Approaches to Negotiation
Competitive positional-based negotiation and problem- solving interest based negotiation
According to Harvey (2008), negotiation refers to a discussion where two parties engage in to find an appropriate alternative that takes into consideration the interest of all the parties that are involved. In this regard, the possession of effective negotiation is a vital skills for successful operation within the business industry because it helps players in the business industry to secure business deals and opportunities. Despite this, the employees of United Beverages Pty. Ltd. Lack effective negotiation skills, and hence, there is a need to engage and train these employees on the most effective approach to negotiation. There are various approaches of negotiations that are employed by players in the business sector; however, the approach of negotiation that is adopted depends on the prevailing business circumstances (Acuff, 2008). The style of negotiation plays an important role in successful negotiation, and therefore, employees need to identify the most effective negotiation approach to use. In this regard, this paper is going to discuss two different approaches of negotiation; competitive positional-based negotiation and problem- solving interest based negotiation. It is going to highlight their characteristics, assumptions and risks associated with them, and conclude by providing recommendation that should be adopted by Barbara Johnstone, the General Manager of United Beverages Pty. Ltd.
- To identify the differences between positional and interest based approaches to negotiation
- To discuss the characteristics of each approach
- To discuss the assumptions in each approach
- To discuss the risks in each approach
- To discuss the probable impact on relationships of each approach
The findings, recommendations, and the conclusion of this report will be developed using secondary data. This means that the researcher will make use of literature review as the only methodology in the collection of data. The data that is collected will be used to compile a comprehensive report regarding the differences between positional and interest based approaches to negotiation. Even though there are several limitations that are associated with the use of secondary data to compile a report, the researcher of this report will make use of information from reliable and credible sources only, including peer-reviewed academic journals, books, and reliable databases such as EBSCO Host, PRO Quest, and J Store libraries. This will ensure the use of accurate and credible information.
To ensure a report that is critically well-thought, comprehensive, and organized in a logical manner, the researcher will use qualitative method to analyze the data that has been collected. The data collected from the secondary sources will be analyzed in a qualitative manner to support the main points in the report, and also to assist in the development of effective recommendations for United Beverages Pty. Ltd.
- In this approach to negotiation, the parties involved are committed to a given position before engaging one another in the negotiation table; therefore, the parties are committed to achieving results that are beneficial to them only (Forsyth, 2009).
- This approach to negotiation does not take into consideration the future relationships of the two parties involved in the negotiation as each party is after its own good.
- This approach to negotiation fails to take into consideration the various underlying interests of the parties involved in the negotiation because it entails the adherence to an idea that is fixed with regards to what the involve parties want or is arguing for.
- This approach to negotiation focuses on the need to win the negotiation process, where each of the parties involved in the negotiation come with the intention of leading the negotiation in their favor. Therefore, there are only to alternative; to win and to lose the negotiation process.
- The positions that are held in during the negotiation process are arrived at after explicit and concrete decisions (Oliver, 2010). These decisions are normally made with purpose of influencing the decisions made during the negotiation process.
- Concessions are determined by the positions that are held by the parties involved in the negotiation process, for example, to make recognizable and explicit decisions. In this regard, it is through the positions that the parties are able to communicate their interests.
- The parties involved in the negotiations identify themselves using their positions and this serves as their source of unity (Lyons, 2007). Therefore, parties rely on this unity to declare, defend and protect their interest for a successful negotiation process.
- This approach to negotiation is focused on addressing the underlying interests of the parties that are involved in the negotiation process (Chebet, Rotich, & Kurgat, 2015). Therefore, the parties involved places a major focus on communicating the issues that are of concern to them.
- It is more cooperative and takes into consideration the future relationships of the parties involved because it gives room for the parties involved to open up and understand one another in order to solve the problem at hand.
- It is flexible because there is a room for the parties involved in the negotiation process to interrogate their real interests in a manner that is not based on the fixed positions or historical demands (Oliver, 2010). Therefore, the parties involved are able to discuss what they want out of the present situation.
