More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of a negotiation strategy
The importance of a negotiation strategy
How power is the source of conflict
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Negotiation is a fundamental form of dispute resolution involving two or more parties (REF1). Negotiations can also take place in order to avoid any future disputes. It can be either an interpersonal or inter-group process. Negotiations can occur at international or corporate level and also at a personal level. Negotiations often involve give and take acknowledging that there is interdependence between the disputants to some extent to achieve the goal. This means that negotiations only arise when the goals cannot be achieved independently [2]. Interdependence means the both parties can influence the outcome for the other party and vice versa. The negotiations can be win-lose or win-win in nature. The disputant will either try to force the other parties to conform to their demands or try to formulate a solution which satisfies both parties. The nature of their relationship during the negotiation is linked to the nature of their interdependence, the way negotiations are piloted and the final outcomes for the disputants [3]. Effective negotiators try to comprehend the ways in which other disputants may alter or readjust their positions during the whole process. This is comprehended by looking at how other disputants alter their positions during previous negotiations. Negotiations also involve a desired amount of information exchange and try to influence the other disputant’s outcome. This process of give and take is necessary to achieve a favourable agreement. Disputants usually will not want to cooperate if they sense a lack of willingness to compromise from the other party’s side.
The political scientist Robert Dahl (1957:202), defines power as: “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something B would not othe...
... middle of paper ...
...ing or devaluing the needs and wants of a less powerful disputant. Power combined with perspective taking results in constructive and integrative negotiation. When considering others perspective or opinions, individuals with more power has a protective shield against the traitorous behaviour from other disputants [6]. This means powerful negotiators are not easily manipulated or affected by their disputants anger or threats posed. As I mentioned before individual with more power is less likely to be influenced by opponents emotions but identifies only their interests in bargaining and the total desired outcome. Therefore power inversely affect the negotiator’s perspective taking but it also immunizes him/her from disputants angry or threatening tactics. With taking into account perspective taking and power a negotiator will have advantage when it comes to bargaining.
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN-13: 9780073530369
Power has been defined as the psychological relations over another to get them to do what you want them to do. We are exposed to forms of power from the time of birth. Our parents exercise power over us to behave in a way they deem appropriate. In school, teachers use their power to help us learn. When we enter the work world the power of our boss motivates us to perform and desire to move up the corporate ladder so that we too can intimidate someone with power one day. In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness Kurtz had a power over the jungle and its people that was inexplicable.
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D.M., Barry B., (2010) Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. 6th Ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. New York, NY
...ng to pay or sacrifice to obtain such a goal, and take the necessary steps to ensure that all parties involved in the negotiation are in understanding of one another. With this particular type of power breeds confidence and confidence creates the ability to listen rather than prepare to answer.
The first common theme is the importance of clear strategic intent and big picture thinking in negotiations. Before taking the Negotiation Behaviour unit, I always perceived negotiation as a fixed-pie, a zero-sum gain situation, where one party wins and the other party loses. This belief has often led me to a competitive behaviour in negotiation by trading the big picture thinking with the need to win, getting too detailed too quickly, leading to a positional approach instead of having a broad goal and explore for ways around problems to create value and get the best outcome.
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2007). Essentials of Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
The syllables are not. In this way, Gaventa's dissatisfaction with the pluralist approach will be justified and the emphatic ability of the other two dimensions to withhold issues and shape behaviour will be verified as principal agents of Power and Powerlessness. The one dimensional view of power is often called the pluralist. approach and emphasizes the exercise of power through decision making and observable behaviour of the aforesaid. Robert Dahl, a major proponent of this view, defines power as occurring in a situation where "A has power over B to the extent he can.
