NEGOTIATION

General: Bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with
its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and
reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict. Noun
form of the verb negotiate.

These steps are described below;

1. Preparation and Planning

Before the start of negations one must be aware of conflict the history leading to
the negotiation the people involved and their perception of the conflict
expectations from the negotiations etc.

2. Definition of Ground Rules

Once the planning and strategy is development one has to begin defining the
ground rules and procedures with the other party over the negotiation itself that
will do the negotiation. Where will it take place? What time constrains, if any will
apply? To what issues will negotiations be limited? Will there be a
specific procedure to follow in an impasse is reached? During this phase the
parties will also exchange their initial proposals or demands.

3. Clarification and Justification

When initial positions have been exchanged both the parties will explain amplify,
clarify, bolster and justify their original demands. This need not be
confrontational. Rather it is an opportunity for educating and informing each
other on the issues why they are important and how each arrived at their initial
demands. This is the point where one party might want to provide the other party
with any documentation that helps support its position.

4. Bargaining and Problem Solving

The essence of the negotiation process is the actual give and take in trying to
hash out an agreement. It is here where concessions will undoubtedly need to be
made by both parties.

5. Closure and Implementation

The final step in the negotiation process is formalization the agreement that has
been worked out and developing and procedures that are necessary for
implementation and monitoring. For major negotiations this
will require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract.

Distributive negotiation and integrative negotiation

Negotiation strategies have gained a significant amount of
attention from management practitioners owing to their conflict
resolving attribute. There are two main approaches to
negotiations based on the stance adopted by the negotiating
parties distributive and integrative. To choose the most apt
strategy for a particular situation its important to understand the
difference between distributive and integrative negotiation
strategies. Lets take a look at what each of these two strategies
entail and well have a fair idea of when to use each.
Distributive Negotiation Strategy

This strategy is also popular as the fixed pie strategy, since this involves allocating
shares of a finite resource among the negotiators. With limited resources for the taking,
every negotiating party views every other party as an adversary and this is well reflected
in the debate over the allocation of shares. Every party tries to put its best foot forward
to grab a bigger chunk of the resources. Along with that, its important for the negotiating
teams to have a good idea of the competitive position of the other negotiators. This will
help when the actual debate on who should get how much begins. In essence, this
negotiation strategy requires acting defensive and reserved.
Integrative Negotiation Strategy
The Collaborative Nature
This is quite a contrast to the above strategy as this involves a joint
initiative that will prove beneficial to all the negotiating parties. The
negotiators do not build up on how much they will receive; rather all
efforts are directed at increasing the total payoff through mutual
cooperation. Since this negotiation strategy is based on common
interests and joint efforts of all the parties involved in the

negotiation, each party perceives the others as friends and

collaborators.

Distributive vs. Integrative Negotiation Strategies

The short notes above, on both the strategies, bring out the apparent
difference between the two, to quite an extent. Nonetheless, we have here a
list of the major differences between distributive and integrative negotiation
strategies.

Distributive negotiation ends up in a win-lose situation where some parties

stand at an advantage and the others lose out. On the other hand,
integrative negotiation creates a win-win situation for all the parties.
Distributive negotiation is competitive in nature and requires that every
party views every other party as a competitor, while integrative negotiation
is collaborative in nature and all the parties negotiate on friendly terms,
acting as allies to one another.
Integrative negotiation works as a conflict management tool, whereas
distributive negotiation intensifies the conflicts further.
In distributive negotiation every negotiator focuses on meeting his personal
interests, regardless of the loss the others may have to face. In contrast,
integrative negotiation focuses on mutual interests of all the parties and
thus, comes up with constructive solutions that will be beneficial for all.
When to Use Distributive vs. Integrative Negotiation Strategies?
The list of differences between these two negotiation strategies finally brings
us to the most important question which strategy should be used in which
situation?

Considering the varying approach of these two strategies, distributive

negotiation is best used when you have some strong advantage points and
youre in a good position to bargain. Contrary to this, integrative negotiation
will be most beneficial in situations where your position is not strong but you
still want to win something in the bargain.

Another determinant you can use for choosing the right negotiation strategy
is whether the bargaining resource is limited or unlimited. If its limited youll
certainly want to grab a bigger piece of the pie and thus, adopting the
distributive strategy may be more advantageous.

Its also advisable to look at the long term scenario and see whether you
want a friendly or a competitive relationship with the other negotiators. If its
just a matter of one deal and you think you will never need any sort of help
from the other negotiators in the future distributive negotiation is the way
to go. However, when long term dependability among negotiators is
noticeable, integrative negotiation strategy is the safest choice.

The end result of a negotiation is dependent completely on the stance the

negotiators adopt, thus you must understand the difference between
distributive and integrative negotiation strategies to make the right move on
the negotiation table.

Five Approaches to Conflict Resolution

An appreciation of conflict resolution styles is integral to understanding the
communication process. While the names may differ slightly, there are five major
responsive approaches to managing conflicts. There is no right or wrong conflict
resolution style, and each conflict participant is capable of choosing the approach
she deems most appropriate in any given situation. In the workplace, a manager
should understand each of these approaches to help parties resolve conflicts that
arise on the job.
Accommodating
The accommodating approach emphasizes cooperation instead of assertiveness. A
person places his interests last and allows the other party to further her interests.
The accommodating approach often occurs when a party is not significantly
invested in securing a victory, because he does not perceive the alternative option
as a significant threat.

