The need for effective negotiation skills is pervasive in virtually every field of human endeavor. Without understanding both parties’ BATNA, having high aspirations, and applying other vital components of effective negotiation, it is impossible to achieve superior bargaining results. Given that an individual’s negotiation skills are often exhibited in multiple ways in a single day, the deployment of such skills is essential in both work and non-work experiences. This paper aims to outline a real-world negotiation experience in which I had to lower my friend’s professional wedding photography bill.
Negotiation
A friend of mine, Gloria, asked me to help with her wedding set-up. Among other duties, I had to negotiate with a professional photographer and videographer, Kim, to provide Gloria with a discount. I knew that professional-grade wedding photographs are expensive; therefore, not willing to compromise the quality of precious memories I decided to spend a substantial amount of time on planning and preparation. To this end, I studied the photographer’s website to understand how he may approach the negotiation. The information provided on the website revealed that Kim is a competitive person who is open to dialogue. As part of my planning, I also considered the following negotiation concepts: resistance point, aspiration level, BATNA, anchor, and objective rationales. After thorough research on the current state of the wedding photography market, I discovered that the services of professional photographers cost $1, 600 on average. To assess my BATNA, I listed and evaluated my alternatives.
Gloria’s fiancé is an active military member; therefore, I knew that if I had to walk away from the negotiation, the couple could count on a 5 percent military discount from some professional wedding photographers. Also, I knew that I had strong leverage in the negotiation because many competitors can provide the couple with similar services. However, Gloria insisted on me securing the best possible price because she liked Kim’s work and wanted him to be her wedding photographer. I realized that this piece of information should not be revealed to him because the man could take advantage of a weak BATNA and push me to my resistance point. As for the resistant point, it was discussed with Gloria and was set at $1, 800. I knew that this line of value should not be revealed to the photographer who could have used it to close the deal at that point. Before the negation, I decided to set an aspiration point that would counteract the other party’s resistance point. I did not want to set an aspiration point unrealistically low, so it was set at $1, 500.
I knew that anchoring could be extremely effective at the bargaining table; therefore, upon entering the negotiation, Kim was presented with a proposal, which was lower than my aspiration point—$1, 400. The photographer refused my offer and retorted that clients who ask for a discount do not value his work. I responded that I valued his time and expertise and only asked for a discount because I knew that he would benefit from shooting the couple. After all, they had an unconventional wedding. I let Kim know that he could use unique images from a cave wedding for building an exceptional portfolio. After negotiating for a while we settled on a satisfactory amount of $1, 500. The key lesson I learned from the negotiation experience is that one should not be afraid to aim for even extremely optimistic aspirations at the bargaining table. Another important lesson is that it is impossible to become a successful negotiator without thorough preparation and planning.
Conclusion
The real-world negotiation experience provided me with valuable insights into the art of making mutually satisfying agreements.
South Asians were the first Asian immigrants to arrive in the United States of America in the 19th century after the discovery of gold in California. The term ‘South Asians’ is a hybrid identity of the current Asian immigrants from the seven Asian countries that include Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
The termis used to bring a diverse population into a common pool of people who share identity through common economic and political history. South Asians got into the United States as a minority people vulnerable to oppressions from the locals based on their race, sexuality, origin, religion, and economic weaknesses. However, over the centuries, the group has gradually resisted oppression to become one of the contemporarymost powerful minority groups in the United States and other western countries.
In addition, it has resisted the hybrid identity to demand individual identity all over the western countries, but mostly in the United States and the United Kingdom. Some scholars argue that South Asian Americans garnered their identity as they resisted economic problems, but this paper holds that inferiority complex fueled the multiple levels of negotiations and resistance of these immigrants to oppression in the United States.
The multiple levels of negotiations and resistance
After their emigration to the West in the 19th century, South Asians were vulnerable to oppression from the locals due to their economic weaknesses and general inferiority complex. South Asians viewed Western countries as land of opportunities, and thus a majority of elite people in the South Asian countries was attracted to the western nations as their countries already had economic downturns.
The emigration of South Asian Americans from their countries is viewed to have been a mass movement of people as western countries received many people who exceeded the demand for labor at the mines and construction sites in the century. In late 19th century, already there was a great population of South Asian Americans that exceeded the demand for labor in the US.
Hence, they felt inferior to the locals, which consequently rendered them submissive to oppression from the westerners. For instance, already many Chinese people had emigrated from China after the country experienced economic depression that rendered many people jobless, and they had already occupied areas where mining and railway constructions sites were located.
Upon their arrival in western economies, the majority of South Asians population was exposed to further economic problems in a foreign land. Hence, in a bid to overcome the economic problems, South Asians were left with no option rather than to seek jobs that locals had shunned, which included the servants’ jobs in the constructions sites, but a few secured vacancies in the railway construction and mining sites as menial workers.
Others started small businesses around the regions where they had occupied. As aforementioned, South Asians’ problems exposed them to oppression from the locals based onsocial, economic, and political status. Socially, Asians were viewed as illiterate as a majority could not access quality education as opposed to the local citizens who had better education. However, a few parents managed to enroll their children in schools where they were exposed to discrimination from their local peers on race, religious, and other social basis.
Hence, South Asians felt the firsthand discrimination experience right from childhood from their peers to adulthood whereby good jobs were reserved for locals and other races that were viewed as more superior to the immigrants (Gupta 143). These compounding elements heightened South Asians’ inferiority complex, and thus they could not accept hybrid identity, as they wanted to stick together without the influence of outsiders.
