Similarities between Negotiation and Advocacy - Essay Example

NEGOTIATION AND ADVOCACY Similarities between Negotiation and Advocacy Advocacy and negotiation require the mastery of similar skills that enable the conflicting parties to reach a neutral outcome. Both negotiation and Advocacy require the maintenance of a neutral working association that shall produce a positive agreement and follow up implementation. The two mechanisms entail the usage of formal language that aim at uniting the parties. This is because the arbitrators need caution not to break the connection between the individuals with the aim of helping all the members. Maintaining the ongoing relationship is the significant aspect than finding a solution because other innocent parties will suffer. This implies that negotiation results are aimed at sustaining trust and dependency between the parties. This brings about the aspect of communication in which the historical background of the affected parties must be in consideration. A negotiator should prepare a list of proposed solutions to determine the most applicable ones that will maintain the previous connection. Similarly, the negotiator should plan for an appropriate way to present the plan at the negotiation table to avoid controversy or taking of sides1. This is essential for the conflicting parties to select their preferred outcomes from the list offered. Cross examination skills between Advocates and Negotiators The inherent skills that are manifest in cross examination between advocates and negotiators cannot be overemphasized. Ethical considerations form the basis of interacting with people and extracting information from them. In advocacy and negotiation, cross examination and challenging the witnesses represents the ability to tackle individuals using their confessions. Ethical consideration during the process enabled me to relieve the mounting pressure inside the room. Ethics is a considerable component in the negotiation process because legal practitioners should observe the code of engaging the public in conflict resolution processes. This implies that a legal practitioner should not coerce an individual with the intention of searching for answers. The cross-examination process should entail a mutual understanding in which the offenders share their experiences without forceful elements. Time management, communication skills and understanding the parameters of authority are other elements common to the mechanisms2. It is significant to generate ideas before approaching the victims since this saves time, enhances preparedness and shows authority when issuing directions. In addition, advocacy and negotiations depend on the ability to analyze suggestions from both sides and making sensible decisions before engaging the other party. This is because of the differences prevalent between the parties and the hard stance taken to thwart the efforts of the opposing parties. Considering this, advocacy and negotiation should concentrate on neutralizing the differences to avoid confrontations or unethical habits. Communication and Listening Skills Similarities It is also apparent that both advocacy and negotiation are similar in the communication aspect. The negotiators and advocates must be eloquent in the language they use to avoid confusion and misinterpretation of their facts. Representing people in conflict matters also require the mastery of vital skills such as listening and articulation of messages. The advocate needs to have in-depth knowledge on the matter through searching background information about the case. This is because advocacy involves arguing the case with facts that need ethical consideration to avoid confrontation. In this regard, communication is a common skill in negotiation and advocacy3. The persuasion element in the two criteria will determine the direction of the outcome, whether it favors an individual or both parties. Active listening enables a negotiator or the advocate to understand the issues addressed during the case. For example, a person should understand questions properly before giving pronouncements on weighty matters. Active listening may face challenges if the negotiator is trying to impress either parties or for response purposes. This implies that one should not listen with the intention of answering back before understanding the question4. It is apparent that stressful atmosphere during the negotiation session may also impede active listening. This is because of the emotions, feelings and shouting involved between the conflicting persons. The environmental distractions cause breaks in the communication channel, leading to the passage of wrongful information. On the positive, active listening improves a person’s judgment skills and responding to others. A negotiator has the freedom to ask for clarifications if something was unclear or request for a repeat of the conversation to ensure that message relayed was important in the case. Speaking For Purpose Similarity Another similar common skill between advocacy and negotiation is speaking for a purpose that implies making it tougher to reach an agreement. The two parties should learn that making judgments is a sacrifice and not an easy fete that can be done within a few minutes. For example, it may give an impression of supporting one side, but the weight lies with the other option. The suspense makes it viable for the parties to disclose the true facts that may assist in handling the impasse. However, speaking for purpose eases the tension, creating a strike through the making of the significant statement at the opportune time5. It is evident that if the negotiators and advocates speak all the time, then the audience might lose confidence in their abilities. Limiting the talking time creates space for listening what the other people suggest before coming to a conclusion. The possibility of encouraging consensus is high if people engage in constructive discussions that might lead to amicable solutions. Similarity also arises in the outcome phase in which the arbitrators are required to issue resolutions that are favorable to both parties. This entails making wise agreements where possible by encouraging the parties to suggest the way forward that suits their interests. The underlining aspect of the outcome process is that it may improve or damage the association between the two parties. However, this should not affect the decisions of the negotiators or the advocates. As a result, the outcome reached should meet the expected interests of each side to avoid further confrontations and bias6. Preparation Similarity The preparation before attending the session enables one to know how to approach the matters in the resolution process. This implies that both negotiators and advocates must ensure that they understand the impending scenario. As a result, they need a soft approach, open mindedness and willingness to accommodate divergent opinions. It is also essential to come up with resolutions that may seem attractive to both parties by creating options where necessary. The opposing teams normally have different expectations, but this should not affect the entire process. It is also advisable that one should focus on the underlying interests apart from personal positions. This implies that the real problems should be tackled without favoring individuals who may be friends or relatives. The negotiator needs to avoid exhibiting anger or frustrations that normally obstruct agreements7. Both negotiation and advocacy activities must involve the understanding sufficient parameters of the authority assumed by the advocate, such as politely objecting or accepting opinions is another vital lesson. The conviction to opposing groups to consider suggestions from others and showing commitment illustrates the ability of the negotiator to control the session. Avoiding violence or abusive gestures enables the negotiation to be appropriate in relaying solutions8. The other lesson is the creative aspect in which ideas are generated to help in finding solutions. A creative negotiator will avoid any obstacle that can break the trust in his or her authority. As a result, creativity should concern matters bring the opposing sides together instead of breaking ties. For instance, land disputes can cause economic or social rivalry and this requires creative decisions that will maintain the previous relationships. Friendly Bargaining and Ethical Similarities Pursuing a friendly bargaining is suitable, but it might influence the negative verdict making since the parties will not be able to disclose facts in the negotiation process9. The legal interpretation is essential to preside over conflicts that affect the parties’ interests, which they thought form the best approach to the solution. It is advisable that conflict resolutions mechanisms, such as negotiation and advocacy do not need hard stance from the opposing parties since it makes the process unmanageable. As a result, being rigid and strict was the appropriate strategy that helped me come up with some decisions for neutral analysis. Similarly, both methods need to base relationship on mutually beneficial perceptions by conveying emotions without laying blame on each other10. Bibliography Conner, Lauri A. 2003. One voice from the dark. The UK institute of legal studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Downs, Lisa J. 2008. Negotiation skills training. Alexandria, Va: ASTD and ASTD Press. Print. Dyck, David. 2000. "The Mediator as Nonviolent Advocate: Revisiting the Question of Mediator Neutrality." Mediation Quarterly 18, no. 2: 129-149. Finch, Emily. 2013. Employability skills for law students. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More