Category: Negotiation

A negotiation strategy is a sequence of actions in negotiations that will lead to the achievement of specific goals. Before conducting negotiations, it is essential to establish who will hold them (find out information about the opponent). Then, to determine what result should be achieved through these talks and determine the strategy on which the outcome depends. In practice, there can be no single strategy for pursuing negotiations, each case requires a different approach that meets specific conditions, but the most common policy is the one based on cooperation.

Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton proposed the most common classification of negotiation strategies – the win-win classification. According to this classification, there are four main strategies: win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose, and win-win. In practice, it is possible to apply all these four variants in a variety of areas. The strategy is based on two parameters: the importance of the relationship and the significance of the result.

Win-lose is a strategy that is aimed solely at defeating an opponent as a rival. The result is most important, and the possibility of spoiling the relationship with the other party does not matter. A competitive negotiator is often willing to use any available means to get the desired agreement. People with this attitude use their strength of character, power, connections, the specifics of the situation, and any other advantages to achieve victory over their partner. Lose-win strategy leads to the tactical defeat of one side and the success of the opponent. The relationship is most important, and it is possible to make concessions about the result of negotiations. Lose-lose – the simplest example of using a strategy is to avoid participating in talks when the position is weak. However, there could be situations when one of the negotiators deliberately provokes a mutual loss in the negotiation process.

At the heart of the win-win strategy is cooperation; the aim is to ensure that all participants in the negotiations will benefit as a result. It is essential that the opponents understand, respect, and consider each other’s interests. It is necessary to reach an agreement by going deep into the problem and finding the solution that best suits both sides. In a negotiated environment, a win-win strategy means that solutions are equally beneficial to all participants. In this case, both parties are satisfied with the result and ready to make every effort to implement it. For performing the win-win strategy, it is necessary to formulate a proposal that is profitable to both sides, provide the opponent with strong evidence of winning the situation, and be open and honest. It is also essential to prove a positive outcome for both parties, analyze further activities into stages, and be in constant contact. It is crucial to have a positive attitude and focus on results.

The negotiations themselves are communication between the two sides here and now. The process includes not only conversation with the interlocutor, but also preparation for it and analysis of the results. The ability to negotiate is a skill that can be developed like any other. It is essential to learn how to negotiate with opponents, and it is necessary to prepare for meetings where the parties exchange views and make decisions.

I have planned to hold talks with my friends about where we will spend our vacation. First of all, to prepare for negotiations, it is crucial to determine the border after crossing which I will not continue talks. I have decided that a vacation cannot be more than two weeks or less than one week. If I do not formulate the least acceptable result in advance, I may not notice how the borders will shift during the negotiations. I also need to prepare an alternative solution that will suit me either. I want to go to the sea, but I have determined that, as a last resort, I can go to the countryside, to enjoy nature.

Then it is necessary to make a map of positions and interests for myself and my opponents. My position is to go on vacation to another country, the position of my friends is to stay in the city, not go anywhere. Interests are, in this case, the reasons that formed the position: I need a change of scenery; my friends want to spend time in the city. Each side has its concerns – possible consequences from the actions or omissions of the other hand. In my case: I will not get a proper rest unless I change my surroundings, and my friends are afraid that any trip will be expensive. Thus, during the negotiations, we need to focus on our common positions and interests and try to find an option that will suit both sides.

We started the negotiations with abstract topics, discussed the news, and then moved on to the subject of the meeting. I tried to get as much information from my opponents as possible by asking open questions: how they want to spend their vacation, where, on what dates, what budget. Then I tried to offer a mutually beneficial solution, recalling the alternatives that I had thought through in preparation for the negotiations. After that we participated in positional bidding, discussing possible options, and finally came to an agreement that satisfied all parties. It was decided to go to the countryside for one week – this vacation will not be expensive, but it is also an opportunity to change the scenery, leave the city. After that, we recorded the results of the negotiations and agreements, saying all the key points to make sure that everyone understood everything correctly.

The results of the negotiations that I was preparing for must be analyzed and evaluated. I examined what arguments my opponents made during the talks and what arguments I made, as well as whether I was able to defend my interests and what results we eventually achieved. In our negotiations, we used a win-win strategy, and in the end, all the participants of the talks were the winners.

Thus, negotiations can be useful if they led to a reasonable agreement and did not spoil relations between the parties. However, what strategy to choose in a particular case depends on the context of the situation. It is necessary to use the information received at the stage of preparation for negotiations and to understand the significance of the relationship and the result. Nevertheless, if both the result of talks and the development of relations in the future are essential, then the most successful strategy is a strategy based on cooperation. This type of approach takes into account the interests of all parties to the negotiations and the search for mutually beneficial solutions.

