Negotiation Styles in Conflict Resolution - Coursework Example

Name: xxxxxxxxxx Course: xxxxxxxxxx Institution: xxxxxxxxxx Title: Negotiation styles Date: xxxxxxxxxxxxx Conflict Resolution: Negotiation Styles Introduction Conflict resolution involves a wide assortment of techniques that are applied in eliminating causes of disagreement (Bar-Siman, 2004). The expression "conflict resolution" is occasionally applied interchangeably with "dispute resolution." Efforts in this process mostly include mediation, negotiation, and diplomacy, litigation and arbitration and formal complaints in the process of dispute may additionally include a process like the ombudsman in dispute resolution. Although sometimes referred to as forms of "conflict resolution," arbitration and mediation are considered as being alternative measures to dispute resolution. Negotiation is a communication channel that is intended to bring an end to disputes. It involves the production of an accord upon which action courses aim at bargaining for collective or individual advantage. In addition, negotiation aims at crafting outcomes that satisfy a variety of the involved parties’ interests. Thus, negotiation is the principal method applied in alternative dispute resolution. Negotiation takes place in business, government branches, non-profit organizations, legal proceedings, parenting, national and personal circumstances like divorce and marriage and everyday life. The study of this discipline is known as negotiation theory. Professionals in the field of negotiation are usually categorized based on their duties. They include peace negotiators, union negotiators, hostage negotiators and leverage buyout negotiators (Bar-Siman, 2004). Others may carry out their duties under different titles such as diplomats, brokers or legislators. This paper aims at critically analysing negotiation styles in addition to their practical application. In addition, their positive use is addressed relative to the fields they can possibly work the best. Approaches to Negotiation There are countless ways that are used to segment negotiation within different settings in order to gain a bigger understanding of the indispensable parts. This is particularly because different aspects of conflicts arise because of different reasons and will therefore require dissimilar approaches of resolution. One way to look at negotiation engrosses three fundamental elements. These are process, substance and behaviour. This procedure creates an insight of how the different parties carry out negotiations. The issues leading to the negotiations, the parties involved, the strategies used by the different parties, and also the stages and progression in which all these activities play out. Behaviour entails the different relationships that exist among the involved parties, the types of communication applied among them in addition to the styles adopted by the parties (Acuff, 2008). The substance of negotiation involves the particulars of what the conflicting parties negotiate over. They include the issues of negotiation (the different interests and the positions of the different parties) in addition to the possible options to be adopted and finally the agreement(s) that are reached upon at the end. Yet another approach of negotiation entails four4 elements. These include process, strategy, tactics and tools. Strategy consists of top level aims/goals. This typically includes relationships of the conflicting parties and then the final outcome of the negotiation process (Churchman 1993). Tools and Processes consist of the steps that will be adhered to in addition to the roles to be taken in preparing for and also negotiating with other conflicting parties. Tactics involve more comprehensive statements, actions and consequent responses to the other conflicting parties’ actions and statements. Some scholars include influence and persuasion citing reasons that the two have turn out to be fundamental to modern day necessity to the guarantee of negotiation success, and should therefore not be omitted from the process (Winslade, & Monk, 2000). Negotiation Styles The advocate's approach In this approach, an experienced negotiator typically takes the role of an advocate for a particular party within the conflict and later attempts to get hold of the most favourable effect for the party he/she is representing in the process In this course of action, the negotiator tries to agree on the least amount of outcome(s) that the other conflicting party/ parties is/are negotiating for and is disposed to accept. The negotiator then fiddles with their demands in accordance to the needs of his/her client. A "victorious" negotiation within the approach of advocacy occurs when the negotiator succeeds in obtaining most if not all of the outcomes the party being represented desires. It is however not considered a victory in the event that the other party is driven to a permanent break of the negotiation unless an approach of the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement is adopted (BATNA) (Churchman 1993). Traditional negotiation approaches are at sometimes known as win-lose as a result of the supposition of a constant "pie", which explains that one individual's achievement results to some other person's loss. This however occurs in the event of only one single issue of conflict that requires resolution like in the case of a straightforward sales negotiation. In this situation, the advocate simply represents the client in the matter and aims at making as sale that will earn the best quality at the fairest price. This approach is also known as the ‘everybody wins’ approach that was designed by philosopher Gerard I. Nierenberg in his study of international relations and business. In his publication named The Art of Negotiating, he maintains that all parties should be able to benefit from the negotiation. This approach is seen to produce better and more triumphant outcomes than the adversarial approach which follows the “Winner Takes it All’ stance (Churchman 1993). The Soft Approach The soft type of bargaining entails the arguing parties acting as friends within the bargain. They work towards a mutual goal of reaching a settlement that will benefit both parties. In addition, concessions are made while keeping in mind the need to cultivate the relationship between the warring parties to a better one (Requejo& Graham 2008). An important aspect of this form of negotiation is being soft on both the fighting parties and also