Religion and cultural values seemed to prompt the locals to discriminate South Asians in western countries. South Asians did not adopt the western cultures upon their immigration (Tarlo 82), but instead they retained their strong cultural values, which enabled them to settle in large numbers at a particular place.
This aspect cemented their resistance to hybrid identity, as they never mingled freely with other cultures. For instance, the Chinese had their own Chinese towns where they displayed their cultural heritage to people of other cultures.
Indians also settled in specific regions where they also practiced their culture and religious believes. The failure to adopt the western culture made them antisocial and locals often viewed them as unwelcoming people.However, South Asians did not accept defeat. On the contrary, they endeavored to fight for their human dignity and identity in the foreign land tirelessly from one generation to another. It was easier for the initial immigrants to suffer the stated oppression than to embrace hybrid identity.
South Asians are truly one of the minority groupings in the United States. Nevertheless, their resistance to adopt western values has made them one of the most powerful racial groups as well. The group mostly entailspeople whose origin is from South Asian countries, though a majority of them is bornin the United States of the third generation of the pioneer South Asian immigrants.
The rising of South Asian dignity has been gradual ever since the immigration of their ancestors in the 19th century during the gold rush and railway construction period. Their ancestors belonged to the demonized minority due to their weak economic and social status as compared to the locals.However, today, their descendants have proved to be the model minority in the land where their ancestors endured great pain of oppression.
In addition to retaining their values over generations, which have played a major role in empowering them, South Asians have become better as compared to people belonging to other races in the western economies and studies shows that they have improved their identity through entrepreneurship. South Asians have grown to be one of the leading entrepreneurs in their areas of settlement, and hence they have employed locals who once discriminated them (Bhavnani 189).
Hence, the locals became accommodative to the South Asians after realizing that they too benefited from what they had to offer. Today, South Asian youths form one of the most admired minority groups in academic institutions as they are perceived to be morally upright and they stick to their values as opposed to other groupings that have adopted modernized culture, hence eroding their morals and values in society. Therefore, South Asians have retained a higher dignity in society as compared to their counterparts.
However, there have been challenges amongst South Asian Americans minority groups where immigrants from certain South Asian countries face oppression from their counterparts. Initially, the term ‘South Asian’ was generally used to refer to immigrants from the seven southern Asian countries. Nowadays, the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese are also referred to as South Asian immigrants. This aspect has led to divisions of the group where religion and ethnic divisions have been used as a basis for segregation.
Some members often view themselves as more superior to their counterparts, hence oppressing the rest by making them feel weaker. Hence, the battle of supremacy led to the fighting for dignity by some members like Indians who felt left out of the group on an ethnic basis. Others like Bangladesh and Pakistan immigrants felt oppressed on religion basis. These divisions led to the redefinition of the term ‘South Asian’ in order to accommodate all minority groups that formed it by including all South Asian countries in the definition.
Conclusion
Although various ethnic divisions exist in the group, which form the ties that bind the groupas their divisions make them very radical and active in economic matters as they compete against each other. An immigrant American woman from Bangladesh wears Hijab, which makes her appear different from a Korean woman, but both are regarded as South Asian minorities.
Historically, economic and political factors have played a major role in empowering the South Asian Americans ever since their emigration to the US in the19th century when they found few job opportunities after which they had to find their own ways of gaining economic powers. Hence, their zeal to climb the economic ladder surpassed the locals who have lost values to modernization, while South Asians have stuck to theirs.
Therefore, inferiority complex contributed to the strengthened relationships amongst South Asians,as it was the only option to resist oppression and support each other as community, thus enabling them to achieve a common social and economic growth in the western countries. Ultimately, South Asians resisted hybrid identity and lined multiple levels of negotiations courtesy of their brimming inferiority complex in a foreign land more than political and economic factors could have contributed.
Works Cited
Bhavnani, Kum-Kum. “Organic Hybridity or Commodification of Hybridity? Comments on
International business has immensely been affected by culture, especially by the negotiation between cultures in the sense that it takes place among different nations. Businesses interact with cultures in their endeavor to achieve their objectives.
This relationship differs from culture to culture because every culture has a unique effect on the process of running business. Negotiation between cultures often determines the strategy and operation of business because cultures set the background of business operation (Rai & Neelankavil, 2009).
Business activities do not take place in a vacuum; in fact, the most flourishing business ought to be aware of alterations in the cultures along with societies where they operate. As society changes along with culture, commercial entities must adjust to survive, stay relevant and counter competition in the market. Therefore, it is obvious that businesses operate in societies which are governed by culture.
Culture determines how a society operates and has a wide impact on the operations of any business enterprise. Businesses must learn how to operate in the cultural contexts of their areas; yet these environments change making the businesses vulnerable to several challenges that can threaten their survival and operation.
To thrive and gain advantage over their competitors, businesses require adjusting to the cultural changes in societies and regions that they run in. Accordingly, business organizations have to shift from one cultural setting to another in their pursuit of the set business objectives.
Such a movement requires businesses to develop a technique through which they can operate in different cultures using different methods (Tuleja et al, 2008). This is referred to as negotiating with culture. Every business must negotiate with culture in order to successfully operate. Negotiating in a society which culture is consistently changing, businesses must adapt fast in order to compete in such an environment.
The second is the aspect of operating in different cultural setting where the businesses must negotiate with the different cultures. In all the spheres, negotiating with culture affects international business in a significant way, more particularly, through influencing the activities and mode of operation of the businesses in distinct cultural settings.
