Major Negotiation Exercise Reflection - Essay Example

Major Negotiation Reflection Essay Student’s Name: Grade course: Tutor’s Name: Date: As part of the negotiating team representing the Weipa Town Authority, hereunder referred to as Weipa, I must admit that the process of attaining an agreement between our party and Rio Tinto Alcan, hereunder abbreviated as RTA, was not an easy one. As any negotiating side worth its salt would do, the Weipa team was determined to negotiate a co-existence recognition agreement that would serve the indigenous community’s social, environmental, and economic interests well. Throughout the negotiation process, the Weipa team was relying on the possibility that the RTA team had realized the importance of adopting negotiation models, which as a report authored by Common Wealth of Australia (2007) states, would build lasting relationship between investors and the indigenous communities. Specifically, the Weipa team was not just interested in adopting some of the crude positional bargaining that characterized past negotiations. Rather, the team adopted an agreement-making model meant to develop enduring relationships between Comalco (RTA) and indigenous communities. Luckily, the RTA team was strategic enough to approach the negotiation table with a similar aim. Before commencing the negotiations, and as suggested in the Commonwealth of Australia (2007) report, each of the negotiating sides gathered information about the Rio Tinto case. Further the two sides engaged directly to build and develop capacity. During this period, the two sides explored the interest of the two sides represented, identifying issues, and options that were open to them before finally reaching an ‘in-principle’ agreement. True to Rubin and Brown’s (1975) description of ‘negotiation’, the interaction between Weipa and RTA is best describes as a process which enabled the two sides to work together to solve an outstanding dispute. In the end, the two negotiating sides came up with an agreement that was perceived as fair and just to the Weipa community, who had earlier felt that RTA had pursued mining activities in their region, without properly compensating or recognizing the needs of the Weipa community. True to Rubin’s (1994) observations, negotiators from Weipa and RTA commenced the negotiation process with different interests and preferences about how the dispute should be resolved. On Weipa’s part for example, the negotiators wanted to get as much compensation from RTA. They also wanted community members to receive training and employment from RTA. The RTA team on the other hand was possibly motivated to find a lasting solution to the dispute because, as one can assume, they had realized that their economic activities would only prosper if they develop a trusting and supportive relationship from the local community. As Jeffries and Becker (2008); Langton and Palmer (2003); and Harvey and Brereton (2005) argue, many organizations are eager to deliver on the positive expectations regarding their conduct, which is placed on them by the society. With the society (or community) being stakeholders in the organization, RTA must have realized that their effective organizational performance, relied heavily on the approval they get from the Weipa Community. Concerning the negotiation process, Pruitt and Rubin (1986) argue that trust fostered between the two parties would have encouraged the perception that aspirations are not only flexible, but reasonable too. Looking back at the negotiation process, one realizes that the RTA and Weipa teams did not hold inflexible positions on how best the dispute would be resolved. Rather, negotiators from both sides had interests that they pursued throughout the negotiation. As Fisher, Ury and Patton (1991) argue, it is easier for negotiators to attain mutually satisfying solutions when they focus on interests, rather than when they focus on positions. This may be used to explain why although Weipa demanded compensation that did not go below $ 36 million annually for a period of 10 years, it ended up being satisfied with the $6 million per year that RTA offered for a five-year period. From this scenario, it is also rather evident that the two groups approached the negotiating table, with the goal of attaining mutually satisfying solutions. From the onset, it was rather clear that RTA as a corporate was in pursuit of profits. However, the Weipa team claimed that profit-making initiatives undertaken by RTA should not be pursued at the expense of locals, whose generations had lived in the Weipa are. Although the Weipa team admitted that RTA had contributed to infrastructural development witnessed in the area, they argued that such contributions were meager compared to the profits that RTA acquired from the area. As such, Weipa argued that it is only fair for the local community to benefit from activities pursued by RTA. Gauging the approach adopted by the two sides against explanations given by Pruitt and Rubin (1986), it is rather evident that Weipa approached the negotiation table with idealistic aspirations, based on what the negotiators thought the Weipa community deserved. RTA on the other hand [could] have approached the negotiation table with realistic aspirations, based on what they are able to achieve without compromising their profit-making opportunities. As many business people would tell, no business is worth pursuing the profit margins are not satisfactory. The Weipa team intended to adopt Pruitt and Rubin’s (1986) dual concern model in the negotiation. In their explanation, the two authors advance the model as a product attained when a negotiating party is concerned about his/her own outcome, in addition to the outcome of the other party. Aptly put, Pruitt and Rubin (1986) advanced the dual concern model as befitting negotiators who are concerned about self and