- Despite being flexible, this approach to negotiation fails to contribute toward the unity of the members of the involved negotiation parties in their respective camps because the approach sometimes focuses on meeting the interests of the parties (Provis, 1996).
Findings and Analysis
One major assumption that is made in the positional-based negotiation is that interests are the primary causes of conflicts (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2011). Those who adopt this approach to negotiation assume that their interests, which is normally the driving factor behind the chosen positions are the only factors that contribute to the conflict. In this regard, this approach assumes a wide range of other underlying issues and interests that are affecting the involved parties. The argument that this approach focuses on interests is misleading and conceals that actual dynamics of the conflict at hand, and hence, promotes biases towards one party in the negotiation table, and therefore, it fails to bring about lasting solutions in most cases. According to Crump and Glendon, 2003), recent research also shows that conflicts are not only caused by interests but also can result from the cognitive differences or as a result of opposing ideologies.
Another major assumption that is made in this approach to negotiation is that the conflict that is under dispute is normally fixed and cannot be developed or adjusted during the negotiation process (Barret, 2015). On this basis, the major focus of the negotiation process is what the negotiating parties will get relative to the other party.
While the positional based assumes that conflicts are fixed, the Problem- solving interest based negotiation assumes that the conflicts are not fixed and that they can be developed during the negotiation process (Michael & Michael, 2012). The proponents of this school of thought argues that I a Problem- solving interest based negotiation, there is no cake to that is divided among the parties involved in the negotiation, and therefore, it is necessary for the negotiating parties to collaborative look into the issue at hand and come up with an effective long-term solution that favors both parties (Roger & William, 2011). This is the reason why this approach to negotiation is referred to as a win-win situation, a scenario that is not always true at the end of the negotiation process. This demonstrates that equality is not absolute during the negotiation process, and hence, a major assumption in the win-win claim.
All approaches to negotiation are associated with particular risks. The Competitive positional-based negotiation promotes a focus on the interests of the negotiating parties, and this is risky because it introduces the risk of favoring the demands of particular individuals as opposed to the shared interest of the group members (McKersie, Sharpe, Kochan, Eaton, Strauss, & Morgenstern, 2008). This is a risky scenario because it contributes to the divisions and a lack of unity within the group. This results into the loss of group synergy and this will consequently have a negative impact on the performance of the team or the involved organization. This is also risky because the lack of unity contributes to the lack of trust among the team involved in the negotiation process, and hence, poor performance in organizations.
Recommendations
Despite its perceived effectiveness, Problem- solving interest based negotiation comes along with several risks to the involved parties. Similar to the positional based, this approach to negotiation is a major foster of division among the group members (McKersie, Sharpe, Kochan, Strauss, & Morgensten, 2008). This approach is risky because it ignores and does effectively address disputes that are not cognitive-based. The teams are obliged to accept the presented solution based on persuasion and not purely on the wide range of prevailing interests. In this regard, the solutions adopted may not be effective in the long term, and this may cause conflicts in the future.
These two approaches to negotiation have different impacts on the relationship of the involved parties after the completion of the negotiation process. The positional based negotiation is has negative impacts on relationships. This approach to negotiation has a high chance of straining the relationship between the negotiating parties after the process (Barret, 2015). This is because of its characteristics, for example, upon entering the negotiation table, the negotiating parties chose a particular position to defend without considering the various underlying issues that impact the dispute at hand (Tremblay, 2016). Therefore, as the negotiating parties indulge more in the negotiation process, each party will hold onto their positions, and hence, they move further away from one another. Even in the event that a solution is arrived at, the solution will reflect the differences between the two negotiating parties. In this regard, the positional based approach to negotiation is less efficient and less constructive as it contributes to bad feelings between those involved.