Owing to the fact that international business is all about operating beyond national boundaries, it is obvious that international companies should transverse numerous cultural settings in their endeavor to do business.
Negotiations between cultures involve an endeavor by organizations to run business within different cultural settings by taking cognizance of the underlying cultural parameters that influence how it is done and develops a mechanism of overcoming any obstacles involved. The issues influenced by cultural negotiations include marketing, advertisement, business strategy and communication (Mitchel, 2000).
These are the prime factors that determine the way a business operates in numerous cultural settings. Additionally, the tastes, needs and requirements of customers change from culture to culture making it possible for a business to properly understand culture in their places of operation.
Culture is of profound implication to the existence and operation of business organization and a clear appreciation of culture along with its underlying parameters which are crucial for the success of businesses operating in the international market.
Negotiation between cultures is a process through which businesses constructively interact with different cultures or the shifting nature of the same culture in the course of business activities. In essence, the way of negotiating with culture is different from one culture to another and has an immense influence on the process of conducting international business.
Reference List
Mitchel, C. (2000). A short course on international business culture. New York: World Trade Press.
Rai, A. & Neelankavil, J. (2009). Basics of international business. Washington: ME sharp.
Tuleja et al. (2008). Intercultural communication for business. Washington: Cengage Learning.
The ability to establish a productive dialogue between conflicting parties is a valuable practice applied in different environments, including political, social, and business areas. At the same time, creating conditions for discussing issues and problems affecting the interests of both parties depends on the chosen methods of negotiation. Approaches to the discussion and resolution of disputes may be based both on a rational and competent methodology of joint conflict resolution and on peremptory requirements that provide for an exceptionally one-sided benefit. These strategies are called integrative and distributive, respectively, and their specificity largely influences the outcomes of dialogues. I have happened to witness the negotiation process where two parties followed the same approach, and according to the results of the assessment, one can argue that a mutual agreement reached during the discussion is the result of both participants’ reasonable decisions.
Example of Negotiations
The relationships between the parties involved in conflicts of different levels develop in accordance with the methods and approaches used by the participants. Recently, I have witnessed the negotiations of my two neighbors who could not come to an agreement on the disputed land near their houses. Both men have sought to obtain this site into a personal property for quite a long period. I saw how they met on this territory and began to discuss all the conventions of further actions. It is essential to note that, despite their dispute, neither side resorted to rudeness or mutual insults. Conversely, the neighbors tired of the protracted conflict talked calmly, did not interrupt each other, and took the arguments with restraint. This course of negotiations is an example of an objective dispute resolution procedure through an integrative methodology.
Analysis of the Negotiation Process
The considered negotiation process between two neighbors is an example of an integrative strategy where participants discuss the possible ways of solving the problem together and focus on interests rather than personal opinions or positions. According to Brett and Thompson, this strategy “refers to behaviors negotiators use when they are focused on creating value and claiming value” (69). In relation to the case in question, both parties looked for win-win opportunities, which indicated their interest not only in personal gain but also the effective resolution of the dispute when where none of the participants would remain dissatisfied. Since the parties concerned did not show aggression, one can note that they valued each other’s needs and requests, which is proof of an integrative negotiation process.
Based on the outcomes of the discussion, the value was created and claimed, and later, I learned that as a result of the discussion, the parties managed to come to a mutually beneficial solution, and each of the neighbors could receive a separate part of the disputed territory. Although personal interests were affected and a potential benefit was obvious, the positions of the men were not a key tool in resolving the dispute. As a result, the integrative method has become an effective mechanism in the peaceful resolution of the issue and the establishment of good relations between the neighbors.
Conclusion
The integrative method of negotiation has become a successful way of resolving the conflict between the two neighbors. By taking into account each other’s interests and respecting individual positions, the discussion process was productive. Due to the use of objective criteria for decision-making, the stakeholders reached a mutual agreement regarding the disputed territory and were able to maintain a positive relationship without insults and humiliation.
Work Cited
Brett, Jeanne, and Leigh Thompson. “Negotiation.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 136, 2016, pp. 68-79.
Negotiations are very common, especially in the workplace. Employees and employers will always negotiate for various issues for the benefit of either of the parties. I am likely to be in a negotiation scenario where I will be negotiating for a salary increase with my employer in my future position as an employee.
The success of a negotiation highly depends on how well prepared the negotiating team will be. It is also important for the team to have negotiating skills. The parties should have in mind the goals they wish to accomplish before starting a negotiation (McIntyre, 2006). The parties should then create a relationship with the party they are to negotiate with. This paper discusses how a negotiating team should be assembled, as well as assembling information about the other side to conduct a successful negotiation.
Assembling a negotiating team
The first step towards conducting a successful negotiation is to put in place a team that has the right skills and ability to negotiate. Assembling a good team will reduce the number of errors that may be associated with the negotiation process. It is imperative to note that team negotiations are likely to be more successful and productive compared to individual negotiations since different members of the team will bring different ideas and strengths.
Therefore, the first thing the leaders should do is to assemble a negotiating team. The team should be diverse to ensure that different strengths are brought to the table. When planning to assemble a negotiating team, one should consider the kind of contract to be negotiated and then consider the different roles that need to be accomplished in the negotiation.
This way, it will be possible to embrace diversity in the team. Different team members with different fields of knowledge should be made aware of the roles they are to play in the negotiations. This is followed by the actual assembling of the team and letting each member be aware of the role they are supposed to play in the negotiation (Segel, 2009).
