The Role of Communication and Personality in Negotiation - Research Paper Example

Role of Communication and Personality in Negotiation Introduction Negotiation can briefly be described as the process of making decisions when the parties involved have different preferences. There are two somewhat distinctive forms of negotiation. The negotiation strategy chosen for a negotiation will be dependent on the situation in question. The two major negotiation strategies include interactive negotiation which is a ‘win-win’ and distributive negotiation which is a ‘win-lose’ (Hall, 1996). One of the greatest successful negotiations in history is the Israeli Armistice Agreement in 1949 between Israel and its neighbours. After Israel had attained its independence in 1948, it was invaded by its neighbours led by Egypt. The negotiation was led by a black American known as Ralph Bunch, who had grown up under segregation for his colour. At the beginning of the negotiation, neither party could even look or talk to the other. It was somewhat a miracle that the negotiation was a success in the end (Shell, 2006). Over the period of 6 months that the negotiation took place; Ralph managed to break down the conflict into manageable bits to be worked on differently in order to lessen the work. The strategy he used was starting with the easier bits as a way of building trust with the parties and then later on got into the hard bits. Every time the parties arrived at an agreement, Ralph would make sure that an agreement was signed just to ensure that the parties get into the habit of signing agreements (Churchman, 1995). An example of one of the greatest failures in the history of negotiations would be the Geneva nuclear talks between Iran and the Western powers. The talk was between Iran and the so called P5 + 1 group of world powers. The negotiations finally came to a halt when French walked out of the negotiations with the reason that they needed to get some form of control of the nuclear power. Over the past ten years there have been a lot of negotiations between the Western powers and Iran on nuclear power. All the negotiations were never a success due to the fact that Iran always got the raw end of the deal. As much as Iran was willing to make a number of concessions, the Western powers on the other hand were not so lenient. The negotiation was more one sided in terms of the concessions. Despite the unfairness, Iran was still willing to sign the deal. However, the Western powers still walked out of the negotiation with a number of excuses, which were quashed by the Russian negotiators. How Communication Affects the Outcome of a Negotiation Communication during negotiation functions to achieve a number of things. The outcome of the negotiation is dependent on how effective the communication was between the two negotiating parties. Through communication, the parties are able to exchange the pertinent information and device the different strategies and tactics to be used in order to come to an agreement. Basically, the satisfaction of the parties at the end of the negotiation will be dependent on the communication as through effective communication can the parties come up with offers, counteroffers, demands and interests. In the Israeli Armistice Agreement, Ralph Butch did not just go straight to the point at the beginning of the negotiation but worked to make both parties feel at ease first before starting the negotiation. In the negotiation between Iran and the Western powers, the Western powers were not so forthcoming about the main agenda for the negotiations. Having control over nuclear power would mean even more power for the Western countries. If the Western powers had put to the table all the information about the negotiation initially, time would have been saved. The Western powers are generally viewed by other nations to be hungry for power. The main agenda that the Western countries have are to deny Iran its legal and legitimate right over nuclear technology. This would be going against the promise that the US had made to Iran in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which guaranteed the right member countries right to nuclear technology. Role of Personality in Negotiation Inevitably, a person’s personality will have an impact on the outcome of the negotiation. Whether or not a negotiation will be successful, it depends on the personality of the negotiator. As a negotiator, one is bound to come across different characters, which will require a lot of patience, understanding and awareness of the different characters people tend to have. An impressive personality combined with good communication helps in ensuring a successful negotiation, and this brings up the question of exactly how important is personality in communication. First, as a negotiator, one needs to be flexible. Being rigid to a person’s point of view may come out as selfish and not work in the best interest of the negotiation (Kennedy, 2007). In addition, as a negotiator one should be flexible and be able to compromise in a way, even if the compromise is likely to benefit the other party more. Being the first person the first person to accept a certain condition does not necessarily make one come out as weak. The result of this may be that the other party may actually look up to you and smoothen out the process in the future. In the negotiation between Iran and the Western countries, Iran had made a lot of compromise in order to have room for the needs of the Western powers. The Western powers however did not see the need for this, and stuck to the demands they had made at the commencement of the negotiation. Third, good listening skills will also be beneficial in a negotiation. One should not quickly dismiss any suggestions or ideas that the other parties may bring to the table. One should listen carefully to the suggestion as they may be beneficial to both parties in the long run. One should have active listening skills in order to make the other party feel at ease. For example pay attention to the other party without any kinds of distraction, encourage and clarify any points that the other parties may have. The negotiator should try to avoid poor listening skills such as the wrong physical expressions, giving out the wrong body language that makes you look disinterested. In addition, maintaining eye