Negotiation Exercise on Cognitive Bias Skits in Comparison to Journey to Sharahad - Coursework Example

Conflict and Negotiation Name: Institution: Conflict and Negotiation Introduction Conflict and negotiations refer to all aspects of business running and management. In addition, they also affect the business life and surrounding interactions between managers, partners, employees, stakeholders, and the public in general. Conflict usually occurs when different individuals have divergent ideas, theories, or beliefs inn respect to certain business operations. Owners of businesses may also experience conflicts in the process of bargaining their interest towards other businesses or individuals. In order for there to be acquisition of economic resources, assets or capital gains, bargains have to be made at all levels. Negotiation then makes it possible for an amicable solution to be achieved without resulting into conflicts between the respective parties. Majority of businesses depict both internal and external conflicts at different levels of operation and they are determined by the number of involved parties. The more the parties involved the more chances of conflict occurrence. The guiding principle behind achievement of amicable solutions is driven by ethical behavior and maintenance of the same. Proper negotiation mechanisms and achievement of amicable solutions is important for long-term relationships and understanding of different parties in a business cycle. Discussion Negotiation Exercises The different negotiation exercises throughout the course depicted varied similarities and differences depending on the strategy used, communication and the results achieved at the end of each. In the Pasta Wars negotiation exercise, the agenda was distributive and integrative bargaining. The exercise was different from Ugli Orange one, which depicted more of the dynamic and competitive approach in acquiring amicable solutions. In both, they serve to highlight the interest of each party in a negotiation. All parties strive to achieve the most suitable position within the management and acquisition of better interests regarding the goal (Schmidt, 2008). For example, in the former exercise, distributive and integrated bargaining required the beforehand communication of the proposed strategy and particular interest from the process. In this, the weighing up of options was pre-meditated and the party with the most suitable solution achieved uniform acceptance as opposed to the latter competitive strategy. In the latter, negotiation was served for only a particular common interest but with non-cooperation from the others. Negotiation exercise on Cognitive Bias Skits in comparison to Journey to Sharahad employed selective tactical strategy in achieving the amicable solutions. In both exercises, bias was enabled beforehand and this resonated from the negotiation criteria involved between the parties. For example, the selection based on racial or ethnical backgrounds already cast a negative depiction to the other parties and thus, minimized any chance of equitable agreement. In part, the different parties felt aggrieved from the pre-stated cross-cultural statements and mythical beliefs. However, the negotiation exercises were instrumental in minimizing the effects of discrimination held between the different parties in order to achieve a common solution to the two problems. Irrational escalation of the parties’ commitments was also discussed with the help of avoiding issue framing and escalating any risks in the process. Availability of information also improved the negotiation strategies for all the parties as the beforehand bias was eliminated after deliberation. In all the negotiation exercises, the main similarities achieved throughout the processes was the availability of communication, harmonized strategy, and amicable solutions at the end of each. In communication, all the parties had to consult before the due process in each scenario. It helped harmonize the efforts of all the negotiation terms and interests stated. It also provided sufficient basis for understanding on developing the probable solutions without causing much conflict to the respective parties. Harmonized strategies were similar in all the exercises as witnessed through the ethical channels of raising concerns. The negotiations provided minimal conflicts as the strategies were well developed and planned prior to carrying them out in the harmonized setting. Finally, the standout similarity in all the negotiation exercise was the achievement of amicable solutions. Despite the extent of strategies used and aggrieved measures during the negotiations, the processes provided for amicable solutions. All parties achieved the setout targets according to the ethical environment. I observed the main similarities and differences within the negotiation exercises due to the requirements of achieving the amicable solutions. Each of the negotiation exercise had a distinct objective before they were carried out. Different strategies had to be in effect in order to achieve the solutions without engagement of conflict measures. The observations were necessary in order to understand the differences on dimensions regarding positions of interests within the negotiations and the expected outcome (Mannix, Neale, and Overbeck, 2011). I also had to notice the two different aspects especially with the interests of each party according to the determination of key issues and availability of the information. With the little time required in organization and preparation, the dimensions undertaken typified the outcomes and the need to minimize chances of conflicts along the way. In the end, the results had to resonate with the changes according to the respective party and efficient negotiation deadlines. Positions and Interest in Negotiation Process Dynamics of integration process It is important to distinguish the positions and interest for the integration process during negotiations. Positions within the negotiation parties facilitate the easier acceptance and constituted framework for operation. Lewicki and Hiam (2008) argue that the positions determine the