Communication and Relationships in Negotiations - Assignment Example

Running Head: NEGOTIATION Negotiation Name Institution Date Negotiation Q.1. Communication and Relationships in Negotiations Communication is very vital in any negotiation. The communication between the negotiating parties ought to be very clear for both parties to succeed in the negotiation. The communication should be precise and understandable all through. Good communication will make the negation fast, and more understandable. Regarding the relationship within a negotiation, the parties should know and learn about each other well. This will enhance information collection, improve trust, and avail the probability of sharing the information and lead to productive discussions among the negotiators. A relationship between the involved parties enables the parties to know long term business deals as negotiation goes on. Change and ambiguity are invariables in any business deal. Even when the contract is signed the negotiations should continue and hence thus it is necessary for the relationship to be healthy to ensure the parties regularly meet to address the difficulties encountered and renegotiate particular sections of the agreement (Richardson & Metcalfe 2002).. Reputation, reliance and justice are the key elements that are very important incase they happen to be in a relationship negotiation. Good reputation creates positive expectations thus negotiation becomes easier. Again, higher level of trust simplifies a negotiation while a lower level of trust makes the negotiation difficult. Incase there is an interruption in the working relationship all efforts should be made to restore the relationship in order to have a healthy negotiation. Example North America decision-makers are fond of rushing into things for them to start the business quickly. This consists of s very important stage for developing a relation with the other party. This in turn could lead into them not knowing the other party well and this may deem negotiation process difficult. Q. 2. Negotiation and Culture Obviously, people coming from diverse cultures negotiate in a different way. There is difference in behavior and individuals with different cultures are likely to interpret the fundamental procedures involved in negotiations differently. Culture is likely to affect negotiations since there is even difference in communication which is the major item within a negotiation. There could be miscommunication within a certain negotiation. Culture difference is also likely to affect a negotiation since different countries have different protocols involved while negotiating and these protocols may differ among the different countries. Culture could affect negotiations in terms of instability. A certain party could be unstable because it lacks necessary resources that are necessary for the party to negotiate. Moreover, different cultures have different regulations on how businesses are carried out. This could affect business negotiations since some cultures involve a lot political and legal system. For instance, the taxing system in a certain culture could be different from the other and hence the negation will be affected too. Moreover, political considerations could develop or detract from a business negotiation in different countries at different times. Example Different cultures like American and Chinese ought to observe various issues when negotiating. Americans believe in individualism value while Chinese believe in collective cultural value. For a negotiation involving an American and a Chinese, the Chinese is likely to take long time in the negotiation since they have to reach an agreement within the group to strike a deal. Again, among Chinese power is shared by various people hence it will be difficult for the Americans involved in the negotiation to identify the suitable counterpart within Chinese bureaucracy. Thus difference in culture is likely to affect the negotiation since for Americans they have a very fast negotiation because they apply individualism. Q. 3. Successful and difficult Negotiations Successful negotiation entails the running of tangibles, for example the cost or the terms of agreements. Successful negotiation also involves the ruling of intangibles. Factors that are not tangible are the underlying psychological incentives which could directly or obliquely affect the parties over the negotiation. The intangibles include the desire to triumph, need to appear good, proficient and tough within the negotiation. There is also need to look just and honorable in a negotiation. The intangible factors have big influence on a successful relationship since they affect the judgment regarding what is fair, correct or suitable in the ruling of the tangibles. Difficult negotiations are the ones that encounter lot difficulties while negotiating and meeting an agreement is hard. Basically, difficult negotiations take a lot of time. In such negotiations, trust between the involved negotiators is usually very low. A certain party may decide not to reveal the truth to the other party. This will complicate the negotiation process. In difficult negotiations there is no satisfaction within the involved parties and achieving the goal is basically hard. Moreover, the negotiations could be made difficult by a specific party being biased, occurrence of blurred issues and lack of communication between the parties. Negotiations will be difficult if the involved parties lack excellent negotiating skills and do not understand the negotiation process. Example James and Sam are business partners. Sam feels that James is concentrating on his career rather than the business. He tends to feel that he is the only one contributing his time to the business yet both are partners. Sam informs James of their need discuss their business strategy. James overlooks any communication need and ignores Sam’s concern. Eventually the business companions separate just because communication failed which is a key to a successful negotiation. Q. 4. Dual Concern Model According to dual concern model, people having a conflict have two self-determining kinds of concern; the first concern refers to self individual’s outcome while the other concern refers to the other individual’s outcome. The concerns can be represented from any point, say a point standing for a very low concern or a point representing a very high concern. Vertical dimension is normally the cooperativeness dimension while the horizontal is the assertiveness dimension. The stronger the concern is for one’s individual outcome the higher the higher the likelihood of people pursuing approaches on the right side of the model. On the other hand, the weaker the concern of individual’s outcome the higher the likelihood of pursuing approaches on the left side. Correspondingly, the stronger their concern for allowing, encouraging or still assisting the other party to achieve his or her results, the more the likelihood of people pursuing the strategies on the top. Again, the weaker the concern is for the other party’s results, the more the likelihood of pursuing approaches located at the top. Example This model is significant in coming up with a negotiation approach. The negotiator’s unilateral option of approach is indicated by the level of concern the actor has to achieve the substantive results at stake in negotiation objectives. Again it is dependant on the level of concern the negotiator has for the present and future value of the rapport with the other party. This thus illustrates how dual concern model could be applied. Q. 5. Integrative