Negotiation is a complex process of discussion and decision-making that depends on many factors, such as the parties’ purpose and motivation, their relationship and interdependence, resources, and negotiation skills. These factors determine what tactics and approaches are used by participants to finish negotiations successfully. This paper will discuss such fundamental aspects of negotiations as relationships and motivations of the parties to demonstrate their importance and impact on the communication process.

One of the most critical aspects of successful negotiations is the relationship of the parties. A friendly attitude developed in an informal setting, even in five minutes of communication, most often allows participants to trust each other and make concessions more confidently. As Salacuse (2020) points out, people tend to react to the actions of others analogically. Consequently, friendliness and trust induce a desire to be more amenable, and secrecy and irreconcilability are more likely to cause conflict. In addition, since negotiations between the parties usually mean further cooperation, trusting and friendly relations reduce the likelihood of non-compliance with agreements, the emergence of conflicts, and ensure a long-term partnership.

Moreover, most often, the parties are interdependent, since they intend to benefit from each other’s actions, but if only one party is dependent on the other, the negotiation is uneven and stressful. The relationship factor also changes the approach and success of conflict resolution. If the parties are inclined to cooperate, they can use the tactic of compromising, which means giving up part of their interests, or collaborating, which implies consensus (Smith et al., 2020). However, if one side depends on the other, or they are hostile, they are more likely to choose competing or accommodating tactics, which means that only one wins (Smith et al., 2020). Thus, the relationship between parties is critical to negotiating.

The second important aspect of negotiations is parties’ motivation or goal as this determines their style and tactics. According to purpose, negotiations are divided into such as types, distributive and integrative, which are opposite to each other (Lewicki et al., 2016). Distributive negotiators aim to divide limited resources between the parties to satisfy their interests and get the most benefit. For example, such negotiations can relate to the division of territories after a military conflict. Integrative negotiation aims to achieve results that satisfy all participants and create value (Lewicki et al., 2016).

For example, building an international organization is the integrative goal of the founding countries. Consequently, the purposes of these types of negotiations explain their main differences; for example, their competitive and collaborative nature. Another difference is that distribution negotiations have only one winner, and integration negotiations have no losers. In addition, the first type of communication is based on secrecy and pressure, while the second is based on openness and discussion. However, none of these types of negotiations are more advantageous, since their use usually depends on the parties’ final goal.

Nevertheless, since integration negotiations are usually more beneficial to all participants, it is worth considering some of its tactics. The first tactic is to find a bridge solution, which means that negotiators must develop new ideas instead of the original ones that will satisfy all parties (Lewicki et al., 2016). However, it is necessary for this decision that participants understand the underlying interests and qualitatively reformulate a solution that will fully satisfy all participants. For example, one side wants to use only vehicles for delivering goods, since they are safer, and the other side requires the use of bicycles, since they are environmentally friendly. The bridge solution for them will be the use of electric cars because they satisfy both parties’ interests.

The second tactic is logrolling, which requires two or more concerns for discussion. This approach is based on the fact that the parties agree, and one gets the preferable solution on one issue, and the other receives the most appropriate decision for another problem (Lewicki et al., 2016). However, logrolling most often requires testing different options until the parties find the most convenient answer for them. For example, employees want a more extended lunch break, and the employer is not happy with employees’ frequent 15-minute breaks. The solution for them may be to extend the lunchtime by 30 minutes, provided that the breaks are reduced to 10 minutes. Consequently, both integrative tactics aim to ensure that the negotiating parties win, even if they make minor concessions.

In conclusion, discussion of certain types and tactics of negotiation demonstrates that the parties’ relationship and their motivation are crucial to determining their communication style. The goal of obtaining the greatest benefit for oneself with limited resources forces the negotiator to compete and leaves no room for a collaborative way of resolving conflicts. At the same time, the motivation to find the most beneficial solution for everyone reduces the likelihood of conflict and allows participants to come to a win-win situation. Nevertheless, regardless of the reason and style of negotiations, friendly and trusting relationships are extremely important for negotiators as they improve communication, avoid conflict and simplify the process of making a shared decision.

References

Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D.M. (2016). Essentials of negotiation (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Salacuse, J.D. (2020). The importance of a relationship in negotiation. Harvard Law School. Web.

Smith, T.L., Tague-Busler, M., & Herbig, S. (2020). The key to survival: Interpersonal communication (5th ed.). Waveland Press.

Every person has faced a situation at least once in his life where he had to defend his point of view. These cases can be considered cases of negotiations, the main purpose of which is to find a single solution. In other words, effective bargaining is a method by which people settle differences. This process may imply the achievement of either a compromise or the arrival of a desired result of one or another result. The development of negotiation techniques and strategies can become a valuable source of information for resolving everyday situations.

