The analysis of Negotiations - Essay Example

Creating and Claiming Value: Bridging the Gap between Supervisor and Subordinate through Negotiations and Conflict Resolutions I. Background The corporate environment is complex and there are times when conflict between parties arises. For purposes of discussion in this paper, let us take a closer look into the conflict between a supervisor and her subordinates. In this case, the supervisor had just been with the company for almost a year. She is younger than most of the people under her supervision but she has a master’s degree, very innovative and is very hardworking. The conflict arises because one of the old timers in her team, a male employee who had been with the company for almost 15 years resisted the changes that she is implementing in their section. This old timer is one of the most trusted employees of the company. To compound the problem, the person who resisted her methods of doing things is highly respected by the older members of the team. In fact, many of the old timers looked up to him as their leader. On the other hand, the younger members of the team are more inclined to follow the new boss. They recognized the potentials of the new boss and are willing to give her a chance. The situation is causing a riff among the members of the team and the rate of production in this section is now affected. Since it is the duty of the supervisor to ensure that everybody in her team is performing well and that everyone is comfortable if not happy with what they are doing, the supervisor will now need to negotiate with her subordinates and resolve the conflict. II. Selecting a Model for Negotiation According to Cohen1, “negotiation is a field of knowledge and endeavor that focuses on gaining the favor of people from whom we want things”. In other words, it is the use of information and power to affect behavior within a “web of tension.” When preparing for negotiations, it is best to guide the flow of our arguments and counter arguments by selecting a model for negotiation. In this case, let us take a look into the application of a mixed model of creating and claiming value. Creating and claiming value are considered as two of the most basic things when it comes to negotiation. However, some conflict analysts are inclined to believe that creating and claiming value are directly in contrast with each other. The tension between creating and claiming value stems for the fact that creating and claiming value have different objectives. Where creating value is directed at integrative bargaining where the interest of the parties are considered to increase the beneficial good that everyone can enjoy, claiming value is more into positional bargaining where the parties consider themselves as disputants and not as cooperators2. However, Lax and Sebenius3 believe that even though the negotiation models of creating and claiming may at first glance seem to be in direct conflict with each other, in the end, these two models actually compliments each other. Note that even though at the beginning of the negotiation process, the negotiator will strive to use the negotiation model of creating value, at the end, the negotiator will still need to divide the value that has been created during the negotiation process. Given this situation, the application of the mixed models of creating and claiming value is appropriate. III. Formulating the Negotiation Strategies Going back into our hypothetical situation, the supervisor must apply the model of creating value at the start of the negotiation process. The supervisor must orient herself towards achieving a win-win approach in this given situation. According to Cohen, the attitude adopted by the negotiator affects the over outcome of the whole situation. She must also have a clear and concrete negotiation strategy for negotiation. Note that negotiation is all about the interplay of information. People who come into the negotiating table must know what they want, what is important to them and why these things are important to them. We must always bear in mind that people come to the negotiating table with different interests. A good integrative bargaining negotiator must therefore be able to identify the various interests of both parties. In our situation, supervisor must identify her motivations and interest and at the same time try to study the reason behind the stand of the subordinate on certain issues. The key here is to understand what one wants and what the other party wants. The more the parties know about the needs, hopes and aspirations of the other, the better they will be able to work together. The supervisor must be able to ask the question “why is it important for me to impose my ideas on my subordinates?” and on the other end, the subordinate must ask himself “why am I resisting the changes imposed by the supervisor?” Aside from knowing what one wants to achieve during the negotiation, one should know how to create options of mutual gains. Integrative bargaining is all about cooperation and mutual problem solving thus it is important that the negotiator is able to direct the attention of the other party towards an alternative solution that will make him or her feel that he or she has gained a greater value than before. The negotiator must be able to let the other party see that they need to work for a common goal which can benefit them both. It is imperative that before anybody states to negotiate, he or she must have an idea of what are the zones of possible agreements (ZOPA) and what is his or her best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)4. According to Shell5, the zones of possible agreements are very crucial as this will help the negotiator to gauge the things that will mostly be acceptable to the other party. Note that when it comes to negotiations, one must be able to identify the softest entry points in the negotiation process in order the set the course of the discussion to a more possible direction. Cohen believes that it is best to delay the discussion of more controversial issues to the end part of the negotiation when you have already accumulated many positive points. Once you have accumulated some good points in the earlier part of the negotiation process, it will be easier for you to tackle the big issues later on. As cardinal rule, one should know his or her BATNA before going into negotiation. Although the BATNA may eventually change in the course of the negotiation, it is often very wise to know your limits long before you face the other party. According to Wheeler6, knowing your BATNA is very important as this can be a source of power in negotiations. If you know your strengths, you are in the better position to get better terms. Otherwise, if you think you are not getting what you want and the other party is not in the right position to say no to you, you can use your BATNA as a trump card and meet the other party half way. IV. The Negotiation