Upload
hoangdang
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2
CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND NEGOTIATION SKILLS.
Before we go to the conflict resolution and negotiation process we should have to
know that what is conflict and what is negotiation. After this we will discuss the conflict
resolution and negotiation skills.
What is Conflict…?
According to William Wilmot and Joyce Hocker (2011),
“conflict is known to be a fact of life and it truly exists and happens in our lives”
Conflicts occur between individuals, families, and even nations. These conflicts occur in
the workplace, at homes between families, or even through marriages.
Definition of conflictAccording to William Wilmot and Joyce Hocker (2011),
“an expressed struggled between at least two interdependent parties who perceive
incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their
goals”
According to Ruth Abigail and Dudley Cahn (2011)
“A kind of communication process within which a problematic situation with certain
characteristics arises”
Regardless of how the conflict is defined, it is possible for anyone to change his
or her conflict behaviors because these behaviors are not inborn but rather developed
repertoire of skillsand communication practices that we can learn, refine, and practice
(Wilmot &Hocker, 2011, p. 9).
Types of conflict
There are five different types of conflict as bellow,
1. Relationship Conflict
2. Data Conflict
3
3. Interest Conflict
4. Structural Conflict
5. Value Conflict
Relationship Conflict
Relationship conflict occurs when the perception of the differences among two or
more parties is negative which leads to negative emotions, miscommunication, and
negative behaviors among the parties involved in the situation. In other terms, a
relationship conflict is a disagreement or a struggle that happens between two people
within a relationship whether it is work or personal related relationship. This type of
conflict is a result of having misperceptions, stereotypes, or negative behaviors and
emotions.
Data Conflict
Data conflicts occur when there is a lack of information that help people make the
right decisions. This conflict also occurs when the decision makers are misinformed or
given the wrong information. The parties involved in the conflict usually disagree on
which data and information is relevant because they interpret the information in different
ways and the follow different assessment procedures to make the decisions. Most of the
data conflicts situations occur over data, either through the lack of communication
between the two parties or through the data collection and interpretation. In both cases,
there are solutions for these types of conflicts by providing more information or through
the collection of new data.
Interest Conflict
A conflict of interest occurs when one party has interests that are contrary with
each other. This type of conflict causes confusion and struggle with one’s points of view
and loyalties. The conflict of interests can happen in the workplace or in the personal life
and occurs over variety of different types issues as money, resources, time, respect, trust,
fairness, etc. According to Ashby and Neilson, “Conflict is concerned with an opposition
4
between two individuals, and is characterized by events in which one person resists,
retaliates, or protests the actions of another” (Ashby &Neilsen-Hewett, 2012, p. 145).
Structural Conflict
A conflict by definition is the discrepancies resulting from different viewpoints or
actions. Structural conflicts are just another type of conflict that is a result of external
factors rather than personal bias or stereotypes, e.g., organizational changes, time,
distance or proximity. As mentioned in the syllabus of the OL7001 course “Structural
conflicts come from outside factors such as geographic or time constraints, limited
physical resources, or organizational changes and these conflicts tend to have structural
solutions if they are properly mediated” (OL7001-08 Syllabus, 2012, p. 1). One of the
main differences between structural conflicts and other conflict types is that internal
factors are not the main drive for structural conflicts but it rather occurs because of the
external factors. These external factors are usually out of the control of the parties
involved in the conflict thus in order to solve and dispute these conflicts, it becomes
necessary to get some help from external agents.
Value Conflict
Values are the beliefs and assumptions that people have as part of their lives that helps
them set the basis for their ethical actions. People from the same culture tend to have
equivalent values and assumptions regarding their social world. These beliefs and
assumptions become part of their lives and it determines their behaviors and actions. On
the other hand, when two parties are not sharing the same values and beliefs or if they
come from different cultural backgrounds, their expectations start to interact and
sometimes it leads to creating conflicts because each party believes strongly in the way
they do things and the way of thinking about things while the other party thinks in the
same manner. This makes them both believe that each other's behaviors are strange and
wrong. Value conflicts occur between individuals or groups of people that have different
viewpoints that are fundamentally built on their subconscious value and believe systems.