other. Considering RTA willingness to find a common solution for the dispute, which held the possibility of driving them out of business in the Weipa area, the Weipa team was able to pursue the dual concern model throughout the negotiation without being side trucked by the RTA team. Gauging the quality of the agreement signed at the end of the negotiations, I believe that the Weipa community is now better off than it was before the negotiations took place. Although the Weipa team would have liked better monetary and non-monetary compensation to the community, we realized that the RTA team had justified explanations in their offers. For example, although our team had put a $3.2 million cap as the lowest share of profit that RTA should pay to the Weipa community for the next ten years, a better deal, which could be executed in a shorter 5-year period, was attained on the negotiation table. Consequently, RTA would pay $6 million for 5 years to the Weipa community. Further, negotiators put a period (2016) to the attainment of the 25 percent local employment rate by RTA. Among the outstanding qualities of the agreement is some of it clauses have quantifiable deliverables, which will enable RTA to be more accountable to the Weipa community. For example, the agreement states that RTA should conduct at least 12 training in a year. However, others are general and cannot therefore be quantified in any way. For example, the agreement states “RTA must create more jobs to support the newly trained Weipa Indigenous community.” However, the clause does not state whether the jobs created would be sufficient to accommodate all the trained locals. Overall, I feel that the agreement is far much better than what was in place previously. Specifically, the agreement addresses issues of land and waterways better, in additions to the protection of cultural heritage sites. The plan of our team (Weipa) was to get as much benefits from the RTA team as we possibly could. This plan was based on the assumption that the indigenous occupants of the Weipa region had endured social and cultural interruptions into their otherwise quite community as a result of mining activities carried out by RTA. As such, we (Weipa Team) felt that the community deserved monetary and non-monetary compensation in order to become joint beneficiaries in the wealth that RTA was creating from the region. As Klimenko and Evans (2009) observed, estimates indicate that the Weipa region could still be a viable mining zone in the next 40 years. It would hence be completely unfair if the local community did not earn optimal benefits from the mining operations in their area. Worse still, Klimenko and Evans (2009) note that it was only in 1993, when the Native Title Act was implemented, that RTA started improving its relations with the indigenous community. This means that the community previously suffered neglect from the same corporation that was earning profits from their land. As part of the Weipa team, I am convinced that we attained our plans because the agreement in place now favours the Weipa community. Although our team was made up of four people only as opposed to the five people who made up the RTA team, the quality of our negotiations did not suffer. In fact, we exhibited better cohesion amongst the team members since we made a point deliberating our actions before discussing them on the negotiation platform. It is however, worth noting that one team member from China was quite aggressive towards the RTA team, something that made the rest of us (Weipa team members) to be bit uncomfortable. Giving credit where it is due however, it is worth noting that though our representative was quite provocative to the RTA team, none of the RTA members behaved in a similar manner towards her. Instead, all behave according to Fisher and Ury’s (1990) advice. Instead of using negative responses towards her, the RTA team carefully weighed their responses. This I must admit brought soberness in a situation that had brought about conflict between the two groups. Though there was no major cultural conflict in the Weipa team, I could easily tell that the RTA team had a challenging time communicating especially since it had team members from France, Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Regardless of the communication barriers in the team however, they managed to advance a common front, which negotiated their side of the bargain quite impressively. Although there were no gender issues that arose during the negotiations, it was rather discomforting to observe that some of the RTA team members believed they had a higher hand on the negotiating table. Understandably, they may have gotten this impression from RTA’s position in the Weipa region, which for four decades failed to recognize that the local community was a vital stakeholder in the operations of the mining company. The agenda setting was quite straightforward as both teams were focused on finding lasting solutions that would facilitate the mutual beneficial co-existence of RTA and Weipa community. The three main agendas were profit sharing, the participation of RTA and Weipa Community in environment management, and employment for the local population. According to O’Faircheallaigh & Corbett (2005), negotiated agreements have a role to play in enhancing the co-existence of developers and local communities. Pruitt and Carnevale (1993), also express this opinion stating that negotiated agreements are among the vital methods used in resolving conflict in the society. The stages that both teams engaged in during the negotiation can be summed up as initiation stage, the problem-solving stage, and the resolution stage. These stages are in accordance with the tripartite model proposed by Holmes (1992), where parties to a negotiation explore information available to them in the initiation stage. This is then followed