Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Background
The case study is about two opposing groups that were in disagreement regarding the requirements of constructing wind turbines on Samsø Island, Denmark. According to Papazu (2014), the project was saddled with a lot of uncertainties. The developers and investors dismissed the complaints made by the residents of Mejlflak. They made the assumption that it was merely a manifestation of a phenomenon labeled as “Not in My Backyard” or NIMBY.
From the perspective of the developers and big business investors, the residents were complaining about the noise and aesthetic impact of 150-meter turbines in their beloved community. They were unwilling to invest time and effort in trying to understand the reasons why there was opposition to the proposed project.
If the developers and investors went to the meetings with an open mind, they would have discovered the deep-seated reasons and the negative feelings that fueled the objection to the said project. They would have discovered that aside from aesthetic reasons, the residents complained about legal, financial and technical issues that were not resolved before starting the project.
If the investors and developer dug deeper, they would have discovered that the failure to consult the residents before making a public announcement about the project is one of the main reasons why the residents are opposing the idea of constructing wind turbines near their homes.
Given the situation, the windmill project looked more like an experiment. It was perceived as an ill-conceived project that may not benefit the inhabitants of Samsø Island. In her discussion on “understanding the opposition,” Papazu (2014) brings out the ‘objects of politics’ surrounding the Samsø windmill project. According to Papazu projects that generate public interest usually take a political twist.
In politics, the opposition’s view is usually ignored since they do not have direct control over the operations of the government. In most cases, the developers introduce new projects without consulting various stakeholders. This mindset causes the rejection of project proposals by the intended beneficiaries. In the case study, the residents of Samsø were not adequately informed about how the project was likely to influence their lives.
While they expressed their concerns, the developers did not give them a listening ear. The developers and the investors made the decision to persuade the residents to accept their position regarding the importance of the wind turbines.
The developers had a negative attitude regarding the solution to the problem as they already had a conviction that it was impossible to reach an agreement with their opponents. The best way would have been to involve members of the opposing team so that they too could have a sense of ownership of the project.
Their influence could create a major deterrent in the project implementation. Therefore, it would have been prudent to take them seriously as they have something important to contribute to the planning and preparation phase of the said project.
Process Followed Based on the Book “Getting to Know Yes”?
The Contending Parties Argued Over Positions
The developers and the investors made an argument based on a particular position. They took the position that eco-friendly technology like wind turbines is the best thing that could happen to the people of Mejlflak. The residents opposing the construction of the wind turbines took the position that it is unlawful to erect giant windmills, because it is noisy and degrades the natural beauty of the landscape.
The Contending Parties Failed to Separate the People from the Problem
The developers and the investors made the premature conclusion that the residents were spoiled property owners. They said that the residents wanted to benefit from clean energy. But they are unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to build renewable sources of energy. The residents on the other hand viewed the developers and the investors as insensitive and profit-oriented businessmen.
The Contending Parties Failed to Focus on the Underlying Interest of the Stakeholders
The focus was not on the underlying interest of the various stakeholders affected by the plan to build wind turbines in Mejlflak. The developers and the investors focused on the importance of the project. The residents focused on their own needs.
The Contending Parties did not Develop Options for Mutual Gain
The investors and the developers did not consider alternative project sites. They insisted that the best place to erect giant wind turbines was an area described as near-shore. The residents on the other hand created a hard stance against any type of construction within the area under their jurisdiction.
The Contending Parties Failed to Use Objective Criteria to Resolve the Issue at Hand
The investors and the developers did not persuade the residents to reconsider their decision to oppose the project based on objective criteria. They insisted that their position is the best course of action. In the same manner, the residents did not attempt to look for objective criteria to resolve the issue with the developers and investors.
The root cause of the failure to resolve the problem was the insistence to hold on to established positions that they created before they went into negotiations (Fisher & Ury, 1991). The problem was exacerbated by the fact that the focus of the argument was the people behind the project.
The criticism was directed at the people behind the complaints made against the proposed project. Both parties made the conclusion that it was the greed or capriciousness of the people involved that served as the main roadblock to success.
If they dug deeper into the issue, they would have discovered the underlying interest of each party. The developers and the investors would have discovered that the residents are not against the construction of wind turbines in the island.
They would have discovered that they were offended by their non-inclusion in the preparatory stages of the project design. On the other hand, the residents would have discovered that the investors and developers have a genuine passion to build non-renewable sources of energy.
If the investors and developers went out of their way to know more about the concerns of the contending party, they would have proposed an alternative construction site. On the other hand, the residents would have discovered that the developers and investors did not prepare alternatives because they thought that their plan was acceptable to all the stakeholders in the said area.
If the contending parties were armed with the correct knowledge regarding effective negotiation techniques, they would search for objective criteria to help them resolve the issue. But in this case, this particular strategy was never utilized. As a result the contending parties resorted to creating a hardline stance, no one was going to give up the position that they have chosen in the beginning of the negotiation process.
Using the Book “Getting To Know Yes,” Discuss in Your Opinion How They Can Solve the Issue Better?
The developers and the investors would have succeeded if they hired an effective negotiator. An effective negotiator will never focus on the personalities involved in the issue. An effective negotiator will focus on the interest of the contending parties. An effective negotiator will never bargain based on a position. An effective negotiator will never make the mistake of jumping to conclusions that the residents were hypocrites and spoiled property owners.
An effective negotiator will immediately determine the underlying reasons why the residents decided to fight against the construction of wind turbines within their community. The negotiator will realize that the residents were offended because they were not included in the preliminary discussions regarding the idea of building giant wind turbines in their area.
The negotiator will discover that the residents were not opposing the project based on the NIMBY phenomenon. There are ethical, legal, and financial issues that have to be resolved before they could move forward. The negotiator will communicate these issues clearly to his employers. At the same time the negotiator will make the residents feel that their inputs are valuable for the purpose of project implementation. The negotiator will make them realize that investors and developers are passionate about the proliferation of renewable sources of energy in the country.
In the end, the negotiator will consult with the residents regarding objective criteria that can be utilized to resolve the issue. For example, the negotiator will make the suggestion to the residents that in order to break the deadlock, both parties must agree on using precedents and government standards with regards to the construction of giant turbines near a residential community. Using objective criteria like legal statutes, ordinances, and historical precedents creates a neutral area of discussion without provoking an emotional reaction from members of the contending parties.
References
Fisher, R. Ury, W. & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
Papazu, I. (2014). Understanding opposition: The case of a near shore wind farm controversy- Not another NIMBY story. For the Workshop Devices and Desires: The Cultural Politics of Low Carbon Society, University of Copenhagen. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.