Such viewpoints can be related to the standards of rightness, wrongness, goodness, and
5
badness. When one party holds a strong personal believe to their own values and
assumptions, it becomes difficult to believe in the value system of the other party and
each party starts stressing the importance of their own value system which leads to
conflict. Regardless of how substantive the issues are between any two parties, and as
long as these issues are related to one’s values and beliefs, the conflict becomes more
difficult to dispute because it is related to the moral system of each party. In addition to
that,
“Moral conflicts are intractable and interminable, and are morally and rhetorically
attenuated” (Pearce & Littlejohn, 2005, p. 44).
“Given the lack of agreement on both process and substance, parties involved in value
conflicts tend to turn to force-based conflict options more
often than negotiation or persuasive approaches, because force seems to be the only
common language that both sides understand and
honor” (Williams, 2005, p. 3).
Now we will discuss conflict resolution.
What is conflict resolution…?Conflict resolution is a way for two or more parties to find a peaceful solution to
a disagreement among them. The disagreement may be personal, financial, political, or
emotional. When a dispute arises, often the best course of action is negotiation
to resolve the disagreement.
The concept of "conflict resolution" is open to many interpretations. On one hand,
conflict resolution can be regarded as any process that resolves or ends conflict via
methods which can include violence or warfare. Alternatively, it can be viewed as a non-
violent process that manages conflict through compromise, or through the assistance of a
third party who either facilitates or imposes a settlement or resolution. Conflict resolution
processes are many and varied and can be seen on a continuum ranging from
collaborative, participatory, informal, non-binding processes (such as mediation,
conciliation, third party negotiation) to adversarial, fact-oriented, legally binding and
imposed decisions that arise from institutions such as the courts and tribunals (Boulle,
6
1996). Typically, non-adversarial practices such as mediation, negotiation, arbitration and
conciliation are practices which have been associated with conflict resolution or alternate
dispute resolution (ADR) procedures rather than adversarial institutions such as courts
and tribunals where a settlement is imposed on the disputants by an external authority
(Boulle, 1996). In contrast mediation, conciliation or negotiation are activities that
facilitate communication between participants who are seeking to resolve their
differences in a cooperative way.
Some commentators such as Wertheim et al (1998) and Fisher and Ury (1996)
believe that the key to resolving conflict is to focus on interests rather than positions,
which is the solution one party seeks to impose on another. Burton (1986, cited in
Tidwell, 1998) has argued that resolution between two parties in conflict can only occur
when "relationships have been re-examined and realigned" (p.9). Although this form of
resolution may by regarded by some as more desirable it is not always practicable.
Resolution in cases of marital separation or divorce can in some cases simply mean the
settlement of an outstanding property dispute rather than the "realignment of
relationships." The "transformation" of relationships may be an ideal pursued by a third
party who is intervening on behalf of the disputants, but it is not necessarily the goal of
the disputants who may simply desire a solution to their problem.
Laue (cited in Charles Sturt University, 1998) has argued that conflict can only be
considered resolved if the following conditions are met:
• The solution jointly satisfies the interests and needs of the parties via joint agreement.
• The solution does not compromise the values of either party.
• The parties do not repudiate the solution even if they have the power to do so following
the settlement.
• The solution is fair and just and becomes self-supporting and self-enforcing.
Although this form of resolution seems ideal because it aims to achieve an
enduring outcome it is not always practicable in situations where the relationship between
two parties is severely strained or when there is no ongoing relationship to be maintained.
In such situation parties in conflict will often attempt to maximize their gains at the
expense of the other through the negotiation or bargaining process (Boulle, 1996). To
summarize, conflict resolution can be viewed as a problem solving process which is
7
designed to offer parties an opportunity to resolve their differences collaboratively. This
process often involves third parties who employ techniques and methods that are aimed at
facilitating communication between parties engaged in conflict.
Conflict resolution is related to peacemakingBefore answering the question of how conflict resolution is related to
peacemaking it is important firstly to consider what is meant by the term "peacemaking".
