Conflict management and negotiation - Essay Example

?Running head: COGNITIVE COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE Cognitive Communication Competence in Conflict Management and Negotiation COGNITIVE COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE 2 Cognitive Communication Competence in Conflict Management and Negotiation Overview In almost every task, preparation spells the difference whether the task has a big chance of being a success or coming out as a failure. However, preparation is not enough. A good plan means that the communicator is able profile the other person to acquire as much information as possible on how to interact with that person that would bring about the best results (Gross & Alberts, 2004, p.251). Furthermore, during the course of a conversation for negotiation or conflict management, a good communicator should be aware of the reaction of the other person. Just like Newton's Third Law of Physics, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” (Bonito, 2004, p. 705). Reactions could range from verbal to non-verbal cues. After a conversation, the communicator should be able to reflect on the ways he or she is able to converse with the other person (Gross & Alberts, 2004, p.252). What went wrong? What was good? How can things be improved? Furthermore, a deeper reflection would have the communicator realize the many possibilities of how the words would be absorbed by the other person (Bonito, 2004, p. 706). Completing this process would eventually result in better communication skills for the person, particularly in terms of negotiation and conflict management. This paper aims to analyze the responses from the questionnaire and come up with a reflection on improving the weaknesses in the cognitive communication competence of the respondent. COGNITIVE COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE 2 Summary of Responses Planning Cognitions Questionnaire answers show that planning cognition is not the strongest ability of the respondent. However, it is also not weak. Diction, tone of voice, and facial expression appear to be the primary concern in approaching another person. “What the others are thinking or talking about?” appears to be the key question in the planning process. This is a safe approach because it shows that the respondent considers the other person before starting a conversation. The downside here is that the respondent could be considering the other person too much, which could affect the planning process. Modeling Cognitions Upon review of the responses, this appears to be one of the strengths of the respondent. The respondent shows a sharp skill in sizing up the situation and the reactions and responses of the people involved in the conversation. This is obvious in group conversations, where the respondent shows a great ability to detect whose approval to immediately gain in the group. There is some sort of a political sense at play during this process, where the respondent is smooth in the subtle skill of “divide and conquer.” Presence Cognitions This appears to be one of the respondent's strengths in communication and negotiation. The respondent is able to proactively think of the next step even before everyone else has moved forward. This stems from the respondents ability to size up the environment and the people involved in the conversation. Rebuttals to arguments are almost non-existent, because they are answered before they are even expressed. The respondent also knows how to inject his/her COGNITIVE COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE 4 position by subtle control of the flow of conversation. Reflection Cognitions The respondent shows a need for improvement in this area. After every conversation, a thorough reflection of what occurred should immediately follow. This would ensure a better interaction the next time he or she encounters the same people, especially if about the same topic. Moreover, the respondent should also reflect on the image he or she is able to portray to others. No process is perfect as it is, and a constant desire to learn from what has transpired is a good characteristic for continuous development. Consequence Cognition This can be assumed as a result of a good reflection cognition. Since the respondent is unable to thoroughly reflect on the conversation that transpired, he or she is obviously unable to fully realize the effect the conversation has on others. Failure to effectively think of the consequences of the conversation could lead to failure to improving the weaknesses of the negotiation the next time the same issue transpires. Overall Analysis There is definitely a large connection between communication skills and success in negotiation. Also, it can be said that there is a positive connection between the flexibility of communication skills and the success of collaboration among individuals (Gross & Alberts, 2004, p.259). People who are willing to compromise are more able to reach a consensus easily. People who are able to think of alternatives and choices during negotiations are obviously more able to present possible solutions to every issue (Martin & Anderson, 1998, p.4). Modeling cognition is the awareness of how each one reacts toward the issue, while presence cognition is COGNITIVE COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE 5 the awareness of what alternative to present to the group, usually in accordance to what is perceived in the modeling process. Since these two cognitions are the respondent's strengths, it means that the respondent is able to utilize the concept of “compromise” to reach a group consensus. Recommendations for Improvement Based on the 10 Best Practices in Negotiation 1. Be prepared This is related to the planning cognition. The opening statement could be: “I hope I did not miss anything. That seems to be an interesting topic.” This could prompt others to go on with their conversation while the respondent observes and analyzes the situation and gather data that can be used in the next stages. This provides time for deeper analysis while making his or her physical presence absorbed by the group. 