Whether Being Proactive Influences Negotiation Outcome to Favour a Proactive Party - Coursework Example

Topic of discussion: If you are proactive about strategic choice, you are much more likely to get what you want than if you wait for the other to initiate action Student name: Student number: Course code: Tutor’s name: Date: A discussion on whether being proactive influences negotiation outcome to favour a proactive party Negotiation according to Cairns (1996) is a process of compromise in the sense that the involved parties have different sets of objectives, values and interests that they bring to the table. Ma and Jaeger (2010) give a more business perspective on negotiations, they define negotiations as a process through which two or more parties exchange commodities and agree on their exchange rate. From these two definitions it can be seen that every party gets into a negotiation process not only hopeful but convinced to emerge victorious in having their interests prevail. In this sense then it would be right to agree with the statement that “if you are proactive about strategic choice, you are much more likely to get what you want than if you wait for the other to initiate action”. The specific reasons as regards this contentment are; being proactive and assertiveness in a negotiations can result in distributive gains in the sense that an assertive party will most probably get a larger share of the deal, assertiveness also leads to a situation where both parties can determine each others interests and thus arrive at higher point of mutual benefit, assertiveness leads to a situation where both parties respect each others independence of opinions and position on the negotiation table leading to better economic outcomes (Ma & Jaeger, 2010). In light of these argument, this paper seeks to analyse the existing literature review and offer a convincing argument as to why being proactive and assertive in a negotiation can result in much better outcomes than reacting to the other party’s offer. This shall be achieved through an exhaustive review or relevant literature under the respective topics below. Being proactive leads to bigger distributive gains. Distributive gains are the positive outcomes of a negotiation process that a party can consider as success on its side. When one gets into negotiations and proactively states a their position as regards the matter at hand, the other party maybe forced to reconsider what it had intended to offer when it’s open that a lower offer is not in any way something expected of the proactive party (Hargrove, 2010). It can be equated to a bargaining process where the party introducing the bargaining starts by quoting higher price than what the party may consider fair. The other party will only negotiate to lower the price not knowing that eventually the deal shall be struck where the introducing party intended it to be (Gates, 2006). The same applies to negotiations where assertiveness may raise the expectations of a better outcome by an expression of “we are not settling for a cheap deal”. According to Ogilvie & Kidder (2008) if a party in negotiation doesn’t adopt a tough or hard stance then it is possible for the other to control the negotiation basing on the fact that the weaker party cannot set the agenda. It is vital then that a party analyses its strength as it goes into negotiation and analyses the prospects of showing a strong proactive and assertive approach into the negotiation in order not to appear weak. Assuming a hardliner approach to negotiations maybe viewed as arrogance in some cultures especially the Asian cultures which include the Chinese culture, it however is the norm in most western countries where tough negotiators or negotiators who are more concerned about winning, are glorified (Ma & Jaeger, 2010). These negotiators will always seek to dominate the negotiations by adopting a proactive approach where they set the terms and the targets that should be met for there to be an agreement. This approach gains benefits to the party only if the other party adopts a cooperative attitude towards thyme negotiations. It may however become impossible to reach an agreement if the other party also adopts an assertive approach which has been adopted by the proactive party as well (Fells, 2010; Ma & Jaeger, 2010). This is a pointer to the need to assess the stance taken by the other party in as much as being proactive is associated with aggressiveness and the need to win by all means available. Being proactive enables a party to identify what is of interest to both parties While the old approach to defining negotiation has been one of loosing or gaining, the modern approach tends to be biased towards leading the argument into a win-win situation where both parties’ interests are taken care of when an amicable agreement is reached during negotiations (Ashcroft, 2004). By being proactive a party will be able to analyze what is the best outcome for them and also for the other party. Daniels (1998) argues that such knowledge will help the party realize what it can compromise on in order to give a sense of fairness as far as the interests of both parties are concerned. Manning & Robertson (2004) also believe that the party will also identify some of the goals or specific targets of the negotiations which it cannot afford to compromise on. These are the factors or conditions in negotiations which determine whether a deal shall be struck. If they are not fulfilled in the agreement then the deal is not done yet. By being proactive and assertive at the same time means that a party will identify both parties’ interests and move towards achieving integrative outcomes where both parties emerge as winners. It is important to note that all the parties in negotiations come into the table to win and not to lose (Gates, 2006). If a “I win, you lose” attitude is adopted by either party then an agreement from the negotiations will not materialize (Newall, 2006). it is vital then to acknowledge that being proactive is just a tactic to show just what kind of result you expect from negotiations it however should be construed as your official