the problem that has led to the indifferences. Both parties ought to find the need to trust each other and the parties involved in the negotiation (Winslade & Monk 2000). The warring parties should be in a position to change their stance easily in order to accommodate the needs of the other parties individually or collectively (Acuff 2008). Offers are made across parties in an effort to reach a suitable understanding that puts to mind the needs of each element. In this kind of argument, a full disclosure of the underlying intention is made so that it is clear to both parties and that one party does not claim to be duped in any future occurrence. The most important aspect of this kind of negotiation is the willingness to accept loss in the negotiation by one side so as to protect goodwill and the affairs of all the parties involved. Hard Negotiation (Positional Bargaining) Within this kind of negotiation, the negotiators are defined as being adversaries. The goal of this kind of negotiation is to emerge the victor irrespective of the other parties’ needs. This is a clear difference from the soft bargain (Acuff 2008). Demand concessions comprise the basis of the relationship between or among the warring parties. The parties are hard on the issue of conflict and the people too. In addition, there is a condition of mistrust amongst the parties as each in only after its own interests. Threats may be made in order to ensure that terms are met in addition to digging into each other’s positions. Misled bottom-lines may be drawn in an effort to achieve individual gains from the negotiation (Requejo & Graham 2008). Negotiators in this form of settlement mostly make one sided demands in an effort to gain settlement of agreement, a price the opponent party pays. As a result, soft negotiation yields to the pressure while hard negotiation applies pressure in order to win. Additionally, the soft negotiations insist on agreement while the hard negotiation insists on settling for their position. Adversaries, appeasers, aggressors and avoiders do not like conflict. They tend to avoid problems by delaying stalling or even hiding. Since they remove themselves from supportive efforts, avoiders are seen to be at a bigger disadvantage than most other negotiators (Raiffa, Richardson & Metcalfe 2002). They assume that they have to withdraw, leaving them with a single goal of survival. Avoiders view suggested answers as infringement into the addicted individual’s right to autonomy. As a result, avoiders become unfulfilled, lonely and fearful over time (Raiffa, Richardson & Metcalfe 2002). Another negotiation style is analysts. Analysts constantly try to understand. They transfer primary dilemmas onto something else. This redirects emotion from being a threatening condition to one that is a safer. Analysts steer clear of taking action by constantly looking for supplementary information, and also by picking out situations. Such individuals attach themselves to logic in order to avoid feeling. Analysts on the other hand mostly end up becoming emotionally detached from others in society (Filippo1997). Bias by Psychological Environment Any form of conflict is considered as an unpleasant situation. This may influence positive or negative emotions between or among the warring parties thus affecting their position in addition to their contribution in the negotiation (Churchman 1993). There may arise anxiety and unexpected situations in the process. Resultantly, the process of processing information may be affected either positively or negatively to favor the negotiation process or even to worsen the situation of conflict. As a result, the negotiators should be wary of these situations in order to successfully carry out the negotiation. The physical habitual dimensions in the environment may influence behavioral patterns of fighting or fright. In addition, habitual cognitive tendencies may be witnessed within such environments. The appropriacy of their application mainly depends on the situation at hand. Habits like avoidance and confrontation may be useful in negotiation if applied in a timely and appropriate manner (Kellett, 2007). Culture Bias in Negotiation Conflict resolution as a certified practice and an academic discipline are highly susceptible to culture( Augsburger, 1992). Western cultural backgrounds such as the United States and Canada, successful difference resolution frequently involves nurturing communication amidst the disputants, problem resolution, and sketching for agreements that take care of their underlying needs (Clotaire 2006). In such situations, difference resolvers frequently talk of discovering the ‘win-win’ answer, or maybe a jointly satisfying situation for everybody involved. In most non-Western socio-cultural contexts like in the case of Vietnam, Afghanistan and China, it is essential to reach at a "win-win" solution (Geert ,2001). In these cases, straight communication between the disputants explicitly tackles the issues at risk in the clash can be seen as very rude hence making the disagreement worse and consequently delaying the process of resolution. Relatively, it makes sense to include tribal, religious or area leaders, tell difficult truths in some way from a third party. In return suggestions should be made through this process (Liu, 2004). Intercultural disagreements are most often the most tricky to resolve since the prospects of the conflicting party could be very dissimilar and possible for the occurrence of more such occasions for misunderstanding. The Adversarial Approach (Winner Takes All) Some forms of negotiation approaches observed within the families of addicts involve the aggressor, avoider, adversary, appeaser, and analyst. These techniques unwittingly prop up addiction. Evidently, members of such families think they are working in an effort to make the situation better but in essence they enable them to continue with the habit. A sixth approach to negotiation is the ambassador method. This method does not impulsively take place in families that have addicts. The adversary form of negotiation can be explained through the example of families living with addicts and their addiction to be precise. As a result of the addict believing that they require their drug or alcohol in order to survive, most if not all negotiations are perceived as a struggle for their own life. Due to this, the adversary form of negotiation is viewed as being aggressive, inflexible, hostile and secretive as it employs threats to