Self Reflection on Negotiation Process - Coursework Example

Self Reflection on Negotiation Process Name: Institution: Self Reflection on Negotiation Process Negotiation involves resolution of matters by opposite parties through discussions with the aim of reaching a mutual agreement (Lewicki, 2003). In this paper, I represent Returning and Ripping (R&R) company as a negotiator, while the opposite party is Rio Tinto Alcan (RTA). My duties were to represent my company in the negotiation process concerning a rehabilitation project that RTA required to be implemented in shortest time possible. However, shorter time exposed our side to a disadvantaged position, and thus calling for effective negotiations to achieve the best outcome. In this paper, I explore on different approaches to the negotiations and recommends on the best actions to reach a better outcome. In a bid to forge a better pact; we essentially adopted an integrative approach. According to Lewiscki (2003), this approach frames negotiations as interactions which potentially yield a win-win situation. By adopting this approach, my particular aim was to create value so that the negotiating parties get more benefit out of the negotiation. I emphasized the importance of solving problems as a team and information exchange besides creating conditions of mutual gain and using objective criteria (Lewicki, 2003). For example, I whatever proposition I made were not on the expense of RTA.I tried to balance the other sides wishes to complete the work in shorter time, with our intention to have an extended duration. I called for the participants to create win-win solutions as a team, where both parties had to compromise on some of their stand points for the sake of the other party. Although we could have gained much by having the time extended to 18 months, we considered the interest of the opposite side and had to accept a shorter duration. Giving the compromise was essential as it broken a possibly prolonged impasse, with none of the party benefiting as a result. McKersie (1965) suggests that integrative process may involve generating options, disclosing interests and seeking what is common between the parties. In that regard, we managed to find out that RTA wished that the project be completed in shorter time to reduce expenses on lease. We also disclosed to them that completing the project on shorter time could impose extra expenses on us. The disclosure of interests not only built trust amongst the parties, but also curved way for effective negotiations that could lead to a better outcome. (Zartman & Berman, 1982). Understanding the objective of your opposition facilitates uncovering of solutions (Zartman & Berman, 1982). For example, RTA must have become more accommodative on learning that shorter time would be more expensive on our side, and that it would make it hard to employ the locals; which is their core objective in this case. This approach can further get its trace from the international relations, social decision making and research on disagreements (Walton & McKersie, 1965). Integrative negotiation is a process where the negotiators apply problem solving behaviors (Walton & McKersie, 1965). Phase theories of negotiation related negotiation transitional processes as phases of a mutual decision making processes (Zartman & Berman, 1982). In reaching the agreements, we had to go through several steps whose aim was to reach an outcome that benefited both RTA and R&R. To account for this, Zartman and Berman (1982) maintained that the negotiating parties can efficiently prepare for negotiations and increase the possibility of successful negotiation if they approach the negotiation with a notion of passing three stages: a formula phase, a diagnostic phase and a details phase. The diagnostic phase is the series of actions and behaviors before the actual negotiation commences (Zartman & Berman, 1982). It is during this phase that parties engaged in verification of the suitability of the negotiation, and attempted to establish the negotiation willingness of the opposite party .We investigated whether there was a sincere pledge to negotiations on the RTA side. We critically enquired why RTA wanted the project to get completion within shorter time without considering compromise on quality; and whether they were ready to change their orientation. It is through such considerations that we realized that RTA was fully committed to negotiation; and that lack of full information on quality standards inspired their opinion. We therefore entered the negotiations with more confidence of reaching an agreement. During the second stage, the parties searches for a common and agreed upon values which can support a potential agreement (Zartman & Berman, 1982). The possibility of a successful outcome increases where parties maintain transparency and consider the stand point of the other party. Indeed, we had to disclose all our interest especially our preference on an extended period so that we can cut on costs; our idea was that longer time could give room for training locals instead of employing outsiders who could demand more in terms of salaries. Again, we realized that there was a common value in employing the locals (employment of locals was a key objective of RTA). As a result, there was a high chance of reaching an agreement since we could argue that more time could lead to employment of the locals; hence convincing RTA to extend time. Negotiating parties graduate from broad principles to the essentials of the agreement during the details phase (Zartman & Berman, 1982). In particular, the negotiation is approached as a process and as such, planning for the negotiation is important factor which determines the outcome of the negotiation