Undertaking a Successful Negotiation Process in a Labor Union

Negotiation refers to the conversation between several parties with the aim of resolving their differences, reaching an understanding, gaining advantage, or designing outcomes that satisfy the interests of either party. Negotiation happens within government branches, businesses, and legal proceedings, non-profit organizations, and among nations. Drastic situations include personal situations like marriage, parenting, and divorce. The following study evaluates and describes the subject, theory and practice of negotiation (Fells, 2012). The essay takes considerable references to professional negotiators such as leverage buyout negotiators, union negotiators, hostage negotiators, peace negotiators, legislators, brokers, or diplomats.

Strategies

Negotiation takes various forms including trained negotiators acting for certain organizations or positions within formal settings and in informal negotiations such as between friends. Negotiation is contrasted through mediation for illustrations where neutral third parties listen to the arguments of each side and help in designing agreements between such parties. The action is comparable to arbitration, as it resembles legal proceedings. Arbitration involves both sides making arguments aimed at quantifying the merits of each case for the arbitrator deciding on the outcomes. Such negotiations are called hard-bargaining or positional negotiation (Guasco & Robinson, 2007). Theorists in negotiation distinguish between various types of negotiation. The application of negotiation takes different labels within generalized types as well as distinguished ways of presenting ideas.

Distributive Negotiation

Distributive negotiation is hard-bargaining or positional negotiation and aims at developing models of market haggling. Distributive negotiation from each side adopts extreme positions with knowledge of unacceptable outcomes as well as employed combinations of bluffing, risk-taking, and guile to cede prior reaching a deal. The distributive bargainers for the conception of negotiation based on processes of distributing and fixed value amount. The distributive perspective implies that a finite amount is divided or distributed among people's involvement (Garrett, 2005). This approach to negotiation refers to the distribution for fixed pie. There are elements that the proportions for distribution for variations involved. Distributive negotiation acts as win-lose due to the assumption for personal gains and results from other people's losses. Distributive negotiations do not involve people without previous interactive relationships.

Integrative Negotiation

Integrative negotiation is sometimes popularized as principled or interest-based negotiation. The context of negotiation involves sets of techniques for attempting to improve likelihood and quality of the negotiated agreement through the provision of alternatives to traditional techniques on distributive negotiation. Even as distributive negotiation assumes fixed value amount, to be shared among the parties, the approach to integrative negotiation attempts to generate value through the negotiation (Falcao, 2012). The context focuses on underlying interests for the parties as compared to arbitrary starting positions where approaches to negotiation are shared problems as compared to personalized battles. The individuals insist on adherence to main objective as well as principled criteria for the agreement basis. Integrative negotiation involves higher levels of trust used in forming relationships. It involves problem solving in creative ways aimed at achieving mutual gains and is sometimes termed as a 'win-win' negotiation (Fells, 2012).

Tactics

There are different approaches to categorization of essential negotiation elements. Three basic elements in the classification include process, behavior and substance (Benoliel, 2011). Behavior includes the relationships between the parties and communication styles adopted during negotiations. Substance means the parties' interest to negotiate for an agenda, issues (positions and interests), options, and agreement reached. The other perspective of negotiation comprises four elements: strategy, process, tools, and tactics. Strategy includes top-level goals that focus on relationships and outcomes (Garrett, 2005). The tools and processes include steps geared towards following roles taken within preparation and negotiation with various parties. Tactics in this case comprise of more detailed actions and statements as well as responses among actions and statements. Various parties aim at persuasion and influence through assertion of the integral elements as modern day success in negotiation.

Other forms of negotiations require different tactics. The distributive approach requires negotiators battle for largest possible share. It makes it appropriate between various limits of respect to other side like adversaries compared to partners taking harder lines. The context is less appropriate where the ideas were aimed at hammering out arrangements that suit the best interests of each side. Good agreements do not only focus on maximum profit, but also optimum gain. It also means that negotiators should not give up their advantage without any gain. Cooperative attitudes regularly pay, and the gains are not at expense of others (Starkey, Boyer & Wilkenfeld, 2010).

Skilled negotiators use various tactics that range from negotiation hypnosis all the way to straightforward demands presentation that include setting of preconditions. In other cases, deceptive approaches may include cherry picking. Salami and intimidation tactics are also included in swaying the negotiations' outcomes. The other tactic in negotiation is a good guy / bad guy approach. The tactic is favorable when negotiators act like bad guys and use threats and anger (Falcao, 2012). The alternative negotiator is a good guy and is relatively understanding and considerate. Good guys blame bad guys for the difficulties as they try to get agreement and concessions from the opponent.

