Evaluating Negotiation Competence - Term Paper Example

Negotiations Your Name Class Name Lecturer’s Name Date Assignment Due Introduction Negotiation is a process of communication through which two or more parties seek to resolve their opposing interests in a way that they prefer the best alternative. It occurs in diverse fields such as labour relations, international conflicts, constitutional and political issues, socioeconomic development and personal relations. The goals of negotiation vary from one situation to the other; some may be substantive like good prices while others may be relational such as trust. Depending on the circumstances, negotiation may aim: to safeguard the personal relationships by attending to face needs i.e. both parties’ need for sympathy and respect; to shift the perception of the relative powers of the parties and the value of their best available alternatives; to frame and present information in a manner that renders it significant and preferably attractive to the parties; to present offers, promises, refusals and threats that set out the available options; to summarize and control the flow of topics in a dialogue; to extract information and propose the expected actions; and to build a common ground of shared future interests (Zhu, 2009). Researchers and practitioners from various disciplines have reported their findings on the topic based on either empirical or theoretical propositions. Studies on negotiation indicate substantial information that can be used for proper understanding of the process. This paper reviews major contributions in the discursive field by first introducing the approaches to negotiation, and then illustrates how to set a common ground for negotiation, elements of negotiation, effect of personality and emotions on negotiation and lastly, how to effectively manage differing motives during the process. Negotiation approaches All negotiations involve people sharing information by offering their proposals and counter-proposals that help in resolving their conflict, offering concessions and reaching an agreement. However, the strategy and tactics used in conducting a negotiation distinguishes them as either distributive or integrative. Distributive bargaining This type of negotiation aims at maximizing the individual gains while minimizing the losses. According to Min, Tost & Wade-Benzoni (2007), it adopts a ‘fixed’ pie approach where resources are scarce and it is crucial for the parties to claim rightful shares of this pie. This type of negotiation is viewed as competitive because each party wants to obtain victory over the other party. Integrative bargaining This type of negotiation focus on maximizing joint gains rather than viewing it as a win-lose perspective (Choi, 2010). In this approach, the parties adopt a win-win orientation in creating an agreement where both of them can prosper. Each party becomes flexible to one another and therefore engage themselves in a cooperative problem solving. In this manner, the pie becomes expandable in ensuring that both parties get what they need. Setting a common ground for negotiation Developing an agreement on a common ground is an essential feature in negotiation. Demoulin &. Teixeira (2010) argues that building a suitable solution depends on the ways the negotiating parties review their achievement so far. Based on empirical evidence, Diez (1986) discovered that the more relaxed formal a session, the more the negotiators are able to feel the need for explicitness. He compared competitive negotiation session with more relaxed caucus session with same participants prepared with a shared viewpoint. The outcomes revealed clear differences in stating the common ground between a competitive session and a caucus session. He says that: Speakers would give, for example, an introductory statement as a topic, a rationale for the proposal, and implications for the other side’s accepting or rejecting the proposal. Subsequent utterances were held specifically to these context setting utterances. Cooperative negotiations, or caucus sessions, in contrast, often used shorthand references to communicate understandings (Diez 1986, 127). This reveals that in formal circumstances, statements about common ground take functions of deductive reasoning or even a moral obligation and not a shared vision. A common ground can also be created through summary. Drake’s study (2001) investigates the role of summary under the category of formulation. These utterances, especially in CA give the gist of the preceding talk and therefore acting as a prelude to agreement by seeking on a particular point. Other studies also regard such formulation as strategic power moves essential in managing conversations (Donohue, Diez & Hamilton, 1984). They argue that this helps in creating a common ground in a manner that best serves the speaker’s interests. Once a common ground has been established, it is important for each party to understand and demonstrate their roles. These include set of rights, expectations and obligations attached to their positions. For instance, in a routine sales encounter, sellers are expected to seek information from the buyer and make offers to them. On the other hand, the buyers are expected to ask clarifying questions, give directions or even refuse the first offers. The search for solution, will at this time, be treated as problem solving since the relationship between the negotiating parties have been well established (Stawiski, Tindale & Dykema-Engblade, 2009). He also notes the importance of treating each party’s role with self respect. Framing a proposal is an essential process for a successful negotiation. It gives an insight to the receiver on the advantage of the offer, rather than defending a point. The proposal should be framed in a way that meets an important need so as to be attractive to the receiver. It also needs to be legitimate by building on some shared norms. Thus an appropriate frame or orientation that resonates with the receiver’s value should be chosen. It should be fair in providing benefit and preventing a loss (Stawiski, Tindale & Dykema-Engblade, 2009). This provides the