How to Negotiate

Negotiations The author of this report is to offer a real-world example of a situation where a workplace was in turmoil and negotiations were necessary to get things to change. The changes required the coalescing of a group and that overall process will be described and covered.

The items and factors that will be described will include the underlying problem or difference, the parties or sides in the conflict, which side was correct and which one was not, how the problem was negotiated to a conclusion, whether the overall negotiations were effective and worthwhile, whether and how proposals were offered and dealt with, what the relations were between the two sides and so forth.

Finally, the author of this report was a voice on one of the sides and thus will explain what could or should have been done differently to help things along a bit better. While the negotiations and outcomes in this matter were not perfect, the overall outcome and resolution was positive and worth the effort (Van Wanrooy, 2009; Shachar, 2011; OHRD, 2015). Questions Answered The organization in question is rather large but the group in question that had the issues that had to be negotiated was rather small, roughly only a dozen.

The squabble that existed was between the handful of managers who saw things one way and the crew members who saw things another way. At issue were a few things. The issues included work/life balance, employees being treated as if they were guilty and to be interrogated if anyone said anything cross (no matter how silly), work load being a smidge beyond ridiculous and the lack of headcount present or deemed to be needed as compared to the work that needed to be done.

Management, on the other hand, viewed the status quo as not being that bad and that the employees just needed to leverage their coworkers and colleagues in a better fashion. The chosen side by the author of this report is much more the former than the latter. As for the preparations that took place, the people on the employee side had a meeting that did not include any of the management.

It was verified and covered what the major concerns were and what would (and would not) be brought up when a meeting of the minds took place. A person that would be the "voice" of the group was assigned and it was agreed that the selected person would do all of the talking as allowing more than once voice on either side would probably lead to emotionally charged conversations and/or hurt feelings (Van Wanrooy, 2009; Shachar, 2011; OHRD, 2015).

There were not any emotional exchanges in the negotiations themselves but there certainly were some in the days and weeks leading up to that meeting, thus proving the needed for said meeting. The meeting itself was quite tense due to this, at least on the employee side. The manage side seemed concerned but did not seem convinced (at least at first) that there was some legitimacy to the complaints that were being levied. However, the tide seemed to turn as the meeting went on.

Most (but not all) of the proposals made were made by the employees and most of them were tabled for further review and discussion by management. There was not any outright "no's" directed to the employees but it seemed that there was a bit of stalling or pushback directed towards the employees as it relates to this matter (Van Wanrooy, 2009; Shachar, 2011; OHRD, 2015). The negotiations were effective in that it made the issues quite clear without emotion and anger being unnecessarily injected into the discussion.

The tension was certainly there but there was a voice to the tension and everything was done constructively. As such, the overall results were quite good. The results of the negotiations were more of a start to a resolution rather than an immediate fix-all. However, the group is used to that being the case with the organization and thus this was not a big surprise or shock. Indeed, it is just part of the process (Van Wanrooy, 2009; Shachar, 2011; OHRD, 2015).

Being that the writer of this report was the "voice" of the side of the employees, there are a few things that could have been done a bit better. First, examples in the form of emails and so forth that show that employees are being treated with disdain or mistrust with no good reason should have been shown as exhibits to lay bare the fact that there was substance to the accusations being made.

Second, there would have been more of an emphasis on the idea that it is not about getting even or getting anyone in trouble. Rather, it is more about leveling the playing field, making the job more palatable and easier to accept and progress with than it.