Integrative Perspective Negotiation Taking

Perspective taking is helpful in several occasions that help self-centered negotiators in seeking mutually beneficial solutions. It also includes increment in likelihood for logrolling as well as favor traded for each other such as the quid pro quo. Social motivation increases the scope of the party conceding to negotiations (Guasco & Robinson, 2007). On the other hand, concession forms a mandatory component for negotiations while research illustrates that people conceding more quickly, are not likely to explore mutually beneficial and integrative solutions. In such cases, conceding lowers the chances of integrative negotiation (Starkey, Boyer & Wilkenfeld, 2010).

Negotiation Styles

There are various styles and responses to negotiation. The strategies are frequently described across literature where actions are based on dual-concern models. Dual concern conflict resolution models are perspectives assuming an individuals' preferred method to deal with certain conflicts based on themes such as assertiveness (concern for self) and empathy (concern for others). The model emphasizes that individuals continue balancing their concerns with personal interests and needs against others' needs and interests. The styles are based on preferences of individuals with respect to their pro-social or pro-self goals. The styles changes with time and individuals for having strong dispositions to numerous styles (Starkey, Boyer & Wilkenfeld, 2010).

For accommodative contexts, individuals enjoy solutions of problems of other parties and preservation of personal relationships. Accommodators have been sensitive for body language, verbal signals, and emotional states for other parties. However, they feel exploited for situations and other party places as well as for the relationship. For avoidance, individuals without preference of negotiating and do not attempt through unless warranted. Negotiations involving such avoiding elements focus on tending for deferring and dodging for confrontational negotiating aspects (Falcao, 2012). However, such individual support their perceptions through tactful and diplomatic techniques. In Collaboration, individuals enjoying negotiations involving solving of tough problems and creative ways are preferred. Collaborators prefer using negotiations as a way of understanding the interests and concerns of other parties. However, problems may arise through the transformation of simple situations to complex ones. In competitive scenarios, individuals enjoying negotiations are based on the presentation of opportunities of winning various items.

Competitive negotiators develop strong instincts based on various negotiation aspects and are normally strategic (Fells, 2012). The fact their approaches dominate bargaining processes, competitive negotiators neglect the relevance of relationships. In compromising, parties with eagerness of closing a deal through doing equal and fair actions in various parties involve the negotiation. In the end, compromisers are useful in limiting the time to completing the undertaking. However, compromisers unnecessarily rush negotiation processes and make quick concessions (Starkey, Boyer & Wilkenfeld, 2010).

Types of Negotiators

The major kinds of negotiators identified by researchers include soft bargainers, principled bargainers, and hard bargainers. Soft people perceive negotiation as close competition, and they choose gentle bargaining styles. The alternative offers include making progress based on best interests while yielding others' demands, avoiding confrontation and maintaining good relations with other negotiators. The perception of such friendships is inclusive of the goals of the agreement. Such individuals do not separate people from problems but are soft to each (Cleary, 2000).

Hard people utilize contentious strategies as a way of influencing. They use phrases like the 'final offer' and threats, as they are distrustful of others. Most of them insist on one position while applying undue pressure in negotiation. They perceive others as adversaries as well as ultimate goals of victory. They search for single answers while insisting on consent and agreement. They refrain from separating people from problems as they are hard on all people and problems involved (Mehnert, 2008).

Principled individuals bargain in ways that seek to achieve integrative solutions through sidestepping commitment to various positions. The critical focus includes focusing on the problem as compared to motives, needs, and intentions of individuals involved. The essence of separation involves people from such problems, exploring interests, avoiding bottom lines and reaching results through standards independent of personal will. The negotiators base their options on objective criteria as compared to the power, self-interest, pressure, and arbitrary decisional procedures (Gates, 2011).

Nonverbal Communication

Communication is an important component of negotiation. Effective forms of negotiation require that parties have effective ways of conveying and interpreting information. All participants within the negotiation communicate information both verbally and non-verbally through gestures and body language. The understanding of how impacts of nonverbal communication allow negotiators to have a better interpretation of information from other participants leaked through non-verbal means. The essence is to keep secret of the things that inhibit abilities to negotiate (Benoliel, 2011). During negotiations, a party may gain advantage through expressing their position first through verbal means.