On the other hand, Problem- solving interest based negotiation strengthens the relationship between the two parties that are involved in the negotiation process. According to Barret (2015), the Problem- solving interest based negotiation results into the arrival of solutions that are favorable to all the parties that are involved because it strives to address the underlying issues that are affecting the dispute at hand. The parties that implement this method engage in in-depth deliberation with one another before arriving at a solution, therefore, it brings them together and strengthen their relationships.
Based on the findings and analysis above, I would recommend the following to the General Manager of United Beverages Pty. Ltd.
Firstly, the United Beverages Pty. Ltd. should train its employees to acquire the skills of Problem- solving interest based negotiation. This is because by equipping its employees with this skill of negotiation, this United Beverages will enhance unity among its employees, and this achieving this unity of purpose will enable the company to successfully run its negotiation processes while maintaining a good relationship with other stakeholders in the company.
Secondly, during negotiations with its employees and other business partners, United Beverages should implement the Problem- solving interest based negotiation in order to ensure that it addresses the underlying issues that surround the disputes that they will be facing as an organization.
Thirdly, United Beverage should avoid the risks associated with Problem- solving interest based negotiation through enhancing the unity and promoting flexibility in order to facilitate the arrival at an effective long-term solution.
Conclusion
In summary, competitive positional-based negotiation refers to a negotiation process where the parties involved take different position to defend or argue for in the negotiation process, while the problem- solving interest based negotiation refers to one that is open to discussion to get a favorable solution for both parties. The competitive positional-based negotiation does not take into consideration the future relationships of the two parties involved. This approach to negotiation focuses on the need to win the negotiation process and hence, it is less constructive and strains relationships. On the other hand, problem- solving interest based negotiation is more effective and facilitates relationship because it adopts the spirit of mutual agreement between the negotiating parties. In this regard, United Beverage should adopt the problem- solving interest based negotiation and train its employees to acquire the relevant skills.
Acuff, F. 2008. How to Negotiate Anything with Anyone Anywhere Around the World. 3rd Edition. AMACOM Books.
Barret, J. 2015, ‘The Interest-Based Bargaining Story at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service’, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 431-435.
Barret, J. 2015. ‘The Interest-Based Bargaining Story at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service’, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 431-435.
Chebet, W. T., Rotich, J. K., & Kurgat, A. 2015. ‘Negotiation skills: keys to business excellence in the 21st century?’ European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management Sciences, Vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 23-31.
Crump, L. & Glendon, A. I. 2003. ‘Towards a paradigm of multiparty negotiation. International Negotiation, Vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 197–234.
Forsyth, P. 2009. Negotiation Skills for Rookies. Marshall Cavendish: Singapore.
Harvey, B. 2008. T and G’s Guide to Effective Negotiation. Marshall Cavendish.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. 2011, Essentials of negotiation. (5th Ed.). McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.
Lyons, C. 2007. I Win, You Win. GBR: A & Black.
McKersie, R. B. T. Sharpe, T. A. Kochan, A. E. E, Strauss, G. & M. Morgensten. 2008, ‘Bargaining Theory Meets Interest-Based Negotiations: A Case Study’, Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 66-95
McKersie, R., Sharpe, T., Kochan, T. A., Eaton, A. E., Strauss, G., & Morgenstern, M. 2008, ‘Bargaining theory meets interest-based negotiations: A case study’, Industrial Relations, Vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 66-96.
Michael, B. & Michael, R. 2012, ‘Interest Based Bargaining: Innovating from the Basics’, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 40-48.
Oliver, D. 2010. Creating Success: How to Negotiate Effectively. 3rd Edition. Kogan Page Ltd: London.
Provis, C. 1996, ‘Interests vs. Positions: A Critique of the Distinction’, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 305-323.
Roger, F. & William, U. 2011, ‘Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving’ (3rd Ed.). Penguin Books, New York.
Tremblay, J. 2016, ‘From Principled Negotiation to Interest-based Bargaining’, Universal Journal of Industrial and Business Management, Vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 71-79.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