If there are any disagreements, the main goal for me is to achieve the best possible result. The main methods of negotiation include competition, accommodating, avoidance, compromise or cooperation (Brett & Thompson, 2016). The tactics that are most often used by me in everyday life are accommodation and cooperation. I believe these techniques help to find the most neutral solution to the conflict and maintain a positive relationship with another person. A helpful style of talking is effectively used in my life in cases when I do not want to spoil the relationships with loved ones or colleagues. Therefore, for example, in a dispute between my family members about the choice of a vacation destination, one of us and may give way to the other. Adhering to this style helps to smooth out tension and most of all, they care about maintaining good relations and meeting the needs of the opponent.

Another style that I use and that also implies maintaining relevant friendly and primitive relationships, is collaboration. This way of dealing with a conflict situation implies a special level of honesty and sociability. Therefore, using the example of relatives and the choice of vacation, they and I carefully discussed our wishes and came to a common solution that would consider both sides’ preferences. Furthermore, this style may involve finding new, more creative solutions so as not to hurt the feelings of opponents. Success in negotiations can be tactical or strategic, depending on the objectives of the negotiations and the characters of the negotiator. Tactical achievement involves the conclusion of a so-called deal. Strategic success, on the contrary, implies not so much coming to an agreement but also positive results from the decision taken. Depending on the chosen strategy, the outcome may have a different kind of result.

There is no denying the fact that any dispute or decision in an interpersonal relationship in which one individual is trying to influence another person is not a negotiation. Thus, it should be noted the use of negotiation techniques can contribute to my personal growth. Moreover, it is important to remember that with this method of resolving disputes with family or friends, it is necessary to take into account the opinions of both sides. In order to become the most successful negotiator, I need to understand and develop my own way of conducting a conversation, which can become a mixture of these styles. Of course, not all people are given the opportunity to conduct effective and productive negotiations from birth. For some, this skill requires constant work and labor. However, if successful, it can be very useful, especially in everyday life. Such styles as cooperation and accommodation are especially valuable for me as they can help maintain friendly and pleasant relations between the participants in the negotiations.

Reference

Brett, J., & Thompson, L. (2016). Negotiation.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 68-79.

I negotiated with the retailer, my mother, and myself for a toy for my younger sister. The cost and condition of the item were the primary concerns. The result was that I was pleased with the toy’s value and could purchase it for less money than the retailer had requested. Due to the fact that I was able to buy the toy for less money than the store owner requested, the negotiation was effective. Moreover, I was pleased with the toy’s quality, which contributed to its effectiveness, thus increasing the product’s value. Had I been able to get the toy for even less money, and if the item had been of higher quality, the negotiation could have gone better.

Preparation, information exchange, problem-solving, and resolution were all made following the decision-making phases throughout the negotiation. Throughout each step, the participants’ actions altered. Both sides researched whatever they anticipated from the negotiation throughout the preparation, exchanged ideas with one another during the sharing stage and sought a remedy that would benefit them throughout the problem-solving phase. During the resolution phase, both parties reached an understanding.

The toy’s cost and level of quality were the BATNAs in my illustration of a negotiation. The retailer and the toy’s value were determined on the BATNAs. BATNAs were employed to bargain over the toy’s cost and level of quality (Chen, 2022). The BATNAs’ function, in my case, was affected by the distributive strategy of the negotiation. Although I was trying to maximize personal gains, an integrative strategy was used because everyone was looking to save money on the item as a whole. In my illustration, the interests are related to the toy’s cost and condition. The quality and cost of the item were the main points of interest.

The cost and quality of the toy were the relevant relationship concerns. By haggling over the toy’s price and quality, the stakeholders disclosed or identified their interests. The interests influenced the negotiation by affecting the toy’s cost and quality. By impacting how the stakeholders regarded one another, the preconceptions that were present in the negotiation had an impact on it. The process was modified by additional perceptions, selective perceptions, or perceptual distortions that affected how the parties interacted with one another. The toy acted as the substantive interest, and the fact that the retailer acted kind shows process interests since it covers the behavior of the parties involved. The fact that we mutually agreed with each other shows relational interests.

Happiness and pleasure were the positive emotions while frustration and fury were the negative emotions that influenced the discussion. How the conversation progressed, and the dynamics between the participants caused the emotions to surface. Positive emotions can enhance negotiation in that they help facilitate a more positive outcome (Staff, 2022). The stakeholders showed their familiarity with the building blocks of negotiation by showing interest and excellent communication, thus making them negotiate effectively. If the parties were familiar with the building blocks, the negotiation would be easier with each other.

The fact that buyers always negotiate for goods and products influenced the negotiation of the product. Selective perception impacted the negotiation because the retailer allowed me to negotiate for the toy and did not bother if I was reducing his profit. Stereotyping influence the negotiation in that the retailer was expectant of negotiation of the toy since it is normal for every customer to negotiate. Perceptual distortion impacted the negotiation in that there was a misunderstanding between the retailer and me since he did not understand why I needed negotiation for the product after proving the product to be of high quality. Thus, making the negotiation effective after making him understand why the negotiation was needed and effective.

