA (Sebenius, 2017). Thus, these elements determine whether distributive or integrative negotiation strategy applies.

Negotiation Strategies

Indeed, among negotiation strategies addressed by negotiation theory, distributive and integrative approaches are the two dominating ones. Both types require the parties to follow ethical rules in negotiations, namely ethics of purpose, ethics of principle, and ethics of consequence (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013). Abiding by the ethical principles, the sides devote to bargaining in good faith, and mutually beneficial outcomes are possible to be achieved. As Fisher et al. (1991) state, this principle might be called a win-win strategy through getting to yes. In other words, regardless of strategy and techniques pertaining to that strategy, the outcome pursued by skilled negotiators should be based on mutual gains.

Distributive Negotiations: Strategy and Techniques

The first negotiation strategy is referred to as distributive negotiation and deals with the bargaining over a single issue. According to Carrell and Heavrin (2013), distributive bargaining is a “negotiation method in which two parties strive to divide a fixed pool of resources, such as money, each trying to maximize its share of the distribution” (p. 173). It is often called a fixed-sum or zero-sum process since the participants share a finite quantity or amount of resource where “the other party loses the amount gained by one party” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013, p. 173). Since it might be challenging to achieve a win-win situation under the procedures of distributive negotiations, the parties use specific techniques and tactics to pursue their goals (Schaerer et al., 2020). Five essential elements of distributive negotiations are commonly apparent in the zero-sum bargaining process.

Firstly, the identification of a target point is essential at the beginning of the negotiation when a negotiator defines the terms on which he or she would be ready to end the bargaining. Secondly, a resistance point or a bottom line is “a maximum or minimum beyond which the negotiator will not accept a proposal” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013, p. 174). Thirdly, an initial offer is a starting point of negotiation when a party makes an offer. Fourthly, a settlement range or ZOPA identification allows for showing the acceptable range within which an offer might be accepted (Yao et al., 2020). As for techniques, an anchoring technique might be applied at this point to fix an initial offer and ZOPA. Finally, to achieve the settlement point, parties might apply the technique of bracketing, which is “the process of moving toward a middle point between the opening offers (or brackets), which is the logical bargaining process” (Carrell & Heavrin, 2013, p. 177). Thus, upon eliminating the alternatives outside both parties’ ZOPA, an agreement might be achieved.

Integrative Negotiations: Strategy and Techniques

An integrative negotiation strategy embodies a different principle due to the involvement of multiple and more complex issues; therefore, different techniques apply. According to Carrell and Heavrin (2013), integrative negotiation strategy “involves making concessions to reach an agreement, but in addition, it involves searching for mutually profitable options and logical trade-offs” (p. 186). However, since this strategy applies to cases when the issues under negotiation are not fixed, as in distributive bargaining, more creative, win-win solutions might be achieved. This approach is characterized by significant complexity since it is challenging for negotiators to “make required trade-offs to attain optimum results due to restricted information processing capacity and capability, cognitive biases, and social-emotional difficulties” (Park, 2019, p. 2). Therefore, specific techniques are required to identify both parties’ desired outcomes.

The process of integrating negotiators’ interests into the final agreement depends on the accuracy of the articulation of their goals. The most effective techniques applicable to this strategy are addressed by Fisher et al. (1991) with their four principles of getting to a win-win agreement. Firstly, the authors propose parties unveil their sincere interests instead of claiming their positions. In such a manner, more options for creative solutions might be identified. Secondly, by separating people from issues, negotiators will be able to eliminate the emotional and interpersonal relationship element and concentrate solely on the matters at the center of negotiation (Fisher et al., 1991). Thirdly, a technique of inventing options for mutual gain is based on the previous aspects and allows for achieving win-win agreement even in the most challenging situations. Finally, insisting on using objective criteria will allow for effective managing of conflicting positions and interests by fixing commonly acknowledged metrics (Fisher et al., 1991). Thus, these techniques or principles allow for achieving agreement in integrative negotiations providing both parties with means for establishing their interests and goals.

Conclusion

In summary, negotiation strategies and techniques provide negotiators with a choice of means for achieving agreement. While some negotiations might be simple in their nature and tasks, involve a small number of agents, and pertain to insufficient consequences, others might relate to strategically important issues. Similarly, labor and management are particularly dependent on negotiations since issues of collective decision-making are resolved by parties’ communication. Therefore, different strategic approaches and techniques of negotiation help to achieve an agreement that would satisfy the interests of all sides. Distributive and integrative negotiation strategies constitute two main approaches with distributive applied to single-issue bargaining and integrative method pertaining to complex or multiple issues. The application of specific techniques plays an essential role in satisfying negotiator’s interests as outcomes of bargaining.

