Management Activity During the Simulation Exercise - Example

Human resource management During the simulation exercise, we worked in two groups with one acting as the management while the other as the employees. My group acted as the employer whiles the other one as the employees. The three conditions we tackled are: Leave Entitlements Annual leave Annual leave loading Parental leave Hours and Organization of work Ordinary hours of work Flex time Overtime Productivity Measures Incentive Scheme Wage increases Renegotiation and length of agreement During the bargaining, we encountered some hurdles which required great expertise in negotiation skills. The employees’ side posed challenges which helped us figure out our strengths and weaknesses in this sector. As a negotiator, I learnt that I am good in handling soft negotiations where the participants are friends who are working towards an agreement. In my bid to make concessions towards cultivating relationships, I tend to be soft on people and the problem, change positions easily and find out solutions that will be easily accepted. While yielding to pressure may seem awkward, I insist on agreement rather than a contest. I avoid conflicts and contests since they lead to positional negotiations which result in unwise agreements that ignore the underlying concerns of the parties (Giorgio,Ilario, 2011). In the case above, I separated the People from the Problem. This is because negotiators on both sides of the issue brought emotion, perceptions, and values to the negotiations. Misunderstandings and personal perceptions of “facts” of negotiation could lead to reactions that produce counter-reactions that would have led to failure of negotiation. Since the conflict lies in each side’s view of the problem, the ability to see the circumstances as the other side sees it is one of the most important skills I used. Understanding other side’s point does not mean agreeing with it. One way I dealt with differing perceptions was to make them explicit and discuss them (Ira, Sandy, 2001). In handling emotions, I recognized and understood emotions—ours and theirs. This was done by Identifying the source of emotions and making emotions clear and acknowledge them as rightful. In case the other party boils up I would allow them to let off steam. Listening without responding and not reacting to emotional outbursts gave me an upper hand in the exercise. These skills made the rest see me as a good negotiator who knows when to make conciliations and tradeoffs (John, Brant, 2003). My persuasion skills were tested in this exercise; I employed listening actively by acknowledging what other side was saying. Acknowledgement did not mean agreement. I avoided debates and insisted on talking which involved talking about the company its purpose, not about them. I felt most competent when negotiating the leave entitlements, least competent while handling the productivity measures especially the incentive scheme (Giorgio, Ilario, 2011). When I have power in a situation, I responded by helping the other side understands how significant and legitimate the company’s interests are. I remained specific and set forth the seriousness of the company’s concerns, without implying other side’s interests are unimportant. I also acknowledged their interests as part of the problem by demonstrating the understanding of their interests and highlighting shared interests. Finally I was concrete, yet flexible, while not tied to a position; I was committed to the interests and remained flexible to solution that satisfies interests. When I have little or no power in the situation, I invented options for mutual gain. I discovered four major obstacles that inhibit invention of these options: Premature judgment; searching for the single answer; assumption of a fixed pie and thinking that solving the problem is their problem (John, Brant, 2003). As a negotiator, my major strength is clarity. I achieve this by making my points to be clearly understood by the other party. Another of my strongest strengths is preparation. I have always taken the time to prepare. If that means working late into the night I will do it. My most horrible nightmare is to be caught off guard and not know or comprehend my clear position. I don't like surprises and this helps me to be extremely effective (John, Brant, 2003). My major weakness is the way I change positions easily so that I avoid conflicts and keep the emotions of the other party intact. Behavior of others in this experience was varied; some had percentages of threats and warnings, and even more interruptions and eye contact. Another group made use of positive promises, recommendations, and commitments. Predominantly indicative of their polite spoken style was their infrequent use of no and you and facial gazing, as well as more recurrent silent periods. Among the other party use of self-disclosures was minimal, while maintaining protocol (Ira, Sandy, 2001). From this situation, I have learnt on how to handle conflicts by bargaining. I came up with five ways to do this. The first way is accommodation. This is simply using kindness to handle the other party. It is giving way one's needs and wants for the contentment of another. This works well in taming situations of all kinds, whether clients, potential employers, or love interests. It is the tactic of choice when the relationship is the most significant element. Secondly, the method of avoidance which involves the flight part of "fight or flight." It is the practice of ignoring or postponing clash. This can be useful as a momentary measure but it never resolves the trouble. Sometimes, however, there is no way to win and it is best to just slash your losses. The third method is collaboration which is the act of two or more people functioning together to achieve more than the summation of the individual parts. This is what people mean when they refer to "win/win"(Ira, Sandy, 2001). . However it needs trust and clear communication to work. Therefore, it is time and work concentrated to attain. The forth method is competition which is the fight part of "fight or flight." It is the method of trying to do better than others or at others' expense. Sometimes, however, a shortage exists and survival of the fittest, strongest, etc. is the only way to go. Lastly is the method of compromise which employs a quick disagreement settlement process in which two or more sides concur to accept less than they originally wanted. This is also called "split the difference." It is less than finest as a resolution strategy since it requires each side to give up things that are important. It is a good backup approach (John, Brant, 2003). A common failing when there is a dissimilarity of opinion or goals is to harass the opposing person while attacking the opposite position, especially if the attack is humiliating. It will unfailingly have unconstructive outcomes in both decisions making and bargaining. In the future, I will separate the people from the problem. Some of the ways I intend to use are: The use of principled bargaining, which may engage strong comments about the substantive issues. It is only human nature that these, on time, are taken as personal attacks, generating emotions that obstruct communication. A good rapport can be a vaccine in opposition to communication blockages. But the relationship needs to be developed early in the game, just as a vaccine works best before disclosure to the disease. I will do this by chatting in a friendly way during the breaks. On more important issues, I may ask for and get a "book" on the other side that includes background and interests, to ease building a good relationship (John, Brant, 2003). In the heat up of battle, it is easy to view the challenger as a personal enemy, as opposed to an individual who is just doing a job. As an effective negotiator i will have to get inside the heads of my opponents so I can see the issues as they do. From the opponent's frame of reference, many things will be clear: why a given point is held so fiercely, where the vulnerabilities lay, where there are misgivings, and where there may be unsighted spots. As emotions rise, the heat of battle is truly felt by all. And while as a principled negotiator I would not launch invective toward the other side, the other side might not be so principled. I will try to learn how to manage my emotions in such situations as an experienced negotiator. I already understand that emotions are inevitable. I will skillfully and strategically turn anger on and can turn it off for end product, while at the same time avoid the blow and counterblow that get out of control. The heart of communication is the spread of meaning. Much communication in positional bargaining fails since meaning is not clearly transmitted. Where the bargain is positional, one may want to be careful about the direction of communication. If the bargaining is positional, the negotiator who gets "inside the other negotiator's head" has a competitive advantage. I will thus employ active listening, allowing the other person to talk more- and thus reveal more. Listening with interest to what the other party has to say pays dividends, I will be getting valuable information about his/her position and intentions, without giving away my own" (Ira, Sandy, 2001). After establishing a positive relationship with the other negotiator, the only remaining ingredient for principled bargaining will be finding shared interests that can serve as the common ground for generating creative options. In future I will make use of the above procedures (Giorgio, Ilario, 2011). References Giorgio C. Ilario F., (2011), the Economics of Small Businesses: An International Perspective Volume 0 of Contributions to Economics; Springer. Ira A., Sandy A., (2001), Negotiation Sourcebook-2nd Ed; Human Resource Development John O. G., Brant R. B., (2003), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills LEA's communication series; Rout ledge Read More