Gathering information about the other side
Once the negotiating team has been formed, they should start strategizing on how to negotiate (McIntyre, 2006). Gathering information about the other side should be the first step. This will increase the chances of succeeding in negotiation since one will have a better understanding of the other party, know what to expect and how to prepare for the negotiation.
It might be termed as a disaster going into a negotiation with no information about what the other side is likely to propose. For a government contract, most of the government information is available from various sources such as the internet, journals, gazettes, and individuals. In gathering such information, one has first to accept that they do not know and then take a step to ask questions to people who might know, but not the negotiation opponent.
Effective negotiating strategy
A strategy is very important since it guides the actions that will be taken. First, it is important to understand how issues are to be addressed in a negotiation and then identify any likely concessions (Segel, 2009). Then the negotiating tactics should be planned depending on the personality and the kind of contract to be negotiated.
In preparing the negotiating plan, first draft the plan; review it as a leader of the negotiating team before discussing it with the team. Communication among team members is very important. Each member should be aware of the role they are to play. This way, the team will be assured of winning a government contract negotiation.
References
McIntyre, L. G. (2006). Essentials for government contract negotiators. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.
Segel, K. R. (2009). The government subcontractor’s guide to terms and conditions. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.
Negotiations are a part of everyday life. They occur not only in business but also in ordinary everyday situations. Determining how well someone does on standing his or her ground can be a measure of success. Negotiating is a talent given by nature, yet it can be developed by following a set of rules. The elements of successful negotiation include the ability to share an idea and to get allies, the power position, timing, improvisation, language, and the ability to find a compromise.
Sharing Vision
Every negotiation starts with an idea. The principal similarity between the participants of dialogue is that they believe that their idea is better than the other one. The key idea is to make an opposing party believe that he or she was wrong, and other perceptions could work better. One of the most beneficial techniques is to share a vision of the problem. It could be useful to put oneself in the position of the other party. Understanding the opposite point of view would provide knowledge of what is important for other people (Siedel 9). When an opposing party sees all the benefits he or she could get from a proposed solution, it would be easier to accept this idea. Even if someone insists on the benefits of one idea, the task of negotiators is to not give up on the original perception. They have to stick to their idea while proving the other one is not as good.
Getting Allies
When a negotiation takes a form of a group discussion, it is extremely important to make at least some other people believe that the idea is worth accepting. Human psychology is created in a way that does not allow people to agree with proposed solutions if not many people are supporting it. People are social creatures, and the community’s opinion may influence their decisions. For instance, if an employee tries to convince a boss to optimize a process, he or she would need the support from a line manager and an accountant executive since they are able to prove that the measure could be financially productive.
Power
One of the most important elements that predicate the outcomes of a negotiation process is power (Mehta 40). Having an influence on other participants of dialogue creates a situation when they are not comfortable with opposing an offered solution. The level of power is not always matching the social or intra-organizational roles. During negotiations, it is usually dictated by the need. For instance, if a person is desperate to find a job, an employer can dictate the company’s position, making a candidate agree with terms he or she would never accept in another situation. Money usually matters when a dialogue is associated with the business. This resource, along with governmental ties, can be a measure of power. Ordinary people engage in arguments that often lack the financial side. Hiding the interest is one of the most important parts of the negotiation process.
Timing
The time resource proves to be important while determining the side who possesses the most power. The more time someone can spend on discussing terms, the less he or she is in need of changes. Thus, it would be harder to convince such a person to accept another point of view. Actions like arriving late also work towards this perception. People who do not rush to make a decision create an opinion that they do not require any changes to the existing state of things, and they would be rather sticking to the convenient plan.
Timing is also important for changing the point of view of other people. The longer a negotiation process goes, the harder it is to make any changes since people who are tired are not able to create any product ideas. When they realize that they cannot think critically about the problem anymore, they decide to refuse the acceptance of any proposed solutions. Thus, it is better to postpone a discussion until parties have the possibility to think about it again.
Language
Language is the most important tool in negotiating. Depending on how it is described, an idea may seem appealing or not. People who wish to prove their solution is accurate should use words that would make others believe in it. For instance, when trying to convince investors that the project is worth paying for, it would be great to describe large incomes that they would receive as a result. Selling a house takes a real estate agent telling about the happy moments that a family would experience in that location. Thus, words help to visualize the positive results that are potentially the most important for others.
Emotions and body language are just as important. They support the overall opinion of a person being sure of his or her words (Wheeler 159). It is unacceptable to shout or pressure another party, for aggression would only distract people and make them want to finish a discussion as soon as possible.
Improvisation
Of course, the described set of rules does not always have to be followed. The most important idea in negotiating is that all discussions must flow naturally. It is good to have a plan and follow it during a dialogue, yet being stuck to an artificial behavior could help others believe that a speaker is not genuine. Since trust is one of the key elements that makes people engage in interactions with others, this opinion can serve as a bad sign.
A speaker must feel the flow of dialogue and adjust to it. For instance, there is no need to keep a serious tone when everyone else around is joking. It is also important to change the theme when there is a threat of open conflict.
Compromising
It is almost impossible to make others accept an idea without sacrificing something instead. The art of compromising makes others accept an idea more readily since they understand that a speaker is willing to give up some of the benefits to satisfy the needs of others. Listening is also, to some extent, a part of compromising (Galluccio 94). It helps not only to detect the mood of other participants but also to create a perception that their opinion is valued.
