Analysis of Constituents, Complexities of Negotiation - Research Paper Example

Negotiation Introduction: Negotiation is the process in which two or more persons interact to resolve their dispute about a common goal (Maiese, 2003). A dispute begins when one party says yes to an option and other party says no to it. This difference of opinion results in interaction and dialogue and when it ends up without any conclusion, the dispute is established. The readiness of the parties to discuss the disputed option and willingness to decide who, what, how much and why one or both of them must agree signals the beginning of negotiation. The need for negotiation arises when two or more people disagree and they are perceptive to resolve it by reaching an agreement. The cause of disagreement depends on the nature of issues. The relationships within the family, the friend circles, colleagues at schools, colleges and universities and conflicts of business interest, personal interest, self-interest, regional interest, religious interest, political interest, national interest, economic interest, financial interest and above all the cultural interest are all day to day issues of our life and the best way of resolving them are through negotiations. The domain of defining negotiation is therefore very wide and various different types of context are associated with its definition. Maiese (2003) defined negotiation as a rational conversation between two or more authorized people for solving their problems. Lewicki, Saunders & Minton (1999) referred to it as a process of international, national, or local group that occur for finalization of a deal, agreement or project Wertheim (n.d.) stated that the aim of negotiation is always to have some resolution amongst the negotiating parties about the dispute, problem or conflict. It is a peaceful approach to resolution compared to quarrels, fight and war. Fells (2009) defined negotiation as a process of exploration of options and exchange of offers amongst the parties who are willing to resolve their differences. Constituents of negotiation: Tangible and intangible factors that constitute negotiation mostly include perception of the negotiating parties about the dispute, interdependency of the parties and efforts of competition and co-operation (Fell, 2009). The negotiating party’s goals are interlinked and attainment of goals of each party is dependent on the achievements of other party’s goals (Deutsch, 1973) Negotiating parties start with co-operation to create some values and then compete with each other to claim these values. Therefore negotiation is creating values and claiming it (Lax & Sebenius, 1999). The competition and cooperation during negotiation generate tension which is known as “The Negotiator’s Dilemma”. The dilemma is about cooperation and outcomes. Outcomes are good if both sides cooperate. It is terrible for cooperator and better outcome for competitor if one party cooperates and the other party competes. Outcomes are mediocre or worst for both the parties if both of them compete. The best choice for a party is to compete as there is uncertainty about the strategy of the other party. (Lax & Sebenius, 1986) Negotiation is also referred as a communication process in which parties try to influence each other by sending a message. The message is related to communicating what alternatives are available to each party. If the alternatives are strong, the other party can be pushed hard for influencing outcome of negotiation (Fisher, 1991) If common issues are not identified and discussed the communication becomes difficult between the parties (Saunders, 1991). Complexities of negotiation: Negotiation has a number of complexities such as multiple parties, representation by agents and multiplicity of issues. If the negotiating parties are multiple in numbers the process of negotiation becomes lengthy and difficult as each party has its own separate opinions and ways of thinking, behaving and influencing. If negotiating parties are agents such as lawyers, advocates and union officials the true beneficiary of negotiations generally suffer in the form of delay, adverse compromise and sacrifice of personal interest at the cost of group interest. Similarly when issues involved in negotiations are large in numbers complexity is created and differences on its prioritization are surfaced. Complexities are created in negotiation due to attitudes and culture of negotiation parties (Fell, 2009). Affect of power on behaviour: The power of negotiating parties grossly affects their behaviours. Power is the capacity of a party to use tools that give advantage and enhance the probability of achieving desired goal. It is the ability to affect other party’s decision in your favour. The relative power of each party is commonly referred as the bargaining power. Each party’s bargaining power is based on his dependencies on resources, market situations and constraints. It is further based on his past experience of dependencies and his stakes; value of the results for him (Fells, 2009). Bargaining power is the contextual factor that extends to all the changes and negotiations over time having three dimensional controls; controlling decisions and behaviours of other party, agenda and values and norms. The influential government officials and organizations are one example of having influence on other people decisions; they restrict decision making to only winnable or safe issues maintaining the existing power relations. They resolve dispute by using their culture, the underlying values and norms, to develop a framework and determine the agenda (Fells, 2009). Influence of behaviours and culture: The role of behaviours of the people involved in negotiation and their culture has a great influence on the outcome of the negotiation. Edward B. Taylor, the English Anthropologist stated culture as a whole that includes part of knowledge, art, morals, beliefs, law, custom and any other habits or capabilities obtained by a person of the society (Kartha, 2011). The behaviours of negotiating parties have a great deal of influence on the success or failure of any negotiation. There can be behaviours that are helpful in the success of negotiations and there can be behaviours that are unhelpful that makes success a difficult task (Fells, 2009). Helpful behaviours give tentative proposals which are well spelt out. The people with helpful behaviours discuss what if, why and why not options of the proposal and they are open to receive any questions or queries which they respond with utmost transparency. The helpful behaviour attempts to understand the others viewpoint