by extensive discussions in the problem-solving stage, and finally, the parties reach an agreement in the resolution stage. During the negotiations, the problem-solving stage was the most intense, since it attracted strong arguments from both teams. Our team was well aware that we could predict how well RTA would treat the Weipa community in future based in intentions expressed during the negotiation process. As such, we were on the lookout for cooperative intentions expressed by the RTA team. As McKnight et al. (1998) argue one’s ability to trust the other person is based on beliefs of honesty, competence, or benevolence. Based on past records, and as indicated in Klimenko and Evans (2009), the Weipa Team new that RTA had kept its word in the past regarding making improvements in its relations with the Weipa community. As such, we (Weipa team) were willing to rely on the cooperative intentions expressed by the RTA team, as a basis for better future relationships between the company and the community. Throughout the negotiation process, different opinions were expressed both in the Weipa team, in the bigger negotiation scene between the two teams. In my view, the different opinions resulted from different perceptions, poor communication, incongruent personalities, inconsistent values and/or beliefs, and contradictory expectations. As Raifa (1982) suggests, any discussion that include people from different cultures, or interests will no doubt have different opinions expressed by participants. Luckily, the two groups always found a way of handling the different opinions, and as such, no conflict was witnessed. Using the example of our team member who was from China, it is worth noting that her aggressive nature and opinions were rather overboard. However, understanding her culture, and her way of reasoning made our team members, as well as members from the opposing team accommodate her better. As Tillet (1999) observes, the use of words is a better way of solving conflict that the use of guns, fists or guns. As such, every team member gave her the leeway she needed to voice her vies. In conclusion, the negotiation ended in a win-win situation, which if adopted, would enable a better co-existence between the groups represented by the negotiating teams. From the onset, the Weipa team desired such an outcome because as Carnevale and Pruitt (1992) observes, such agreements are “longer lasting and more beneficial for the relationship between the parties than simple compromises” (p. 536). The negotiation process was full of lessons for participants regarding how to handle provocations, obstacles, and deal making. For the Weipa team members, we were able to attain desirable outcomes while ensuring fostering beneficial relationships the RTA team. In a real-life situation, the negotiation would have had a greater probability of enhancing profitability for both sides. This is because the Weipa Community would benefit from better incentives provided by RTA. RTA on the other hand would benefit from better community support and goodwill. The quality of the negotiations was a testimony that each of the negotiating teams had taken time to research the subject at hand and base their arguments on reality rather than myth. The clarity of the final agreement is also evidence that the negotiating teams wanted to avoid unclear issues that would bring conflict between the two sides in future. References Carnevale, P.J, & Pruitt, D.G. (1992). Negotiation and Mediation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 45, 531-82. Commonwealth of Australia. (2007). Working with communities: leading practice sustainable development program for the mining industry. Australian Government Handbook. Sydney Australia. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1990) Getting to Yes. London: Hutchinson Business Press. Harvey, B., & Brereton, D. (2005). Emerging models of community engagement in the Australian minerals industry. Paper presented to the United Nations engaging communities conference, Brisbane, 14-17 August. Holmes, M. E. (1992). Phase models in Negotiation. In L. L. Putnam and M. E. Roloff (Eds.), Communication and negotiation. (pp. 83-105). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.  Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Paton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreements without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin.  Jeffries, F.L., & Becker, T.E. (2008). Trust, norms, and cooperation: development and test of a simplified model. JBAM 9(3), 316-336. Klimenko, V., & Evans, R. (2009). Bauxite mining operations at Weipa, Cape York: A case study. Retrieved 25 May 2011, from http://www.nalwt.gov.au/files/Chapter_29-Bauxite_mining_operations_at_Weipa.pdf Langton, M., & Palmer, L. (2003) Modern agreement making and Indigenous people in Australia: issues and trends. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter 8(1), 1-31. McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review 23, 473-490. O’Faircheallaigh, C., & Corbett, T. (2005).Indigenous participation in environmental management of resource projects: the role of negotiated agreements. Environmental Politics 14(5), 629–47. Pruitt, D., & Carnevale, P. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Buckingham: Open University Press.  Pruitt, D.G., & Rubin, J.Z. (1986). Social conflict: escalation, stalemate and settlement. New York: Random House. Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.  Rubin, J. Z. (1994). Models of conflict management. Journal of Social Issues 50, 33-45. Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic Press.  Tillett, G. (1999). Resolving Conflict; A practical approach. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, Ury, W. (1990). “Overcoming Barriers to Principled Negotiation" in Getting Past No. (ed.) New York: Bantam Publishers. Read More