Win-Win Negotiation - Assignment Example

Win-win Negotiation Student’s Name Subject Professor University/Institution Location Date Abstract The objective of this research report is to review and examine negotiation literature and interpersonal skills as applied in negotiation process. Negotiation has recently been a topic of a major interest in individual, organizational and governmental dealings. Negotiation happens in many places, times and instances such as personal and professional life, making decisions, overcoming challenges, setting disputes, employment negotiations, and resource consumption. Since its use is pervasive this report looks at theoretical frameworks that guide the model of negotiation, indicating on how it can be applied in interpersonal scenario, and analyzing some outcomes for effective negotiation process. Each party in the conflict demands to be understood and press on their will. It is therefore important to apply a practical case that forms the basis of analysis of the process. The report offer a conclusion based on a specific case of a depicted problems, solutions and recommendations for future application of more skills in negotiation process. Theory Negotiation is an art whereby one person or party gets another confer with them in order to reach an agreement or come to terms. The principles of process of negotiation suggests that parties look for a mutual gains where possible, and in case one's interests and goals conflict, one should insist for the result to be based on some reasonable standards that are independent of either side’s will (Kemper & Kemper, 2004: 2). It is an effective tool that helps a person avoid the other party taking advantage of them, ally with them, struggle or fight their case aggressively. For the counterpart to take interest and choose what one wants the pressing party must understand then shape the perceived decisions. Damas, Lambeau, & Lamsweerde, (2006: 197) argues that win-win negotiation finds an acceptable solution for both parties and a feel that both parties won after the negotiating event. Win-win negotiation settlement and agreement cannot be improved further for any party’s benefit since it leaves no value on the table having exploited and explored all resourceful options. In negotiations a win-win scenario is impossible for any agreement. Very few reach the theoretical and ideal. However the scenario of win-win becomes more likely if correct set up based on effective research, framing and build relationships are at right levels. The theoretical approach to negotiation follows particular pattern despite the complication that arises from negotiations’ distinct stages and specific characteristics. In Win-win negotiation the interpersonal forces and dynamics at play helps in achieving the goal (Zartman, 2008). Negotiation process requires patience as it may follow different and distinct stages. First, it requires listening carefully without interrupting the other party to learn and understand the other partner’s interests. This makes sure that no non-verbal cues or facial expressions are missed. Openness and flexibility calls on the counterpart to be so and thus enhance trust for commitment. Asking specific questions helps to uncover the other party’s interests. At this stage the role of best alternatives is paramount for both parties. However, the dynamism of offering more solution to a problem makes a ground for the other party to compromise. It is important to separate the party with the problem to solve it right without some pre-conceived ideas. The core thing in win-win is the right to anticipate the need of the other partner. If the other party position does not compromise one’s position let them win as long there is an added value. When one party creates a good ground it is empowered to strongly refuse an unacceptable demands. It is important in this scenario to stop negotiation when one party reaches the settlement range (Moor & Weigand, 2004). The most important aspects of win-win negotiation form the basis for a model. At first both parties’ assumptions are not explicit to one another. As both engage in the negotiation dialogue they may discuss and consider alternatives and at this stage each party should have its best alternative to the negotiated alternatives. Creativity opens up options to the problem and attentive listening, thoughtful and non-verbal communication key is paramount to consider the other parties interests. If objective standards are applied a legitimate stage where both parties clearly shares their goals and interest, commitment is reached a scenario here termed as the give –get or win-win negotiation. Legitimacy determines whether one’s goals can connect to the other party’s goals. Deep knowledge of their aims improves the outcome of the settlement packages in a better way which addresses the priorities of both. Knowing the important interests of the other makes the agreement productive and beneficial since nothing is left on the table, more resources are utilized for the parties benefit and value is retained (Lee, 2008.). Procedure A successful negotiator understands the process to be able to reach to a satisfactory settlement. Gitlow, & McNary, (2006:20) argued that in a process to settle a conflict situation differences the problem must be identified first, then a process of collecting facts to analyze the situation. Satisfactory settlement is then guided by the decision on goals and tactics identification. In my practical case of area of experience the negotiation followed a professional process with six steps. It involved identification of the source of differences before applying negotiation techniques. We collected facts, analyzed the situation, decided on goals and alternatives, evaluated the challenges, developed strategies as we applied the negotiation tactics. Win-win negotiation issue: The practical example of a win-win case in this research project is depicting on a luxury products business. My cousin was proficient in making beaded bracelets, necklaces, shoes and other highly demanded beaded products. She was contacted by buyers to make products for them after they had bought the raw materials. Most of these products were for export and therefore those who contacted her made a lot of profit. I decided to start the same business but the moment I contacted her she was quitting from just offering the labor to start exporting the luxury products herself. Since she was married and held up by other family matters and it was not possible for her to be outgoing, on the other hand I efficiently moved. The situation was tight for both of us as we felt our family relationship held us together to find the best way each one would benefit in the business. To settle our differences we met and discussed the way forward. While assessing circumstances under which arguments would affect our negotiating preferences we were subsequently led to an outcome that is explained by the process above. Since I had already contacted some buyers abroad, time was a pressing factor and her pressures were to work on her own. She did not had an immediate market abroad and the process of looking for one was long and that would have taken her business to a standstill in the process of looking for them. As we analyzed the quantities she can produce and deliver in a month, we realized that the resulting profit would not be so pleasing for both of us. My alternative opinion was for us to set up a