Combined leverage is the type of leverage that was available in this scenario. The leverage was used because it incorporated the retailers taking the risk of expanding the business but accepting negotiation of the product’s price into being lower. This leverage was used ethically by operating the negotiation reasonably and in a way that both parties took the risk (The Upwork Team, 2022). Combined leverage altered the negotiation when I, the customer, wanted to negotiate higher, but the retailer could not accept it since, to him, he was to make a small profit.

References

Chen, J. (2022). Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). Investopedia. Web.

Staff, P. (2022). Negotiation strategies: Emotional expression at the bargaining table. PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Web.

The Upwork Team. (2022). Types of Leverage: Financial, Operating and Combined. Upwork. Web.

Introduction

Negotiation is a complex process that includes various stages with different emotions. To mitigate the influences of irrationalities during this process, the author recommends preparing extensively before (Brooks, 2015). It includes investigating the direct and indirect interests of other parties, conceptualizing external context, and preparing personal expectations from the negotiations. In this essay, the emphasis will be put on emotional preparation to argue that the buildup, main event, and finale require a different set of emotions.

Discussion

The start of the negotiation process is often related to feelings of anxiety and uncertainty. Although such emotions are highly likely to be expected, the author notes that proper preparation can change the outlook and make expectations from the negotiations more positive (Brooks, 2015). At the “main event” stage, aggression against the opponent’s stubbornness becomes a frequent reaction. The author gives an example of his seminars during which the students argued aggressively with each other, and it acted like a time bomb (Brooks, 2015). The best alternative, which the author did not mention, would be to prepare a printed version of the contradictions, which can be mailed in advance. Finally, it is important to hide or show certain emotions at the end of negotiations (Brooks, 2015). For example, a successful deal and great joy from the deal can provoke a new conflict due to the disappointment of the other side. At the same time, it is worth paying attention to the emotions of the other side to understand the reaction of the negotiator.

Conclusion

To conclude, it is impossible to describe all the important elements of the negotiation process in an essay. There is a myriad of important aspects that may positively or negatively influence the negotiation process. In addition, it is almost impossible to build a standardized model of negotiations that will suit all industries and types of agreements. Thus, it requires many years of learning and practice to derive personal practices and habits of finding compromises with negotiators.

References

Brooks, A. W., (2015). Emotion and the art of negotiation: How to use your feelings to your advantage. Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 1-10. Web.

Negotiation is a part of people’s life. Notably, people start negotiating at a very early age when they first ask their parents to let them watch more TV. Admittedly, business world is based on the principles of mutual interest. Politics is also the world of constant negotiation. Organizations have to negotiate to remain competitive. In the first place, it is necessary to define the concept.

Hence, negotiation is a process that takes place between people (or groups of people) “who have mutual interests but some differences that need to be resolved” (Goldwasser 2006, p. 77). Importantly, negotiation is possible when the parties have interests in common.

It is also necessary to note that compromise is often an indispensible part of negotiation, i.e. negotiation often includes “making concessions” (Goldwasser 2006, p. 77). It is possible to consider at least three major reasons why negotiation is important.

Development of proper relationships between people and groups of people is one of the most important reasons why negotiation is important. Thus, a French diplomat of the 18^th century noted that “the fate of the greatest states depends almost entirely on the good of bad conduct of their negotiators” (Benoliel 2011, p. 1). In the contemporary globalised world, such a statement is still up-to-date.

Countries have to negotiate on a variety of issues to keep peace and contribute to the development of humanity. The World War II is one of the examples of ineffective negotiation as there is some “speculation” that Nazi’s desire to revenge “for the way their country had been treated” led to the war (Goldwasser 2006, p. 81). Therefore, negotiation helps countries co-exist and cooperate.

Apart from the political arena, negotiation is important for the development of the humanity in a variety of terrains. Thus, Spangle and Isenhart (2003, p. 3) note that negotiation “produces a codetermination of understandings about perceptions, knowledge, interests, and outcomes”. In other words, negotiation helps people collaborate and develop.

Thus, in the modern information-oriented world, people have to interact with each other. Business people and scientists may pursue their own goals, but their mutual interests can lead to numerous advances in technology, medicine, education, etc.

Negotiation helps people focus on their mutual interests and diminish differences to start successful cooperation. Thus, negotiation is the process that leads to continuous development of the society.

Finally, negotiation is very important at the individual level. People have to negotiate about all spheres of their life. Living in the society is associated with ability to compromise. People cannot live in isolation and this is why they need to communicate with others and try to collaborate with other members of the community. Negotiation helps individuals become successful members of the society.

On balance, it is necessary to note that negotiation is the process involving people with shared interests and certain differences to be resolved. Negotiation is an indispensible part of people’s life and it is manifested at different levels. It is possible to name at least three major reasons why negotiation is important.