process (Zartman & Berman, 1982). During the planning process, we had to consider question such as, how will it be discussed? What is being discussed? What are the criteria of deciding the commitments? Who are the negotiating parties? Planning for the negotiation benefited both parties by giving insights on what is expected during the negotiations, and given the parties an opportunity to prepare the grounds for their arguments. I prepared for my argument that convinced RTA, for example by explaining to them how extension can create employment of the locals and improve the quality of the work. Though the process consumed a lot of time, it was considered valuable as a planed process can “not only save time, but it also will enable wiser, more robust, and more valuable deals” (Wondwosen, 2006, p. 56). According to Fisher and Ury (1981), integrative bargaining follows seven important elements which include communication, commitment, alternatives, interests, options, people and criteria. During the negotiation process, we followed similar steps that significantly contributed to the successful outcome of the negotiation. We started by identification of the interests of the parties as opposed to consideration of positions of the other parties (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Interests are the core reasons that inspire the positions taken by the parties. In considering the interests first, I approached issues of commonality with greater flexibility, creativity and understanding. That is why I identified RTA intention to reduce lease and approached it accordingly. It was established that RTA could have wished that the project get completed in the shortest time possible to a reduce expenses on lease. Fisher and Ury (1981) argues that while in dispute, people tend to forget treating the other party as people just like themselves. As a negotiator for my team, I focused on finding solution to the problem without letting the personal element distract me; I tried to strike an agreement while fostering good relationship with the other side. To achieve my goals, I started off by asking myself questions such as: are there alternative solutions supposing RTA fails to cooperate? What will happen to each side if an agreement is not found? Fisher and Ury suggest that it is fundamental that each side realize the “best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)” through the process of negotiation. It was important to know my BATNA because it is “a measure for an agreement that will protect you against both accepting an agreement you should reject and rejecting an agreement you should accept” (Fisher and Ury, 1981, p.99). In essence, I strived to avoid limiting fruitful opportunities as a result of a certain obstacle such as increased cost as a result of training supervisors. As such, I had to bargain for an optimal alternative. Options are potential solutions to a problem in negotiations. It was very critical during the negotiation to establish the core interests of RTA. Our side generated options through invitation of the other side for brainstorming. This technique helped to encourage creative thinking and increased the chances of reaching a “win-win” solution.To reach a successful negotiation, my side created a situation whereby RTA had to concede their original stand point. This was very important especially because both sides seemed to stand on almost incompatible positions-we wanted the project to be completed within 18 months while the other side wanted the same to be completed within 6 months. According to Davis (1993), this situation if not well approached can reach to a battle of wills, impasse and bitterness. The outcome of a negotiation is only sustainable if all the parties respect and honor their own commitments. R&R followed this principle to ensure that our integrity is not lost. Besides, commitment had to be honored to avoid resentments of the other side. Indeed, it was very critical not to make commitment that could not be honored. For example, we could not agree to complete the project in 6 months because we knew it could not viable (Fisher and Ury, 1981), as it could have cost us a lot of expenses in terms of training of supervisors. The other key factor that influenced a successful outcome was communication No negotiation can take place without communication. R&R acknowledged that effective communication could overcome an impasse, change attitude, and help foster good relationships. Furthermore, good communication skills are critical to clearly deliver a message, and properly decipher the message of the other party (Wondwosen, 2006). We used good communication skills to uncover interests of RTA and to find out common problems. We made every point very clear and sought for clarification where appropriate. Although the process of negotiation may appear have appeared quite successful, to achieve the results, we faced several dilemmas which required ingenious decision making. There existed competing interests between the two parties. Challenges were faced during negotiation particularly because our side had incomplete information about the intentions of the other side. For example we could not have established with accuracy, the reason why RTA wanted the project completed in short time. During the negotiation, an agreement was not easy because each party had incentive to defect so as to maximize gains. Lack of common agreement was however sub-optimal because cooperation could have put both players at a better-off position. It is however agued that in real live, cooperation is not likely to occur. Axelrod (1984) demonstrated this by arguing that people who purse their own self interest are likely to cooperate with each other on the realization that