The Best Method of Negotiation - Essay Example

Negotiation: The Best Method ID Lecturer Executive Summary Negotiation is a technique of solving a problem at hand through a series of discussion between two or more conflicting parties. There are factors that determine the success level of the negotiation and also how long will it take for the matter to settle. There are several different types of negotiation styles namely, compromising, accommodating, collaborating, avoiding and competing. All the techniques have their advantages and disadvantages and thus all of them are suitable in certain circumstances. There are some factors that help determine which strategy should be applied in a given situation. Therefore, these factors along with the characteristics if the different negotiation styles can help people in corporate settings determine which technique they will be using if a conflict arises. This is the reason different expert mention different strategies and support for it. Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Table of Contents 3 Introduction to the Concept of Negotiation 4 Situational Influence on Negotiation 4 Different Methods of Negotiation 5 Collaborating 5 Avoiding 6 Competing 7 Accommodating 8 Compromising 9 Factors for Choosing the Right Negotiation Plan 9 Conclusion 10 Bibliography 12 Introduction to the Concept of Negotiation Negotiation can be defined as a technique or method of dealing with a conflict with the aim o find out the solution that will be accepted by both or all the rival parties. It usually involves a series of discussion held between the two or more parties. There are factors that determine the successful outcome of the negotiation series carried out in a corporate setting. These factors are very important because they determine how soon will the procedure be over and also the terms of the parties at the end of the session. As these factors are due to the social context of the negotiation we can refer to them as the social influence. Situational Influence on Negotiation The first factor that we can talk about here is the physical location and setting of where the negotiation is being held. As far as the location is concerned if the place where the meeting is being held is under the ownership of one party the chances are that they will dominate the negotiation. This is the reason many people believe that it is better to go for a place that is neutral or does not belong to either of the party. Apart from this the physical setting also counts for something. Usually an arrangement in which people are facing each other provokes more rivalry and competition and if they are seated next to each other a feeling of mutual understanding is created. Moreover it has also been discovered that as time passes people become keener to solve the conflict and bring to an end the series of discussion. Thus they tend to become more accommodating and understanding and are ready and more willing to give up some of their demands. This is because the time and cost pressure hits them and they start reconsidering whether what they are fighting for is worth it (Lawrence 2002). Lastly, the attitude of the audience also counts for something. It has been discovered through research that the parties will be more stubborn on their initial demands and negotiators will be more rigid and assertive when they are being viewed and judged by people who are on their side but are not taking part n the negotiation process. Different Methods of Negotiation After we have thoroughly understood what negotiation is and what are its various dimensions now we can actually move on to discuss the variety of techniques that are used by various experts to solve and manage conflict. In the following section we will mention all the techniques along with an indication as to when these techniques will be best suited. We will also compare and contrast the techniques and mention their pros as cons as we move from one method to another. Collaborating This type of negotiation style is imminent when both parties are willing and planning to be assertive for their own share and requirements but at the same time they have a cooperative approach. That means they are not willing to give up their own advantages but for this purpose they will not neglect the needs of the other part. This is the popular most type of technique that is preferred by many gurus and experts. This is usually preferred because it created good will for the group as they are giving importance to the other party as well. This is the most suitable technique when the parties actually care about each other and their understanding and good terms will benefits both sides in the future. An important characteristic of this type of negotiation is that there has to be mutual trust and extensive and fool fledge information sharing. This is crucial for this method to work because then only can both parties find a common ground on which they can work. Thus this method can only be used between parties that completely trust each other and do not have aims that are completely opposite and no common solution is possible. Avoiding This is a negotiation style on the very other extreme. In this the negotiator is neither too determined to fight for his own side nor wants to let the other side have it all. That’s why he adopts a style which is simply avoiding any discussion regarding the issue at hand. One may think that it may not be a very effective method as it will just postpone the method and not find a suitable solution to it. However, even this method is suitable under certain circumstances. For example, when the issue is very unimportant and there will be no point in wasting time talking about it and it is something that would settle with time only (Jandt 1994). Even it is applicable when the situation is very heated up and can be better dealt with when everyone calms down about it. However, one need to be careful that this strategy is not very healthy when applied over a very long period of time and is best if adopted for a short duration of time. The best idea is to use this until matter settle and calm down and then another appropriate method should be adopted. This cannot be termed as the best solution as it might escalate rage and further anger sometimes or deliver the wrong message to the other party. However, it is the best solution another some rare circumstances. Competing This is when the negotiators are in a fighting and defensive mode. They are very determined to get what they aimed for at the start of the negotiation with little concern for the other part and their interests. They are the people who are willing to win even if it means pushing others down. But this is only the extreme form of it. They can be simply assertive and convincing and can get the other party to believe that what they are demanding for is right and logical and their request should be granted. This is the most suitable method of negotiation when the members are aware that what they are demanding for is absolutely correct and their right and that there is nothing they can compromise on. It is also used when the party knows that the issue is way more important to them then it is to the other party (Ramundo 1994). This is also a major requirement when the other party is crossing the boundary and taking the unethical root against your interest. This is because if you start surrendering at that stage they will push more and take complete advantage of you. Some experts even suggest that this is suitable when the decisions have to be made quick and in case of crisis but are not very appropriate in case of other normal corporate interaction and conflict because usually the interests are not completely opposite and conflicting and a common ground can be found. This technique