Conclusion
Negotiating is a complex process that requires speakers to keep in mind a lot of elements of behavior that determine the success of its outcomes. Sharing ideas through language and emotions, taking time, and getting supporters while leaving a place for listening and compromising are some of the necessary conditions for a successful dialogue. People have to learn how to use words and emotions, as well as understand the psychology of others, to effectively stand for their ideas.
Works Cited
Galluccio, Mauro, editor. Handbook of International Negotiation: Interpersonal, Intercultural, and Diplomatic Perspectives. Springer, 2015.
Mehta, Steven G. 112 Ways to Succeed in Any Negotiation or Mediation: Secrets from a Professional Mediator. AuthorHouse, 2009.
Siedel, George. Negotiating for Success: Essential Strategies and Skills. Van Rye Publishing, LLC, 2014.
Wheeler, Michael. The Art of Negotiation: How to Improvise Agreement in a Chaotic World. Simon & Schuster, Inc, 2013.
Negotiation and third-party mediation are the most common methods for resolving disputes. The first involves a discussion between the two sides where each attempts to settle the conflict on the most favorable terms that the other party will accept, which eventually ends when a compromise is reached. The second means requesting the help of a trained person, who acts as a neutral party and helps the discussion to proceed, and makes the final verdict if necessary. This essay investigates the critical differences between the approaches and their application to a political dispute between the two countries.
In numerous situations, mediation is a superior approach to negotiation, since the two parties still discuss the matter, but a trained person is present to assist them. However, both sides have to acknowledge the arbiter’s authority, which makes the method difficult to apply in specific situations. International conflicts serve as an example of this tendency, as it is usually challenging to find a person or country to which both nations would be willing to cede authority. As such, negotiation would be the more appropriate method, although there is no guarantee of success.
The first step to a conflict resolution through negotiation would be to convince both countries to discuss the matter in question. As incentives typically are not appropriate on an international scale, the task would likely have to be accomplished through the application of pressure. Furthermore, the demands would have to be applied continuously even after negotiations began, as the proceedings of such discussions are usually confidential (Pedersen, 6), and there is no guarantee that the debate will conclude with a satisfactory result. While there is no guarantee of success, this method is the most appropriate one for international conflict resolution.
Cultural Conflicts
When inspecting countries that are engaged in a conflict, one should evaluate the differences between their cultural aspects. Misunderstandings caused by value mismatches can considerably hinder the progress of the resolution process, while sufficient research and analysis can help reveal the hidden causes behind the conflict. Geert Hofstede has created a 6-dimensional model for evaluating the primary differences, which he calls cultural aspects. To provide an example of the model’s use, this essay will use the United States and China, as the two countries are engaged in an ongoing trade war.
The two countries will be compared to their collectivism-individualism, masculinity-femininity, power distance, long-term orientation, and uncertainty avoidance. The U.S. is far more individualistic, slightly less masculine, has significantly less power distance, is considerably less flexhumble, and has similar levels of uncertainty avoidance (“The 6-D Model of National Culture”). As such, the conflict likely stems from the differences in individualism and power distance between the two countries. Despite the differences, the governments of both countries are not trying to work for the benefit of their citizens.
The individualistic nature of the United States, combined with the power wielded by the President, allows him to make numerous decisions as he sees fit. Meanwhile, the power distance present in China allows the government to act without regard for popular opinion. As a result, the two governments treat each other as opponents and attempt to gain an overall economic advantage without considering the influence of the measures employed on the population. If the governments can be made to view the welfare of the country’s residents as an essential value, the conflict could likely be resolved.
To begin with, it is necessary to make a brief description of the essence of the case. It is centered around the problem of how to properly negotiate and deal with debts without losing the client himself. In this case, Cresol provides its clients with the opportunity to lease land and invest in various plantations. The situation is as follows: in January 2018, a local Brazilian farmer signed a loan contract to invest in a corn and soybean plantation. They confirmed two contracts, the payment for which is provided in two installments. By November 2018, the farmer had not made a single payment for any of the above-mentioned contracts.
Analysis of the Case
It is also necessary to analyze the main participants in these negotiations and the situation they had to face. A farmer is a person with a good credit history, which is why he was offered two contracts for investment. The terms of the loan state that he provided his property as a levied item in case of non-payment (Dias et al., 2019). In addition, in this case, the financial agent is personally acquainted with the farmer, which plays a significant role in their interaction. The farmer’s character is quite short-tempered and rude, which does not provide opportunities for active participation in negotiations.
In addition, the farmer faced a divorce process with his wife, who forbade him to sell the family’s property and the products they grew. Thus, there is a problem that a person is faced with life problems that can sufficiently affect his ability to pay off the loan (Dias et al., 2019). Therefore, in this case, a competent and experienced approach to negotiations is required to clarify the farmer’s situation. On the other side of the negotiations is a financial agent who has experience in the company. She also has a higher education in the field of Credit Cooperatives, which indicates competence and professionalism, which is essential for these negotiations.
Negotiation Techniques
Analyzing this case, it should be noted that the way of soft interaction with a person is essential. On the other hand, it is necessary to act fundamentally in the most problematic situation, offering clear and understandable solutions for the debtor, in which he will also be interested. If the financial agent sought only to collect the debt and not to offer a practical solution, leaving the problem of finding a way out to the farmer himself, then this situation would end in court (Dias et al., 2019). In order not to lose the client, the financial agent offered an alternative to paying the debt. For the farmer to be able to endure the difficulties associated with payment, he was offered an additional loan. Thus, in this case, the technique of mutual concessions and compromise is manifested.