they could meet later in future. As such, RTA could have agreed to extend the project time, on realization that we could meet again in another project. Using a computer game, Axelrod demonstrated that when a player meets an opponent, the player uses a tit-for-tat strategy to maximize his gains. Such strategy starts out the game with cooperation but whenever the opponents fails to cooperate, he is punished (Axelrod, 1984). Both parties could have been willing to cooperate to avoid punishment, for example, if we failed to cooperate, R&R could have refused to accord us another contract in future. Axelrod further demonstrated that when the player who is applying the tit-for-tat strategy faces another player who is cooperative, the outcome is one of equilibrium as a result of the cooperation (a mutual agreement). It is however important to note that in the outcome of our negotiations, the decision of whether to cooperate or fail to cooperate depended on the amount of trust that one party placed on the other one. We trusted RTA, while RTA also trusted and believed in us. The outcome of the negotiated agreements could also have resulted from individuals’ characteristics or personality behaviors. According to Nicholson (1964), negotiators can be described as either unreasonably fighting for all or using diplomacy to concede to the demands of the other party so long as peace prevails. Zartman (1978) argued that though the negotiators who face a negotiation in an aggressive stance are likely to gain more in their demands, there is a high possibility that they are not likely to conclude an agreement whatsoever. To further support our behavioral approach, it can be argued from the point of view of the traditional diplomatic treaties. These traditions have a common perspective that negotiations such as the ones between employers, unions, nations, or neighbors at the end of the day depend on the persons involved in the negotiation. The behavioral approach reflects on the human skills, tendencies and emotions. The approach focuses on the influence of attitudes, trust, perceptions, personality, or personal motivation and their impact on the behavior of an individual towards seeking solution. De callieresis, an early writer who contributed to negotiation theory by arguing that a good negotiator is the one who has an attribute of “An observant mind, a spirit of application which refuses to be distracted by pleasures or frivolous amusements, a social judgment which takes the measure of things as they are, and goes straight to its goals by the shortest and most natural path” (De callieresis, 1716). Niale and Bazerman (1985) and Bazermman, et al., (1985) found that the manner in which an issue is presented to negotiators significantly determined whether the task shall be viewed as either maximizing gains or minimizing losses. Similarly, it determined the possibility of getting as solution to our impasse. At the end of the day, it can be realized that our negotiations followed a process and was approached in a variety of ways. The success of our negotiation outcome was as a result of our ability to consider all the basics of the circumstances and establish appropriate options. It was also as a result of keeping actions in perspective and being honest to the other party. Our team strived to capitalize on a common ground and shunned from considering the other side as an opponent. We ultimately devised a solution that led to a win- win outcome, where both parties benefited. References Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. London: Basic books Alberto, L. (1998). Negotiations Secret. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 35,294-313. Bazerman, M., Magliozzi, T., & Neale, M. (1985). Integrating bargaining in a competitive market. Organizational behavior and human decisions processes, 35,294-313. Davis, G. (1993). Public policy in Australia. Sydney: Allen and uwnwin De Callieres, F. (1716). On the manner of negotiating with princes. New Haven: Yale university press Douglas, S., Bruce, P. & Sheila, H. (1999). Foreword by Roger Fisher, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most. Penguin, 14, 28-40 Faure, O., & Rubin, J. (1993). Culture and negotiation: the resolution of water disputes. New York: Penguin Books Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating Agreements without giving in. New York: Penguin Books Habeeb, W. (1988). Power and tactics in international negotiations. New York: Penguin Lax, D. (1986). The manager as negotiator. New York: Free Press Lax, D. & Sebenius, J. (2006). Negotiation. London: Harvard Business School Press, Lewicki, A. (2003). Symmetry and asymmetry in international negotiations. New York: McGraw-hill. Neale, M., & Bazerman, M. (1985). The effects of farming and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of management journal, 28, 34-49. Roger, D. (1999). Secrets of Power Negotiating - Inside Secrets from a Master Negotiator. London: Career Press. Roger, F., & Shapiro, D. (2005 ) Beyond Reason: using emotions as you negotiate. London: Viking/Penguin. Ronald, M., Shapiro, P. & Mark, A. (1998). Integrating bargaining in a competitive market. The Power of Nice: How to Negotiate So Everyone Wins - Especially You!, 471, 80-72 Walton, R., & McKersie, R. (1965). A Behavioral theory of labor negotiations: an analysis of social interaction system. New York: McGraw-hill Wondwosen, M. (2006). Negotiation: a concept note. Rome: Mimeo. Zartman, W. (1978). The 50% solution: how bargaining successfully with hijackers, strikers, bosses, oil magnates, Arabs, Russians, and other worthy opponents in this modern word. New York: Garden city Zatman, W., & Berman, M. (1982). The negotiator. New Haven: Yale university press Read More