Decision Analytic Method - a Suitable Approach Resolving a Conflict between Two Parties - Case Study Example

Introduction The report focuses on the use of decision-analytic approach to negotiation to find out how the approach can be used in the context of the conflict between the UK Airways and its cabin crew. Some of the major problems that the UK Airways is facing are dispute due to the change in working practices in the airlines. These changes are mostly due to the reduction in number of staff on long and short haul flights. There are various other concerns as well that both the employees and the management are facing. Some of them include overtime payment, shift duties, cuts in training budget, expenses and allowances. In this report, the researcher has applied the decision-analytic approach to negotiation to address these issues and find out possible solutions during the negotiation process between the management and the cabin crew. The report would provide an in-depth analysis of the decision-analytic approach and how to apply it in the present scenario. Further, the report would also focus on various pitfalls or barriers that might hamper the negotiation process and suggest means to overcome these barriers. The report would conclude with a set of recommendations that the management might implement in order to make the negotiation process with the employees a success. Decision-analytic approach In case of conflicts, everyone looks towards solving the issue in an amicable manner. Negotiations play a pivotal role in such cases. However, to become undertake an effective negotiation process might not be easy as it requires taking and eliminating various decisions at the negotiation table. In case the negotiation goes wrong due to an incorrect decision, the entire deal might be called off. Therefore, decision making in a negotiation is very important and it is also imperative to analyse each decision before the final one is taken (Barsade & Gibson 2007). The decision-analytic approach is used to analyse the decisions taken to give preference to a strategy over another one through the evaluation of the choice of the negotiator for each criteria. This approach helps in not only understanding the underlying motivation behind accepting the bargain but also finding out reasons behind considering a solution more attractive than the other. Raiffa (1982) developed the decision-analytic approach to illustrate how common people react or behave during negotiations and how they should behave if they are smarter and consistent in their dealings. This approach is based on providing negotiators advices for handling real world conflicts. Although, Raiffa provides a general approach towards negotiating in case of conflicts, he also warns negotiators to access the behaviour of the conflicting party before applying the decision-analytic approach. In this approach, it is important to recreate the correct descriptions of the opposing party. One should not assume about the characteristics of the opposing members, instead should have accurate facts so that the strengths and weaknesses of the opponent could be accessed properly. Further, this knowledge would also help in anticipating the possible behaviour of the opposing members (Barsade & Gibson 2007). The approach is applied in real life conflicts through two popular forms known as multi-attribute utility analysis and decision tree analysis. The multi-attribute utility analysis creates a structure analysing multiple decisions and alternate options to these decisions. Certain evaluation criteria are then developed to find out the relevance of these decisions. Further, each decision is given priority as per the requirement. It is a rather static approach towards negotiation (Raiffa 1982). On the other hand, the decision tree analysis shows all the decisions taken by both the parties, indicates the sequence of the decision as well as provides details about various uncontrollable situations. This form of negotiation is much more dynamic in nature than the multi-attribute utility analysis and helps in predicting the future events as well. It is also a good tool to identify whether certain alternate decisions would work or not in the negotiation table. Changes in the negotiation process such as change in strategy by the opposition, or change in government polices, are also taken care of in this model (Raiffa 1982). This helps in analysing a decision from all the angles, taking into account all the possible variables. Therefore, this helps in minimising risk in the negotiating table, as the negotiator is able to predict the behaviour of the opponent well. Applying decision-analytic approach The biggest benefit of the use of decision-analytic approach is to provide the decision makers a proper framework to structure the problems and the solutions in such a manner that the possible results can be visualised by both the parties and a carefully thought out decision can be taken. This approach is based on taking decisions through logical thinking, evaluating relations and eliminating biasness to come out with a fair and applicable solution to a problem (Forgas & George 2001). Pre-negotiation period In the current scenario, as a negotiator for the UK Airways, the researcher needs to conduct in-depth study of the problem and come out with possible solutions which might be acceptable to both the parties. The researcher decides to apply the decision analytic approach not just during the negotiation stage but also in the pre-negotiation period as well. In this phase of negotiation, the researcher accesses the information available about the conflict, the analysis about determining factors that might help in bringing both the parties across the negotiating table (Forgas & George 2001). For this scenario, the researcher conducted an in-depth analysis of the situation, generated various factors about the conflict, defining the interests of both the parties, inferred the underlying motivations, identified the middle-points of compromise and developed possible outcome from the negotiations. The researcher created the following framework from the analysis of the