by checking it out and reflecting back with restatement and summaries (Fells, 2009) Unhelpful behaviours on the other hand give firm proposals without giving any information about its implications. Any questions regarding the proposals are argued with justifications. Questions and queries of the opposite party are interrupted with criticism and blames with undue haste (Fells, 2009). Behaviours to adapt: The key behaviours to influence the outcome of negotiations include clarity on what is significant and its elaboration. The significant things can be understood clearly only when the interests of the other parties are heard patiently without any interruptions. It is also important to communicate clearly as to what is understood, how much it is of importance to both the parties, preferences that are differed and things that link the issues (Fells, 2009). In case of unacceptance alternative proposals are given for consideration and not forced for acceptance. Any suggested proposal or new possibilities if rejected are not argued for defending or forcing its acceptance; instead efforts are made to find out the reasons for other party’s non-acceptance. Struggle is made to build proposals based on other party’s ideas reflecting and clarifying the significance of issues (Fells, 2009). In 1989, United Nations sponsored negotiation for withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in which several proposals were considered before final acceptance (Law of war, 2012). Any disagreement to other party’s proposals is not confronted right away; instead reasons are given for its non-acceptance. All disputed issues are kept open for negotiation. The issues are converted into smaller parts so they are prioritized and discussed individually and separately. Any proposals given by the other party are evaluated for gain and not for loss. The progress of the negotiation is summarized regularly with open reflection on its progress (Fells, 2009). This behaviour of negotiation is amply demonstrated in the efforts for peace in Afghanistan and the recent “International Afghanistan Conference: Bonn 2011” is a good example of this (Law of war, 2012) Behaviours to avoid: It is seen in normal life that bad behaviours always create adverse situation. This is true for the behaviours of the negotiating parties as well. It is therefore essential that behaviours that are harmful in achieving amicable settlement of dispute are avoided. Such behaviours include finding of faults in any proposals received for solution. Interruptions while other party attempts to tell his view point. Pretend and promote the impression that you are very cooperative and reasonable. Sticking to your own proposal to devalue or reject other party’s proposal, Put the pressure of time and power. Accusing and blaming others for your own stubbornness and failure to reach an agreement (Fells, 2009). The ways in which agreement can be created through adaptation of key behaviours include compromise, logroll, non-specific compensation, bridging, brainstorming and surveys (Fells, 2009). Modern day example of influence of culture on negotiation: Afghanistan is a multicultural and multiethnic country. The population include Pashtun tribes, Persian-speaking (Tajiks, Hazaras, and Aymaqs) and Turkic-speaking (Uzbeks and Turkmens). Most inhabitants are Muslims divided in two groups Sunnis and Shiites (Advameg, 2012). The most sought solution in today’s world is that of Afghanistan conflict. It is under negotiation for many years now. It is the most complex conflict having multiple issues, multiple agents, multiple stakeholders and above all tremendous pressure of time and power from International community on one hand and Taliban and Afghan war lords on the other hand (Law of war, 2012). It is a good example of behaviours and cultures to be avoided or adapted for negotiations as discussed in this paper. Conclusion: The principle objective of negotiating parties is to resolve the dispute by reaching an agreement amongst themselves (Fell, 2009). The role of behaviour, the act of how you handle each situation and issues with your speech and actions is one the most important factors in influencing the outcome of the negotiation. Actions such as kindness, generosity, justice and honesty simplify the solution and change the perception and attitude of opposite party. Avoiding behaviours that spoil the taste and breed bitterness is the best way of shortening the path of reaching agreement. A successful negotiation leads to peace, love, development and happiness whereas failed negotiations creates war, hatred, destruction and sadness REFERENCES Advameg, Inc. (2012). Afghanistan In Countries and Their Cultures, Culture of Afghanistan, Retrieved from . Kartha, D. (2011). What is Culture? In Buzzle.com Retrieved from Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes, New Haven: Yal University Press Deutsch, M., (2000). Cooperation and Competition. In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice, Morton Deutsch and Peter Coleman (Ed.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher. Fells, R. (2009). Effective negotiation: From research to results. (First ed., pp. 001-239). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. DOI: www.cambridge.org Fisher, R. (1991). Negotiating Power: Getting and Using Influence, In Negotiation Theory and Practice (Ed.), Cambridge: Program on Negotiation Books. Fisher, R. and Ury W. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in. In Brice Patton (Ed.), New York: Penguin Books. Law of war. (2012). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from Lax, A, D. and Sebenius J. K., (1986). The Manager as Negotiator. Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain, New York: Free Press) Lax, A.D. and Sebenius, J. K., (1991). Interests: The Measure of Negotiation, In Negotiation Theory and Practice (Ed.), Cambridge: Program on Negotiation Books. Lewicki, R. J., Saunders D. M. & Minton J. W. (1999). Negotiation. San Francisco: Irwin McGraw-Hill Maiese, Michelle. (2003). Negotiation In Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess(Ed.), Beyond Intractability, Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder Retrieved from . Saunders, H. S., (1991). We Need a Larger Theory of Negotiation: The Importance of Pre-Negotiating Phases, In Negotiation Theory and Practice (Ed.), Cambridge: Program on Negotiation Books. Wertheim, E. (n.d.). Negotiations and resolving conflicts: An overview. In College of Business Administration, Northeastern University. Retrieved from http://web.cba.neu.edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm Read More