The "anchoring" approach to one's position allows them to establish a position that such negotiation proceeds. It is such an approach that one "anchors" and gains advantage based on body language (non-verbal) queues. The person within the table's head forms a symbol of power. Negotiators repel such strategic advantage through positioning allies within rooms that surround the individual. It is prudent to start the negotiation using enthusiasm and positive gestures. Negotiators look their opponents in the eye with absolute sincerity. For those who have trouble maintaining eye contact, other persons think that they are hiding something or are insincere (Cleary, 2000).

Being in a position of reading non-verbal communication of other persons has significant gains for the communication process. Having increased awareness of inconsistencies across people's non-verbal and verbal communication as well as reconciling them allows negotiators to come up with better resolutions (Starkey, Boyer & Wilkenfeld, 2010). Illustrations of body language incongruity include a nervous Laugh that does not match the situation. The concept is a nervousness or discomfort sign. Immediately this happens, it is good to impact questions aimed at discovering the true feelings of the person (Mehnert, 2008). Positive words followed by negative body language include situations where individuals ask of negotiation partners if they fee annoyed and such person responds in the negative. Hands that are raised in a clenched position show that a person raising hands in such an angle reveal frustration even with the smiles. The signal illustrates that such persons do it through holding back negative attitudes.

Whenever possible, it is helpful for the negotiation partners to continue spending time together across comfortable settings away from negotiation rooms (Mehnert, 2008). The knowledge of how such partners communicate non-verbally outside the negotiation setting helps negotiation partners sense incongruity between non-verbal and verbal communication for similar negotiation settings. Receptive negotiators have constant smiles and have increased eye contact. The element conveys the perception that increased interest is seen with the person as compared to what is said. Non-receptive negotiators do not make sufficient eye contact. The eyes could be squinted; head turned from the speaker and jaw muscles clenched. While showing the receptivity, negotiators open hands and spread arms on the table or relax them on lap (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004).

Negotiators showing poor receptivity have their hands crossed, clenched, or rubbing theirs neck. Receptive negotiators take sitting positions of legs together and the other slightly in front. While standing, the negotiators distribute their weight evenly while placing hands on hips and body tilted towards the audience. Non-receptive negotiators have their legs crossed and pointed away from speakers. Receptive negotiators take sitting position on the chair edges unbutton suit coats and the bodies tilted to the speaker. The non-receptive negotiators lean back from their chair while keeping their suit coat tight and buttoned. Receptive negotiators appear relaxed and have their palms visibly displayed and hands open (Frascogna & Hetherington, 2009).

Emotion

Emotions have significant impacts on in the process of the negotiation process even though they their impacts range in different angles. Emotions have the potential of playing positive or negative elements in a negotiation. In negotiations, any decisions on whether to settle are based on emotional factors. Negative emotions have the potential of causing intense and irrational behavior that cause escalation of conflicts and breakdown of negotiations. However, there are instrumental contributions made towards attaining concessions (Fisher & Ury, 2012). Positive emotions facilitate the attainments of agreements while helping in maximization of joint gains while developing capacity to attain concessions. Positive and negative emotions can be strategic approaches to displaying influence on tasks and relational outcomes playing out in different levels of cultural boundaries (Starkey, Boyer & Wilkenfeld, 2010).

Dispositional emotional elements affect various negotiation process stages. The strategies planned out for application determine the outcomes of actual choice and ways in which other parties and their intentions are perceived. The level of willingness is based on the need to reach agreements and final negotiated outcomes. The element of positive affectivity and negative affectivity of the negotiating sides leads to different outcomes (Cohen, 2007). Prior the start of a negotiation process, people within positive moods bear more confidence as well as higher tendencies of using cooperative strategies. Such negotiation allows parties with positive moods to enjoy such interactions while showing less contentious behavior.

Negotiators can use more cooperative strategies and less aggressive tactics. This increases the possibility that parties reach instrumental goals while enhancing the ability of finding integrative gains. The comparison with negotiators has natural or negative affectivity while negotiators with heightened positive affectivity reach agreements while honoring such agreements. The favorable outcomes are based on better processes of decision-making including flexible thinking, respect for people's perspectives, creative problem-solving, higher confidence, and willingness to take risks (Fisher & Ury, 2012). The positive effect on negotiation has acceptable consequences as it increases the levels of satisfaction with the achieved outcomes while influencing the desire to have future interactions. Positive emotions aroused by attained agreement facilitate dyadic relationships that amount to affective commitment setting stage for diversified interactions. The concept of emotions also presents drawbacks while distorting perception for self-performance in ways that performance can be judged through relatively better elements than current studies that involve self-reports and biased outcomes (Starkey, Boyer & Wilkenfeld, 2010).