Communication and Organisational Skills - Essay Example

COMMUNICATION AND ORGANISATIONAL SKILLS: QUESTION 6. INTRODUCTION Negotiation is a means through which conflicts are resolved. There are other means of resolving the conflicts between parties which include; arbitration, mediation or even ending up in the courts. For negotiation to take place, the place of communication becomes very important. For any seeds of peace to be cultivated amidst the discord of the parties, communication will essentially take the centre stage. Communication between the parties may take various forms, be it, oral or written. With the invent of technology the modes of negotiation have also varied with time. Nevertheless, the round table negotiations continue to be the best avenue of negotiation. Though parties may have had various communications prior the round table negotiation a convening of the two warring parties is the most important. Postal letters and internet mails may have been exchanged between the parties. Negotiation is a result of a breakdown of agreement and when the lead makes the conflicting parties to meet, it is often the bridge of agreement. The report seeks to analyze the key strategies that can be used to harness effective communication in trying to assist the warring parties. Communication is essentially the glue that helps seal the conflicting parties’ differences (Burbles and Rice, 2002). STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION Effective communication does not just happen; it is a result of converging various elements to make it work. A clear and coherent plan needs to be taken into consideration in order to come up with the best negotiation process. To start off is the need to come with a three strategy blue print. The first is the need to come up with the best environment of communication. Though external in nature, the environment is a very important instrument in reaching an amicable solution. An environment that is very noisy will easily limit the optimum results of the parties. A neutral place of negotiation will be of essence, a negotiation that happens in warring parties’ premises or offices will easily be taken by the parties as prejudicial and unfair in nature. Negotiation should take place where the parties have the least influence on one another (Levine 2002). The second important consideration in having effective negotiation process is the need to have the goals and objectives set at the very start of negotiation. At the heart of every disagreement and differences between the parties is a discord on the various interests between them. The conflict in most of the instances stem from the value, timing and dealing with the interest of the parties. An effective negotiator will lay at the table from the very start the goals of the parties. Depending on the complexity of the issues, the attainment of the goals and objectives can easily be assessed. An important illustration of this point is the case of the Face book Inc and the Instagram buy out. During the negotiation process though not stemming from a conflict, the Face book executives will be seeking to communicate their interest by trying to cut the best deal. This is only achievable when Instagram executives are cognizant of having achieved the profits. Behind the scenes of every party that is on the table is the objective sought to be achieved and interest sought to be protected. Effective communication will thus ensure that when these objectives and goals are disclosed they are fully analyses and resolved (Coleman 2000). Thirdly negotiation process assisted by communication will be faced by various impediments and this should be identified from the very start. Even with a user friendly environment and an atmosphere that is open and saturated with trust, some hardship in an effective negotiation process are bound to occur if external forces are influencing the results. Often the parties at the negotiation table are sent to represent their ‘bosses’ interests. The need to effectively recognize these interests at the very start assists in resolving the conflicts between the parties. All external forces should be eliminated as far as possible (Krauss and Morsella 2000). An essential negotiation process will require the negotiators to exercise three key prerequisites to achieve results; framing, planning and strategizing. Framing has been said to be comprehended through recognition of heuristics, through experience and eventually a clear strategy of issue development. Different kind of framing will be essential and will be invoked at various stages. It is for the negotiator in question to ensure that they come up with the best strategy that will results in the best interest and appreciation of the parties. Framing becomes very important in laying the groundwork of effective planning (Levine 2002). After framing the planning becomes very important. As earlier noted the basis on which the parties engage in the negotiation process is to achieve set objectives and goals. The negotiator will often ensure that a time scale is arranged and agreed upon. Deadline though in some cases may be quite harmful it is a catalyst of reaching an effective and amicable solution. planning also assist in the ensuring that the parties come up with the best environment and also lay a groundwork of the best practices, agenda, bargaining powers and histories too(Floyal 2012). Negotiation will often not involve a single item of conflict, in most instances there are many issues and interests that occupy the mind of the negotiators. These set of different items and interests is often referred to as a bargaining mix. For effective communication and eventual success of the negotiation process there are two key important elements that the negotiators ought to take into consideration. The first issue of relevance and importance will be resistance points. Every party come to the negotiating table with a set resistance point, the influence on the resistance point is usually the key to a successful settlement (Augsburger 2002). Discovery and influence of the parties resistance point is the game change in a negotiation process. The goal of every negotiator is often to reach a final settlement that is as close as possible to the opponent’s resistance point. To achieve such a fit, the negotiators are aided by four very important tools. The first tool is a clear assessment of the costs and value of termination of the negotiation process to both the parties that are involved. Secondly ensuring that you get an imprint of a good impression of the negotiation process, thirdly the modification of the opposing sides perception of the costs, values and the outcome and finally is a careful strategy an analysis of the actual costs that will be involved by the parties aborting the negotiation process (Coleman 2000). In arriving at the best solution the parties put into task the processes that will achieve integrative agreements. This occurs upon the negotiators appreciating the need to search and set up the goals and objectives that meet both sides’ expectations. The negotiators should also be cognizant of the commonalities exhibited by the parties. Not in all instances that the sides have differences without some issues on which they have clearly not traversed. In most instances there are so many issues that may have been agreed upon by the parties. This should be the basis of staircase that assists the parties to recognize that they should reach an amicable solution. There is also a clear need to ensure free flow of information. Transparency is the mirror through which parties are able to discern and see each other’s issues, needs and interests objectively (Burbles and Rice 2001). At the heart of the negotiation process is communication. It is the avenue through which parties’ interests, issues, goals and objectives are delivered. An efficient means of communication will ensure an amicable settlement. It should be appreciated that often in a negotiating table the parties will have differing objectives and positions. The way to channel this to the other parties is through communication. Often in a negotiating table the parties will have secret cards and innuendos and without a clear communication processes it is a herculean task to encode the thoughts of the parties involved (Coleman 2000). CONCLUSION Perception and cognition are the pillars of every negotiation process. A breakdown, failure or distortions of the two concepts will often results in a very delicate outcome or a breakdown of the whole negotiation process. Perception is viewed as a process through which the stimuli are screened and selected. The negotiator plays a key role in capturing and assisting in coming up with the best perception. The sides should look at each other through transparent lens otherwise the process of negotiation will be barricaded or otherwise blurred. The end result of every negotiation process that is aided by communication is achieving the objectives. Achieving these objectives is often a rough road. The negotiators have often to get leverage in order to get the best results. Leverage is achieved through the negotiators ability to harness and control the available resources and the location. Expertise and wealth of ability to learn the outcome before the outcome is very important. The place of ethics is very important; negotiation is not a process that essentially ends with the settlement. The negotiators should clearly understand that the effects of misrepresentations and disguise will trickle down to the future relationships. Good outcome should be founded on the best kind of ethics from all the parties involved. REFERENCES Augsburger, D. W., 2002. Conflict Mediation Across Cultures - Pathways & Patterns, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville. Burbles, N. C. and Rice, S.,2001. Dialogue across differences: continuing the conversation, Harvard Educational Review, Vol.61, pp. 242. Coleman, P. T., 2000. Power and Conflict. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution - Theory and Practice. Deutsch, M. and Coleman, P. T., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Floyal, 2012,Gender & Culture, J 2012.Communication in organizations (3rd Edition) Magrill, Australia. Krauss, R. M. and Morsella, E., 2000. Communication and Conflict. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution - Theory and Practice. Deutsch, M. and Coleman, P. T., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Levine, S., 2002. Getting to Resolution - Turning Conflict into Collaboration, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco. Read More

 

Read More