peeunity NEGOTIATION What is negotiation? According to Kennedy (1992) negotiation can be defined as - - A process of getting what we want from people who want something from us. A process of conflict resolution between two or more parties whereby the parties modify their demands to come up with a mutually acceptable compromise. A process of adjusting the parties’ views of their ideal outcome to an attainable result. In essence it is a process that involves trading and exchanging particular desires. Kennedy (ibid) sums it up thus: “Give me some of what I want, and I will give you some of what you want” negotiation involves give and take. Simply put, negotiation is a process involving dealings between individuals or parties that are intended to result in an agreement and commitment to a course of action. In other words negotiation can involve two parties (bilateral) or several parties (multilateral). Negotiations can be in the form of face-to-face interaction, by fax, e-mail, letter or phone. Before a more detailed discussion of negotiation is done, it is important to note that negotiation is primarily a result and/or product CONFLICT. According to Fielding (1997) conflict is inevitable when people work together. Naturally people may differ on a number of things among which are leadership styles, values, needs and attributes. This will inevitably lead to conflict. Conflict can be viewed either as positive or negotiative. The negative view is that conflict is seen as destructive and should be avoided as because it reflects badly on the organization. On the other hand, conflict may be used in constructive manner to stimulate better interaction and new ways of addressing problems (Fielding 1997). Whereas the negative approach to conflict in organizations leads to an attitude that conflict is caused by a few undesirable elements and associated with aggression and violence, the positive approach sees conflict as something that is unavoidable, something that can be helpful if handled properly and something that can lead to better participation, higher motivation and greater creativity. It is important to note that proper handling of conflict can result in the developing of procedure for improved future management of conflict. Although the positive approach sees conflict as natural, it also recognizes the fact that conflict can be harmful if employees are so engrossed in it that they do not concentrate on their responsibilities. Conflict can be a barrier to communication as people may withhold information, stay away, leave the organization, or simply adopt a safe position because they do not want to be seen as thinking differently from the rest of their workmates. Types of conflict Fielding (ibid) describes conflict (from two viewpoints) - people involved type of conflict The people involved a) Personal conflict: this is where individuals may have conflicting needs and cannot meet all of them at once. Can you give examples b) Interpersonal conflict: caused by differences in attitudes, experience or competition for resources, dislike of other people, or dominance of c) other individuals over others. Can be quite destructive if people attack each other. Organisational conflict: as an organization expands, for example, functions and responsibilities become complex. Conflicts are bound to cause. Give typical examples of the situations described in (b) and (c) above. Another dimension of describing conflict is by looking at it according to its type: (I) (II) value conflict is where people within the company see their values as fundamental to their existence. Values are very difficult to change and as such conflict arising from these values may e difficult to resolve. In such cases, it may be advisable to work t find other areas of agreement. Context conflict is where people may differ on their bahaviours, attitudes or what they see as facts or opinions. Unlike value conflict, context conflict may easier t resolve so long as it does not degenerate into personality attacks. How to cope with conflict Fielding gives two different ways of managing conflict normally avoiding conflict and confronting conflict. Avoiding conflict Some people avoid conflict by ignoring the differences or adapt a wait-and-see attitude where they hope that the conflict will go away. Others may try t defer the resolutions of conflict until anger has disappeared. The approach is said t be helpful in some way but does not allow people to settle the most crucial issues. Confronting conflict When people resolve to tackle the problem they could take three approaches - Win-lose (trying to win without considering the other side) Lose-lose (trying to compromise solution) Win-win (trying to make both sides win Win-lose approach - is usually based on power one side uses authority to defeat the other party the approach is generally seen as a short-term and can cause a great deal of anger and animosity. Lose-lose approach (compromise approach) - each side makes concessions but either party is not completely satisfied. The approach is seen as a stop gap measure, but which can lead to a great deal of dissatification in the long run. Win-win - here both or all parties should look at the problem rather than proving who is right or wrong they work together towards a common goal that will satisfy everybody Fielding proposes the following as implications for communication in a business context: - analyse the type of conflict create an atmosphere of trust as fast as possible work towards a win-win approach acknowledge the values and interests of others. Neutral, instead of disparaging language is crucial Encourage clear statement of the problems All possible communication networks should be encouraged to open Above all, those involved in the management of conflict should develop excellent negotiation skills. Having looked at what negotiation and conflict entail as well as the obvious relationship between them, let us now focus on negotiation in some detail. The Negotiation Process It involves three stages: (a) (b) (c) preparation face-to-face negotiation implementation of agreement Preparation Many negotiators are poor planners. A significant number of negotiation events fail because of poor planning. Planning involves: - defining the issues clearly defining the interests clearly assessing the bargaining power of each party carefully finding out how the other side’s bargaining power can be weakened (i.e. if you are directly involved) deciding on the intermediate points you must win in order to gain your overall objective preparing your case to win Please note that if you are going to negotiate on behalf of somebody else, gain the approval for how you are going to negotiate. Face to face negotiation Ideally this should take place in a setting that is conducive for you or this may not always be the case. Some people take advantage of their offices and other sources of power. During face to face negotiation: - - c) Causing certainty - d) find out clearly the other party’s stance e.g. their argument, reasons why they feel they are right, and how far they may move from their position. Concentrate on their reasons and arguments and strive to make them see why the may need to move away from that position. sometimes silence over a reasonable period of time may cause uncertainty and can help you when you eventually negotiate. Being Nice and Nusty - Police officers sometimes employ this tactic when interrogating suspects. Although this may not be negotiation, the same tactic may be used where the nasty guy may use some threats. E.g. “then with the kind of percent increment you are proposing, we might as well close shop” But the nice guy might later say, look everyone, lets be more focused and realistic in our approach to the issue of profits and dividends ………… There might be need for some adjustments to your demands” NB. Take great care so that your tactics do not achieve the opposite. For example, instead of weakening the other party’s position, you may well be strengthening their cohesion where they adopt an even more resolute stance. e) High Ball/Low Ball - ask for something that was not part of the issues being negotiated - intimidation and threats suggest how an agreement can be reached formally finalize agreement Some tactics in negotiation a) Split the Opposition - if there are differences in the other camp, you capitalize on those b) Direct question e.g. “so you want 50% retention allowance and nothing more?” some experienced negotiators would either not respond to such a direct question or answer it with another direct question e.g. “what did you have in mind?” In some cases the experienced negotiator can prevent the inexperienced from responding. This can help you in the negotiation process. Try to find out why? Factors that affect negotiations 1. Power - ability to exercise control Sources of power - information and expert power resource control; legitimate power personal power integrity attractiveness 2. Time - the urgency of each party to achieve result 3. Information 4. Cultural background 5. Media 6. setting/Venue 7. Negotiating styles/strategies/tactics/techniques.