Process Supervisor-subordinate conflict in the corporate environment can be a chronic irritant to both parties. In most cases, the conflict starts with the flow of information where one or both of the parties are misinformed and the issues accumulate from there until it erupts and cause a riff in the team. As a negotiator who wants to start an integrative bargaining process and create a value, one must be alert and be able to determine the underlying interests of the parties in the conflict. The negotiator must learn to separate the people from the problem. During the negotiation process, it is very critical to stick with the problem and not become emotional. Note that it is common for one or both parties to start attacking personalities during the discussion thereby derailing the efforts to peacefully settle the conflict. A good negotiator therefore must maintain a goal oriented frame of mind and refuse to rise to the bait. When negotiating, one must try to look into the underlying problem that causes the aggression and not look at the aggression as a personal attack. All throughout the negotiation process, the negotiation must foster the feeling of neutrality and never attempt to discredit the other party as this will make him or her more aggressive and defensive. Note that once the other party feels threatened, he or she may close down communications channels and become more hostile. Once this happens, one cannot hope to start and integrative bargaining process. The choice of words of the negotiator is there fore very important, for instance, a good negotiator will say “I need to understand the issue better, can you please help me?” instead of “You are not making yourself clear.” We must always bear in mind that we cannot create value unless we get to explore possibilities and solve the problem as a team. During the negotiation process, it is important to define the problem in such a way that it is acceptable to both parties. When creating value, one must make sure that all parties to the negotiation are in agreement. By asking the parties to agree to the problem that needs to be resolved, the negotiator is able to depersonalize the problem. Once the problem is established and well defined, this will now become the center of the negotiation process. In most cases, the conflict will not be resolved in one setting. A negotiator must therefore be prepared to go through several rounds of negotiations before he or she can hope to establish a sound and acceptable solution to the conflict. In our hypothetical case, it is normal to hit a wall during the first round of negotiation so it is better to just simply let the other party express what he feels and listen to the things that he is not saying. Be an active listener during the negotiation process and test the accuracy of the statements of the other party by asking follow-up questions. Often times, it is best to put the points of controversy in writing so that both parties will not miss out anything during the discussion. A series of exchanges of proposals and counter proposals may be done for a period of time to expand the realm of possible solutions to the conflict. However, one must be very careful about using the non-verbal means of communication. According to Cohen, it is not unusually for negotiations to breakdown because somebody misinterpreted the tone of a letter, an email or other non-verbal communications that are sent to the parties. To avoid this pitfall in negotiation, if you are not sure how the other party will interpret your letter, it is best to hand in your notes and comments to the other party personally so that you can explain things better and not cause further riff. Furthermore, it is important that both parties will come to a sort of an agreement at the end of the negotiation process. V. Getting to the Division of the Pie In mixed model of creating and claiming value, the division of the pie or deciding you gets what which must be done towards the end of the negotiation process is very crucial. Enlarging the pie of benefits by creating value is one thing but deciding who gets what part of the pie is another thing. In theory, the parties already know how to divide the pie after they have jointly created and accumulated value. However, in practice, the parties to the negotiation still have some issues after the stage of creating value has been concluded. At this point, your BATNA becomes very important. Note that at this point, the course of the negotiation shifts from being integrative to being positional. This means that your goal now is to claim value. BATNA therefore is very crucial at this point because there may be many instances where the negotiation will hit a wall and the only way to keep things moving will be to give concessions on both sides. Note that when negotiations hit deadlock, it is always imperative to find ways to keep things moving otherwise both parties will be worst off than they were before the start of the negotiation. VI. Conclusion Negotiations are crucial part of the corporate environment. In a supervisor-subordinate conflict, negotiations can become quite emotional because both parties have a large stake in the issues raised. Furthermore, the fact that the supervisor and the subordinate must work with each other in the corporate environment even while the negotiations are going on, it is not unusual for tensions to arise. The good thing about using the mixed models of creating claiming value is that it gives both parties the opportunity to explore solutions that are mutually acceptable to each other. Instead of being adversarial, the integrative model of creating value fosters unity through understanding and consolidation of goals. Once there agreements have been made, division of value will be easier to facilitate. References: 1. Cohen, Herb, You can Negotiate Anything, Bantam Books, 1988 2. Fisher, Roger and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 104. 3. Fisher, Roger, William Ury and Bruce Patton (1991) Getting to Yes: Negotiation Agreement Without Giving In, second Edition. New York. Penguin Books 4. Lax, David and James Sebenius. The Manager as Negotiator: The Negotiator’s Dilemma: Creating and Claiming Value. In Goldberg, Stephen, Frank Sander and Nancy Rogers, eds. Dispute Resolution, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co., 1992. 49-62 5. McCarthy William, "The Role of Power and Principle in Getting to Yes," in Negotiation Theory and Practice, Eds. J. William Breslin and Jeffery Z. Rubin. (Cambridge: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 1991), 115-122. 6. Shell, G. Richard, Bargaining for Advantage, Penguin Books, 1999 7. Watkins, Michael and Susan Rosegrant, Breakthrough international negotiation: Hoe Great Negotiators Transformed the World’s Toughest Post-Cold War Conflicts ( San Frnacisco: Jessey-Bass, 2001) 8. Wheeler, Michael, Negotiation Analysis: An Introduction Harvard Business School August 29, 2000 Read More