although not as popular and preferred as the collaborating, but still is suitable under certain circumstances. However a word of caution here, deception, cheating or tricks of any kind should be avoided because although in the short term they work better than any other technique and the benefits can be reaped quicker but in the long term the cover is often removed and the reality comes to the surface. Thus, later on troubles can arise for the party extending from simple decrease in goodwill to serious legal actions and law suit. Accommodating This is the forth style of negotiation and refers to the approach when a party gives more priority to the interests of the other than that of itself. Often people think that if that is the case then how come a conflict arises. As the definition goes it gives more importance to the other party but does not completely ignores its own needs and feels the need to protect its own interest along with helping out the other side. This is the technique that is adopted under three conditions. First, when the other party is stronger and the safest option for you is to agree to what they are saying and go as far as you can without harming yourself. Second, when the relation with the other party are more important to you then the conflict and problem at hand and thus you invest this loss with hope of gains and profits in the future. The example of this is when salesman agrees to concessions demanded from the side of customers with the hope that they will return in the future for further shopping (Gooden 2007). Third, when the issue is not as important to you as it is to the other party and thus you prefer letting them gain from it and not waste time fighting for something you do not even want that much. Here again a word of caution is required. The other party will start perceiving you as a weak negotiator and start pushing more and put an effort not take advantage of you. What you need to keep in mind is that you need to define a line for yourself that you will not cross in case if the other party starts putting you further and it is also important that you show through your words that you understand the matter and are not unintelligent and you are just doing them a favor by letting them win. Compromising This is the last negotiating technique that I will discuss in this paper and it is somewhere in between of all the ones that are mentioned above. In this case a party is ready to compromise a little and give up some of its demand while being assertive about others. In this party will push for its rights and also accept the rights and conditions of others. This is the most popular technique following the collaboration because it is similar to it in the sense that both strive for dual benefits and not one sided advantage. This is the most effective techniques when both parties stand on equal grounds or have equal power and influence and there is time pressure and limitation involved (Murdach 2008). However, many gurus do not think high of this method because they feel that this limits the creative thinking of the participants who can come up with a solution that will bring in more gains for both the parties. Factors for Choosing the Right Negotiation Plan As it has been developed from the above discussion that there is no right or wrong way of negotiation and one way or the other works in a variety of situations now we can move on to discuss how to analyze the right strategy in a given situation. Firstly, it is important to consider your relation with the rival party. Are you looking for long term relationship with that group or is it a onetime interaction. If you are looking for healthy relationship over a far stretched period of time it is better that you compromise a little and kind of invest in a healthy and productive relationship. Secondly, the type of technique adopted by the other party is also very important. If the other party is adopting an aggressive and out right approach, sitting back and acting nice will not help, as they will pressurize more and get away with the larger share of the pie. One should enter a negotiation with a compromising approach but mimic the approach of the other party if they do not enter with the same approach. Thirdly, it is important to analyze the importance of a matter to one own self and also to the other party (Hendon 1996). Then a comparison should be made to judge for who is it more important and then adopt a style appropriately. For instance if it is more important for them then you can adopt the accommodating approach and let them have the better share as it will be more crucial for the other side and will also take less time which is better because wasting time for something that is not eve very important is a good idea. Lastly, there are other factors such as what type of negotiation is the team or individual used to and good at. This is not very important because experts have the talent to alter styles according to needs but this is still important because there are certain personality traits that support certain types of negotiation techniques. Thus this should be kept in mind. Moreover, experience and practice counts for something therefore one should keep in mind the type of conflict management one has been involved in and has gained more knowledge about. Conclusion From the above discussion the conclusion can be drawn that there is not any one style of conflict management or negotiation that can be termed as perfect and suitable in all circumstances. As no two circumstances are same so neither can be the management style used to deal with it. The above factors should be used to come up with the right type of orientation, attitude and skills that are the need of the hour and apply that strategy to obtain the best result from the session of negotiations held. This is proved by the fact that different gurus and professional applied different strategies to deal with their issues and all turned out to be successful because their situation was very different from one another and thus different techniques worked. However, certain actions or behavior are required for the negotiation to be carried out successfully (Kuehn 1993). These activities include first of clarifying the goals and planning out the approach that will be taken in negotiation obviously keeping flexibility that will be required in the actual scenario. Once the goal has been made crystal clear it is important to gather the maximum amount of information about the other party this process should continue even when the actual process has started. Information should be collected through intelligent listening. Apart from this it is also very important that all communication technique should be used to carry out the actual process and finally some compromise and concession should be made. Even if they are not actually made it should be shown that you are making an effort to do so. Bibliography GOODEN, Vincent. (2007). Cooperation in Human Service Contracting: Effective Public Managers Build Cooperative Relationships to Negotiate Agreements with Diverse Parties. The Public Manager, Vol. 36 HENDON, Donald. (1996). Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations. Praeger Publishers JANDT, Fred. (1994). Taking the Risk out of Raise Negotiation. Security Management, Vol. 38, December KUEHN, Richard. (1993). Technologys Fun, but Negotiation Is the Name of the Game. Business Communications Review, Vol. 23, March LAWRENCE, Carolena. (2002). Integrating Writing and Negotiation Skills. Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 65 MURDACH, Allison. (2008). Negotiating with Antisocial Clients. Social Work, Vol. 53 RAMUNDO, Bernard. (1994). The Bargaining Manager: Enhancing Organizational Results through Effective Negotiation. Quorum Books Read More