The relevance or otherwise of conflict resolution processes to peacemaking needs to be
considered in the light of the meaning given to this term. Laue (cited in Charles Sturt
University, 1998) has defined peacemaking as the "active process of peace, the behavior
of actors and institutions that leads to more peaceful relations" (p.303). Peace is
considered by Laue (cited in Charles Sturt University, 1998) as the state of relations
between individuals or groups that is characterized by the absence of war, the presence of
social justice and economic wellbeing, and the respect of human rights. Galtung (1985,
cited in Barash, 1991) used the term "positive peace" to denote a society that is free of
overt as well as structural or institutionalized violence which permits its citizens to enjoy
economic, social advancement, political equality and freedom from oppression.
In considering whether conflict resolution as defined previously is related to
peacemaking the question needs to be asked whether conflict resolution processes
facilitate peace. It is debatable whether processes such as mediation or negotiation when
applied to interpersonal, community, or organizational disputes constitute activities that
can be regarded as peacemaking. Although the process of conflict resolution in these
cases may generate a mutually agreed upon settlement that results in improved relations
between parties it does not necessarily meet Galtung's (1985, cited in Barash, 1991) and
Laue's (cited in Charles Sturt University, 1998) definition of a peacemaking activity.
These commentators have argued that peace is defined by the presence of justice and
equality in society as well as the absence of war or structural violence. Although conflict
resolution procedures may be indicative of a society that encourages reconciliation
between individuals (e.g. in a community, organizational or interpersonal context) it is
not an activity that can be regarded as "peacemaking" unless it addresses problems that
arise from the absence of peace (e.g. war, injustice or structural violence).
8
Conflict Resolution Skills The ability to successfully manage and resolve conflict depends on four key
skills. Together, these four skills form a fifth skill that is greater than the sum of its
parts: the ability to take conflict in stride and resolve differences in ways that
build trust and confidence.
1: Quickly relieve stress
2: Recognize and manage your emotions.
3: Improve your nonverbal communication skills.
4: Use humor and play to deal with challenges.
Quickly relieve stress.The capacity to remain relaxed and focused in tense situations is a vital aspect of
conflict resolution. If you don’t know how to stay centered and in control of yourself,
you may become emotionally overwhelmed in challenging situations. The best way to
rapidly and reliably relieve stress is through the senses: sight, sound, touch, taste,
and smell. But each person responds differently to sensory input, so you need to
find things that are soothing to you.
Recognize and manage your emotions.Emotional awareness is the key to understanding yourself and others. If you don’t
know how you feel or why you feel that way, you won’t be able to
communicate effectively or smooth over disagreements. Although knowing your own
feelings may seem simple, many people ignore or try to sedate strong emotions
like anger, sadness, and fear. But your ability to handle conflict depends on
being connected to these feelings. If you’re afraid of strong emotions or if you insist on
finding solutions that are strictly rational, your ability to face and resolve differences will
be.
Improve your nonverbal communication skills.The most important information exchanged during conflicts and arguments is
often communicated nonverbally. Nonverbal communication includes eye contact, facial
expression, and tone of voice, posture, touch, and gestures. When you’re in the middle of
a conflict, paying close attention to the other person’s nonverbal signals may
9
help you figure out what the other person is really saying, respond in a way that builds
trust, and get to the root of the problem. Simply nonverbal signals such as a calm tone of
voice, a reassuring touch, or a concerned facial expression can go a long way
toward defusing a heated exchange.
Use humor and play to deal with challenges You can avoid many confrontations and resolve arguments and disagreements
by communicating in a playful or humorous way. Humor can help you say things that
might otherwise be difficult to express without creating a flap. However, it’s important
that you laugh with the other person, not at them. When humor and play
are used to reduce tension and anger, reframe problems, and put the situation into
perspective, the conflict can actually become an opportunity for greater connection
and intimacy.
Tips for resolving conflict Resolving conflict requires emotional maturity, self-control, and empathy.
It can be tricky, frustrating, and even frightening. You can ensure that the process is as
positive as possible by sticking to the following conflict resolution guidelines:
· Make the relationship your priority
· Focus on the present.