2. Diagnose the fundamental structure of the negotiation This is one of the respondent's strengths under presence cognitions. The respondent should only ensure that the choices or alternatives presented are fair to everyone involved. 3. Identify and work the BATNA This can fall under the four cognitions except planning. Since the respondent is able to effectively come up with the “profile” of the situation and the people involved, and is able to offer agreeable alternatives and options, the main focus of improvement should be on the reflection and consequence cognitions. This is because of the possibility of a decision not being reached during the first meeting. Therefore, if there are new strategies available, this can only be seen through the reflection and consequence processes. During reflection and consequence processes, the respondent could make several other plans that considers what is fair for him or COGNITIVE COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE 6 her and what the other person wants (i.e. Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, etc.). 4. Be willing to walk away The respondent should be able to decide when to give up the attempt at a compromise. Personal gains should not be put completely on the side for the sake of reaching an agreement. Technically speaking, a deal that benefits only one party is not really a deal. During planning stage, be firm in setting personal limits and do not be afraid to say no when the negotiation reaches this point. 5. Master the key paradoxes of negotiation There is sometimes a thin line between being accommodating in order to reach a deal, and being a doormat. Do not use formulas in negotiation. Use strategies where you excel, but be flexible enough to be able to adjust strategies so they reflect the needs of the other side. Use your strength in offering alternatives and options to master this practice. 6. Remember the intangibles Ask more questions. Being able to provide alternatives out of keen observations from the surroundings and the people involved is not enough. Asking direct questions can lead you faster to your goal. 7. Actively manage coalitions This falls under modeling cognition, one of the respondent's strengths. Ask questions. Sometimes, other people can accept being asked rather than being “told” more easily. 8. Savor and protect your reputation; 9. Remember that rationality and fairness are relative; and 10. Continue to learn from the experience This can all be achieved by starting every negotiation on a positive point, and trying to COGNITIVE COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE 7 maintain it that way. Remember that in negotiating, you are confronting the issue, not the person. This is the fair approach. Set clear objectives and expectations so that everyone involved will be on the same page and will be working toward the same goal. Situational Example Scenario: Three people are involved in the buying and selling of a second-hand gadget. The seller (1) wants to get $1000 for the gadget, in full. No installments. The buyer (2) cannot come up with the money right away. Wants two installments, a week apart. You are the middle man (3). Planning. Gauge each party. Who has the tendency to give in easily. Who “needs” more? Modeling: If you sense that both parties are not willing to budge, come up with a strategy that will imply 1) how hard it is to look for another buyer within the week, and; 2) if the buyer can come up with a larger sum for down payment. Presence: If both parties are trying to push their own stand, focus further on the “needs” of each other. This may sound trite, but “threatening” their needs could make them be more willing to acknowledge the other's point of view. “If we don't reach a deal now, it might take longer than a week to sell that.” “Are you willing to add another $100 to get the product? It's a little hard to look for such a good buy these days. If you look for another seller, the price in the market is $1300 on the average. Adding $100 to the current price could get you the week you need to come up with the full sum, and still save you money.” Reflection: Think of how the conversation went. Will they want to use you as a middle man next time? Consequence: Whatever your answers are on the reflection process should be a way to help you figure out where you went wrong, and what to do next time. Practice makes permanent. COGNITIVE COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE 8 References Bonito, J. A. (December 01, 2004). Shared Cognition and Participation in Small Groups: Similarity of Member Prototypes. Communication Research, 31, 6, 704-730. Gross, M., Guerrero, L., & Alberts, J. (August 01, 2004). Perceptions of conflict strategies and communication competence in task-oriented Dyads. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 3, 249-270. Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (January 01, 1998). The Cognitive Flexibility Scale: Three Validity Studies. Communication Reports, 11, 1, 1-10. Read More