Therefore, it is important to note several fundamentally important techniques that contributed to a positive outcome in these negotiations. Strict and persistent behavior is not effective, as it leads to the loss of the client; therefore, it is necessary to enter the position of a person and offer an effective solution (Dias et al., 2019). It is also necessary to be sufficiently transparent, demonstrating all the possible consequences of deciding for a person. Both parties should focus on the future instead of what has already happened in such cases (Dias et al., 2019). It is impossible to change the decisions made regarding the issuance of a loan to a farmer, but it is necessary to understand the possibilities of the debtor and draw up an effective plan based on this.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be noted that some negotiation techniques can be distinguished from this case, which can be applied in other situations. In addition, it becomes clear from it that personal interaction in negotiations plays one of the key roles in finding an effective and positive outcome. It is necessary to understand what is required from the situation itself to find a competent and correct approach to interaction.
Recent economic recession has led to an increased number of strikes. This evidently raises the importance of “good industrial relations”, especially during slump (Samuel 41). In negotiating situations, the interests of the employer and employees are at stake and not necessarily, both will overlap. A degree of disagreement and discontent are expected out of a negotiation outcome. None of the parties wants a deadlock in bargaining process; therefore, the best option is to review the options and issues, which are common to both the parties. For this, it is important to have knowledge of the resources available for distribution and the best possible way it can be distributed in. However, the nature of the value maximization would depend on the type of negotiation strategy adopted.
Negotiation, which has obtained primal importance in order garner competitive strategy for an organization, it is important to understand what, is understood by the term. Negotiation may be defined as the “means by which people deal with their differences.” (Harvard Business School Press xi) In businesses, negotiation is a “formal affair” in which two parties talk over prices, performance, or partnership terms and contracts (Harvard Business School Press xi). One of the primary issues that have been negotiated with the unions is compensation or wages. Thus, the negotiator has a fixed pie available for distribution and his aim may be to optimize one side’s share or optimize mutual benefit. A discussion on different types of strategies for negotiation must be discussed in order to understand the way it takes place.
Negotiation strategies are said to be of two primary types of negotiation – distributive and integrative (Harvard Business School Press 2). This distributive theory, which is discussed in the paper, was based on the first aim of the negotiator i.e. to maximize one side’s profit. Distributive negotiation practice was traditionally used as a strategy for negation and the underlying assumption of the strategy was that only one party could get the maximum benefit out of the process. In this paper, the advantages and disadvantages of the strategy are discussed. The paper also discusses the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the strategy in various business situations.
Distributive Negotiation
Distributive negotiation or bargaining is defined as a “zero-sum approach to collective bargaining, in which gains for one side are made at the expense of the other” (Dictionary of Human Resource Management 88). In other words, distributive negotiation takes place between two parties who are at competition to gain control over a fixed amount of value (Harvard Business School Press 2). In this case, one side gains from the negotiating process at the cost of the other side. Therefore, the key question that arises from the distributive negotiation process is that who will get the largest share of the pie? Therefore there are few characteristics of the distributive negotiation strategy is derived from the definition:
The negotiation is usually bilateral in nature i.e. between two parties.
It is a process of zero-sum or constant-sum game, wherein only one party can be a winner. Therefore, the negotiating strategy enforces a win-lose situation.
It deals with one problem, the solution to which is derived through this negotiating strategy.
For example, wage negotiation between the labour union and the employer is a classic example for distributive negotiation. The employer is aware that the employer the excess remains a loss for the union will pay any amount that is decided upon on the negotiation table. Therefore, the aim of the negotiation, from the employer’s side would be to try to keep the wages as low as possible to minimize the expected wage cost. Distributive negotiation in a pure sense is negotiation over a fixed amount of value or good. A classic instance is two individuals negotiating over a freshly baked apple pie. In this case, the goal of every party is to maximize the amount of pie she gets from the bargain.
Information or knowledge of the other party is key to winning this type of negotiation process (Harvard Business School Press 4). Lesser the information the other side has access to; greater is one’s chance of winning the negotiation. Further, the more information one side has, greater is the side’s bargaining power over the other side. A unique example of information availability in case of distributive negotiation is presented below:
“Consider what happened when undefeated world chess champion Gary Kasparov faced off against an IBM supercomputer dubbed Deep Blue in a series of matches in 1997. Kasparov typically prepared for a match by studying his opponent’s earlier matches move by move. But IBM refused to give Kasparov information about Deep Blue’s previous games, so he entered the match knowing little about Deep Blue’s strengths and weaknesses as a chess strategist. During the match, Kasparov encountered few problems until well into the second game, when Deep Blue made an unusual move that Kasparov was convinced only a human would make. Surprised and confused, Kasparov lost his focus.” (Galinsky, Maddux and Ku 3).
Therefore, the important issue in winning a negotiation is concealment of maximum amount of information possible in order to keep the other side in doubt. The first strategy to win distributive negotiations is to give out minimum amount of information about one’s side.
Distributive negotiation is essentially an economic form of bargaining process based on such criterions as the cost of a strike or the benefit of the present offer, etc. (Peterson and Tracy 41). From the point of view of the “commitment” tactics, Peterson and Tracy describe the process in order to show “how each team tries to establish a firm commitment to a position that is within the other team’s range of acceptable solutions but is near the end of the range favourable to itself.” (41) In such a situation, the primary objective is to ascertain one’s position before the other party does. Therefore, in case of distributive negotiation, the position of the parties must be stated very clearly and the value at stake must be clearly mentioned, as the other party usually would try to misinterpret it. Thus, it is suggested by Peterson and Tracy that if the negotiator feels that his side has an upper hand in the negotiation, there would be greater chance of success (42). Therefore, in order gain success in distributive negotiation, psychological factor plays a main role as the negotiator sets the “bargaining range” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Information gathered about the other side may be of use. This is because this will provide a greater edge over the other side in order to set the table for negotiation. Exploitation of the information available about the other side will help the negotiator gain greater control of the bargaining process. The main type of information, which may be of use to the negotiator, is “why the other side want to deal, their real interests and business constraints, and their preferences among the issues or options.” (Harvard Business School Press 4).