· Pick your battles.
· Be willing to forgive.
· Know when to let something go.
Make the relationship your priority.
Maintaining and strengthening the relationship, rather than
“winning” the argument, should always be your first priority. Be respectful of
the other person and his or her viewpoint.
Focus on the present.
If you’re holding on to old hurts and resentments, your ability to see the reality of
the current situation will be impaired. Rather than looking to the past
and assigning blame, focus on what you can do in the here and now to solve the problem
10
Pick your battles.
Conflicts can be draining, so it’s important to consider whether the issue is really
worthy of your time and energy. Maybe you don't want to surrender a parking space if
you’ve been circling for 15 minutes. But if there are dozens of spots,
arguing over a single space isn’t worth it.
Be willing to forgive.
Resolving conflict is impossible if you’re unwilling or unable to forgive.
Resolution lies in releasing the urge to punish, which can never compensate for our losses
and only adds to our injury by further depleting and draining our lives.
Know when to let something go.
If you can’t come to an agreement, agree to disagree. It takes two people to
keep an argument going. If a conflict is going nowhere, you can choose to disengage
and move on.
Conflict resolution: Ground rulesRemain calm.Try not to overreact to difficult situations. By remaining calm it
will be more likely that others will consider your viewpoint.
Express feelings in words, not actions.Telling someone directly and honestly
how you feel can be a very powerful form of communication. If you start to feel so angry
or upset that you feel you may lose control, take a "time out" and do something to
help yourself feel steadier.
Be specific about what is bothering you.Vague complaints are hard to work on.
Deal with only one issue at a time.Don't introduce other topics until each is fully
discussed. This avoids the "kitchen sink" effect where people throw in all their
complaints while not allowing anything to be resolved.
No "hitting below the belt."Attacking areas of personal sensitivity creates an
atmosphere of distrust, anger, and vulnerability.
Avoid accusations.Accusations will cause others to defend themselves. Instead,
talk about how someone’s actions made you feel.
Don't generalize.Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such generalizations
are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.
11
Avoid "make believe."Exaggerating or inventing a complaint or your feelings
about it will prevent the real issues from surfacing. Stick with the facts and your honest
feelings.
Don't stockpile.Storing up lots of grievances and hurt feelings over time is
counterproductive. It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old problems for which
interpretations may differ. Try to deal with problems as they arise.
Avoid clamming up.When one person becomes silent and stops
responding to the other, frustration and anger can result. Positive results can only
be attained with two-way communication.
Resolving conflict by learning how to listen.When people are upset, the words they use rarely convey the issues and needs at
the heart of the problem. When we listen for what is felt as well as said, we connect
more deeply to our own needs and emotions, and to those of other people. Listening in
this way also strengthens us, informs us, and makes it easier for others to hear us….
Negotiation Negotiation is a process – a sequence of activities, perhaps with anunderlying pattern. It
is not a single event – choices are made along theway. It is not mechanical or
deterministic – the choices negotiators makeaffect how agreement is achieved and what
the agreement will be.
Definition…1. Negotiation can be defined as: "To communicate with the objective of reaching
an agreement by means, where appropriate, of compromise."
2. “Negotiation is the process in which parties that perceive one or more
Incompatibilities between them, try tofind a mutually acceptable solution”
3. “Negotiation is a process where two parties with differences which they need
To resolve are trying to reach agreement through exploring for options and
Exchanging offers – and an agreement.”
12
4.“ It is a process by which the involved parties or group resolve matters of dispute by
holding discussions and coming to an agreement which can be mutually agreed by
concerned parties”
5. “A process by which people deal with differences”
6. “To seek mutual agreement through dialogue”
Types of Negotiations Distributive Negotiation
Integrative Negotiation
Or
Multi-phase
Multi-party
Most negotiations combine elements of both types.
Distributive Negotiation1. Parties compete over distribution of a fixed sum of value.
