Communication and Conflict - Essay Example

?Question How do popular views of negotiation reinforce win/lose perspectives? Describe a situation when you were on the “losing” side of the conflict. How did you react to the outcome? Negotiation means to settle by discussion and mutual agreement. Popular views of negotiation, however, are shaped by the culture we grew up in. In most contemporary cultures, advice on negotiation offered by inspirational or advisory books which tends to reinforce the win/lose perspective. One view is that one is a good negotiator if he is able to use a set of supposedly sure-fire tactics that enable him to “get the upper hand” anytime (Chapter 8, p. 251). In this case, negotiation is seen more as a skill which allows one to manipulate the other to concede to his terms (the “lose” situation). Other contemporary views are that negotiation is settled by a “series of compromises” (Ch. 8, p. 251), or a debate (Puname & Jones, 1982 in Chap. 8) rather than a conflict management tool; or, that it is “a game for managing impressions and manipulating information… a struggle for advantage” that would translate to the “win” situation. One instance when I was on the losing side of a situation was when I was young and needed to ask my parents’ permission to stay overnight at a friend’s house. My father disallowed me, but I made such a big deal of being the only one in the group who wasn’t going. To appease me and end my tantrums, my dad said I could go provided I committed to do a household chore for two weeks, like washing the dishes. I agreed, and at the time I thought I got a pretty good deal, until afterwards when I came home. I found that in exchange for a single night of fun, I had to do fourteen days of dishes. I felt that I was had, that I should have bid it down to just a week. I was too eager to get my parents to permit me to go, so that I did not think twice when the condition was given. At the time, I thought that I had won and that I was able to get what I wanted because of my tantrums. It was funny that the realization only came after I had gotten what I wanted, and still had to pay extra after that. I resolved that I will think twice next time and not just agree with the first offer of any kind that will be made to me by anyone. Question 2----Read "The Rainbow Development Water Problem" in attachment. Respond to the following questions: • Specify (1) competitive, (2) collaborative, and (3) transformative approaches to defining this problem. (1) A competitive approach to solving the problem would be to hold a debate of sorts, where one representative of each of the sides would be given a chance to address everybody to explain their side, and then a casting and counting of votes would be held to see how many would favour each side. The side that obtains the most votes will be declared the winner, and their side taken. (2) A collaborative approach would be to ask each side explain their position and the reasons behind them without confrontation or debate. Then each side will be asked to identify what areas they absolutely must maintain, and those areas they are willing to compromise on. This way, common ground can be found that would open up possibilities that all sides will be amenable to. (3) A transformative approach would be to take one step further from the collaborative approach described, and to find a possible new alternative that was not considered yet by the assembly. Probably an alternative to a water well may be explored, or probably new methods that did not call for such an invasive procedure, or a way by which the surroundings may be restored after the well would have been dug up. • How can concerns be addressed, relationships be enhanced, and solutions be found? The only manner by which all of these may be fulfilled is through a sit-down negotiation process. Only a limited number of people may negotiate so that order may be kept in the process. Those people who are the most open to communication and compromise, as well as the more articulate ones who are well trusted and respected by their group mates, are those who should represent the group. • What communicative moves from each of the three groups would enhance rather than destroy the ongoing relationships? Nothing short of a sincere attempt on the part of each group –particularly those who take the extreme positions – to consider the benefits of the other side and try to accommodate the position of the other groups, would enhance ongoing relationships. A show of good faith, such as the offer probably of an alternative location or method that takes into consideration the other side’s wishes, would go far in maintaining friendships. • If you were a negotiator for one of the groups, how might you approach the problem? As a negotiator, I would make the first move to offer concessions to the other side, in those areas which may be conceded without abandoning the central interest of the group. One group wishes to have a well. The other group wishes to preserve the environment. From their natures, the two stands are not irreconcilable. All that is needed is to find a way by which the families may have their water while preserving or, if disturbed, restoring the environment to how it essentially had been. By offering concessions for one side, the table is open for the other side to also offer concessions, until a common ground is reached. Read More