required strategy used by the individual parties in acclimatizing with the situation at hand before the process takes place. They are also important for making certain, the responsible bargaining committee, when the process is in operation. It is meant to avoid any conflict therein. The positions are also meant to empower the decision-making criteria and objectivity used in achieving the negotiations without limiting the influence of the other parties. Chances of aggrieving any conduct within ethics are addressed through statements of positions. In addition, constructive conversations are then achieved as the environment depicts both parties’ requirements without disruption. They also provide for collaboration in all scenarios without giving any pro-active exceptions and beneficial engagements. During the integration process, interests have to be communicated by the respective parties, as it is important to the negotiations. Interests are fundamental to the negotiations in that they facilitate the setting of ground rules earlier on. They also state the reasons for the cause of negotiations and the expected outcome for each party. They act as the reminder for the various risks at stake for each party when dealing with the conditions for negotiations. Once the interests are communicated and the resources outweighed, the negotiation process adheres to the laid down rules without deviation. The bargaining committee is tasked with availing the interest for discussions and agreements (Sycara, Gelfand, and Abbe, 2013). The interests act as guiding factors to the concessions made at each step of the process. Any form of aggrieved concern ha to be judged depending on the respective interest of the party at all times. Negotiated outcome Position within the negotiation process is important for the outcome according to the issues derived from the conflict. They affect the joint decisions arrived at and the influence of the agreed solution. Once the negotiation process is undertaken between the different parties, the outcome becomes the focus of it. The joint decisions made by all the involved points to the behavior of each party without causing further conflicts to the others. It also shows the level of achievement of the process in reconciling any parties that did not agree. In addition, the outcome influences the position of the process through influence. Gillman and Housman (2009) note that the method used in achieving the solution is scrutinized through the outcome and respective parties are entitled to their positions. In most cases, the positions of respective parties are outweighed on the outcome and the aggrieved ones can seek new mandates especially with the process concluded. It analyses the channels used in arriving at the outcome. Interests within the negotiated outcome are the most important aspects of the negotiation process. They help determine the success of the process according to the restive parties. Before the negotiation process is started, all parties have their requirements, which constitute to existence of division and possible conflicts with others. Therefore, when the negotiation process is undertaken, the amicable solution is supposed to reflect the interest of the parties into completion. The interests are served through communication and consultations held at the negotiation process. They help reveal the bottom line of the negotiations in order to yield comprehensive solutions. If the interests are met earlier on, the process is shortened as compared to lengthened divisions and arising conflicts (Lewicki, Saunders, and Barry, 2015). Articulated information and applications of the concerns raised are then used to determine future references in the process or harboring of same conflicting issues. They provide the most important lesson to the parties after the process be done. Experience 1 The negotiation exercise that had the least satisfaction in terms of the outcome was the Journey to Sharahad. The students had to be divided into groups of between four and five. Within the groups, each two members were supposed to represent the Americans, while the remaining had to represent Sharahadans. After the divisions were made, training based on the two nationalists was spread to each member. The criteria featured Americans training the Sharahadans on their traditions and culture, while the counterparts later did the same. It was then followed by cross-cultural negotiation exercise. The negotiation process would inquire inference on the acquired information from one nationalist to the other and reaching to a compromise of the real world implications. The criteria of the negotiation was to evaluate the acquired interest and positions within the opposite nationalist and communicate an amicable solution, depending on the factors likely to cause conflicts between the two. After the exercise was completed, the ratings were to reflect on the success of the negotiation process. They yielded the lowest score as compared top the other exercises before. If I were to participate in the exercise again, I would implement a different approach to the process of negotiation based on the outcome achieved before. At the formative stage, I would ensure that both groups of Americans and Sharahadans describe and help in issue identification. Framing of the issue is important for narrowing the focus of the negotiation without deviation. I would then make the two groups state their interest through identification and exploration, especially based with the information acquired of each other. The third stage would be incorporating options for the issues at hand, with a view of acquiring an amicable solution (Menkel-Meadow, 2009). The technique used would be important for the process especially when covering all interests. An agreement of the criteria to be followed would be incorporated as soon as possible in order to minimize chances of recurrences in the issues leading to conflict occurrence. Finally, the options achieved through communication would be tested against the chosen criteria in deciding the solution to apply for both groups. The different approach used towards the negotiation process