2. Key question, ‘Who will claim the most value?’
3. Gain by one at the expense of the other. Also known as a zero-sum negotiation.
4. Often, there is only one issue in distributive negotiation: money.
5. It is impossible to make trade-offs based on differing preferences.
6 .Relationship and reputation are irrelevant; not willing to trade value for value in
their relationship.
Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining
negotiation. It tends to approach negotiation on the model of haggling in a market. In
a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme position, knowing that it
will not be accepted, and then employs a combination of guile, bluffing, and
brinkmanship in order to cede as little as possible before reaching a deal. Distributive
bargainers conceive of negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of
value.
The term distributive implies that there is a finite amount of the thing being
distributed or divided among the people involved. Sometimes this type of negotiation
13
is referred to as the distribution of a "fixed pie." There is only so much to go around,
but the proportion to be distributed is variable. Distributive negotiation is also
sometimes called win-losebecause of the assumption that one person's gain results in
another person's loss. A distributive negotiation often involves people who have
never had a previous interactive relationship, nor are they likely to do so again in the
near future. Simple everyday examples would be buying a car or a house.
Integrative Negotiation1. Parties cooperate to achieve maximum benefits by integrating their interests
into an agreement.
2. Also known as win-win negotiation.
3. In business, integrative negotiations tend to occur at these times,
During the structuring of complex, long term partnerships or other
collaborations.
When the deal involves many financial and non-financial terms
Between professional colleagues, or superiors and direct subordinates
whose long term interests benefit from the other’s satisfaction
4. The goal of each side is to create as much value for each other
5. Each side makes trade-offs to get the things it values most, giving up other
less critical factors.
6. When parties’ interests differ, your ability to claim what you want from the
deal does not necessarily detract from the other party’s ability to claim what it
wants.
7. Both parties’ interests and preferences may be satisfied.
Integrative negotiation is also sometimes called interest-based or principled
negotiation. It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of
negotiated agreement by providing an alternative to traditional distributive negotiation
techniques. While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value (a
"fixed pie") to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation often attempts to
create value in the course of the negotiation ("expand the pie"). It focuses on the
underlying interests of the parties rather than their arbitrary starting positions, approaches
14
negotiation as a shared problem rather than a personalized battle, and insists upon
adherence to objective, principled criteria as the basis for agreement.[1]
Integrative negotiation often involves a higher degree of trust and the forming of a
relationship. It can also involve creative problem-solving that aims to achieve mutual
gains. It is also sometimes called win-win negotiation.
The Three Phases The three phases of a negotiation are:
1. Exchanging Information
2. Bargaining
3. Closing
These phases describe the negotiation process itself. Before the process begins,
both parties need to prepare for the negotiation. This involves establishing their
bargaining position by defining their BATNA, WATNA, and WAP (see Module Three).
It also involves gathering information about the issues to be addressed in the negotiation.
After the negotiation, both parties should work to restore relationships that may
have been frayed by the negotiation process.
It is essential to pay attention to all the phases of negotiation. Without the first
phase, the exchange of information, and the establishment of bargaining positions, the
second phase cannot happen in any meaningful sense because no one knows where they
stand. It sets a scene for demands to be manageable and reasonable. Negotiations are,
after all, about the art of the possible. Without the third phase, anything that has been
decided during phase two cannot be formalized and will not take hold – leading to the
necessity for further negotiation or an absolute breakdown in a relationship
15
Exchanging Information
The first phase in a negotiation involves an exchange of information. Both sides
state their positions on the issues being addressed in a non‐confrontational way. The
tricky part of this phase is deciding what to reveal and what to hold back. The “poker”
metaphor for negotiating is a very good one, because it describes exactly the way that
negotiating parties will want to “allow” each other to think. The information you share
with your negotiating counterpart will allow them to read a certain amount about your
position. You cannot negotiate blindly, after all. However, too much information given
away can really come back to bite you.