First, negotiation helps nations collaborate. Besides, negotiation has contributed to the development of humanity. Finally, negotiation is important at the individual level as people who have appropriate negotiation skills can become effective members of the society. These three manifestations of negotiation prove that this process plays an important role in the development of humanity and development of every individual.

Reference List

Benoliel, M 2011, Negotiation excellence: successful deal making, World Scientific, London.

Goldwasser, I 2006, Interactive communication: a guide to effective communication, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest, NSW.

Spangle, ML & Isenhart, MW 2003, Negotiation: communication for diverse settings, SAGE, London.

Introduction

In his theory of human motivation, Abraham Marslow (1943) classified human needs into five classes, which included physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. In his motivation theory, he argued that the integrated wholeness of a person should always form the basis of the theory, with emphasis being on the fulfillment of one’s goals and objectives.

Marslow further argued that human needs occur in hierarchical manner; meaning that the satisfaction of a particular need relies on satisfaction of another need, and new needs are created or whenever the old needs are satisfied. With man being a wanting animal, there is no time he will ever be satisfied and thus the motivation to satisfy the needs drives to behave and adopt character that can lead to conflicts with others.

We can therefore argue that human needs are often described as the major factors that explain how human beings behave as well as how they interact with others. With all individuals having needs that require to be fulfilled, everybody strives towards satisfying those needs no matter the process. As a person tries to satisfy his or her needs, he or she may in the process conflict with the other and thus a need to understand how you can solve the conflict.

In trying to define the source of conflict, experts have come up with theories that consider how the conflicts can be solved. One such theory is the Human Needs Theory.

In his book, Deviance, Terrorism and War: The process of solving unsolved social and political problems (1979), Burton, while quoting Abraham Marslow conception of human growth through the satisfaction of the five basic human needs grouped under physiological, safety, love or belongingness, esteem and self actualization, argues that with the satisfaction of these five basic needs, conflicts would be solved very easily.

According to Burton, rather than covering the five basic needs in Marslow’s concept, he reframed and modified the concept and stated that in order to solve the conflicts that continue harming humankind, the other needs most needed to be understood and be satisfied were those of identity, security, recognition, and personal development. He explained that absence of systems that emphasizes the need for an identity continues to be the primary cause of conflicts experienced everywhere in the world.

The fact that conflicts will always arise as human beings try to satisfy their basic needs require a qualified resolver or negotiator to intervene. The person should be armed with high levels of communication competencies in order to solve the conflict because the ability to “complete the negotiations is a set of competencies to themselves” (Hudson, Grisham, Srinivasan& Moussa, p2, 2005).

Solving a conflict through negotiation includes agreements, designs, or construction, which should tackle the problem effectively. Therefore, careful negotiation skills are always required to ensure the conflict is managed efficiently. The following are some of the cases of how you can apply human need theory and negotiations in managing a conflict.

Human Needs theory

The human needs perspective of negotiation builds on the assumption that all humans have known biological and social needs that are usually driven by both emotions and values which have to be satisfied. The needs cannot be used outside the social context. It has been known that humans use both the power in their possession and sometimes coercion to fulfill their needs.

This, therefore, creates a conflict. By forcing other people to respond to their needs they create conflicts that frustrates attainment of needs. A human need shall then support either a loss, gain or aspirations frame for interpreting the words.

The Marslow approach assumed that most people are motivated by their own needs thus engaging in the types of behavior in order to satisfy them. The needs involve both material and non-material satisfiers and this makes the priorities confused. In this case, negotiation provides an opportunity for people to assess and prioritize their needs (Spangle& Isenhart, 2003)

Application of the theory

The theory can be applied in a family case where conflicts are day-to-day occurrences as every member tries to realize his or her needs. For example, a neighbor who values holding properties as a basis for needs gratification may fight with neighbors over the location where the fence should be erected.

The theory of human needs and negotiation skills has been applied in trying to solve the ethnic and religious conflicts (Anonymous, 2009). An example of international cases where negotiations have been used to solve conflicts includes the conflict between Israel and Palestine over the possession of Gaza. The two countries have been in conflict on which country should claim possession of Gaza and negotiators have been trying to use human needs theory and the negotiation skills although to no avail.

Example of other instances where negotiations on human needs have been applied include in issues about the global warming and the cutting of carbon emissions through out the world. Countries have been negotiating on what needs to be done and the challenges likely to be faced if the world is to reduce the carbon emissions. The situation demands the needs of developed world and developing world to be assessed and put into consideration during the negotiations and when drafting of agreements.

Virtues and limitations

The virtues and limitations of the theory according to Rubenstein (ND) are that the theory allows those who seek to find solutions to conflicts a chance to make a sound distinction between the issues which need law, negotiations or even power and those that that can be solved only by employing other measures.

