Whether or Not Negotiation Skills Are Similar in All Fields - Term Paper Example

NEGOTIATION SKILLS Negotiation Skills Negotiation Skills Introduction Negotiation is a common practice that people undergo in order to resolve personal or work related differences. Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2011), assert that negotiation is not only reserved for a specified group but it is something that all people do at a certain period in their life. The topic on negotiation skills is imperative since it offers critical information on ways in which persons, coming from different background and professions benefit from negotiating and how they should undertake the process and improve on their abilities to ensure success. Some of the main terms, which will be explored in the paper are negotiation as well as negotiation skills. According to Manning and Robertson (2004), negotiation skills are the abilities needed in the arbitration process. Brett (2012) asserts that negotiation is a process in which confronting parties focus on resolving their issues in an effort to attain a common goal. Therefore, this paper is only limited to detailing the fact that negotiation is for all persons and answering the question on whether or not negotiation skills are similar in all fields they are practiced. It is indisputably that negotiation is meant for all people regardless of their age, gender, as well as ethnic affiliation and the required skills are different in diverse settings or situations. Negotiation is reserved for all persons According to Caputo (2012, p. 374), negotiation skills are imperative and they should be improved in order to ensure a competitive edge in the business and political arena. This is a factual statement, considering that such skills are imperative in various fields and are vital to professional as well as laymen. It is evident that negotiation cannot be said to be a process that is meant for only top salespeople, advocates, or skilled diplomats. However, it is something that all persons do in their day to day life. Although negotiation skills are not similar in all fields, everyone does negotiate and different skills are required, depending on what is being negotiated for. For instance, in peace accords as well as when organisations are formulating mergers, the negotiation stakes are higher and dramatic as compared to when people are simply negotiating to get a new job (Barron 2003, pp. 635-637). Different people undergo the negotiation process since they face numerous sources of conflicts in their day to day life. The theory of conflict process identifies numerous structural roots of clash within the organisations such as having incompatible goals, when there are differences in people’s values, training, experiences, as well as beliefs, and interdependence when team members depend on one another to accomplish goals and their results or performance hinges on others. Other sources of conflicts are scarce resources, ambiguous rules, and problems in communication (Vayrynen 2001). Therefore, in an effort to negotiate and resolve the aforementioned conflicts, the negotiators must have diverse set of skills in order to emphasise on the need to have shared goals, reduce differentiation, enhance communication, and decrease interdependence. Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2011) affirm that negotiation is for all persons and not just a few people. This is factual since arbitration as a field of academic enquiries is within various subject areas such as economics, management, industrial relations, and psychology among others. Common to all situations that require negotiations are a number of major characteristics, which include interacting freely and not necessarily accepting what the other party will voluntarily offer or permit. Other characteristics includes conflicts on particular interests, expectations, preferences to agree and not necessarily dominate, techniques of persuasion, intangibles such as psychological motivations, and tangibles such as the terms of agreement (Charlesworth & Baird 2007, pp.393-395; Thompson 2005). Negotiation Skills Differ in Diverse Situations When there is a need to have a Common Ground and Reach Objective There are various reasons why people negotiate such as getting a common ground in which they can divide or share resources such as land, to innovate, and when resolving problems among others. Sometimes parties fail to negotiate on issues or perform poorly since they do not have competitive skills. Consequently, they fail to achieve the set goals, resolve their problems amicably, and get what they require (Dorochoff 2007, pp. 34-35). It is factual that situations, which need negotiation might be similar but that does not mean they require the same dexterity. For example, there are situations that need assertive and aggressive approaches such as confrontation in case winning is the main priority. However, others require one of the parties to submit or surrender in order to come to an agreement on time. In other situations, the parties jointly solve the problem since they have similar objective and in other cases they consult each other if they are simply seeking opinions and not necessarily in need of making a decision. There are other situations where parties need to compromise, encouraging