and Distributive Negotiations Distribution negotiation is a negotiation whereby the two involved parties strive to claim the greatest quantity of value for themselves. The main purpose of each single party is to gain individually. Distributive negotiation is very competitive because it is distinguished by win and lose result. Additionally, the interests of the involved parties are always contrasting. Distributive negotiation is always very fast though it is potentially less productive. Integrative negotiations Integrative negotiations in a given negotiation engage both concession making and exploration for jointly profitable alternatives. Both parties cooperate to find a solution for the two parties to achieve greatest mutual gains. It considers both parties within a negotiation. Even if Integrative negotiations process is a bit slow, integrative course of action is potentially more helpful in that it can amplify the likelihoods of an agreement. For an integrative negotiation to accomplish its potential the search involved ought to be mutual and over the search the two parties should relate face to face. Example of distributive negotiation Someone decides to purchase a second hand car. The person starts bargaining with the salesman regarding the price. Salesman wants the person to pay close to the asking cost as probable. The person though feels that there are specific features to the car which could bring problems. The person wants the price decreased by the amount of repairs which could be done on the car. Example of Integrative negotiation There is a negotiation between a trade union and workers whereby the workers want a pay increase by 2.5% annually plus bonus each Christmas otherwise they strike. The workers suggests the pay could be raised by 1.5% but on each year and bonus be availed incase the employees raise their working hours by 2 hours daily. Thus this proposition favors both parties. Workers will get raised wages plus the bonus by only providing just two extra hours. Organization’s work operation will raise, thus raised sales and hence increased profits. Thus with integrative negotiation, both parties triumph. Q. 6. Power and Ethics in Negotiation Basically, power helps the negotiator to negotiate wisely or succeed in the negotiation. The power could be gotten from information and thus the negotiator has so much expertise so he is likely to win in the negotiation or personal sources of power. There is also position based power whereby the powerful party is likely to win, relation-based power whereby the party or the context power whereby the negotiator is likely to be favored because he or she is familiar with the culture of a particular organization. Ethics in negotiations affect the negotiators acts in a way. An ethical impasse occurs to the negotiator when probable actions are likely to put the likely economic benefits of performing the deal in conflict with someone’s social duties to the other party that is involved in the deal. There are various ways whereby ethics could be applied in negotiations. The negotiator could opt for an action basing on the results he wants to achieve and here he is likely to do anything to get the greatest, this is referred to end result ethics. Again, the negotiator could opt for an action because he/she has to uphold the suitable rules and this is duty ethics. Or choose an action basing on the values of an organization or community and this here is applying social contract ethics. Finally, the negotiator could act on what he or she feels is best; following the conscious whereby someone applies personal ethics. An example of end result ethics A business man is selling a car. He knows that the car engine is faulty especially after traveling for long distances. He goes ahead and convinces the prospective buyer that the car is in good shape. The just do the normal testing and the buyer decides to buy the car since he is convinced the car is not faulty in anyway. The business man gets good amount of money from the buyer. Q. 7. Multi-party Negotiations An advantage of multi party negotiations is that the negotiators can change and become mutual problem solvers. In such instance, the involved parties no longer strive to triumph at each other’s cost but work and negotiate together for the benefit of all. Another advantage very party’s need and interests are addressed and all proposals that include important tradeoffs are put forward. Again, the ideas that do not abide to the negotiation topic and denigrations are done away with. Lastly, in multi party negotiations the negotiators concur on problem-solving measures. The main disadvantage of multi party negotiations is leaving some parties out during the negotiations. This kind of situation is more likely to take place especially when incorrect channels are used in multiparty negotiations. A party could get nothing out of the negotiation or just a pittance. In multi party negotiation, parties meet, share ideas and this makes it simple for all to attain their negotiation goals. Example This example is about the risks of alliance building played out on a worldwide level in mid-2003. Canada, U.S and Mexico governments since they were all experiencing significant round of World Trade Organization negotiations approached the European Union and other normal associates from the developed globe. All these parties together, this informal alliance agreed on several issues that had been occurring for long. Issues that were agreed include agricultural funding in wealthy nations. Visibly not present in this meeting were members of the G22, the alliance of developing nations. The leaving out of members of G22 in the meeting illustrates some of the disadvantages of Multi-party Negotiations. Question 8, Role Play The role play is about an interviewee who is searching for a part time job at a Chinese restraint. The interviewee has no experience regarding the job. The manager of the restraint wants to offer the interviewee $ 10 per hour because he got no experience while in normal cases he would have offered him $ 15 per hour if he had any experience. The interviewee thinks he deserves more since he is in a position to converse with different languages and thus it will be easy for him to serve customers more efficiently. Moreover, the interviewee thinks he can offer professional knowledge. I learnt that to be in a position to negotiate fully, one needs to have the necessary information in order to increase the bargaining power. The manager utilizes the position he is in and that’s the power he uses while negotiating with the interviewee. Again there is good communication and that is the reason as to why the two parties reach consensus. For instance, if I was the interviewee, I would have gathered sufficient information regarding the company and job position and this would have increased the bargaining power. Again, the manager and the interviewee understand each others culture well thus this simplifies the negotiations further. Comment The interviewee is honest since he accepts that he is not experienced. On the other hand, the manager is fair since he does not offer the interviewee so little and promises him more salary if he performs. Apparently, the manager has the necessary negotiation skills. This is what makes the negotiation process fast and an agreement is reached fast. Bibliography Richardson J. & Metcalfe D. (2002). Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. London: Harvard University Press. Rubin J. Z. (1993). Culture and negotiation: the declaration of water disagreement. London SAGE Publications. Read More