When one understands the Human Needs Theory, he or she knows there is no way needs can be traded and that makes Sandole (2000) when quoting Burton to indicate that “distinguishing needs-based conflicts, and the processes of conflict resolution properly so called, from interest-based disputes and the processes characteristic of strategic studies, conventional diplomacy, and alternative dispute resolution.”

The other fact is that, when the resolver of the conflict is armed with all the basic concepts of the human needs theory, he or she will be able to understand both the tricky and the contradicting issues. This will enable him or her to understand whether there is a need to initiate a negotiation or is a dispute they are trying to solve.

If the problem, for example, has been brought up by different personal identities, it will be necessary for one resolving the conflict to be analytical by exposing the differences and the interests that lie in satisfying the needs of the parties involved in the conflict.

Therefore, in the end, he or she can be able to offer a wide range of possible solutions in order to solve the conflict amicably. If the resolver can be able to classify the unsatisfied need among the parties in a conflict, then he or she can be able to explain who ever is trying to have control or manipulate the other in the conflict.

Finally, a good understanding of the theory enables the resolver to understand the relationship between the conflict and the conflict solution thus in the end he or she will be able to provide a long lasting solution. If the conflicting parties are able to identify their unsatisfied needs, its only then they can be able to discuss and consider the methods of accommodating each other and thus the necessity of understanding the human needs theory.

However, despite the successes of the theory, there exist limitations to which the theory can be applied. Experts have argued that establishing an objective basis for the salient needs as indefensibly de-contextualized (Avruch, 1998).

Further Development:

There has never been a theory that can satisfy the human needs fully and thus as human beings try to satisfy their needs, conflicts will always arise. Thus, the human needs theory can be developed further by ensuring the identity need in the context of a personal or group history is established even before entering into the negotiation process.

The theory can also be further developed at investigating the needs and satisfiers which might be available thus reducing chances of a conflict arising. Finally, the theory presents solutions at general and abstract levels thus there is a need of making the theory more centered in understanding the basics needs role in the conflict.

References

Anonymous. (2009). Reducing Violence: Applying the Human Needs Theory to the Conflict in Chechnya. Review of International Law and Politics (RILP), Vol.3, No.11, 2007, pp.89-108. Web.

Avruch, K. (1999). Culture and Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: U.S. Institute of Peace. Web.

Burton, J. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. New York: St. Martins Press. Web.

Hudson, K., Grisham, T., Srinivasan, P. & Moussa, N. (2005). Conflict Management, Negotiation, and Effective Communication: Essential Skills for Project Managers. Web.

Marslow, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Web.

Rubenstein, R. Basic Human Needs: The Next Steps in Theory Development. International Journal of Peace Studies. Web.

Sandole, J. D. (2000). John Burton’s contribution to conflict resolution theory and practice: a personal view. The International Journal of Peace Studies. Web.

Spangle, M., Isenhart, W. W. (2003). Negotiation: communication for diverse settings. NY: SAGE Publishers. Web.

I am going to analyze my experience of negotiations, during which I intended to sell a syndicated program Moms.com to an independent local station, WCHI. My key interests included negotiating the price per episode, the number of playbacks, and the payment cycle. The first two issues were of most importance to me. My reservation price was $35,000 per episode, and my BATNA was the $2.5 million offer for Moms.com from WWIN, as well as $10,000 per episode for Juniors from WXYZ. I came to the negotiating table with the expectation of receiving not less than $60,000 per episode and not more than five times playback.

The debate began with uncertainty because my opponent was not sure what number of playbacks he wanted to negotiate. There was a moment of silence, after which I used the anchoring technique and made the first offer of $80,000 and five runs per episode. It was a critical point of the negotiation, and I felt that my offer confused my opponent since he was sitting in silence. After he made a counteroffer of $55,000 and six runs per episode, I felt that we reached an impasse, so we decided to take a break.

The second attempt began with the reasoning of my offer and explaining how much the opponent would be able to earn based on the average projected rate of return. I was not successful since the opponent rejected my offer and offered $70,000 per episode but demanded seven runs of each episode. I tried to elicit information from my opponent, but he evaded my questions or said nothing, which caused me to disclose my information. The final critical moment was when I took the initiative and reduced the price to $65,000 per episode with five times of playback. At this point, the opponent agreed to the offer, and the negotiation ended.

I am not sure that the anchoring technique worked well for me in this case. Apparently, I set an extremely high initial price that frightened off my opponent and led to the break in the negotiation. One of the things that I would do differently next time is to express less eagerness and better control my emotions. I think that I was too eager to explain my point to the opponent and making multiple offers. As a result, I paid little attention to negotiating the payment cycle and made my opponent feel confused. Furthermore, next time, I will try not to succumb to the temptation of filling in the gap when my opponent is silent. During this negotiation, I failed to do this, which led me to reveal too much of my information and learn nothing about my opponent’s interests.