position which you hoper to defend aggressively through out the negotiation, contrary to that being proactive means you have analyzed the whole situation and come up with a formula that will be mutually beneficial and not necessarily meant to advance your interests as a party in the negotiations. If parties remain unassertive and reactive to issues during negotiations, then they will not be able to reach a higher level of agreement where both parties enjoy much better benefits or integrative benefits in the sense that everybody does not let the other party realize what is important for them in the negotiation process (Cairns, 1996). Being proactive leads to enhanced respect for opinions and position during and after the negotiation process Being proactive during negotiations shows that as a matter of fact that you something that you intend to pursue. The other party will handle the negotiations in a respectable manner by treating you as an equal party in the negotiations even though your stance may appear aggressive. It would however be the other way round if at all one waits for action from the other party. It will appear that the other party is superior in the kind of relationship that exists and as such can control the rhythm of the negotiations and influence the final outcome (Manning & Robertson, 2004). It is possible then that the negotiation will be disadvantageous to a party that is largely reactive and only responds to the offer presented by another party which monopolizes the negotiations on the basis of taking an action to invite the other party to the table to discuss a situation under their terms or goodwill (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008). If a party shows they are proactive in addressing issues affecting them, it sends a clear sign to the other party that even in the future the same can happen. It will then influence the relationship between the parties in terms of respect and adherence to the agreement reached since breaching it may result in unwanted round of agitation from the proactive party (Ogilvie & Kidder, 2008). Argument against being proactive during negotiations Being proactive especially in choosing a strategic course of actions to influence negotiations can be viewed as a very important trait for an individual or approach for an institution, however research has shown that this kind of approach when it comes in negotiations comes with its fair share of disadvantages that warrant the attention of negotiating parties, first the approach does not fit well with some cultures especially Spanish culture and Asian cultures. The Asian cultures according to Ma & Jaeger (2010) believe in parties getting on the table and negotiating on a level field as opposed to a more domineering proactive approach which is seen as largely individualistic that will favor only one side. Instead, it is acceptable to come on the table and discussions be reached about what is mutually beneficial to all parties without showing any signs of intending to benefit at the expense of the other party (Ma & Jaeger, 2010). Secondly, the approach may achieve goals during for the first time, however going forward it may not be business as usual since the other party may be will to severe the ties that form the relationship after it appears you are very aggressive and obsessed with self interests and not much on mutually benefiting relationship. Newall (2006) believes that it is only in relationships where one party is extremely strong that a proactive stand may apply but when it comes to relationships where all the parties are on a level playing field, no party would want to be dominated by the other. Both would want to assert themselves in equal measure and as such a proactive approach may not be preferred approach to strategy choice. Conclusion As can be seen from the argument above if you are proactive about strategic choice, you are much more likely to get what you want than if you wait for the other to initiate action. This has been justified with the benefits that a party sets to gain from being proactive such as enjoying better distributive gains, integrative gains and respect from the other party. It is therefore right to agree with the argument if at all a party wants to emerge victorious in a negotiation process. It should however not be construed as an unethical way to pursue interests in a negotiation process, as we have seen that it actually results to better integrative gains for both parties when they both understand their interests and how to come to a common round where both parties benefit. This approach may however not fit well in some situations where the culture does not tolerate aggressive and assertive behaviour and as such being pro active may be viewed as going against unspoken societal norms. If both parties are aggressive too it may make the negotiations be unfruitful. References Ashcroft, S. 2004. Commercial negotiation skills. Industrial and Commercial Training , 36 (6), pp229-233. Cairns, L. 1996. Negotiation skills in the workplace: a practical handbook. Pluto Press. Daniels, S. 1998. Closing the deal. Work Study , 47 (2), pp56-58. Fells, R. 2010. Effective Negotiation: From Research to Results. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Gates, S. 2006. Time to take negotiation seriously. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING , 38 (5), pp238-241. Hargrove, S. 2010. Interest-based bargaining: achieving relationships through collaboration. Library Management , 31 (4/5), pp229-240. Ma, Z., & Jaeger, A. 2010. A comparative study of the influence of assertivenes on negotiation outcomes in Canada and China. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal , 17 (4), pp333-346. Manning, T., & Robertson, B. 2004. Influencing negotiating skills and coflict-handling: some additional research and reflections. Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol 36 , pp104-109. Newall, I. 2006. Is win-win just pie in the sky? Strategic Direction , 22 (6), pp3-5. Ogilvie, J., & Kidder, D. 2008. What about negotiator styles? International Journal of Conflict Management , 19 (2), pp132-147. Read More