terrorize, or alternatively applying lies to pacify .The adversary deals with their addiction by learning to manage their family instead of the addiction itself. Resultantly there is no constant middle ground hence their main objective is to defend their addiction hence avoiding pain. To an individual who is an adversary, resolutions are often viewed as threats. Aggressors on the other hand draw away input contributed by other people. They make efforts to deal with the problem their own way in return refusing to alter their way of thoughts once their minds are made up Aggressors put their interests in the protection of points of view other than exploring different solutions (Requejo & Graham 2008). Adversaries, appeasers, aggressors and avoiders do not like conflict. They tend to avoid problems by delaying stalling or even hiding. Since they remove themselves from supportive efforts, avoiders are seen to be at a bigger disadvantage than most other negotiators. They assume that they have to withdraw, leaving them with a single goal of survival. Avoiders view suggested answers as infringement into the addicted individual’s right to autonomy. As a result, avoiders become unfulfilled, lonely and fearful over time (Raiffa & Metcalfe 2002). Another negotiation style is analysts. Analysts constantly try to understand. They transfer primary dilemmas onto something else. This redirects emotion from being a threatening condition to one that is a safer. Analysts steer clear of taking action by constantly looking for supplementary information, and also by picking out situations. Such individuals attach themselves to logic in order to avoid feeling. Analysts on the other hand mostly end up becoming emotionally detached from others in society (Filippo 1997). Introducing Emotion in negotiation Emotions contribute an important part in the resolution process, even though only in recent years are when their consequences started being studied. Emotions bear the prospective to contribute either a negative or positive role in the process of finding a middle ground. In the process of negotiations, the conclusion as to whether to settle or not, lies in part on the emotional factors involved (Davidson & Greenhalgh 1999). Negative sensations have the ability to cause strong and even unreasonable behaviour, and can resultantly cause disagreements that may escalate leading to the breakdown of the negotiations. On the other hand, it may be helpful in obtaining concessions. Conversely, constructive emotions frequently make it possible to reach an agreement in addition to helping to make the most of joint gains within the negotiation. That can however also be helpful in attaining acknowledgments. Both negative and positive discrete sentiments can be advantageously displayed to control task and relational results and may turn out differently across different cultural boundaries (Filippo 1997). Information In its technical use, Information is a prearranged series of symbols. As an idea, however, the term bears many meanings. In addition, the idea of information is intimately related to concepts of communication, pattern constraint, form, representation, control, data, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, and perception. Information can be delivered after a couple of levels are completed. First of all, there is the need for brainstorming. This involves the determining of the kind of information that is sought for a particular purpose. Secondly, there is need to actually collect the information (Stewart 2001). Collection involves selecting the relevant bits of the information that is relevant to the particular recipient. Attitudes and behaviours have the potential of affecting parts or even the entire information collection and distribution. These include the willingness to seek the information and also to absorb it. In addition, there could be the possibility of hindrances that bar the accurate distribution of information. Destructions and a bombardment of other informational materials may add up to destructions that may adversely hinder information dispersion. Information may tumble upon stumbling blocks such as noise, unfavourable attitudes as well as lack of interest. Positive attitudes towards information may lead to a better position to search for and absorb information by the recipient (Lax & Sebenius 2006). Conclusion The different approaches to negotiations have been seen to clearly apply to different situations based on their appropriate nature. In addition, negotiation is considered a matter of need within particular contexts. The adversarial, advocate and culture based forms of negotiations may be used collectively or individually depending on the basis of the argument in addition to the aims of the negotiations. As a result, a careful evaluation of the approach to be taken should be used before the incorporation of such methods in order to ensure a positive end to the struggle(Bar-Siman, 2004). Bibliography Acuff, F., 2008, How to Negotiate Anything with Anyone Anywhere Around the World, American Management Association, New York. Augsburger, D., 1992, Conflict mediation across cultures, John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky. Bar-Siman-Tov, Y., 2004, From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, Oxford University Press, UK. Churchman, D., 1993, Negotiation Tactics, University Press of America, Maryland. Clotaire, R., 2006, The Culture Code, Broadway Books, New York. Davidson, M. & Greenhalgh, L., 1999,The role of emotion in negotiation: The impact of anger and race, Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 7, 3–26. Filippo, A., 1997, Post-conflict anxiety in non-human primates: the mediating role of emotion in conflict resolution. Aggressive Behavior 23: 315–328. Hofstede, G., 2001, Cultures Consequences, 2nd Ed, Sage, California Kellett, P., 2007, Conflict Dialogue, Sage Publications, London. Lax, J. & Sebenius, K., 2006, 3-D Negotiations, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Liu, A. 2004, The Laws of Cool: Knowledge Work and the Culture of Information, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Raiffa, H., Richardson J. & Metcalfe, D.2002, Negotiation Analysis, Cambridge, MA: Belknap. Requejo, H. & Graham, J. 2008, Global Negotiation: The New Rules, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Stewart, T., 2001, Wealth of Knowledge, Doubleday, New York. Winslade, J. & Monk, G., 2000, Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Read More