In my opinion, my opponent’s negotiating strategy was distributive rather than integrative because he made counteroffers that were not acceptable for me. For example, he demanded seven runs per episode while I could agree to five at most. Furthermore, my opponent acted more like an adversary rather than a partner. He refused to explain his position or to disclose his information so that we could reach the best possible agreement. Finally, he overused silence, which made me reveal much more information about my interests than I intended to disclose.

In this negotiation, I learned that a hostile attitude toward the opponent and unequal sharing of information hinders the establishment of good relationships between negotiating parties and prevents them from reaching the most successful outcomes. In my future negotiations, I will be more careful in revealing my information until I get some valuable data from the opponent. I will also be more cautious when making the first offer. Unfortunately, my opponent and I did not manage to craft a contingent contract, although the negotiating situation allowed for it. In real-life negotiations, I will try to keep in mind this approach to negotiations and offer it to my opponent when there is an uncertain future event in question.

Negotiation aims to resolve the conflict between my colleague and me for the benefit of both the corporate operations and our relationship. Each of us tried to humiliate the other at the stalemate level, thus resulting in negligence of our purpose in the work environment. The process went into a stalemate when my workmates felt the adverse effects of our conflict on the operations of the business. My reaction stalled the normal operations in the sales department, which prompted the sales manager’s intervention. After understanding the cause of the problem, the chief accountant and the human resource manager were engaged because promotional issues lie in the human resource department.

However, the negotiation process faced potential barriers to achieving the anticipated goals. The conflict had escalated to a point where other persons got involved. The sales department personnel had realized that I had developed a bad attitude towards them. In response, they linked my behavior to pride since I had been working with them before getting a promotion. Moreover, my colleague viewed the human resource manager as biased since he is qualified for the position, and thus my promotion was allegedly not only based on merit but also as biased.

Additionally, neither my colleague nor I was willing to reconcile with each other at a time when the negotiation process was starting. I had anger and bitterness towards my colleague because I felt that he was the major cause of the conflict. I could not understand why he developed a bad attitude towards me after getting a promotion, and I had have worked with him in the sales department for a long period. I concluded that he was jealous and thus I considered him as the biggest enemy to my career success. On the other hand, my colleague could not understand why I put pressure on him after getting a promotion especially having worked with him and learned his working behaviors. He felt that I was trying to humiliate him due to my higher position. Therefore, he considered me arrogant and unworthy of being considered a friend. Hence, the negotiation process could not succeed without us resolving our twisted notions and attitudes towards each other.

The individuals involved in the negotiation process were of high caliber in the workplace. Our immediate bosses needed to be involved in the negotiation process, which explains why both the chief accountant and the sales manager were present. Their main interests were to present the departments since our conflict was interdepartmental when looked at from the business operations perspective. Moreover, they were to clarify our roles in our respective departments and inform us of the relationship between the two departments coupled with how we should conduct ourselves when interacting in business operations. Hence, the two had a great influence on the negotiation process, and their best no-deal options were to ensure that their departmental operations were not affected by the personal conflict between my colleague and me.

Besides, the human resource manager was very critical of the negotiation process, and thus he had to be present. The role of the human resource manager is to handle the welfare of workers in a workplace including resolving personal conflicts among others. A human resource manager has the relevant skills for resolving conflicts. Therefore, he was the best-suited person for the process, and the best no-deal option was to ensure our differences did not interfere with the smooth flow of business operations in the organization.

The map of the sequence of negotiations started with the understanding of the causes of conflict between the two of us. We were in a roundtable meeting in the human resource manager’s office. My colleague was given the first opportunity to explain why we conflicted. Afterward, I was allowed to talk, and everybody else was supposed to listen while one party talked. The sales manager was given a chance to explain the causes of the problem from what we had said. Surprisingly, he pointed out the problem to me for failing to use the laid down mechanisms of communication between departments. My colleague was pointed as the cause of the problem for reacting when I asked for a sales record and more so demanding that I comply with his work pace and attitude. The chief accountant was also given a chance, and he pointed each one of us as the cause of the problem.

Finally, the human resource manager told us that we were the causes of the problems revolving around our conflict. He noted that my friend was jealous of my promotion, and he cautioned him for trying to sabotage the operations of the accounting department. He also looked at me in the eye and said that I behaved mischievously after realizing there was a problem and failing to report the matter to the relevant authority. Finally, he asked each one of us to take time, relook at our roles in the workplace, and resolve to have healthy relations with everyone else in the workplace. We were given time to explain the causes of the conflict and to my surprise, we collaborated with the human resource manager’s comments. Before leaving the office, the human resource manager assured my colleague of promotion after achieving an exemplary performance according to the set rules of promotion in the organization. According to the set rules, promotion can only come after one achieves certain performance and qualifications.