negotiators with a framework to be used during the negotiation process. Elements of negotiation For a negotiation to work, there are several elements that need to be considered. Zhu (2009) argues that those elements are integral to the strategies that negotiators can employ in understanding and managing the process in an effective way. He notes the key elements as the links between the two parties that give life and structure to a negotiation process. They include trust, reciprocity, power, information exchange, ethics and outcome. Reciprocity is a feature of negotiation that tends to match what one party does to the other. This influences the progress and pattern of the negotiation process even though it does not happen all the time. Trust refers to the expectation that one party will act in a way that is beneficial to the other party rather than being exploitative. Zhu (2009) notes cooperative negotiation can only be created once trust has been emphasized. The parties should build trust on each other but it should not be overestimated since it is fragile. Behavioural ethics in a negotiation arise as a result of thinking about trust. Power is another important feature of negotiation that Drake (2001) and Zhu (2009) believe has a great deal to do with the consequence for failure to negotiate. The powers held by the parties relate to the alternatives they may choose –other than negotiation. Thus negotiation can be regarded as a process through which the alternatives that the parties may think have been changed. Another important element is information exchange. Drake (2001) argues that lack of information is central in arriving at an agreement. More often, the negotiators wish to know what they did not know and it is through negotiation they are able to exchange information, particularly about the possible solutions as well as suitable alternatives. Parties enter into a negotiation in order to reach an agreement and so the outcome serves as an integral part of the negotiation process. Better negotiations lead to better outcomes i.e. a ‘win-win’ agreement. There exist interrelations between some of these elements. The level of trust between the negotiating parties determines the quality of the decisions arrived at. Similarly, trust is developed through reciprocity. Negotiation is a complex, unpredictable and relatively difficult process. Therefore, a clear understanding of the negotiation elements will help the negotiators to manage the process more effectively by eliminating the difficulties and uncertainties that may arise. Influence of personality and emotions on negotiation The elements of negotiation hold the parties together during the process. Usually, each party has its own objectives and priorities. Demoulin & Teixeira (2010) argues that negotiation can be ‘messy’ due to differences in the way people do things or react to what is happening around them. It is necessary to recognize personality differences since they impact on the way people negotiate. However, the study by Steinel, Abele & Carsten (2007) indicates there are no significant practical effects of personality on the effectiveness of a negotiation. It may seem that some of the dynamic and structural aspects of negotiation tend to moderate the effects of personalities that people have. Zhenzhong (2007) propose the need for negotiators to be ‘smart’. For effectiveness of a negotiation, the negotiators need to have the ability to analyse and plan as well as discern and understand other people’s point of view. They also add that the ability to perceive and manage emotions and those of others contribute to the effectiveness of a negotiation. Being aware of events that may result into anxiety or anger gives the negotiators the opportunity of planning what to do as to reflect these feelings. Thus, Demoulin & Teixeira (2010) conclude that what determines the impact on a negotiation is actually the approach to it and not personality. The ways negotiators think certainly affect the negotiation process. Choi (2010) discourages the tendency of regarding issues as a win lose situations since it may lead to an understanding that negotiation is a game in which there is a winner and a loser. It is therefore necessary to deal with other’s differences with care and not to take their weaknesses as an advantage. Personality tactic is neither helpful in a negotiation. The personality tactic should be used to control annoyance and hold tempers so that the negotiation turns out to be successful. Some negotiators are ‘emotional’-they speak a lot, aloud and quickly in an unstructured manner and thus interrupting the negotiation process. In fact, they use such emotional outbursts after a deep feeling about issues or being triggered by someone to the extent they are ‘carried away’. Mueller & Curhan (2006) notes female negotiators view negotiation in relationship terms, and since emotions are part of such relationships, they seem to react less to statements that may trigger emotional response than men. However, Miles & LaSalle (2009) considers the effect of gender on negotiation and finds out that there are no definitive links between the two. They say that “the socialization of roles into gender should not be allowed to hide the fact that sexes are equally competent at negotiating. According to Steinel, Abele & Carsten (2007), reciprocity is an essential dynamic in any negotiation. Active cooperation during the process is likely to match the opposite parties. The strength of reciprocity might as well be a danger by locking the negotiation into a conflict spiral due to competitive and contentiousness. The negotiators are advised to refrain from interruptions so that the other party can cease to interrupt and thus allowing the negotiation to run out smoothly. Negotiators should ‘second guess’ the other negotiators motivation, and opinion as well as their own so that the outcome of the negotiation depend on what the other party does. Essentially, for a negotiation to be successful, the parties should make a series of offers so as to reach an agreement. The reciprocity should then be incorporated in the strategy of ‘tit for tat’ so that the negotiator