less or more level of cooperation and where they need to collaborate with an aim of getting an affirmative outcome (Singh 2011, pp. 4-5). Negotiation entails seeking consensus among parties whereby the parties first verbalise offers or contradictory demands. With the use of different persuasion skills, the offers as well as demands change during the process through argumentation or mutual persuasion until a mutual agreement is reached upon. The party that is convinced to accept to the other’s demands undergo a belief revision, meaning that their persuasion skills were different from those of the winning team (Zhang & Foo 2001, pp. 525-526). When Groups have Different Ideologies Donaldson (2011, pp. 299-300) argues that in most cases, negotiation to get all parties to agree to the outcomes can prove to be difficult since they all want to show off. Whether it is a group concerning law makers, labour union, or individuals within diverse voting bodies, it is possible to have some groups discredit the other either because they have different beliefs, are from another political party, or it is just their nature. This means that no matter how good one or a party thinks they have performed, they will need at some point to sell the agreement to the rest of the groups. In that case, they will need to employ skills that are dissimilar from that of the competitors in order to win the approval of the majority as different people are representative of deviating set of interests. Getting all people on the same chapter, mostly with regard to negotiation can prove to be complex, frustrating, and time consuming; hence, it is important to have the right skills at hand to heighten the chances of a win-win or win-loss situation (Parsons, Sierra & Jennings 2004). When Circumstances are different and Negotiators have diverse Traits Neves et al. (2013, pp.30-31) affirm that the results of negotiation is highly dependent on the profiles of people who are negotiating. It is impossible to use similar skills in all circumstances since the audience that is present in the negotiation can have an impact on the outcome. This means that when the audience has a direct venture in the bargain, it is possible for the negotiators to employ more competitive expertise and be less willing to go ahead with concessions to prove that they are making an effort towards the greater good of the firm (Moore & Woodrow 2010). On the same note, Mintu- Wimsatt (2002, p. 729) and Ma (2008, p. 774) claim that personality traits play a major role in the negotiation process. In that case, since different people have diverse traits, it is impossible to have the same skills practiced in the same manner in all fields. Negotiations entail reconciling conflicting or diverse goal outcomes. Therefore, the parties ought to be prepared to move from the original position and arrive to an agreed solution. For this to ensue, the negotiators require to have the necessary skills to read the body language, communicate effectively, have listening abilities, be diplomatic, assertive, be patient, have a sense of humour, and an aptitude to resolve conflicts among others. However, although these skills are necessary, they cannot be used in all situations. For instance, when a particular country is negotiating for peace, the negotiator must have competent communication skills, be tolerant, should be able to read the body language, and deal with conflicts appropriately. However, the situation is different in case family members are negotiating on whether or not to remove one of their loved ones from life support. In such a scenario, the parties must have proper listening skills to avoid resistance. This means that in most cases, different situations require diverse skills though in some cases it is possible to use similar skills such as effective listening and problem solving tactics (Harvard Business School Press 2006, pp. 312-313). Negotiation is not reserved for particular persons in the society but it is something that all people from different backgrounds and status do on daily basis. For instance, more than negotiating agreements as well as salaries, people negotiate and discuss ways in which they can buy a new car, land, or home. Therefore, every person has certain negotiation skills in order to influence, get better deals, deal with complex people, strengthen their positions, enhance relationships, be confident, and create value. It is without a doubt that bargaining in business is different and so are the skills required. For instance, the negotiation of agreements, acquisitions and licenses is different from that aimed at settling labour conflicts or legal suits as far as their approach, negotiating style, leverage application, and objectives are concerned. Frascogna and Hetherington (2001, pp.168-171) argue that for one to sharpen their bargaining skills in today’s world of business, they need to understand as well as appreciate the apparent differences. Furthermore, the negotiation skills are different in diverse circumstances since everyone has something to gain, mostly in business. Business negotiators often bargain with more optimism than other professionals such as advocates that are focused on conflict resolution. The reason is because in business, all persons involved stand to gain from a probable business deal. Unlike