Effectiveness of Distributive Negotiation Strategy
By virtue of being a win-lose situation, distributive negotiation is more competitive in nature and therefore aims at optimization of one party’s goals. As these goals are in direct contradiction with the goals of the other party, there are more chances of escalation of conflict. Therefore, due to lack of integration or cooperation between the negotiating parties may lead to disruption in the negotiation.
Most of the negotiations are win-lose or constant-sum or distributive in nature (Sebenius 29). In other words, most negotiations at some point of time are result in more value claimed by one side comes at the expense of the other side. Sebenius states that “… in choosing a strategy for the highly restrictive class of negotiations involving “first and final offers.” one must balance the value to be claimed against the chance and cost of impasse.” (29) Though value out of the negotiation can be gained just by reaching an accord, however, in most cases, a strict distributive negotiation may lead to dramatic conflict over the issue. In cases where possible value can be created over an agreement is foregone due to the impasse. Therefore, in this one of the greatest setbacks of distributive negotiation is the creation of a deadlock, which makes bargaining impossible and therefore turns the win-lose situation to lose-lose situation.
Distributive strategy of negotiation is an effective means of handling disputes between labour and management: “Distributive tactics, on the other hand, generate labour-management conflicts, promote individual winning through the use of offensive and defensive manoeuvres.” (Goering 384) In this case, defensive moves in distributive strategy are those tactics, which are adopted in order to build a protective cocoon around the negotiator’s position. An offensive move is one wherein the negotiator tries to point the finger at the other side’s position (Goering 384). Therefore, the effectiveness of the distributive strategy is also related to the establishment the nature of the conflict, i.e. if it will be competitive or cooperative. Thus, it can be stated that if the “social process” of negotiation is cooperative or not will establishment the effectiveness of the negotiation (Goering 385). As distributive strategies are mostly related to win-lose situation, this strategy is effective when used in a situation of conflict: “…constructive conflict can be identified with cooperative (integrative) interaction, while destructive conflict is typically associated with competitive (distributive) interaction.” (Goering 385) Therefore, mostly research has suggested that distributive tactics of negotiation leads to negative outcome. Thus, the correlation between using distributive strategy and the outcome of the tactics suggests that they have a negative relation.
There is a relation between the negotiation strategy and the process of negotiation. Research has suggested, “… bargaining interaction tends to be characterized by reciprocal exchange” (Goering 385). This implies that in case of distributive communication to the other party will lead to distributive responses. Thus, the communication process selected by the negotiator has an impact on the process of the negotiation as well as on its outcome.
Distributive strategy, as stated earlier, can be of two types – defensive and offensive. Offensive strategies are those that attack the other party’s position while the former is one wherein the other defends the defender’s bargaining position. In case of offensive strategy a few of the tactics that are employed by the negotiator are “initiations, rejections, threats, attacking arguments, requests for information, provides reaction, clarification, and negative affect” while the strategies that are taken in case of defensive strategy are “accommodations, retractions, commitments, promises, demands, self-supporting arguments, and provides information” (Goering 390).
The other question that arises is what the individualistic personality trait that effects distributive negotiations is. Researchers believe that different individual personality traits can result in effective negotiation outcome (Barry and Friedman 345). Barry and Friedman tested the effect of the influence of the personality type of the negotiator according to the Big Five personality trait on the effectiveness of distributive negotiation. They used the effects of the influence of extraversion and agreeableness on the distributive negotiation (346). Extraversion implies an individual’s belligerence, confidence, and sociability and agreeableness implies timidity or tenderness in an individual. The research outcome showed that as hypothesized, both these personality traits were “liabilities” on the negotiator practicing distributive negotiation (351). On the other hand, cognitive ability, meaning an individual’s ability to process complex information and conscientiousness in the personality trait of the negotiator was found to have positive effect on distributive negotiation process (352). It is suggested that the success of the distributive negotiation will depend on the presence of these personality character in case of real life negotiations:
“Our results are likely to be most valid for real-world bargaining situations that require relatively little analysis and are primarily a matter of nerve and tactics (e.g., a used-car purchase) or, in a more complex situation, for the phase of bargaining that occurs after any required analysis.” (Barry and Friedman 354)
Conclusion
Distributive negotiation strategy is a zero-sum game tactics, which leads to a win-lose kind of situation. The study shows that this kind of strategy usually leads to negative outcome as there are impediments in agreement when both the parties aim at aiming their personal goal that are direct conflict with one another. Further, individual personality traits like those that agreeableness and extraversion are found to have a negative effect and conscientiousness and cognitive ability is supposed to have positive effect on distributive negotiation. Apart from this, the distributive negotiation is widely used in case of labour-management disputes. Research has also found that the success of the negation through distributive tactics will be successful only when the following are followed: “(a) he feels that his own side’s bargaining power is strong; (b) he estimates that a work stoppage is unlikely or lower in cost to his own side than to the other; (c) his own team makes an early commitment to its position, while the other team does not; and (d) his own team is clear and specific in stating its position, while the other team is less so.” (Peterson and Tracy 42) Apart from this availability of information for the parties plays an important role in the outcome of the negotiation. Therefore, it can be implied that in instances where low trust pervades between the negotiating parties, distributive negotiation will be a good strategy. However, the negative effect of the distributive bargaining tactic is that they do not allow the evolution of a win-win situation wherein a positive-sum bargaining can take place. In such a situation, the parties involved will both gain from the negotiation process. Distributive bargaining process does not provide scope for a mutually beneficial negotiation outcome, and therefore face a lot of criticism from the advocates of integrative negotiation process.