Bargaining
Now we have reached the heart of the negotiation process. This phase —
bargaining — is what most people mean when they talk about negotiation. This module
explains what to expect when you begin to bargain and what to do if you run into an
impasse. It also describes some common bargaining techniques used by experienced
negotiators
Closing
The final phase of a negotiation is a time for reaching consensus and building an
agreement. A little hard work in this phase can ensure that the negotiation achieves it
desired results. Closing a negotiation can mean two different things: First it may be a
question of how to bring different ideas to a mutually agreed conclusion. A second
possibility view of ‘closing’ is what means negotiating parties can use to acknowledge or
formalize the idea that agreement has been reached. Recognizing that parties have
reached agreement can be quite simple. One can ask the other(s), “Then, have we reached
agreement?” The parties can shake hands, make a public announcement, or sign a
document. The real issue is that each has to make it clear to other negotiators that a
mutually agreed conclusion has indeed been reached.
16
Preparing for a Successful Negotiation
Depending on the scale of the disagreement, some preparation may be appropriate
for conducting a successful negotiation.
For small disagreements, excessive preparation can be counter-productive
because it takes time that is better used elsewhere. It can also be seen as manipulative
because, just as it strengthens your position, it can weaken the other person's.
However, if you need to resolve a major disagreement, then make sure you prepare
thoroughly. Using our free worksheet, think through the following points before you start
negotiating:
Goals: what do you want to get out of the negotiation? What do you think the
other person wants?
Trades: What do you and the other person have that you can trade? What do
you each have that the other wants? What are you each comfortable giving
away?
Alternatives: if you don't reach agreement with the other person, what
alternatives do you have? Are these good or bad? How much does it matter if
you do not reach agreement? Does failure to reach an agreement cut you out of
future opportunities? And what alternatives might the other person have?
Relationships: what is the history of the relationship? Could or should this
history impact the negotiation? Will there be any hidden issues that may
influence the negotiation? How will you handle these?
Expected outcomes: what outcome will people be expecting from this
negotiation? What has the outcome been in the past, and what precedents have
been set?
The consequences: what are the consequences for you of winning or losing
this negotiation? What are the consequences for the other person?
17
Power: who has what power in the relationship? Who controls resources? Who
stands to lose the most if agreement isn't reached? What power does the other
person have to deliver what you hope for?
Possible solutions: based on all of the considerations, what possible
compromises might there be?
Establishing Your WATNA and BATNA
In most negotiations, the parties are influenced by their assumptions about what
they think are the alternatives to a negotiated agreement. Often the parties have an
unrealistic idea of what these alternatives are, and they are unwilling to make concessions
because they think they can do just as well without negotiating. If you do not have a clear
idea of your WATNA (Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and BATNA
(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), you will negotiate poorly based on false
notions about what you can expect without an agreement. Often the parties in a
negotiation need to decide how likely a particular outcome will be. If your WATNA is
something that would be difficult for you to accept, but the likelihood of it happening is
small, you might not feel compelled to give up much in negotiations. Realism is essential
in this situation. If you could have the ideal situation, the “blue sky” scenario,
negotiations would not be necessary. In order to focus on the negotiations with a sense of
purpose, your WATNA is important. What is often referred to as the “worst case
scenario” is something that any sensible person will think about before embarking on any
initiative. What if it goes wrong? How will we deal with that? How you feel about the
WATNA will dictate how flexible you need to be (and therefore will be) in negotiations.
The BATNA is almost more important than the WATNA. If you look at your situation in
the absence of a negotiated agreement, and find it almost unthinkable, you will be pressed
to enter negotiations in the hope of getting a satisfactory agreement. The word
“satisfactory” is important here. Is the WATNA better than satisfactory? Is the BATNA
worse? Generally, people only enter into negotiations because they feel they have to.
They arrive at this conclusion based on analysis of their WATNA and BATNA
18
Identifying Your WAPIn any negotiation, it is important that you keep your WAP (Walk Away Price)
to yourself, especially if it is significantly less than your initial offer. If the other party
knows that you will be willing to take a lot less than you are offering, then you will be
negotiating from a position of weakness. If the other party knows, or has an idea of your
WAP then it stops being your WAP and simply becomes your price. Establishing a WAP
in your mind, and ensuring that those negotiators on your side of the bargain (and only
they) know it, allows you to take your strongest possible bargaining position. The other
party will try to argue you down from your proposed price, so you will need to remain
firm. If they want to pay less, then you may be prepared to agree on a lower price in
return for concessions.