References

Carrell, M. R., & Heavrin, C. (2013). Labor relations and collective bargaining: Private and public sectors (10^th ed.). Pearson.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to YES: Negotiating an agreement without giving in (2^nd ed.). Random House Business Books.

Huang, Q., Jiang, F., Lie, E., & Que, T. (2017). The effect of labor unions on CEO compensation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52(2), 553-582.

Park, J., Rahman, H. A., Suh, J., & Hussin, H. (2019). A study of integrative bargaining model with argumentation-based negotiation. Sustainability, 11(23), 1-21.

Schaerer, M., Schweinsberg, M., Thornley, N., & Swaab, R. I. (2020). Win-win in distributive negotiations: The economic and relational benefits of strategic offer framing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 87, 103943.

Sebenius, J. K. (2017). BATNA s in Negotiation: Common errors and three kinds of “no.” Negotiation Journal, 33(2), 89-99.

Yao, J., Zhang, Z., & Liu, L. A. (2020). When there is no ZOPA: Mental fatigue, integrative complexity, and creative agreement in negotiations.Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. Web.

Introduction

Negotiation is a managerial role applied to problems when a solution is not readably available. It is used by those in a management position where tasks need to be accomplished.

This includes working with suppliers, distributors, labor unions, or employees to solve disputes.

The goal of negotiation is a long-term solution. Negotiation can be used as a resource tool during contract talks between unions and corporations. Managerial skills can include:

“The ability to act in a way that allows a person to perform well in their Role.” (George, p15)

Main body

Negotiating is most often used when group-level conflict occurs, such as labor union disputes. Different sides will meet to make offers and counteroffers to solve the dispute. A third-party negotiator is employed to oversee the argument, but often disputes are settled between groups without a third party.

The third-party negotiator is a skilled outsider who facilitates the bargaining process (George, p635). The third-party negotiator often is referred to as the mediator who takes a third-party neutral position. If all else fails, an arbiter may step in and act as a judge and “impose a solution” (George, p635). The goal of negotiating is to come to a “good agreement” (Northcraft, p193).

Often the parties involved will come to a mutual agreement. This is when both parties don’t get what they want but come to a mutual understanding (compromise) where each party gets some of what they asked for.

Negotiators need to be comfortable with what they will settle for during negotiations. This is called a BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and may contain their reservation price (Northcraft, p193).

There are five common strategies: Competing, avoiding, collaborating, accommodating, and compromising. Competing refers to going into a negotiation to come out the winner.

Collaborating can be used along with the competing strategy. This strategy involves looking at the concerns of both parties and coming to a solution. The accommodating style includes giving in to the other party’s desires. Avoiding refers to not addressing the goals of the other party. And finally, compromising refers to “splitting the distance” (Northcraft, p192).

Splitting the difference refers to a quick solution to the problem at hand. An excellent example of compromising is the simple dilemma of two children wanting the last piece of the pie. The fairest solution would be that one child cuts the pie and the other chooses which pie he wants (a compromise) (Northcraft, p192).

The negotiating strategy used most often is the distributive strategy. This strategy is best used when the parties divide up the resources available. It is commonly used to allocate a fixed amount of resources (Northcraft, p695).

Another negotiating strategy is referred to as integrative bargaining. This strategy assumes that the pot has unlimited resources for the parties to separate (Northcraft, p194).

At this time in history, we see many businesses going out of business. Large corporations are no less affected by the current economic troubles. For those companies involved, some companies must deal with negotiation. The Unions are interested in maintaining an income for the employees that would be considered a working wage that they can use to maintain a standard of living they are accustomed to.

Negotiation is a valuable tool used to present both sides’ points of view.

The negotiator can be from within the company or union or an unbiased third party (an outsider).

Negotiators are experienced and assist companies and laborers. Negotiators help both sides table their agreements and disagreements.

Strategies used by negotiators and arbiters include competing, avoiding, collaborating, accommodating, and compromising. There are times when negotiations break down, and a third party comes in and acts as a judge. This is the judge. This judge will listen to both sides of the dispute and makes a judgment that both parties must abide by. Arbiters are often employed when both parties have reached a stalemate.

Conclusion

BATNA refers to the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. Therefore, negotiators from both sides need to decide beforehand what they would settle for.

Again, both parties may not walk away from the bargaining table with all they wanted.

Works Cited

George, Jennifer M. and Gareth Jones Organizational Behavior, 2002. Pearson Education, Inc. Prentice Hall Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458.

Northcraft, Gregory B. and Margaret Neale.

Organizational Behavior, 1994. The Dryden Press, Harcourt Brace College Publishers.