Features Of The Different Concepts Of Negotiation - Book Report/Review Example

Features Of The Different Concepts Of Negotiation Five concepts of negotiation: 1. perception (perpetual distortion and halo effects) 2. communication (offers, counter offers, and motives) 3. power (sources of power, legitimate power, referent power) 4. ethics in negotiation (ethics versus prudent versus practicality versus legality) 5. tactic (deceptive tactics, the power motive) In negotiation, it is important to consider the emotional perception in others. This may includes the perpetual distortion such as stereotyping and halo effects. They represent cues to the interests and point of views of the parties in conflict and the contrasts they have that may be expressed through the negotiation through their communication. For example, when people are angry or agitated during the negotiation process, they are reluctant to reveal certain information. The person may also show an angry expression that makes it difficult for the negotiator or for the other party to communicate with him in a civilian manner. This emotional feeling may also be expressed through body gesture such as crossing the arms, which indicates hostility. Behaviors and emotions of the parties in conflict may express what they actually feel. The negotiator can accurately perceive their emotions by looking at their eyes, their facial expression, gestures, body movements, words, etc. When parties lack the understanding of other parties’ culture, there is likely they have misconception about the other party. They express their stereotyping, projection, and selection either verbally or non-verbally. Their frame of mind often shapes their perception. The parties’ conflict frame also shapes their perceptions. Negotiators in conflict, on the other hand, often make a common set of cognitive errors. This cognitive errors may include "irrational escalation of commitment, mythical fixed-pie beliefs, anchoring and adjustment, framing, availability of information, the winner's curse, overconfidence, the law of small numbers, self-serving biases, ignoring other's cognitions, and reactive devaluation." (p. 174). These errors can be clarified using several techniques such as requiring more explanation or clarification, reversing and reframing of the communication. Communication is the key tool to negotiation. It is essential core to negotiation process. To be successful in negotiation, it depends on the negotiator’s communication skills. Communication can also become a cornerstone to a negotiation process as it represents interchange of thoughts, opinions either in writing, oral speech, symbols or signs. Communication is also a tool to social connection. Parties involved in negotiation should, at least have some eloquent communication skills. Communication is also an integral part of negotiation framework and the essence of negotiation. The success of negotiation depends on effective communication so is its failure. Communication is a tool one can use to draw a person’s perception in the conflict. In addition, communication is both verbal and non-verbal, the central process of the negotiation because the parties involved act through communication. Through communication as well, one can perceive the other parties’ motives. Sometimes communication can be problematic if negotiator does not know what one party wants of the other party. Hence, it can serve as a two double-edged sword to both the receiver and deliverer based on their point of view. The negotiator then is required to understand the preferences of the parties. Parties involved may also negotiate how they can channel their communication through internet, face-to-face, written communication, etc. When the negotiator make mistake in formulating the message, there will be miscommunication. Miscommunication may also arise from errors during the transmission or interpretation. When there is miscommunication, it increases the resentment toward each other among the parties involved. They dislike each other. Power imbalance is common in any conflicts. The weaker party is often induced to adopt more cooperative tactics. Power tends to become a bargaining too in negotiation process. The weaker party may be induced accept financial compensation as a settlement. The sources of power that often exist in negotiation process include economic resources, expert power, bargaining, and coercive power. The stronger party sometimes uses leverage or an economic power to gain temporary advantage over the other party. Leverage is also a tool that to the bargaining power and it represents a way to enhance the effectiveness of messages, to arrange the larger context of the message to reinforce its effectiveness, and the message describes a number of specific techniques that are usually used in leveraging. In negotiating conflicts, some parties may also consider they have the expert power because they have the most information and hence, they have control over the resources. Or sometimes, they have the expert power because of their position in the organization. Some parties may also use common attribute to express power over the other party or to win over the other party such as the use of physical strength. This is commonly known as coercive power. In marriage dispute, for example, too often the husband use physical strength to maintain power over his wife. However, the use of coercive power in conflict negotiation never produces good result. When it comes to power imbalance in conflict negotiation, it requires the negotiator to exercise greater impartiality because too often the stronger party may force the weaker party to accept financial settlement at his own advantage. In negotiation conflicts, ethics should be prioritized. It is the preliminary requisite to every conflict resolution issue. It is vital to identify your identity as a person who tries to make peace between two parties or between several parties in conflict. In general, ethics come with a price tag. The higher is the negotiator’s ethical standard, the higher is the cost he or she must pay to maintain such standard. This price involves his or her reputation. However, when the ethical standard is too low, it is costly to the negotiator. It requires him or her to increase time, energy, and be prudence as they have to defend themselves and their interests to the parties involved. Personal integrity is the main issue in conflict negotiation. It is one of the most important criteria that a conflict negotiator should have. Negotiator who has personal integrity is considered valuable and skilled. Prudence indicates stewardship and fairness in negotiating conflict. this is a general requirement for conflict negotiator. A prudent negotiator will not misrepresent himself or the parties involved in the conflict. Prudence also indicates professionalism. It associates with ethics and integrity. Negotiators often use tactics or strategies in conflict resolution that are aiming at changing the dynamic power in the negotiation process. Sometimes negotiators may ethically use certain tactics or unethical tactics in order to gain a power advantage. Research indicates that women, older people, more experienced negotiators. People who are trained in the liberal arts tend to consider ethics as less predisposed and would likely use more ethical tactics. Similarly, research has found that negotiators are more likely to use unethical tactics in situation such as in hostile relationships, when the negotiators consider they are the more powerful, when they are representing others, or when they are being pressured by organizational or cultural norms. Too often, when being confronted by others because of their unethical behavior, negotiators have the tendency to ignore it. Sometimes they may respond in kind manner but sometimes, they would try to justify their unethical behavior by trying to discuss the reasons why they are using unethical tactics. Concerning the use of unethical tactics, negotiators often overlook the facts because they want to produce a quick result but the impact of the conflict resolved can only last for a short term. The conflict will re-emerge and may turn out worse than the previous conflict. Not all conflict negotiations are effective and successful. Some produce effective result but others breakdown. Breaking down the negotiation is a tactics that is often used for several reasons. Among other, it is a common source of impasse or a technique to restarting a stalled negotiation. Negotiation is often stalled because parties are engaging in hostility or when the issue becomes more complex with the introduction of more and new information. Sometimes, a negotiation process also comes to a halt because parties are not able to come to an agreement that is considered fair and benefit all parties. When facing such situation, the negotiator often blocks one party integratively while he is bargaining with the other party distributively. Negotiator should guard himself while he is blocking one party because it is likely, he would be criticized, and it may affect his relationship with this party involved. The party may be reluctant to further the negotiation even though the negotiator is under the pressure of the deadline for a solution. On the other hand, a stalled negotiation may benefit the negotiator. He can hear the story from both sides, their argument, and then derive an appropriate decision. Read More