Conflict Analysis Checklist

References

Ayub, N., & Jehn, K. (2014). When diversity helps performance: Effects of diversity on conflict and performance in workgroups. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(2), 189 – 212.

Berg, W., Curseu, L., & Meeus, M. (2014). Emotion regulation and conflict transformation in multi-team systems. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25(2), 171 – 188.

Convette, A. (2006). Conflict Management: A Practical Guide to Developing Negotiation Strategies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Furlong, G. (2005). The Conflict Resolution Toolbox: Models and Maps for Analyzing, Diagnosing, and Resolving Conflict. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Levinger, M. (2013). Conflict Analysis: Understanding Causes, Unlocking Solutions. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., & Barry, B. (2014). Negotiation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

The Meech Lake accord was an agreement signed between the government of Canada and representatives of Quebec province in 1987. According to Barker (1), the main objective of the agreement was that Quebec province wanted the government of Canada to delegate to it the responsibility to control the reception and the integration of all the immigrants that come to settle in the province of Quebec.

The accord was brought in so as to address the needs of Quebec province which did not ratify the first constitutional act of 1982 since the province claimed that it did not address the interests of the province. The five principle demands of Quebec province that it needed to be satisfied before it could sign the accord were:

• A constitutional veto which could make possible for a province to bloc any constitutional amendment
• The recognition of Quebec province as a distinct entity
• The right to grant provinces to present lists of people to be appointed as judges of supreme court
• The right to limit federal spending power, i.e. the allowance of every province to withdraw from the national program and to be given powers to create their own federal monies.
• That Quebec province is given autonomy and control over matters of immigration.

Main Analysis and Critique

This accord was ratified by eight of the ten provincial legislatures; it was rejected by the province of aboriginal and newfound land. These demands by Quebec province were so unrealistic since they did not factor in the needs, the opinions and the considerations of other provinces. This made the accord destined for failure of implementation.

The implementation of the accord was given a grace period of 3 years until 1990 so as to allow for public debate and the scrutiny of the accord. Majority of the public were ignorant of the accord and still were not aware of it after the collapse of the accord. The Meech accord is still an important event in the history of Canada despite its failure (1).

The failure to achieve the signature of two most influential and powerful provinces so as to enable for the adoption of the accord meant that the province of Quebec was still out of the federal constitutional framework and this cast its future in Canada into doubt because as the second largest province it has not yet signed the constitution. The failure of the accord revealed an unstable foundation of Canada’s political structure.

The sharp divisions between regions in Canada could inevitably make it impossible and unrealistic to achieve ratification of the accord by all the ten provinces. Since the accord was occasioned by failure of the Fifth Amendment to the constitution which sought only the recognition of Quebec province as an independent province, it was considered retrogressive in form especially in the era of post -charter since it sought to perpetuate the archaic practice in Canadian politics of recognizing only two of the historic groups of Canada.

The Meech accord elicited some popular criticism both of process and criticisms of substance. The constitutional amendment to the constitution through the accord was unwarranted and unacceptable due to the fact that the charter of rights and the formula of amending it had been ratified by Quebec province. This charter was to unite all the Canadians.

The charter gave leverage to the minority and the marginalized to have a say in the constitutional debate. The accord was considered a threat to the national unity by yielding to sectarian demands while ignoring majority say. As Esselment (2) remarks, the controversial clause that led to the failure of the implementation of the accord was the clause that demanded the recognition of Quebec province as a distinct society.

This was by fact considered impractical in country with two main societies: the French speaking society centered in Quebec province and the English speaking society that populate the areas outside Quebec province. Consequently, the accord was considered a fury and angered the aboriginal group and other ethno cultural minorities since they saw the accord as a plot to marginalize them and to leave them outside Canada. The accord discredited the founding nations of Canada and hence it was termed as detrimental.

The two provinces which failed to ratify the accord were interested in amendments to the accord that could safeguard the following three fundamental aspects of the Canadian country, these are: the charter rights, ethno cultural diversity and the equality of all the provinces failure of which it could lead to the destruction of the nation.

Whereas Quebec province might consider the failure of the accord as a betrayal by the English-speaking society, it may not hold water since it should be remembered that no province rejected the accord only that there were reservations raised by some provinces which required to be addressed so as to make the accord conform with the charter rights. The rejection of the accord served to foster the traditional nationalism in Canada.

Conclusion

There still exists a looming shadow of Quebec province regarding the ability of Canada to reconstitute itself. The failure of the accord brought to the fore the reality that any constitutional change should capture the multicultural aspect of Canada, the Quebec province, the English-speaking Canada and the indigenous population.

References

1. Barker F. Learning to be a majority: negotiating immigration, integration and national membership in Quebec. Political Science. 2010;62(1):11-36.
2. Esselment AL. A little help from my friends: the partisan factor and intergovernmental negotiations in Canada. Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 2013;43(4):701-727.