The Important Objective of the Negotiation and Harbor Port Company - Assignment Example

Counseling and negotiating project Introduction Negotiation is known to be one of the mechanisms put in place to arrive at an agreement between two parties. In most cases, negotiation has been an option for solving disputes between two parties. However, before negotiation takes place, there must be willingness to participate. Each party must show commitment to attend the negotiation process. Moreover, for better outcomes, there must be a sense of independence among the negotiating parties. Everybody must feel comfortable with the exercise and even the environment should be conducive. Incase of numbers, there must be a balance. The number of negotiating parties should be equal for democracy to prevail. This paper will critically analyze the negotiation of (Mattia , Marcela , Tomasso , Vanessa , Fernanda & Stephane) who had an aim of ensuring Harborco port company improves the workers terms and conditions of service. To achieve this, negotiation need to be well strategized with advanced communication and approached that will eliminated poor outcomes. Discussion One key fundamental step Mattia , Marcela , Tomasso , vanessa , Fernanda & Stephane did first was to develop an intuitive negotiator approach. This was the first best approach that saw the negotiation process begin with a bigger picture in mind. This also included visualizing the broad implication of the negotiation process and possibly guessing the direction the negotiation will move to (Moore, 2012). To hit the nail on the head, this approach did provide room for introducing the main issue for negotiation. It was this point when employment rules were tackled. This was the major concern precisely on job distribution, promotion and how new jobs were created (Moore, 2012). We were able to find a voice to share with Harborco what expectation everyone wanted as far as the issue was concerned. The approach also set pace of even successfully opposing attempts of Harborco to sidestep the union and focus on employing non-union workers or out of state workers (Moore, 2012). This approach was so fair to everyone such that it permitted democracy to determine the way forward. However, option of having the union present in the port was the main goal for this negotiation stage. This was to ensure that the union had a strong foundation in the port thus prohibit Harborco from introducing labor-saving technologies in the port over time (Moore, 2012). However, the most disadvantageous aspect was the fact that the approach allowed democratic discussion. Chances were very high for Harborco to realize this trick and oppose it very strongly (Moore, 2012). This would in-turn result in poor unexpected outcome. The other negotiation approach we employed was Relational negotiator. The approach targeted establishment of an important mutual relationship with the other party and use the relationship to the advantage. Such relationship aim at ensuring the other party never realized the hidden agenda circumnavigating the negotiation. The other objective of using this approach was to also include the sense of balance between the negotiating parties. It gave room for us to be more sensitive and listen to the issues raised by the other party (Moore, 2012). This also allows the development of emotions towards the other parties emerging issues. This was evidently witnessed during the negotiation on the issue concerning federal loans. From our side we were able to put straightforward requirement that the Harborco should follow concerning the federal loan. To us it was pretty clear that since the Harborco was indeed a long term project. There was definitely no doubt that the federal government would invest in the project (Harborco, 2007). To supplement on this issue, we insisted that many private investors would feel more confortable and get attracted to this project as long as they see the federal government involvements (Harborco, 2007). At this point we were able to set our loan target that was to be negotiated with Harborco. However, at some point we lost focus and the approach we used had some impacts of the final verdict. In negotiation, it is relevant that one masters the character of the other party. If they prove to be difficult, then there is need to be much assertive and allow them to win sometimes. The issue concerning industry mix slopped down on us. The results of the discussion and negotiation was to eventually determine the number of people to be employed, the number of jobs to be created and the nature of employee (Harborco, 2007). At this point, our negotiation approach disadvantaged us for letting Harborco dictate over this decision. It ended up forcing us to assign very low marks as compared to the previous negotiations. All in all, the negotiation strategies we developed really helped us in achieving most of our goals and set objectives. This is because; the core reason for any negotiation is to be able to arrive at an agreement. This agreement will aid in providing relevant and satisfactory solution to an existing problem. Moreover, the other important objective of the negotiation is that the reached outcomes intend to satisfy all parties. In other words the outcomes should be a win/win situation where everybody will be happy (Moore, 