This procedure creates an insight of how the different parties carry out negotiations. The issues leading to the negotiations, the parties involved, the strategies used by the different parties, and also the stages and progression in which all these activities play out. Behaviour entails the different relationships that exist among the involved parties, the types of communication applied among them in addition to the styles adopted by the parties (Acuff, 2008). The substance of negotiation involves the particulars of what the conflicting parties negotiate over.

They include the issues of negotiation (the different interests and the positions of the different parties) in addition to the possible options to be adopted and finally the agreement(s) that are reached upon at the end. Yet another approach of negotiation entails four4 elements. These include process, strategy, tactics and tools. Strategy consists of top level aims/goals. This typically includes relationships of the conflicting parties and then the final outcome of the negotiation process (Churchman 1993).

Tools and Processes consist of the steps that will be adhered to in addition to the roles to be taken in preparing for and also negotiating with other conflicting parties. Tactics involve more comprehensive statements, actions and consequent responses to the other conflicting parties’ actions and statements. Some scholars include influence and persuasion citing reasons that the two have turn out to be fundamental to modern day necessity to the guarantee of negotiation success, and should therefore not be omitted from the process (Winslade, & Monk, 2000).

Negotiation Styles The advocate's approach In this approach, an experienced negotiator typically takes the role of an advocate for a particular party within the conflict and later attempts to get hold of the most favourable effect for the party he/she is representing in the process In this course of action, the negotiator tries to agree on the least amount of outcome(s) that the other conflicting party/ parties is/are negotiating for and is disposed to accept. The negotiator then fiddles with their demands in accordance to the needs of his/her client.

A "victorious" negotiation within the approach of advocacy occurs when the negotiator succeeds in obtaining most if not all of the outcomes the party being represented desires. It is however not considered a victory in the event that the other party is driven to a permanent break of the negotiation unless an approach of the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement is adopted (BATNA) (Churchman 1993). Traditional negotiation approaches are at sometimes known as win-lose as a result of the supposition of a constant "pie", which explains that one individual's achievement results to some other person's loss.

This however occurs in the event of only one single issue of conflict that requires resolution like in the case of a straightforward sales negotiation. In this situation, the advocate simply represents the client in the matter and aims at making as sale that will earn the best quality at the fairest price. This approach is also known as the ‘everybody wins’ approach that was designed by philosopher Gerard I. Nierenberg in his study of international relations and business. In his publication named The Art of Negotiating, he maintains that all parties should be able to benefit from the negotiation.

This approach is seen to produce better and more triumphant outcomes than the adversarial approach which follows the “Winner Takes it All’ stance (Churchman 1993). The Soft Approach The soft type of bargaining entails the arguing parties acting as friends within the bargain. They work towards a mutual goal of reaching a settlement that will benefit both parties. In addition, concessions are made while keeping in mind the need to cultivate the relationship between the warring parties to a better one (Requejo& Graham 2008).

An important aspect of this form of negotiation is being soft on both the fighting parties and also the problem that has led to the indifferences.

Read More