Avoiding

Avoiding conflict involves one of the conflicted parties avoiding communicating

about or confronting the problem, hoping it will go away. By not participating in the
problem-solving process, she is effectively removing herself from it. When
employing this approach, the conflict might go away if the other party doesn't press
for a resolution. The underlying differences between the parties are never resolved.

Related Reading: Five Levels of Organizational Conflict

Collaborating
The collaboration style involves parties working together to resolve issues, and both
sides come to the table with win-win attitudes. It is a favorable negotiation style in
formal dispute resolution situations, such as mediation, where the parties employee
a mediator but must agree on the final, binding resolution.

Compromise
Bargaining is the hallmark of the compromise approach to conflict resolution. The
conflicting parties can identify some interests they are willing to compromise on to
bring about a resolution. While the emotional level might still be high, the
compromise style sometimes results in interim solutions when a full resolution is not
immediately possible. Parties might reach a settlement to prevent further escalation
of the conflict.

Confrontation
The confrontation style to conflict resolution entails the party placing his desires
above those of all others involved in the conflict. Assertiveness is the hallmark of
this approach, and those employing this style of negotiation aim to address the
conflict head-on. It might involve high levels of emotions as the parties establish
positions in what can sometimes evolve into hostile communications.

What are the different stages in a conflict?

There are five stages in a conflict. These are latent conflict, perceived conflict, felt conflict,
manifest conflict, and conflict aftermath.

(i) Latent Conflict: The first stage of conflict is latent conflict in which the factors that
could become a cause of potential conflict exist. These are the dry for autonomy, divergence
of goals, role conflict and the competition for scarce resources.
(ii) Perceived conflict: Sometimes a conflict arises even if no latent conflict is present. In
this stage one party perceived the others to be likely to thwart or frustrate his or her goals.
The case, in which conflict is perceived when no latent conflict arises, is used to result from
the parties misunderstanding each others true position. Such conflict can be resolved by
improving communication between the groups.
(iii) Felt Conflict: Felt conflict is the stage when the conflict is not only perceived but
actually felt and cognized. For example, A may be aware that he is in serious argument with
B over some policy. But this may not make. A tense or anxious and it may have no effect,
whatsoever, on As affection towards B. The personalization of conflict is the mechanism
which causes many people to be concerned with dysfunctions of conflict. In other words, it
makes them feel the conflict. There are two reasons for the personalization of the conflict:
(i) the inconsistent demands on efficient organization and individual growth which is caused
within the individual. Anxieties may also result from crisis or from extra-organizational
pressures. Individuals need to vent these anxieties in order to maintain equilibrium.
(ii) Conflict becomes personalized when the whole personality of the individual is involved in
the relationship. Hostile feelings are most common in the intimate relations that
characterize various institutions and residential colleges.
(iv) Manifest Conflict: Manifest conflict is the stage when the two parties engage in
behavior which evokes response from each other. The most obvious of these responses are
open aggression, apathy, sabotage, withdrawal and perfect obedience to rules. Except for
prison riots, political revolutions and extreme labor unrest, violence as a form of manifest
conflict is rare. The motives towards violence may remain they tend to be expressed in less
violent forms.
(v) Conflict Aftermath: The aftermath of a conflict may have positive or negative
repercussion for the organization depending upon the how conflict is resolved. If the conflict
is genuinely resolved to the satisfaction of all participants, the basis for more cooperative
relationship may be laid or the participants in their drive for a more ordered relationship
may focus on latent conflicts not previously perceived and dealt with. On the other hand, if
the conflict is merely suppressed but not resolved, the latent conditions of conflict may be

aggravated and explode in a more serious from until they are rectified. This conflict episode
is called conflict aftermath.

Types of Conflict
When most people hear the word conflict, they think of the term in a negative manner. Surprisingly,
conflict can actually be a positive within an organization. Conflict can bring about change, improve
situations and offer new solutions. Two types of conflict that can occur within a company are
functional and dysfunctional.Functional conflict is healthy, constructive disagreement between
groups or individuals, while dysfunctional conflict is unhealthy disagreement that occurs between
groups or individuals.

Functional Conflict
Susie Steel is a vice president in a real estate development firm called Hearts Development. She has
spent enormous amounts of energy cultivating a relationship with a local town regarding an available
plot of land. Susie would like to purchase the land to build townhomes for sale. She has developed
an excellent relationship with the town politicians and community members.
An issue has developed over the planned usage of the land, though. The town will sell the land to
Susie's company but feels that townhomes would be bad for the overall community. They're
concerned with the additional cost and burden of kids that the townhomes would bring into the
community. Susie understands the community's concern and wants a win-win situation to occur.
She feels that this issue will be a functional conflict due to the fact that the disagreement will bring a
positive end result to both parties. Positive results of functional conflict include:

Awareness of both sides of issues

Improvement of working conditions due to accomplishing solutions together

Solving issues together to improve overall morale

Making innovations and improvements within an organization

In Susie's case, constructive criticism and discussion resulted in a compromise and a solution
between the parties. Susie understood the town's concern but needed to find something to build that
would bring revenue for the company. Through their joint meetings, the end solution was for Hearts
Development to build a retirement community, which would only have citizens 55 and over living in

the town. This would eliminate the issue of having more young people come into town and burden
the school system.

Dysfunctional Conflict
Sometimes, conflict can be a very negative experience for companies. