Significance of Identifying Different Phases of Negotiation - Literature review Example

Significance of Identifying Different Phases of Negotiation No Identifying the different phases of negotiation isthe key factor that determines the effectiveness and success of a negotiation strategy. People who think that aggressive approach and temperament would win the bargain flaw because the core of a healthy negotiation lies with the mutual understanding between the parties involved. In order to achieve the proposed negotiation goal, managers who undertake compromise must evaluate the strength and weakness of their arguments or positions. Donelon and Kolb (1997) state, “the requirements for getting work done reside less in the exercise of authority and more in the ability to communicate and negotiate with a wide variety of members of an organization” (Cited in Spangle & Isenhart 2003, p.276). This self-evaluation is the part of negotiation planning which is also the most important and initial phase of every negotiation. However, the knowledge in phases only does not constitute the structure of the negotiation. In order to get a complete frame of negotiation we must have knowledge in Negotiation Tools i.e. Passive support, Active facilitative support and Pro-active interventive support (Aurum & Wohlin 2005, p.153). Finally, the individuals who propose negotiation should have knowledge about the post negotiation processes as well. The arguments in this paper rely on practical evidences and the findings of various scholarly volumes on negotiation. Initially, as it is in every process, planning becomes the first step to negotiation which also covers the major portion of entire strategic negotiation procedures. According to Rojot (1991), the first process of three-stage model of negotiation is ‘getting to know each other’ including their starting positions, range, and limitations. The second stage involves the attempt to reach a settlement either through official or informal actions; and finally persuading other group for decision making (Rojot 1991). Negotiation of disputes between employers and employees is possible if the remedial measures for the same are part of the organizational frame work. Employees at the grieving end are always united towards achieving their objectives. The leadership attributes to negotiate such a sensitive issue takes a programmed structure of conciliation. This way, negotiation in an organizational structure is not an overnight task. As found in (Eds) Gelfand, & Brett (2004, p.144) there are three general categories as input factors for the settlement of a negotiation. They are (1) the situational context, which includes the role of constituents, time pressure, and past and future relationship among the negotiators; (2) task characteristics, including the number and types of issues and their integrative potential; and (3) negotiator characteristics, including social motives, and expertise (Gelfand, & Brett 2004, p.144). While considering the possibility of a potential negotiation in a disturbed atmosphere in an organization, it is important to see that the process of negotiation passes through different phases that pose stage for analysis, guidance and improvement of disputant factors in the arbitration between the two parties in the negotiation. Importance and necessity of social interaction are also determined only if the negotiation process is identified as of different phases of strategic changes within the group. As stated in the beginning, on initiating a negotiation process, the first phase of the acts goes to determination of actual reason to negotiate an issue. It is something like getting ‘all the ducks in a row’ before they are shot at. Issues are more important than people concerned to them. Preparation of an agenda of talk and identification of the listing of actual people to be involved covers the second stage of this phase. Gathering as much information as possible on the dispute element is another requirement at this phase of negotiation. According to Lee, Amanda & Chamberlain (2007, p.202), inter-organisational negotiations are also a key contributor to the efficient functioning of markets, whether they are for strategic alliances, short-term collaborations, or even manufacturer – supplier negotiations. The second phase involves conceptual interpretation of the agreement from sides of both parties. This approach helps the negotiator frame a foundation of the agreement by making details of dispute. The negotiator at this phase needs to focus on formulating a solid set of principles agreeable for either side from the blue print of demands put forth by both parties. However, as Garcha Aman reminds, “The dimensions in which the negotiations unfold can differ substantially due to culture”. (Garcha n.d.). This phase is all about conceptual analysis as it defines goals and objective of both parties through detailed fact finding mechanisms. Proposals and counter proposals are considered and the tentativeness of the agreement is reached thereby. Based on the result of the fact finding process, the negotiator re-frames the agreement for the benefit of both parties without prolonged sessions of arbitrations in the organization. As the negotiation takes a complete form, it is necessary to observe the post-negotiation changes in the organization. Post negotiation enables to assess whether the current agreement is a better one or would a better solution be possible for one negotiator without causing loss to the other; and gives great help in the review of the quality assurance in negotiation results (Aurum & Wohlin 2005, p.148). A final draft of the agreement is made in written format for the future reference in order to restrict any occurrence of a debate on the same issue once again. Thus parties signing in the agreement are thereby bound to work on the progressive strategies of the proposal for the benefit of the organization. The ultimate purpose of the final phase of review and follow up of the negotiation should aim at making reports on what went well with the actions and what further proposals could be suggested to improve the conditions for taking the team effort to the nearest extend of the goals set by the management. The negotiators work does not finish with merely drafting the agreement; he has to facilitate the ongoing effect of the policies approved by both parties in the process of operational management in the organization. Therefore it is always suggestible to entrust a legal expert or a higher official for the negotiator’s role; many large companies during their internal disputes call for the assistance of external involvement usually from judicial or legal lines of the government schemes to negotiate the issue with a consideration for the extended service of the negotiator over the tenure of