in legal environments, in business, the alternative to coming to an agreement is not a jury trial but a lost prospect. This does not mean that the ramifications that come with failing to reach into a consensus are not grave and catastrophic, but in most cases it is the case. As a result, the tone and skills utilised in business oriented negotiations are cooperative as well as upbeat as opposed to the calm and less amiable atmosphere with regard to conflict resolution related negotiations (Gopalakrishnan 2003, pp. 317-319). Depending on the Expected Outcome Walzer (2007) asserts that the skills used in negotiation vary, depending on the degree as well as the type of gain expected. They may involve realising tangible benefits such as heightened cash flow, acquired expertise, and diversified production among others. It can also involve attaining less tangible and indirect goals such getting more power, prestige, or enhancing relations. Regardless of the type of benefit that is sought, negotiation skills are important and the negotiators need to know when to use some and do away with the rest as not all are important. Negotiation skills are important and can help one in managing different life situations; hence, successful negotiators plan ahead, consider vast outcomes, look for a particular common ground, and avoid annoying behaviours. Since conflict entails competition among the interdependent parties, the same skills that are needed in negotiating internal conflicts can be used to solve external conflicts to achieve desirable results. In that case, to a small extent, there are situations where similar skills can be used but it is not in all cases (Coan 2010; Sycara 2007, pp. 203-204). Theories in relation to Negotiation Skills The dual concern theory or model assumes that people prefer solving conflicts due to personal fear in addition to that of the other people. According to the theory, parties satisfy their personal interests as well as needs by satisfying those of others. Therefore, the intersection of the dimensions lead people towards exhibiting diverse styles of resolving conflicts such as avoidance, yielding, cooperation, competitive, and conciliation style. This theory helps in explaining why different skills are used during negotiation in order to come to a common ground (Sherman, Gawronski & Trope 2014, pp. 98-101). For instance, in case two firms are discussing on ways they can merge, it is obvious that they both stand to gain; hence, the negotiators will use diverse skills to ensure they come to an accord and have a mutual benefit. There is also the structural analysis theory that is rooted on distribution of strong or empowering components among parties that are negotiating. The other is strategic analysis theory, which assumes that the parties involved have a veto; hence, can defect or cooperate. The difficulty in this case is that the parties are never sure that the other is going to ultimately cooperate since concessions are not returned and decisions are made at a particular time. Consequently, they employ different interrogation skills such as persuasion and persistence in order to make the process of cooperation easier and in case one skill or strategy fails, they try another one. There is also the process analysis theory that is similar to haggling where parties start from two major points, then, converge to other numerous concessions. This means that the negotiation process unfolds between major fixed entries where there is a starting discord point and convergence point at the end. It is clear that negotiation skills are diverse and this can be easily noted in bad faith concept, which is under the negotiation theory. In this case, parties come together, pretending to reason out in order to reach a particular settlement, though; they do not intend to do so. For example, a particular political party is likely to suggest negotiation but has no intention of compromising since they do not want to be perceived as weak. As a result, the parties do not use similar negotiation skills that can be used in other areas such as when negotiating for a salary or calling off a strike, rather, they employ manipulative skills and in circumstances where they fail to work, they utilise others (Ramakrishna 2008, pp. 60-62; Allen & Russell 2009). There are various theoretical concepts that are crucial in understanding some of the negotiating strategies and skills. They include differences between lose-lose, win-win, win-lose, zero-sum, negative sum, and positive sum scenarios. Negotiation can either be integrative or distributive whereby in the latter, which is referred to as zero-sum or win-lose situation, one party emerges the winner whereas the other one loses (Maaravi, Pazy & Ganzach 2014). For instance, in case nations are drawing political related lines during peace negotiations, the region that a particular country gains becomes a loss to the rest of the nations. Furthermore, in the integrative negotiation, which is also known as win-win situation, parties strategise and think of new concepts that a particular side can give the other and then they claim it. A good example is that an employer may likely offer more benefits such as health in exchange of a worker settling for a reduced salary. In both integrative and distributive negotiation, the