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2006). Negotiation: Readings, Exercises and Cases (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Negotiating styles are grouped into five types; Competing, Collaborating, Comprising, Avoidance, and Accommodating (Colburn, 2010). Even though it is possible to exhibit different parts of the five types of negation styles in different situations, can see that my tendencies seem to default to, Compromise and Accommodating. In reviewing the course work and reviewing my answers for Questionnaire 1 and 5, I find that the data reflects the same assumption. The accommodating profile is one where relationship perseveration is everything and giving what the other side wants is the route to winning people over. Accommodators are well liked by their colleagues and opposite party negotiators (Colburn, 2010). When analyzing my accommodating tenancy in negations, I find often it is easier to give into the demands when they are within a reasonable range. I often consider it the part of providing a high level of customer service. It has been my experience that continued delaying and not coming to an agreement in a topic will only shorten the window in which you will have to meet the request since. The cons to this style are by accommodating highly competitive styles the accommodator can give up to much ground in the process. “Giving away value too easily too early can signal to your negotiation counterpart that you've very deep pockets, and your gift is just a taster of bigger and better gifts to come”. The other negations type I default to is compromising. Compromising “often involves splitting the difference; usually resulting in an end position of about half way between both parties’ opening positions” (Colburn, 2010). In the absence of a good rationale or balanced exchanged concessions, half way betwee...
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
The oxford dictionary has attempted to define power as the “ability to influence people or control the behaviour of people”. Power has been related to different forms such as political economic, military and even psychological. Power has widely been considered to be the classic determinant of conflict between interstates. Realists view power as a source of state preference. Animosity is constantly caused around power relations which in turn determine why states go to war and why politicians emphasize the role of power in conditioning distance. There is a non-linear relationship of power between the plural perspectives of realism. Realists consider states to be the principal actors in international relations as they are deeply concerned with the security of their own nation especially for the pursuit of national interest. However with this perspective there has been some scepticism with regards to the relevancy of morality and ethi...
Negotiation approaches are generally described as either distributive or integrative. At the heart of each strategy is a measurement of conflict between each party’s desired outcomes. Consider the following situation. Chris, an entrepreneur, is starting a new business that will occupy most of his free time for the near future. Living in a fancy new development, Chris is concerned that his new business will prevent him from taking care of his lawn, which has strict requirements under neighborhood rules. Not wanted to upset his neighbors, Chris decides to hire Matt to cut his grass.
Power is defined in the course study notes as the “ability of individuals or groups to get what they want despite the opposition”. Power is derived from a variety of sources including knowledge, experience and environmental uncertainties (Denhardt et al, 2001). It is also important to recognize that power is specific to each situation. Individuals or groups that may be entirely powerful in one situation may find themselves with little or no power in another. The county Registrar of Voters, who is my boss, is a perfect example. In running the local elections office, she can exercise the ultimate power. However, in a situation where she attempted to get the county selected for a desirable, statewide pilot project, she was powerless, completely at the mercy of the Secretary of State. Power is difficult to measure and even to recognize, yet it plays a major role in explaining authority. In organizations, power is most likely exercised in situations where “the stakes are high, resources are limited, and goals and processes are unclear” (Denhardt et al, 2001). The absence of power in organizations forces us to rely on soley hierarchical authority.
Negotiations are the less costly means to resolve a dispute. They are an intermediary step that gives people or states an opportunity to achieve their goals through peaceful means. Negotiations give us an understanding of our position and that of our enemies. They make us aware of our strengths and weaknesses and they clarify the enemy’s intentions, interests and their potentials. Knowing that war is a certain outcome of a dispute, wouldn’t it be more convenient to first engage in peaceful talks and negotiations? Even though we might have the necessary resources to win the war, would we still be as better off as if we would solve our disputes through negotiations? We would still lose lives and incur material costs if we go to war, regardless if we are on the winning or losing side. Why then would we not advocate using negotiations to resolve disputes? Why do we need to go to war when there is another way to resolve a dispute? Overall, “war does not determine who is right - only who is left.” (Bertrand Russell) And “who is left” should not be the ultimate goal of our society. It is attaining justice and fairness for all that should concern us.