The opposing party will then have to consider what is acceptable to them. Rather
than push too hard and lose out on a deal which would be beneficial to themselves, they
will have their own areas where they are willing to make concessions. However, if they
know that you have set a WAP that would save them money, they will simply hold firm
at that price. They have no incentive to make concessions to you. In many ways,
negotiation is about keeping as much to yourself as you possibly can until you can no
longer maintain that position.
Once you have set your WAP, it is essential to keep to it. A walk away price
becomes absolutely meaningless if you are not prepared to walk away should it not be
met. You should give the impression to opponents in negotiation that you could walk
away at any time. They will, after all, not be prepared to stop once they get a price which
is satisfactory to them – they will look to wring a bit more value out of the deal for
themselves, testing you to see what you will give up. A warning against setting your
WAP unrealistically low is that the other party will not take you seriously if you are a
pushover in negotiations. They will seek to test you at every turn.
19
Identifying Your ZOPAThe ZOPA (Zone Of Possible Agreement) is the area in which the final price
will sit, and within that ZOPA you will ideally end up with a price closer to their WAP
than yours. If you hint at where your WAP is, the other party will be less likely to come
to an agreement that is substantially better than that.
In the negotiation for the used car, both parties should feel good about the outcome. Even
though the parties might have hoped for a better deal, both got a better price than their
WAP.
This negotiation demonstrates the importance of keeping your WAP to yourself if
you want to negotiate the best deal. Your range in this situation falls between the price
that you would ideally, realistically get and the WAP you have set. In an ideal world you
could demand a million dollars and expect to get it. In a realistic world, you need to be
realistic in negotiations.
You should arrive at your ideal realistic price by seeing what the accepted market
value for what you are offering is. By adjusting for your specific negotiating position
(whether you are approaching it from a position of need, etc.), you can find your best
realistic price. Then think about a price at which it would no longer be worthwhile to
strike a deal.
Skills for Successful NegotiatingJob descriptions often list negotiation skills as a desirable asset for job candidates,
but the ability to negotiate requires a collection of interpersonal and communication skills
used together to bring a desired result. The circumstances of negotiation occur when two
parties or groups of individuals disagree on the solution for a problem or the goal for a
project or contract. A successful negotiation requires the two parties to come together and
hammer out an agreement that is acceptable to both.
Top ten negotiation skills list is bellow mentioned…
1. Preparation
20
2. Active Listening
3. Emotional Control
4. Verbal Communication
5. Collaboration and Teamwork
6. Problem Solving
7. Decision Making Ability
8. Interpersonal Skills
9. Ethics and Reliability
10. Problem Analysis
Without the above factors, negotiations will be difficult if not impossible. The
necessity for negotiation arises because neither party will be able to get everything they
want. Knowing that there must be concessions, each party in the negotiation is required to
adopt an attitude of understanding that they must get the best deal possible in a way
which is acceptable to the other party. The importance of effective speaking and listening
is clear; it is necessary to establish what you are looking for and what you are prepared to
accept, while understanding what the other parties will be happy with. A sense of humor
and a positive attitude are essential because they allow for a sense of give and take.
Negotiations can become fraught, and having the ability to see the other side’s point of
view while being sanguine with regard to what you can achieve will be essential. Of
course you will want as much as you can get – but the other side needs to achieve what
they can, too. Seriously uneven negotiations will simply lead to further problems along
the line. An atmosphere of respect is essential. If you do not make concessions while
demanding them from your counterpart, it makes for a negotiation which will end in
dissatisfaction. However important a sense of understanding for your “opponent” may be,
it is also necessary to have the confidence to not settle for less than you feel is fair. Good
negotiators understand the importance of balance. Yes, you will have to make
concessions, but the point of making concessions is to secure what you can get – so you
need to pay attention to your bottom line and ensure you are not beaten down to a
minimum. Knowing what is realistic, and ensuring that you can get the best deal, relies
21
on being ready to insist upon something that the other side may not be willing to give
initially.