situation in the pre-negotiation stage: Scenario UK Airways management Crew members Major conflict points Change in working practice Reduction of number of staff on long and short haul flights Cuts in training budgets, expenses & allowance Reduction in staff Pay raise Overtime payment Shift patterns Interests To expand the business with minimum employee benefits To demand for more employee benefits Motivations To cut costs and increase bottom-line To enhance employee welfare After defining the various factors of the conflict scenario and understanding the underlying motivations and interests of each party, the researcher identified the compromise pointers and developed a framework to carry out negotiations. Some of the compromise pointers were: UK Airways management: The management was ready to compensate crew members as per the market rates. It was also ready to provide comfortable shift timings to the crew. However, the management was not ready to pay overtime allowance or spend on training of the crew members. Crew members: The crew members decided to cooperate on the reduction of staff on long and short haul flights, but did not want the reduction to be too low which might put burden on the crew. They were comfortable working in shifts as long as their preferences were taken into consideration. On the basis of the above findings, the researcher drew out the below mentioned negotiation plan: Step 1: Drafting the negotiation document, putting forth the conflict areas and the compromise pointers. Step 2: Distributing the document to both the management and the crew members. Step 3: Seeking feedback and suggestions from both the parties. Step 4: Incorporating the feedbacks and drafting another document. Step 5: Setting up a face-to-face meeting between the conflicting parties. Utilising the decision-analytic approach during the pre-negotiation period would be especially useful for the management as they would be able to access major points even before the negotiation might take place and can analyse the results beforehand (Lerner et al 2004). For instance, in this case study, the management of UK Airways would be able to analyse the following situation well: Risk analysis: As the management is not willing to provide overtime allowance and other such employee benefits, the cabin crew might threaten to go on strike and paralyse the operations of the airlines. Costs and benefits: The management might save money by reducing the training costs and other employee benefits, but it might also affect the quality of services provided by the airlines. Requirements: The management would require additional fund to fulfill all the demands of the crew members. Coordinating with the crew: The management might take a middle path and negotiate with the crew on their demands and grant them some of their demands (Coleman & Lim 2001). Negotiation period The researcher understood the importance of conducting the initial negotiation successfully. Therefore, he took various cautious steps to ensure that the negotiation is held to benefit both the parties. However, the researcher found that there are many barriers to effective thinking during resolution of a dispute and the negotiator needs to be well aware of these barriers to make the negotiation a success. These barriers are discussed in detail in the next section. Barriers to effective thinking In a negotiation process, many behavioural issues are responsible for the failure of the negotiation. Some of these behavioural patterns also create barriers to effective thinking and the opposing parties become very rigid about their beliefs. Such a circumstance is very difficult to control for a negotiator and ultimately the negotiation might fail as well (Forgas & George 2001). Some of these barriers are described below, along with solutions on how to overcome them. Individual biasness: Experts believe that people often behave irrationally while in a negotiation, which they attribute to the fact that these individuals are motivated by their biasness for the issue. The negotiator purse their own aims and objectives and are rigid in their outlook about the demands of the other party. This is a tough situation to manage and the negotiator needs a lot of patience to explain the viewpoints of each party to the other. In this case as well, the management is biased towards earning more profits and reducing employee benefits, while the employees do not want to cooperate with the management on work schedules and overtimes unless they are being paid more and given added employee benefits. In such a circumstance, the researcher would have to conduct separate meetings with management and the crew member leaders to explain the opinions of each other and try and find a middle path to end the conflict (Stanovich & West 2000). Competitive biasness: The feeling of upmanship and defeating the other party also plays a major part in the failure of a negotiation. In such a case, the conflicting parties do not want to listen to the demands of each other and are very rigid about their views. This results in a conflict situation and often leads to violence. In this case as well, the rigidity on the part of the management and the crew members might result into creating conflict (Radzevick & Moore 2008). Understanding social relationships: During a negotiation process, it is important to understand and incorporate social factors and behavioural patterns such as social relationships to conduct the process in a peaceful manner. It has been found that relationships affect the decision of the negotiator while conducting negotiations (Tenbrunsel et al 1999). For instance, monetary gain is an important social phenomenon that plays a major role in negotiations. Most conflicting parties are much more comfortable at sharing monetary gains on an equal basis rather than on an unequal ratio. Thus, while undertaking any monetary negotiations, it is important to keep a balance in such negotiations (Lerner et al 2004). In this case, the management has the upper hand as it has the power to decide about the salaries and compensations for the employees. However, if the management continues to