would influence a more compromising outcome as opposed to the differences achieved in the first exercise. The approach would ensure that there is limited availability of differences due to the narrowed down focus of the conflicting issues, which are he perceptions and traditions. The approach would also ensure that there is a general desire to understanding the other parties’ concerns on matters creating the differences. They would be important for clarification. Fuller (2007) notes that the approach would make sure that all interest within the two conflicting sides is addressed with ease especially when covered at the third stage. Importance of the issues would be left to particular deciding committee. The approach would enable gauging in terms of comparison, measures, and judgment of the options undertaken by the process in addressing the respective issues raised by the two nationals. Finally, it would save time as opposed to bogging down the process based on differences as opposed to using prior information. Experience 2 The negotiation exercise that I was most satisfied with its outcome was the Pasta Wars. The exercise required the division of all students into categories of four parties. Each party represented a flourmill in respective locality of our institution. The flourmills are responsible for the supply of pasta to one local restaurant, famed for its services, products, and effective pricing on the ranges of products. Half of the class would take City A while the other half would take City B. the conditions given were that there would be nor intercity interaction between them and that the outcome would be valuated at the debrief end. Negotiation would encompass a tender-like process to the local restaurant based on the flourmill production according to quality, standard, and timeliness. Each group would constitute between six and seven members of each distinct flourmill. The graded result was an award of the highest score in comparison to all other negotiation exercises, while the level of participation and timeliness also scooped equal grades in the process. The main factors that contributed to the success of the negotiation exercise were mainly communication, consultation, joint decision, and influence derived in the process. Communication in the four different flourmill groups was represented as an earlier thought strategy amongst the members and then shifted to the negotiation committee. The interests of each group had to be mentioned prior to the negotiation process as well as documented differences of the product’s quality, standard, and pricing. Consultation was made possible with availability of the local restaurant’s representative and scrutinized specifications of the intended pasta. It was to dictate the required brand of pasta, the restaurant intended to acquire, for their customers. Carlson (2014) aggress that the joint decisions enabled by the bargaining representatives then used several options in achieving the selection criteria without eliminating any of the raised concerns and interest by the four parties. Influence of the two cities was then used to reach an agreement on the most suited flourmill to supply the pasta to the restaurant without any form of conflict. The four factors of communication, consultation, joint decisions, and influence were critical in the outcome of conflict resolution through negotiation of the four flourmills. Collaboration was the strategic structure required in making the four different groups arrives at a consensus. It based on equal representation without any form of bias towards each other. The communicated interests served to compliment the agreement terms as opposed to eliminating them at the negotiation process (Stamato, 2014). The protocols in influence managed to spearhead the clarity of the process without belittling any of the groups throughout. The measures of joint decision-making were credible since all the parties were equal participants in the process. It demonstrated the need for minimizing conflicts owing to the fact that all parties were in equal circumstance. The competitive edge in terms of the agreement increased the need for acceptance. The bets suited flourmill, won the negotiation terms of supplying pasta to the local restaurant. Conclusion Proper negotiation mechanisms and achievement of amicable solutions is important for long-term relationships and understanding of different parties in a business cycle. Conflict management and negotiation processes are complex in nature and require committed input from the participating parties. Negotiation is a collective process that should be governed by ethical behavior and consensual agreement at the end. The jurisdiction at the final stage determines the resultant success or failure of the negotiation. It also determines the level of relationship formed for future reference or non-committal stance. References: Carlson, M. (2014). Creating the climate for conflict resolution through negotiation. Springer, 4.3, 11-27. Fuller, B. (2007). Negotiation and conflict management: A public policy framework. NUS Journal, 2, 29-36. Gillman, R., & Housman, D. (2009). Models of conflict and cooperation. Providence, R.I: American Mathematical Society. Lewicki, R. J., & Hiam, A. (2008). Mastering business negotiation: A working guide to making deals and resolving conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, a John Wiley & Sons Imprint. Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2015). Negotiation. NY: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin. Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Overbeck, J. R. (2011). Negotiation and groups. Bingley, U.K: Emerald. Menkel-Meadow, C. (2009). Chronicling the complexification of negotiation theory and conflict resolution. Georgetown University, 3, 107-123. Schmidt, H. (2008).Harvard business review on negotiation and conflict resolution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Stamato, L. (2014). The new age of negotiation. Ivey Business Journal, 1, 1-4. Sycara, K., Gelfand, M. J., & Abbe, A. (2013). Models for intercultural collaboration and negotiation. Dordrecht: Springer. Read More