Negotiation strategies in conflict resolution

Negotiating a Conflict

When a conflict is negotiated, the persons involved in the conflict agree on certain rules. These rules include the idea that the parties will not avoid the conflict but engage in it actively. Domination will be shunned, and each will be willing to explore options with the other. Negotiation provides a middle ground in which the parties can talk and work together to settle their dispute peacefully without force or violence. How the conflict participants communicate is crucial to the negotiation. The communication tactics that are chosen are subject to the rules of the negotiation. The goal, of course, is settle the dispute (Hocker & Wilmot, 2007).

Many people view negotiation as always a win/lose process in which one party gets the upper hand over the other and wins everything. Often the "loser" loses face as a result, and because losing face is a universally painful experience, hard feelings hang on afterward. Mature negotiation requires that both parties understand clearly what the problem is. Arguing should reflect concern on the part of both to preserve the relationship and not damage it. Each party should be able to express his or her feelings in the matter, which may change and become more complex during the process.

In traditional competitive negotiations, the struggle is dominated by self-interest and often antagonism. Resources are viewed as limited with not enough to go around, and it is assumed they will be distributed unequally -- either one party or the other will get them. Little thought is given to the consequences that will come about as a result of the outcome. The goal is to win as much as possible and get more than the other.

Competitive bargaining assumes that whatever you win, the other side loses. Because of this the participants will often keep secrets from each other so that the other party will not be able to predict their responses. Meanwhile each tries to learn as much as possible about the other hoping that they can use the information against the other party. The communication pattern involves starting high, making concessions slowly, exaggerating how much you are giving up, concealing crucial information, arguing forcefully with threats and a confrontational style, and holding out as long as it takes to make the other side give in. The person who is adept at competitive negotiating will insist that he or she cannot possibly give up anymore, that he/she is not open to any more persuasion or concessions, and the only way to end the dispute is for the other person to concede. it's like a non-violent war in which the participants present a strong defense and stay continually on the offensive (Hocker & Wilmot, 2007).

Although this is a very common style of negotiation, a lot of negative consequences occur as a result of negotiating this way. Coercion and emotional pressure makes for mistrust, anger, and sometimes a breakdown in the negotiations. Communication gets distorted while misinformation and misjudgment increases. The parties cannot be open or truthful with each other because they must remain on the defensive all the time. Because the parties are relying on confrontation and manipulation to control the process, it is difficult to predict how the other will respond. The relationship is seen as secondary -- winning is everything -- which places the relationship in jeopardy. The competitive approach can be an appropriate way to negotiate if the parties don't expect ever to have a relationship with each other again -- for example, a malpractice lawsuit where it makes sense to win everything you can at the other party's expense (Hocker & Wilmot, 2007, p. 213).

Collaborative negotiation, on the other hand, has a whole different set of assumptions. It assumes, for example, that each party will have some interests different from the other, but they will also share some common interests. Moreover, both parties can "win" and gain something. Creativity is valued in this form of negotiation as a way to come up with new ideas that will allow both parties to feel satisfied. In other words, the win/lose aspect of competitive negotiation is shunned, and it is assumed that the needs of both parties can be met. The communication in a collaborative negotiation reflects this assumption. In order to find out what the real interests and needs of both sides are, the participants must listen closely to each other. Often negotiations begin with a frank discussion of common interests and what will benefit both. The interdependence of each upon the other is acknowledged. The negotiators transcend the idea of "not enough" limited resources, as each party expresses personal preferences. This allows more equitable distribution. The goal of collaborative negotiation is to reach a mutually acceptable solution and one that is fair to everyone involved. The relationship between the parties will be intact at the end of the process.

Collaborative negotiation has a different set of communication patterns. First, each party will try to maximize the benefit to him/herself and look for any joint gains that are available. The parties' common interests will be the focus as each tries to understand the other's needs as well. A non-confrontational style of communication will be used. Both sides will remain open to persuasion on substantive issues. The goal will be to reach a fair and durable agreement.

Some specific strategies that collaborative negotiators use include altering the parties' perception of the resources. it's called expanding the pie. If Jane wants a beach vacation and John wants to gamble, they can go to Florida where Jane can sun herself and John can find a number of gambling opportunities. In other words, it doesn't have to be one or the other (or win/lose). Another strategy is to find something that you have that the other values and offer to make a trade for what you want. This is called the process of nonspecific compensation. One of the parties gets "paid off" with an alternative form of compentsation. Logrolling is another strategy in which each party gets what is most important and gives in on what is least important. Bridging is a strategy that involves finding ways to meet the other's needs or interests.