A sense of humor and a positive attitude are essential because they allow for a sense
of give and take. Negotiations can become fraught, and having the ability to see the other
side’s point of view while being sanguine with regard to what you can achieve will be
essential. Of course you will want as much as you can get – but the other side needs to
achieve what they can, too. Seriously uneven negotiations will simply lead to further
problems along the line. An atmosphere of respect is essential. If you do not make
concessions while demanding them from your counterpart, it makes for a negotiation
which will end in dissatisfaction. However important a sense of understanding for your
“opponent” may be, it is also necessary to have the confidence to not settle for less than
you feel is fair. Good negotiators understand the importance of balance. Yes, you will
have to make concessions, but the point of making concessions is to secure what you can
get – so you need to pay attention to your bottom line and ensure you are not beaten
down to a minimum. Knowing what is realistic, and ensuring that you can get the best
deal, relies on being ready to insist upon something that the other side may not be willing
to give initially. Emotional intelligence, persistence, patience, and creativity can all play a
part here.
Preparation
Before entering a bargaining meeting, the skilled negotiator prepares for the
meeting. Preparation includes determining goals, areas for trade and alternatives to the
stated goals. In addition, negotiators study the history of the relationship between the two
parties and past negotiations to find areas of agreement and common goals. Past
precedents and outcomes can set the tone for current negotiations.
Active Listening
Negotiators have the skills to listen actively to the other party during the debate.
Active listening involves the ability to read body language as well as verbal
communication. It is important to listen to the other party to find areas for compromise
during the meeting. Instead of spending the bulk of the time in negotiation expounding
the virtues of his viewpoint, the skilled negotiator will spend more time listening to the
other party.
22
Emotional Control
It is vital that a negotiator have the ability to keep his emotions in check during
the negotiation. While a negotiation on contentious issues can be frustrating, allowing
emotions to take control during the meeting can lead to unfavorable results. For example,
a manager frustrated with the lack of progress during a salary negotiation may concede
more than is acceptable to the organization in an attempt to end the frustration. On the
other hand, employees negotiating a pay raise may become too emotionally involved to
accept a compromise with management and take an all or nothing approach, which breaks
down the communication between the two parties.
Verbal Communication
Negotiators must have the ability to communicate clearly and effectively to the
other side during the negotiation. Misunderstandings can occur if the negotiator does not
state his case clearly. During a bargaining meeting, an effective negotiator must have the
skills to state his desired outcome as well as his reasoning.
Collaboration and Teamwork
Negotiation is not necessarily a one side against another arrangement. Effective
negotiators must have the skills to work together as a team and foster a collaborative
atmosphere during negotiations. Those involved in a negotiation on both sides of the
issue must work together to reach an agreeable solution.
Problem Solving
Individuals with negotiation skills have the ability to seek a variety of solutions to
problems. Instead of focusing on his ultimate goal for the negotiation, the individual with
skills can focus on solving the problem, which may be a breakdown in communication, to
benefit both sides of the issue.
Decision Making Ability
Leaders with negotiation skills have the ability to act decisively during a
negotiation. It may be necessary during a bargaining arrangement to agree to a
compromise quickly to end a stalemate.
Interpersonal Skills
Effective negotiators have the interpersonal skills to maintain a good working
relationship with those involved in the negotiation. Negotiators with patience and the
23
ability to persuade others without using manipulation can maintain a positive atmosphere
during a difficult negotiation.
24
Ethics and Reliability
Ethical standards and reliability in an effective negotiator promote a trusting
environment for negotiations. Both sides in a negotiation must trust that the other party
will follow through on promises and agreements. A negotiator must have the skills to
execute on his promises after bargaining ends.
Problem Analysis
Effective negotiators must have the skills to analyze a problem to determine the
interests of each party in the negotiation. A detailed problem analysis identifies the issue,
the interested parties and the outcome goals. For example, in an employer and employee
contract negotiation, the problem or area where the parties disagree may be in salary or
benefits. Identifying the issues for both sides can help to find a compromise for all
parties.