the contract. However, according to Chasek & Rajamani (2001), signing of an agreement is not the end of a negotiation process; instead the negotiation can be reviewed by making changes in the central provisions as new problems arise. As an example, in the given case study of dairy company, the issue can be seen from the workers point of view and suggestions can be made on their behalf as follows; Though the management resolved issues related to annual leave, meal breaks etc and consolidated them with the payment revision, some issues were still to be settled. One of the five unsolved problems is about the basis for increase in wages during the tenure of the agreement. Hence, in order to settle this issue the work group as its major priority should persuade the management to initiate a pay revision committee and let it study the performance of each employee and allocate the finest possible margin of wage hike. Since multiple goals must be satisfied, as Conry et al (1991) say, to solve these ‘distributed constraint problems’, multistage negotiation is essential. What should emerge as the solution is the appointment of a special monitoring team within the organization and analyze the efficiency of each employee before any training campaign is formed. Finally, the dispute goes high when the suggestion for appointment of a joint workplace committee; the argument was on whether or not the committee be impartial and trustworthy. Workers have their rights to stability in an organization; therefore they need not bear the pain of sudden managerial changes in the organization. In this context, negotiation must be a settlement of issues with assurance of individual group member’s and individual negotiator’s behavior serving the purpose of accomplishment of all tasks to achieve the goal or the necessity of functional requirements met at different stages of the accomplishment of the task (Brett, et al. 2003, p.3). In the case of AccelMedia, company is in a position to enter into a new contract with GTethnica as it got interrupted in the supply of processors from the existing dealer Maxproc. GTethnica is a new comer in this field and searching for potential customers to expand their business. Hence it can be the situation that AccelMedia can take advantage from as it moves to negotiate with GTethnica. Now AccelMedia can buy the processors at a cost of $30-35 per unit without causing business loss. However, it will not be fair to disclose the fact at the negotiation; instead, the negotiator would bargain to attain maximum benefit. For instance he would suggest $28 per unit because the new client is not familiar to AccelMedia and have little idea about the reliability of the new dealer. At the same time the company can not afford a negotiation failure too. So in order to avoid hurting GTethnica, it would be sound if AccelMedia understands the cost of production of processors before suggesting the price. Moreover, before closing deal AccelMedia must make sure that they would get adequate and on time supply of processors. Negotiation process as relationship with organizational behavior and result oriented motivation towards the common goal requires meeting the emphasized effects of many stages of action. If it is an organization, as Harold (1985, p. 249) states, the employer must seek every possible chance to avert costly strike and prolonged negotiation or arbitration by finding alternative mechanisms. The phases spread from identifying the problem to evaluating the settled result of the negotiation. A detailed study of the problem gives loops to find solution for the dispute. In this process the negotiator has to consider the balancing effect of the ultimate decision. The trial for simplifying the process of negotiation takes the negotiator to identify the importance of different or stages in negotiation. As Weick (1969) (cited by Brett, Weingart, Olekalns 2003, p.11) states, phases are the extended periods of reciprocity that connects the ideas of both the negotiator and the parties to the negotiation with open possibilities of repeated application of tactics to coherently settle the dispute for a considerably longer time; and also these allocations of phases stimulate the emergence of a social structure within the organization. As negotiation involves word processing of opinions of the three elements in the picture such as the management, employee and the negotiator, it should be noticed that the behavioral sequence is maintained well for the positive signs of the outcome of the negotiation process. A person’s point of view of a certain topic to be discussed has a straight-line relationship with his behavior as an individual. The intensity of his responses and reactions to counter arguments in a debate of win-to-win contexts reflects how passionate he is towards his ethics or on the contrary, of his prejudice. Hence, knowing the phases of negotiation is highly essential to achieve the anticipated negotiation goals. References Aurum, A & Wohlin, C, (Eds) 2005, Engineering and managing software requirements, Springer, New York. Brett, J. Weingart L & Olekalns M, Jan 27, 2003, ‘Baubles, Bangles, and Beads: Modeling the Evolution of Negotiating Groups over Time’. (Eds; Blount, B. Mannix & M. Neale, Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Time in Groups, Vol. 6. Conry, SE, Kuwabara, K, Lesser, VR & Meyer, RA, 1991, ‘Multistage Negotiation for Distributed Constraint Satisfaction’, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol.21, no.6, p. 1462. Chasek, P & Rajamani, L December 3, 2001, ‘Steps Towards Enhanced Parity: Negotiating Capacity and Strategies of Developing Countries’, United Nation’s Development Programme, p.6. http://www.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/background-paper-chasek.pdf Garcha, A, n. d., Diplomatic Culture or Cultural Diplomacy: The role for culture in international negotiation. http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/content/pdf/icd_diplomatic_culture_of_cultural_diplomacy.pdf Gelfand, M & Brett, JM 2004, The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture, Stanford University Press, California. Lee N, Broderick & Chamberlain, L 2007, ‘What is ‘neuromarketing’? A discussion and agenda for future research’, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 199-204. Retrieved from http://ccn.ucla.edu/wiki/images/a/a3/What_is_Neuromarketing.pdf Rojot, J 1991, ‘The Phases of Negotiation: from theory to practice, Macmillan, Hampshire, pp.174-196. Spangle, M & Isenhart, W 2003, Negotiation: Communication for Diverse Settings, SAGE, California. Saunders, H 1985, ‘We Need a Larger Theory of Negotiation: The Importance of Pre-Negotiating Phases’, Negotiation Journal: on the Process of Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1 no. 3, pp. 249-262. Read More