Negotiations in organizational contexts

¶ … Yes

Do you agree with the process outlined in the text? If so, why?

Regarding the text "Getting to Yes" I must say that I do agree with many of the plans and principles put forward about styles and factors to do with negotiation. The text gives a step-by-step method for formulating and carrying through on negotiation tactics. It helps the reader understand behavioral issues important to the negotiation process; it describes development of power bases and the appropriate use of power in the process. It also bases it's formulas on mutual gain rather than a one sided win. I also liked the parts about the text which explain about what to do when one side of the negotiating party does not want to go along with reasonable or useful negotiating plans. All in all, I found it to be an extremely useful and timely text.

Question 2. In what way do communications impact the negotiations process?

As is stated clearly in the book, without communication, there essentially is no negotiation (p. 32). The great problems to communication have been identified. The first is when negotiators do not actually talk to each other, or else are communicating but not in a way that can be understood. So in this way there is a problem with communication. In the second problem, the message is lost. This is clarified by giving the example of when people are talking to each other, they are so busy thinking about what they are going to say next that they are not attending to the message that is being sent by the other communicator/sender. The issue of attention to the negotiation process cannot be understated. The third problem is that of misunderstanding of the message being sent. This is different than the first problem in that the message is sent, different from the second in that the message is being received, but in some way the message is scrambled or not understood by the receiver. This is felt to be due to anything from a difference in word use, in language or speaking style or even in the situation where too much communication is used, or there are too many words to be clear and so the message is lost.

Question 3. How do behavioral styles impact negotiations?

As is noted on page 18, negotiators are people first and foremost and even the most experienced and excellent negotiator is going to bring with him or her to the negotiation table certain behavioral characteristics. The trick is to find a way in that the behavioral characteristics do not impact significantly upon the negotiation itself. It is important to remember that in each negotiation process, each party brings to the table two kinds of interests; one in the substance and one in the relationship. In some cases, the relationship between the two negotiating party can become bogged down in the relationship. When the parties take the stance of positional bargaining or when egos become involved, then the negotiation becomes more a power play than that of an equal and effective bargaining process. The text suggests that to overcome this issue, it is of the utmost importance to attempt in all cases to try to separate the relationship of the negotiators from the negotiated issue at hand.

Before the negotiation can actually take place, the people problem must be identified and dealt with and then hopefully, issues that are of conflict to successful negotiations can be overcome.

Question 4. How does the knowledge of behavioral issues and styles change your approach in negotiation?

In addressing behavioral styles and how they effect negotiation, forewarned is forearmed. To be aware of ones' own issues is only half the battle. The issue of perception is dealt with first. What we bring to the table often portrays or receives perceptions that have no basis in reality and can only serve to hamper the negotiation process. If possible, it is good for negotiators to discuss the others perceptions openly and make for a level playing ground, with all questions answered and avoiding a hidden agenda. When the perception is strong coming from the other party, it is thought to be helpful to find ways to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with the other party's perception. The example is given of the case in which Anwar Sadat, the president of Egypt in 1977 flew to Jerusalem to engage in peace talks with the Israelis, a people who viewed him with distrust. As this action was completely the opposite of what the Israelis perceived he would do, or his feelings about the negotiation process and as such changed the playing field again but this time for the good. Issues of emotion should be recognized and then acknowledged. When emotions begin to run high, each side should be given an effective and appropriate method to let off some steam and each side should be prepared not to react to emotional outbursts, as this will be ultimately harmful to the negotiation process itself, if not fatal. Again communication becomes key here, a time for careful listening and careful speaking, always with clarity of thought and speech. It is noted in the book that in cases such as these, prevention is usually the most helpful tool (p.36) remembering that people are not the problem that brought you to the table, to remember to continue to separate the people from the problems and hopefully eventually build a working relationship.

Question 5. How would you expect each of the styles (Director, Intuitor/socialzer, Steady/Relater, Analyzer) to negotiate?

The directive approach to negation will be that of one who wants to get to the root of the problem immediately. The director will be just as the name suggests, the one who wants to identify the issues and get down to the quickest negotiation possible. Conversely, the intuitor/socializer will likely use a more relaxed approach, appearing to be socializing more than the business at hand would seem to require. While he or she would seem to be mostly inquiring on a friendly basis about issues off the subject of the main negotiation, this is actually someone who will use their own innate power of intuition to garner information about the other side in the negotiation process to attempt to gain advantage. The steady/relater will be less gregarious than the socializer but will still use the skills he or she has (almost like the intuitor) to get to the root of the problem and understand where progress is to be made. The analyzer is likely to be the slowest of all the negotiation styles, in which each issue at hand will be studies, analyzed and discussed to make sure the party he or she represents will be at the greatest advantage from whatever the issue is to be agreed upon. These different styles represent a full spectrum of negotiation behavioral styles.

Question 6 How is negotiating different from bargaining?

Negotiation is essentially a process in which each side comes to the table with certain needs or requirements. As demonstrated in the "Getting to Yes" text, the most common form of negotiation is when the two sides engage upon successive talks - each stating issues or positions in turn and also in turn responding to the other side, hopefully in some way to make progress on the problem which brought them to the table in the first place. Bargaining is a form of negotiation which tends to become immersed in positional factions - meaning that each side takes a "position" and then clarifies or defends the position against attack from the opposing side. This is felt to be a very unsuccessful and ineffective manner of negotiation. In bargaining, when positions are stated at the outset, it tends to become more and more difficult for negotiators to retreat from the stands they have made at the opening of the negotiation. Ego and personality begin to become identified with the positions taken at the outset and the negotiation issue can be basically lost within the issue of saving face. In bargaining, since the emphasis is on position rather than issue, the focus is taken off the underlying negotiation issues and agreement is less likely.

Question 7: What are the differences between positional and principled negotiating?

Principled negotiation, or negotiation on the merits, calls for negotiators to be problem-solvers with a goal of reaching a wise agreement efficiently and amicably. It has four basic points: (as noted in the text)

People: separate the people from the problem.

Interests: focus on interests, not positions.

Options: generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.

Criteria: insist that the result be based on some objective standard.

Principled negotiation, as contrasted to positional negotiation, places the emphasis on the interests of both negotiating parties, their options within the negotiation and fair outcome. It allows the parties to reach agreement efficiently without all of the anger and resentment that occurs when they try to dig each other out of entrenched positions.

Question 8: how can you use the negotiation skills you have learned to enhance your leadership potential?

Negotiation is a part of our everyday life. We use it is business, we use it with out families and we use is as workers and leaders. More and more frequently in the business setting, negotiation skills are needed. But this is not to say that everyone has the ability to negotiate effectively. I will be able to enhance my potential for leadership by honing my negotiation skills. If I can learn my own personal negotiation style, if I can learn to keep the personal out and bargaining down, this will make me an asset to my company and help me in my chosen profession. And as the basic aspects of successful negotiations really do not change from situation to situation, I will be able to use these negotiation skills to my advantage wherever I go.

Question 9: Give a personal example of a successful negotiation and an unsuccessful negotiation you have engaged in. Would you do anything differently after learning these new skills? Why or Why not? What would it be?

I was about to be considered for a new position - not just a new position with my organization for me, but a position that was entirely new to the company. And they had never before considered placing someone like me, with my particular skill set in this position. There was another candidate for this position, probably with a greater likelihood of getting the position because of time with the organization. I knew, however, that this person did not particularly want this job because of the time and effort it would take up starting the new program.