take a very rigid view about the entire process, it might face stiff opposition from the employees, resulting in a no-win situation for either of the parties. Egocentrism: It has been found that in most cases the conflicting parties believe that the other party is creating hype about their problems and demands intentionally. It is a common phenomenon that the conflicting parties view that their demands are favourable and fair. This causes egocentric behaviour among both the parties, which results in stalling of the entire negotiation process, as neither of the parties agrees on any issue (Babcock & Loewenstein 1997). In this case, egocentrism might not be a big problem as both the parties have come to a common ground and have sketched out a few negotiation pointers. However, the role of the negotiator is a very important one in such a situation. It is upon the negotiator to make the parties understand the point of view of each other in such a manner that the negotiation can be undertaken smoothly. Over optimism: In a negotiation, it has been found that both the parties believe that their demands would be met and are over optimistic about the outcome. This can also be due to the fact that they are over confident about their negotiating abilities and believe that their demands are legitimate and should be fulfilled (Payne et al 2008). In this case, although both the management and the crew members are over optimistic about the negotiation and believe that both are right, they are not very egocentric about their beliefs. Thus, the success of the negotiation depends on the negotiating and convincing powers of the negotiator. Attributes of the negotiator: Together with the conflicting parties, the behaviour of the negotiator is also an important factor in making the negotiation process a success. It has often been seen that even independent negotiators are guided by their own biasness and might favour one group over the other. In case of the negotiator being employed to represent a party, the negotiator would certainly be motivated due to monetary gain and might press for the demands of his party without considering the demands of the other party. In this case as well, the researcher has been hired to represent the management in the negotiation and he needs to be unbiased in his decisions and take into consideration the concerns of both the parties before providing any suggestion or decision (Thompson 2005). Conclusion In case of resolving a conflict between two parties decision analytic method is a suitable approach. It is due to the fact that such an approach is practical in its implementation in a negotiation setup. From the analysis of the above case, it has been found that in order to create an amicable atmosphere for negotiation between the management and the employees, the negotiator has to employ the decision analytic method right from the pre-negotiation stage. Some of the recommendations and suggestions that the management might follow in order to resolve the conflict are as follows: Decision analysis approach may be used to analyse various decisions as well as alternate decisions and find out about their applicability and the success ratio. Such a model may also help in identifying the possible outcome of a decision. For instance, in case a decision about not giving added compensation for overtime is taken by the management, it is evident that the management would face opposition from the employees. It is an important tool to be implemented during the pre-negotiation stage as it helps the negotiator in understanding the demands of each party and identify various compromise pointers. Further, using decision analysis approach would also help in conducting risk analysis, calculating costs and benefits, finding out added requirements to meet the demands and coordinating with the employees in an amicable setup. During the actual negotiation process, such an approach would be appropriate to understand the demands of the conflicting parties. It would help in conducting communication with the conflicting parties and understanding their demands in a better manner. The management should also focus on preparing possible answers for presenting their point of views. Biasness about the issue and individual egotism should also be perceived and should be dealt accordingly. Therefore, overall it has been found that the decision analytic approach can have practical usability that may be useful during the negotiation process and can make the process a success. References Babcock, L. and Loewenstein, G. 1997, ‘Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 109-126. Barsade, S. and Gibson, D. 2007, ‘Why does affect matter in organizations?’ Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 36-59. Coleman, P. T. and Lim, Y. Y. J. 2001, ‘A systematic approach to evaluating the effects of collaborative negotiation training on individuals and groups’, Negotiation Journal 17, 363–392. Forgas, J.P. and George, J. M. 2001, ‘Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86, 3-34. Lerner, J. S., Small, D., and Loewenstein, G. 2004, ‘Heart strings and purse strings: Carryover effects of emotions on economic transactions’, Psychological Science 15(5), 337-341. Payne, J. W., Samper, A., Bettman, J. R., and Luce, M. F. 2008, ‘Boundary conditions on unconscious thought in decision making’, Psychological Science 19(11), 1118-1123. Radzevick, J. R. and Moore, D. A. 2008, ‘Myopic biases in competitions,’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 107, 206-218. Raiffa, Howard 1982, The Art and Science of Negotiation, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press. Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. 2000, ‘Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23(5), 645-665. Tenbrunsel, A. E., Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Moag, J., and Bazerman, M. H. 1999, ‘The negotiation matching process: Relationships and partner selection’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 80(3), 252-284. Thompson, L. L. 2005, ‘The mind and heart of the negotiator (3rd ed.)’, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Read More