References
Barry, Bruce and Raymond A. Friedman. “Bargainers Characteristics in Distributive and Integrative Negotiation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 2 (1998): 345-359.
Dictionary of Human Resource Management. “Distributive Bargaining.” Dictionary of Human Resource Management (2001): 88-89.
Galinsky, Adam D., William W. Maddux and Gillian Ku. “Consider what happened when undefeated world chess.” Negotiation (2006): 3-5.
Goering, Elizabeth M. “Integration Versus Distribution in Contract Negotiations: An interaction Analysis of Strategy Use.” The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1997): 383-400.
Harvard Business School Press. The essentials of negotiation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2005.
Peterson, Richard B. and Lane Tracy. “Testing a Behavioral Theory Model of Labor Negotiations.” Industrial Relations, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1977): 35-50.
Samuel, Peter. “… negotiate with trade unions.” People Management 2009: 41.
Sebenius, James K. “Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization And Review.” Management Science, Vol. 38, No. 1 (1992): 18-38.
As information is one of the most valuable assets, and human relationships are an inseparable part of productivity, negotiations play a considerable role in almost every aspect of human life. It may promote cooperation, introduce division of labor, and significantly improve productivity. Therefore, it is vitally important to develop negotiation-related skills, strategies, behaviors, and tactics. The ultimate goal of negotiations is to maximize benefits for all parties that are involved in the negotiation. Hence, it is crucial not only to satisfy personal interests but also to respect the interests of other parties and contribute to their achievement. Assessments of personal behaviors, strategies, and tactics during negotiations may provide valuable data regarding the strengths and weaknesses of my negotiation style. It may be highly beneficial to analyze such data for further improvements.
Building Trust
The first dimension of assessment was related to the ability to build trust during negotiations. My score is slightly above the class mean, which indicates that even though the absolute value score is high, it is relatively average. Therefore, there may be considerable improvement opportunities in terms of building trust during negotiations. Concessions play a particularly important role in building trust as they may serve as an indicator of reediness to build fair and transparent relationships, which are beneficial for both sides. Hence, it is also essential to label concessions in order to maximize their efficiency in terms of improving trust. Explaining personal demands and goals is also an important element of building trust. Unfortunately, I frequently fail to state my demand to other parties clearly.
Responding to Emotions
The second assessment dimension is closely linked to the ability to be responsive to emotions. Despite the fact that it received a maximum score, there may be room for improvement. I believe that introducing an appropriate response to the emotions of others is critical during negotiations. Therefore, I always try to address the feelings of other people, understand them and react accordingly. There are two major tactics that may contribute to the achievement of that goal. First, active listening provides valuable information for emotional assessment. Second, the ability to put oneself in the position of others is also highly beneficial. A combination of these two skills helps me improve my responsiveness in terms of emotions. Nonetheless, further development of these two skills plays a significant role in improving negotiation behaviors and techniques.
Being Fair Minded
The third element of assessment addresses the ability to stay fair-minded and maintain fairness in general. I received a maximum score, which is slightly higher than the class mean. Even though I am pleased with such a result, I am also surprised by that feedback. It may be challenging to stay fair-minded and adequately evaluate equality and equity during negotiations that involve personal interests. I am surprised with the feedback that I received, as I am not always able to maintain fairness. For instance, my partner mentioned that I seemed to be more interested in my personal goals during negotiation. Hence, it may be essential to strive to be objective and rational and analyze the subject from various perspectives.
Personal Interests and Partner Interests
The next two elements of the feedback are related to the ability to satisfy interests, including personal interests and the interests of other people. In both cases, I received a maximum score, which is above the class mean. Even though personal interests may have a higher priority rather than the interests of others, it may be critical to contribute to the achievement of both. Such an approach may maintain fairness and build trusting relationships during negotiations. However, the feedback also states that I was focused on my personal interests and did not cooperate once I achieved my goals. It may be beneficial to improve my attitudes toward the interests of others in order to maintain healthy long-term relationships with the participants in negotiations.
Competitiveness
I received different feedback regarding my competitiveness during negotiations. My first score was relatively low, and the second score was maximal. During the first negotiation, I hesitated to voice my ideas and stance on my position. It is also confirmed by the feedback I received. However, I tried to improve during the second negotiation in order to behave competitively. Competitiveness plays a significant role during negotiations, as it may not only help people achieve their goals but also lead to the development of new ideas and approaches.
Value Creation
Value creation is one of the most important aspects of negotiations as, to some extent, it represents the purpose of negotiations. The main technique that may improve value creation is asking questions and sharing information between the participants of negotiations. As already mentioned, information is the most valuable asset, and hence it is important to take steps in order to share it. Even though I received high scores in the provided feedback, my value creation skills may be improved. First, it may be essential to view the differences as an opportunity to create value and seek methods of achieving the common benefit. Second, it is highly beneficial to negotiate several subjects simultaneously to maintain information flow and avoid stalling.