negotiators use different skills to persuade the employees to accept a deal or to come to a peace agreement (Bereby-Meyer, Moran & Sattler 2010, pp. 64-67). Conclusion Without the skills required in the negotiation process; it is possible that businesses as well as relations will be at a disadvantage. It is obvious from literature that negotiation is not just meant for a few people but it is done by all persons regardless of their background. However, this does not mean that negotiation skills are the same in all areas where they are practiced. Different circumstances require diverse skills, depending on the set objectives, the audience, and the expectations. For that reason, negotiators should have competent skills and understand that at times, similar situations might require them to employ other strategies in order to have a win-win situation. Therefore, this paper concludes that though negotiation is reserved for all persons, the skills needed are not the same in all fields since people have different traits and there are diverse expectations as well as demands in every circumstance. ` Reference List Allen, T.D & Russell, J.E, 2009, ‘Parental Leave of Absence: some not so Family Friendly Implications’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 29, no.1, pp. 166-191. Barron, L, 2003, ‘Ask and Shall Receive? Gender differences in Negotiators’ Beliefs about Requests for a Highest Salary’, Human Relations, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 635-662. Bereby-Meyer, Y., Moran, S & Sattler, L, 2010, ‘the Effects of Achievement Motivational Goals and of Debriefing on the Transfer of Skills in Integrative Negotiations’, Negotiations and Conflict Management Research, vol. 3, no.1, pp. 64-86. Brett, J, 2012, negotiating globally: how to negotiate Deals, Resolve Disputes and make Decisions across Cultural Boundaries, London, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Caputo, A, 2012, ‘A Literature Review of Cognitive Biases in Negotiation Processes’, International Journal of Conflict Management, vol. 24 (4): 374-398. Charlesworth, S & Baird, M, 2007, ‘Getting Gender on the Agenda: the Tale of two Organisations’, Women in Management Review, vol. 22, no.5, pp. 391-404. Coan, G, 2010, Negotiating Skills will get you ahead, [Online] Available at < http://www.ego4u.com/en/business-english/infos/negotiating-skills>[viewed March 11 2015] Donaldson, 2011, Negotiating for Dummies, London, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Dorochoff, N, 2007, Negotiation Basics for Cultural Resource Managers, California: Left Coast Press. Frascogna, X & Hetherington, H, 2001, the Lawyer’s Guide to Negotiation: a Strategic Approach to Better Contracts and Settlements, New York, NY: American Bar Association. Gopalakrishnan, P, 2003, Handbook of Materials Management, New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt.Ltd. Harvard Business Press, 2006, the Essentials of Negotiation, Watertown, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. Lewicki, R., Barry, B & Saunders, D, 2011, Essentials of Negotiation, New York, NY: McGraw- Hill/Irwin. Ma, Z, 2008, ‘Personality and Negotiation Revisited: toward a Cognitive Model of Dyadic Negotiation’, Management Research News, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 774-790. Maaravi, Y., Pazy, A., Ganzach, Y, 2014, ‘Winning a Battle but Losing the War: on the Drawbacks of using anchoring tactic in Distributive Negotiations’, Judgement & Decision Making, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 548-557. Manning, T & Robertson, B, 2004, ‘Influencing, Negotiating Skills and Conflict-Handling: some Additional Research and Reflections’, Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 36, no.3, pp. 104-109 Moore, C & Woodrow, P, 2010, Handbook of Global and Multicultural Negotiation, London, UK: John Wiley & Dons. Neves, M., Liboni, L., Defina, D & Martinelli, D, 2013, ‘the Relationship between Negotiation Style and Motivation in unpaid Negotiations: A Case Study in Brazil, International’, Journal of Business Administration, vol, 4, no. 3, pp: 30-40. Mintu-Wimsatt, A, 2002, ‘Personality and Negotiation Style: the Moderating effects of Cultural Context, Thunderbird’, International Business Review, vol, 44, no. 6, pp. 729-748. Parsons, S., Sierra, C & Jennings, N, 2004, ‘Agents that reason and Negotiate by arguing’, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 8, no.3, pp. 261-292. Ramakrishna, V, 2008, Policy Management and Interoperation through Negotiation in Ubiquitous Computing, Ann Arbor, Michigan: ProQuest. Sherman, J., Gawronski, B & Trope, Y, 2014, Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind, New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Singh, BD, 2011, Negotiation & Counselling: Text and Cases, New Delhi: Excel Books India. Sycara, K, 2007, ‘Persuasive argumentation in Negotiation’, Theory and Decision, vol. 28, pp. 203-242. Thompson, L, 2005, the Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Vayrynen, R, 2001, New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Walzer, S, 2007, ‘Contextualizing the Employment Decisions of New Mothers’, Qualitative Sociology, vol.20, no.2, pp.211-226. Zhang, D & Foo, N, 2001, ‘Infinitary Belief Revision’ Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 30, no.6, pp. 525-570. Read More