contact during the negotiation and taking notes. A persons past reputation influences the outcome of a negotiation. If one of the parties negotiating already has a history of being deceitful, the other party is likely have low expectations from the negotiation and not be so open to the negotiation. The other party will be filled with suspicion and reproach (Kennedy, 2007). In the negotiation between Iran and the West, the experiences that Iran has with the Western powers makes them doubt the actual outcome of the negotiation and already expect the worst. This may act as a hindrance already to the negotiation and the expected outcome may be a predictable. Patience is also a key characteristic that the negotiator needs to be endowed with in order for any form of negotiation to be a success. As a negotiator, you are bound to come across different kinds of personalities, which therefore mean that a great deal of patience is required in dealing with them. Convincing someone is not that easy, in order for the parties to accept the terms of the negotiation, you need to convince them that it is the right move and, this requires patience (Churchman, 1995). Ways in which the Negotiator May Influence the Other Party There are diverse strategies that a negotiator can incorporate as a way of influencing the parties during a negotiation. Having power during a negotiation can go a long way to determining the party’s satisfaction. For example, there is the information power. Having extra information than the other party can help in making the other party dependant on you. When the other party feels like they lack some important information, it may make them uncertain hence give more power to the negotiator (Fisher, 1992). In addition, the negotiator can also use reason as a way to influence the other party during a negotiation. The negotiator should watch out to use the right words at the right time. Do not make any form of assumption but stick to the facts. The negotiator should open a positive communication that would make them at least not come out to be aggressive and commanding. The parties should feel at ease to share any ideas that they may have. It is important for the negotiator to note that there are some facts that are of more importance than others. The negotiator needs to apply empathy during negotiation. The negotiator needs to be able to relate to the third party and put themselves in their position. This would make the third party feel like the negotiator at least understands their situation and has their best interest at heart. Contrary to the common beliefs, negotiators do not come to an agreement because of what they think but rather what they feel. Above all else, the negotiator needs to understand the situation if at all they hope to influence the parties involved in any way. Ralph Bunch being a black American, who had grown up during a time of segregation, knew exactly what it meant to feel out of place, hence this made it easy for him to relate to the Israelites and the Egyptians. In addition, the connection also enabled the two parties to have trust in Ralph, which eased the negotiation process. (Fisher, 1992). Strategies to Build Trust in a Negotiation The foundation of any successful negotiation is building mutual trust between the parties involved even before the onset of the negotiation. Considering the risk involved in a negotiation, establishing trust would be deemed crucial is determining the successfulness of the negotiation. There are a few strategies that can be incorporated as a way of building trust between the parties involved in a negotiation (Shell, 2006). First, as a negotiator, one needs to keep a good reputation. Create a good rapport with the negotiating parties. People are more likely to trust a negotiator if they thought he or she had more things in common. Having a bad reputation would make the parties not trust the negotiator right from the start. As a negotiator, one can use their reputation as a tool. For instance, a good reference form past clients can help make the parties have some form of trust in the negotiators level of competence. In addition, it also adds to the negotiator’s character. There was already bad blood between the Western powers and Iran which may make the Iranians suspicious and reluctant during the negotiation. For over ten years there have been talks between Iran and the Western powers and none has ever been a success because one party always backs out (Churchman, 1995). Secondly, explaining your demands as a negotiator to the other party would be helpful in coming to an agreement. This is because considering the fact that the parties do not know you, they are likely to imagine the worst about your intentions. As a negotiator, try to build a strong case for your moves in order to gain fair ground in the negotiation. In the Israeli Armistice negotiation, both parties fully explained their demands at the beginning of the negotiation. This helps in ensuring that during the negotiation, at least a few compromises and concessions can be made in order to come to an understanding. A negotiator can also build trust by listening and acknowledging. The other party needs to feel appreciated and that they are being treated fairly in order to make them willing to be cooperative during the negotiation process. In the end, the other party is likely to feel satisfied if they are treated fairly during the negotiation rather than if they are treated objectively. The negotiation between Iran and the Western powers was unfair since the Iranians were expected to compromise more than the Western powers. However, this did not stop the Iranians from agreeing to sign the deal although the Western powers still backed out (Shell, 2006). References Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1992). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Churchman, D. (1995). Negotiation: Process, tactics, theory. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for advantage: Negotiation strategies for reasonable people. New York: Penguin Books. Kennedy, G. (2007). Strategic negotiation: An opportunity for change. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Pub. Co. Hall, L. (1996). Negotiation: Strategies for mutual gain ; the basic seminar of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Newbury Park [u.a.: Sage. Read More