Simulation – Role playing exercise negotiation skills assessment Role Playing Exercise

Introduction

Relationships are crucial in any negotiation—in fact they are the bedrock of negotiation, as there can be no negotiation without first establishing the foundation of relationship. The relationship need not be identical to friendship, but it must be workable and rooted in respect. In the role playing exercise “Lost at Sea,” the items listed in Appendix A were ranked in order of importance, with 1 being the most important and 15 being the least important to a group of sailors lost in a life raft at sea after their ship had sunk. The fishing kit has been ranked most important, for instance, because it was viewed as a means of obtaining food for the group. The rum was ranked least important because it would only dehydrate and dull the senses. Among a group of sailors, the captain should have the most voice when making a decision about determining what items are most important, and just because the ship has sunk does not mean the captain has gone down with it. However, assuming that everyone on the life raft has equal status and rank, the need to negotiate which items are most important has to be considered.

Dealing with Conflict

In any negotiation there will be conflict. Conflict is the result of individual parties wanting different or opposing things. Conflict theory can help to explain conflict especially in light of negotiation, as it is based on the idea of Marx and is predicated on the notion that society is engaged in a continuous struggle that comes about as a result of there only being a finite supply of resources. From this seed, conflict theory emerged in sociology in response to structural functionalism, which posits that society functions as a result of various groups and organizations working together in a stable and functioning manner (Ritzer & Stepnisky, 2017). However, the stability is but one face of society, in conflict theory—the other face being one of conflict. There are those who conform and those who do not. There are those who accept integration even if it means subjugation and those who do not because they see themselves as valid and as having value that is being denied them by the powers of the ruling class.

The key to reducing the risk of conflict is to be mindful of the ways in which conflict is exacerbated. The strategy therefore is to adopt a cooperative strategy and to avoid attribution, i.e., the practice of attributing fault to others. For instance, if one group member wants to rank the rum as most important, instead of dismissing that person and attributing ignorance to him and thus setting off a powder keg of emotions likely inflamed by the stress of the situation, it is better to acknowledge the person’s thoughts and feelings and agree that, yes, the rum is important, but for now we should focus on nourishment and what items can help us to survive if we should be stranded...

Cooperation is what will help most in this negotiation as everyone is literally in the same boat. It would not be helpful to adopt a competitive strategy or a defensive strategy, which would put others on the offensive. Cooperation is best here because a favorable outcome relies on recognizing that any decision must be viewed as a win-win for all sides. Dismissing the needs of others will not help anyone—thus, if one party sees the rum as valuable it must not be dismissed as having no value because clearly it does to another. The key to cooperation is to acknowledge, understand, and communicate using reason to help to try to put focus on where it is most essentially needed.
Understanding expectancy violations theory is helpful, too. In this type of situation there is going to be a lot of blame going around and people are going to have expectations...…and understood why certain items would be effective in prolonging one’s life.

Decision making was not done in the democratic style but rather by a leader organically appearing to direct the negotiation process. Tactical empathy and effective silence were used by the leader to show that he had the calm spirit and command over self needed to marshal both his own feelings and the passions of others in the right direction, i.e., towards a resolution. Authoritative leadership was displayed and is known as visionary leadership for a reason: it commands the respect of others and shows to others that one has the principles, passion, power, discipline, vision, and confidence to lead and to get the job done. The authoritative leader presents himself as the example for others to follow, but he also takes the time to explain what he is doing and how he is doing it. The Authoritative leader is different from the autocratic leader in that the latter mainly gives orders (which are needed) without giving the example in his own person of what to do. Thus, when one member of the negotiation sought to be an autocratic leader, he was generally ignored, while the authoritative leader demonstrated in his own person what it means to have the kind of bearing and presence of mind needed to facilitate trust building, respect, communication, and resolution. The Authoritative leader sets the stage for how to act by leading the way personally. Situational leadership is another style of leadership that focuses on adapting to the needs of the environment and to the issues of the particular group. Situational leaders have to be good at communicating, and they have to be flexible and capable of identifying the needs of any given situation quickly and thoroughly. In this situation, the authoritarian leader also showed situational leadership skills and thus quickly became the decision maker behind whom everyone could rally with confidence.

Conclusion

Relationships were highly valued during this simulation as it was implicitly understood by all that only…