2012). Furthermore, there is need to factor in your approach the fact that at the end of the negotiation, each party should win and also lose substantially (Moore, 2012). The point where our negotiation approach failed was when it came to the issue of compensating other ports (Harborco, 2007). Truth be said; this was very challenging for us. We were unprepared for that topic. This was because, the strategies we came up with for negotiation were all directed to issue touching on the union workers only (Harborco, 2007). This was the reasons as to why the negotiation was taking place. We were just concerned about our local workers and nothing else. No one had foreseen factors that will affect the Harborco Company will also have a direct impact on our workers. But that was the reality. If this new business Harborco spent more of their capital paying out our workers heavy packages, then they will fail to cope up with other competitors in the field. This ended up by us assigning points for the compensation to other ports against out plan. The other key challenge that faced us was when one of our own negotiators called Mattia decided to quit the negotiation due to the fact that he has not been aware of the vote on the ecological impact (Harborco, 2007). This was a big blow to our negotiation exercise since the voting was very essential to guarantee us winning. This was a negative sign for poor outcomes and everyone was worried. To this effect, we came up with a plan. Since ecological impact was not concerning with us directly, we all agreed not to assign points to it (Harborco, 2007). The issue of environment was the mandate of the environmentalists. We were able to successfully overrule on this by the fact that the other negotiating party were not aware that the issue was not important to us (Harborco, 2007). The other party Harborco which was a port company did come up with their own negotiation strategies that aimed at ensuring that all decision fits to the companies affordability. The approach they used was successful at some points and also failed to win at some other occasion. The lead negotiator approach used by Harborco was enough to help them win almost all negotiation (Lawrence, McKearnan and Jennifer, 1999). This is because, as the lead negotiator, they were responsible for all roles that were to be coordinated during the negotiation (Lawrence et al, 1999). In addition to this, they were also entitled to make and pass final decision which was them implemented after the negotiation. As the lead negotiators, they were also having access to most of the questions likely to be discussed during the negotiation. The approach helped them much and also contributed to their win. The other negotiation approach Harborco also used was the language they used to mostly object statements from the other party. This is because, Harborco negotiators were very good listeners and in most cases they would begin their statements with humble word like “I understand where you are coming from, however…; I’m prepared to compromise, but… I’m afraid I had something in mind… (Lawrence et al, 1999). This really worked for them and they attained most of their objectives. Moreover, they had another different body language and non-verbal communication skill they also used (Lawrence et al, 1999). Most time they were speaking, their eyes were fixed on us and addressed us boldly. When it was our time, they were at always nodding their head in a way that suggested to us they were compromising but the truth was they were not. Contrary, they also had a different negotiating approach that they used to their advantage against us. Every time new topic came up, they would always prefer us to speak first and them later (Lawrence et al, 1999). This was a tactful approach since they were able to listen to us and quickly develop a neutral opinion to disqualify us. Furthermore, it gave them a chance to know our thinking limits and the seriousness of the negotiation in cases where they might have overestimated us (Lawrence et al, 1999). Finally, they were very keen on our body language. For example when Mattia left, it was a sign that we were losing. For them it was a motivator by the fact that our team members were withdrawing. This strategy helped them to tighten the negotiation to their advantage. Conclusion In summary, it is important for people to understand the importance of well preparedness before any negotiation exercise takes place. It is important for the negotiating team to representing many other people to meet prior to the negotiation. This will help them analyze the possible question, their opponent’s characters and also come up with strategies of winning. For our case, the team never met prior to the negotiation. This is evident by the fact that Mattia left simply because he had no idea that there was another question following. This was a negative impression and could cost the entire team. References Harborco, (2007). Confidential Instruction for the Union Negotiator. The president and Fellows of Harvard College. 1-4. Lawrence, S., McKearnan, S. and Jennifer T. (1999). The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, Sage Publications. 1: 234. Moore, C. (2012). Negotiation. Accessed on April 6, 2014 from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/usace/negotiation.htm. Read More