Techniques to Be Applied to the Negotiating Process - Essay Example

Section/# Getting to Yes: A Brief Analysis of Techniques and Skills that can be applied to the Negotiating ProcessNegotiation is a multifaceted art form that does not have a simple rubric that can be followed to always give a desired result. This lack of a “recipe” is due mostly to the fact that no two humans are alike with respect to personality, needs, wants, pre-conceived notions, background, culture, and a host of other influences. As such, the study of negotiation is one that must take into account a variety of factors that influence human needs, wants and the actions that drive them1. This brief analysis will work to address three main questions with regards to negotiation. They are as follows: 1) Describing and offering advice regarding the three main points of the “Getting To Yes” model of negotiation 2) comparison and contrast of distributive/competitive vs integrative/interest based bargaining 3) Discussion of the win-lose/win-win nature of negotiations and the influence that perception and expectations have on both parties involved. As such, this brief analysis will attempt to lay out, as best as possible, a type of rubric that will help an individual to handle negotiations in an informed and thoughtful manner. With respect to the three points of advice that were gleaned from the book Getting to Yes Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, the authors note that the three most powerful tools towards achieving a successful negation hinge on the following: 1) separating the people from the problem 2) focusing on the interests not the position 3) inventing options for mutual gain. Oftentimes in situations where disagreements/contentions/negotiations are taking place, it is extraordinarily easy to immediately denote a problem, an idea, or a given point of view to an individual or group of individuals. In this way, the actual problem comes no closer to resolution as groups involved have ascribed uniquely personal attributes to each of the perspectives. As such, the individual hang ups that a person or group of people may have with relation to another individual or group acts as the main impediment towards achieving an environment amenable to successful resolution2. In this way, the problem itself (or obstacles) is minimized as the personalities that espouse the given view are maximized. Such actions make it difficult if not impossible to work towards a resolution. In this way, it is the role of the negotiator to seek, at all costs and at all times, understanding of the issues rather than working to ascribe them to a given group or individual. The second point centers around the fact that the negotiator must place emphasis on seeking to define the interests of the respective group and not the problem. Although this can be understood a multitude of different ways, perhaps the best way to understand it is that the focus should be placed on the positive and not the negative. In such a way, rather than immediately coming to agreement that a central negative exists, the group can focus positive and constructive energies on defining and further developing the respective interests that guide the positions that are at hand. Lastly, how it is framed is oftentimes half the battle. In a situation where a difficult issue seeks resolution, a redistribution of focus in a way that works to maximize mutual gain is oftentimes one of the most efficient ways towards bringing parties together on points of agreement. Although this is a very basic concept, it is one that is lost on many negotiations as individuals involved develop a type of tunnel vision on their desired results with little thought as to small tokens of peace offerings that could coax the other side to relinquish some ground on a given item or set of points. With respect to comparing and contrasting distributive/competitive versus integrative/interest based bargaining, these primarily differ with respect to the item that is being discussed. For instance, as the name implies, distributive bargaining is often performed as a way of seeking to divide something up between parties3. Although many individuals approach this type of bargaining as simply dividing a pie amongst two hungry people; the fact of the matter is, over the course of the bargaining model, the participants hold within their power the ability not only to divide the pie – but to make the pie larger for each party involved. Conversely, with regards to integrative/interest based bargaining, the parties involved are trying to make more of a given resource4. Therefore, the arguments are oftentimes concentric around ways in which one party is willing to acquiesce to the needs of another. As such, this type of bargaining more appropriately invokes the give and take model of negotiation that usually jumps to the forefront of a layperson’s mind when they consider the term “negotiation”. As the directions to this project noted, “Negotiations rarely have to be win-lose, but they are not always win-win. In fact, in many cases that determination is influenced by the perceptions and expectations of one or both parties. Therefore, skilled negotiators tailor their tactics to the type of negotiations, seeking both to create and claim value by crafting creative deals that bridge differences”5. It is the belief of this author that this statement is absolutely and entirely true. It is without question that based on the type of negotiation, individuals will have different preconceived notions, needs, wants, desires etc. However, it is equally assured that all negotiations will not necessarily equate to a win-lose or a win-win. Sometimes human nature stymies the attempt of negotiators to bring about a reasonable and rational resolution; however, other times, the efforts of thoughtful mediation results in parties choosing to re-access prior views and associations. As such, the role of the negotiator remains an integral part in conflict resolution as well as working to ease the actors into models of more rational debate and negotiation that would otherwise not come naturally. Read More