base, hire some competent workers and other family members for training purposes in production in the business who would deliver cheap labor. She would supervise the workers as she trained the new ones and I was to get the finished products and export them. The business profit was to be equally divided. Results: Following the Gitlow, & McNary, (2006:20) analysis, the process was complicated at first as both our assumptions about the business had a major challenge. On my part the prospect of continuing with the business was hit by her decision to work on her own. On her part lack of immediate market and family matters would have affected the timing and coordination of the business. Both of us understood one another goals and interests and the situation was a conflicting one which demanded a settlement process. The family relationship also enhanced the way we were to look on the issue and therefore it brought us together for a positive result. Time was another factor that motivated both of us to find the most probable scenario for the business. The settlement scenario was to look on ways in which both of us, as business stakeholders could turn the profit interests’ game into one which both of us were all winners. The negotiation dialogue enhanced my creativity to consider an alternative opinion that the counterpart would easily agree on and that would add more value on the business and therefore more outcomes. The procedure traced the existence of some pressures, highlighted obstacles and challenges in the business, and examined the concerns of each. Our openness increased trust and therefore both of us were flexible and committed to lose some ground to reach the settlement range. To add more value and ensure trust and longevity in labor supply family members were to be considered in training and employment in products making. After we established a legitimate ground having considered both our goals and interests, we reached a commitment stage a scenario where both of us won and every possible idea was utilized from both sides. The role of influence and negotiating strategy were the main aspects at play in this win-win negotiation scenario. Discussion: The business partnership was a negotiated conflict situation which came into contact with profit, relationship and expertise. The situation was at high risk for both of us as there was to be expanded responsibilities, role overload and independency thoughts. The complication arose on employment act which contributed to achieving the business goals but would be inconsistent with the business ethics. The situation was complex as each person had scarce resources; there was necessary consensus, dependency on each other and decision making. The productivity of the negotiation was to lead to change, adaptation and survival of the business (Risse, & Kleine, 2010: 711). Negotiation principles and skills were to work on the conflict and reach a satisfactory settlement. In its application the strategy of problem solving focused on goals or ends and involved the identification of conflict source which in our case was profit making for each. As we applied the techniques of negotiation and problem solving there were major steps we followed. First we identified the problem which was independent profit making. Then we collected facts from our dialogue through critical search of individual’s contributions. As we analyzed the situation we noted the deficiency of prospect profits, labor and constrained time factor. Openness, creativity and flexibility enhanced the next step where we decided on common goals and alternatives. On this note we set up supervision and sales as two distinct functions and divided for each to do. We evaluated the adversary such as high cost of labor, adjournment of employee services after training and time to deliver services to waiting customers. We developed strategies to resolve the contending forces by training some workers which would be cheaper and contacting family members who would be royal and more committed through efficient negotiation and resolved to hire competent workers for immediate supply of labor to meet the demand of our customers. Finally we applied the negotiation tactics in the dialogue to reach at our successful new operational, administrative, production, marketing and profit sharing. At first both of us had equal bargaining stand since my cousin had the needed expertise and I had the market avenue for the products. From the dialogue I realized that no matter how much she wanted to work on her own, lack of immediate market for the products and constrained time for family matters reduced her bargaining powers. The pressures from my contacted customers imposed creativity that leads to best and immediate responsive alternative. I tended to dominate the dialogue after considering my cousins unstable condition and enforce my alternative opinion easily (Serrano & Vohra, 2002). The interpersonal strategies at play were introspection where I understood my own perceptions. Then we embarked on a process to understand and interact with one another in the negotiation. The family relationship and our different goals demanded intelligence for balanced emotion. We directed our emotions toward the problem and focused our energy on the solutions. This helped to solve the direction of focus toward a person and excuses (Sen, 2008). My cousin was more responsive toward cooperation and affectionate relationship. However my dominance in the dialogue affected her ability to appropriately respond to another alternative. The key strengths of the negotiation issue were that subjectivity, competition and personal relationship were controlled. However there was a major weakness as the planning stage was not considered in our negotiation process and therefore there was little time for her to consider an alternative. In future before engaging into a negotiation, it is good to give each party to come up with alternatives for a wide-range comparison. If the counterpart has a strong argument on alternative the best way to work on is to strike a balance between the two or going by the most effective. (2000 words) References Damas, C., Lambeau, B. & Lamsweerde, A., 2006. Scenarios, Goals, and State Machines: a Win-Win Partnership for Model Synthesis. Isis, p.197-207. Gitlow, H. & McNary, L., 2006. Creating win-win solutions for team conflicts. The Journal for Quality Participation, Fall (3), p.20-26. Kemper, R. & Kemper, D., 2004. In Search of Win-Win-WIN Negotiations and Organizations. In Negotiation Literature A Bibliographic Essay Citations and Sources. Scarecrow Press, pp. 1-27. Lee, D., 2008. Win-Win Model between Large Enterprises and Small and Medium Enterprises based on Engineering Collaboration. 2008 International Conference on Smart Manufacturing Application. Moor, A. & Weigand, H., 2004. Business Negotiation Support: Theory and Practice. International Negotiation, 9(1), p.31-57. Sen, S., 2008. Interpersonal Skills through Emotional Intelligence: A Psychological Perspective. The Icfai University Journal of Soft Skills, II (4), p.25-31. Zartman W., 2008. Negotiation and Conflict Management: Essays on Theory and Practice, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Serrano, R. & Vohra, R., 2002. Bargaining and Bargaining Sets. Games and Economic Behavior, 39(2), p.292-308. Risse, T. & Kleine, M., 2010. Deliberation in negotiations. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(5), p.708-726. Read More