matches what the other party has done. Stawiski, Tindale & Dykema-Engblade (2009)says “if the behaviour is positive, such as providing information, then a potentially virtuous circle will be established hence making the negotiation proceed” p. 300. Managing mixed motives of cooperation and competition In every negotiation there is the uncertainty of knowing what the other negotiator will do. The exchange of information will assist in understanding whether the motives are innately competitive or cooperative. Sheldona & Fishbachb (2011) discuss on how to manage mixed motives of cooperation and competition in a negotiation. Negotiators will therefore have the role of balancing between the separate and conflicting motivations; either to compete with each other for a rare resource or to cooperate and expand the available resource to meet both parties’ needs. The negotiation theorists often refer this to as “mixed motive exchange”. Negotiation requires discussions to be made without the knowledge of what the other negotiator will do. Sondak & Moore (2007) argues that what is important in such a situation is one’s self control. They say that “Good negotiators exercise control over one thing in their power-themselves-and they learn to manage their own competitive and cooperative instincts” p. 115. Taking an example of business purchase, the competitive motive will seek to claim as much value as possible in what the negotiation professionals term as ‘competition for a fixed pie’. In such a circumstance, both negotiators will engage in a form of competition so as to gain the biggest share of the pie. One negotiator’s gain will be a disadvantage to the other negotiator. Thus, competitive motivation exploits the opportunity for gain of the other negotiator. Nothing is however, immoral for negotiators to have such a motivation. As an effective negotiator, one should listen to such competitive voices. On the other hand, in innate cooperation, individuals do not like negotiating, meaning that they can receive less than what they might have attained if they negotiated competitively. What is important in a negotiation is balancing the two contrasting motives. Sheldona & Fishbachb (2011) notes “cooperation is inherent in the negotiation process because the other negotiators consent is required to reach into an agreement” p. 406. Negotiation usually takes place as a result of both negotiators’ voluntary participation. It therefore requires sharing of various perspectives which involve some sort of cooperation that aims at making the pie bigger for both parties to meet their needs. Cooperation is therefore seen to create a mutual gain for both negotiators. If a negotiator is competitive, he can kill the efforts of negotiation and if he is too cooperative, the other negotiator can take advantage. It is therefore necessary to balance the mixed motives of competition and cooperation effectively so as to achieve better deals. Conclusion Negotiation is a process in which two parties with conflicting interests try to find a mutually acceptable solution that meets their needs. The negotiations can either take the form of distributive or integrative bargaining depending on the parties’ motives of competitiveness or cooperation respectively. Before negotiation takes place, it is necessary to develop a common ground which will determine on the path that the negotiation will take. Reciprocity, trust, power, information exchange, ethics and outcome are integral elements in any negotiation with the most crucial being reciprocity since it determines how the process will proceed. More often, negotiators have mixed motives of cooperation and competition which need be balanced for the negotiation to be effective. References Choi, D. (2010). “Shared metacognition in integrative negotiation.” International Journal of Conflict Management 21 (3), 309- 333. Demoulin, S &. Teixeira, C. (2010). “Social categorization in interpersonal negotiation: How social structural factors shape negotiations.” Group Processes Intergroup Relations 13 (6), 765-777 Diez, M. (1986). “Negotiation Competence: A conceptualization of rules negotiation interaction.” Negotiation Journal 6 (3), 127-149. Donohue, W. Diez, M. & Hamilton, M (1984). “Coding Naturalistic Negotiation Interaction.” Human Communication Research, 10, 403-425 Drake, L (2001). “The Culture-negotiation link.” Human Communication Research, 27 (3), 317-349 Firth, A., (1995). “Accounts in negotiation discourse: A single case analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 23 (2), 199-226 Miles, E & LaSalle, M. (2009). “Gender and creation of value in mixed-motive negotiation.” International Journal of Conflict Management 20 (3), 269- 286. Min, L., Tost, N & Wade-Benzoni, K. (2007). “The dynamic interaction of context and negotiator effects: A review and commentary on current and emerging areas in negotiation.” International Journal of Conflict Management 18 (3), 222-259 Mueller, J & Curhan, J. (2006). “Emotional intelligence and counterpart mood induction in a negotiation.” International Journal of Conflict Management 17 (2), 110-128. Sheldona, O & Fishbachb, A. (2011). “Resisting the temptation to compete: Self-control promotes cooperation in mixed-motive interactions.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47 (2), 403-410 Sondak, H & Moore, M. (2007). “Relationship frames and cooperation.” Group Decision and Negotiation 2 (2), 103-118. Stawiski, S., Tindale, S & Dykema-Engblade, A. (2009). “The effects of ethical climate on group and individual level deception in negotiation.” International Journal of Conflict Management 20 (3), 287 -308. Steinel, W., Abele, A & Carsten, K. (2007). “De DreuEffects of Experience and Advice on Process and Performance in Negotiations.” Group Processes Intergroup Relations 10 (4), 533-550. Zhenzhong, M. (2007). “Conflict management styles as indicators of behavioural pattern in business negotiation: The impact of contextualism in two countries.” International Journal of Conflict Management 18 (3), 260-279. Zhu, L. (2009). “Global Negotiation: The New Rules.” International Journal of Conflict Management 20 (4), 420-421. Read More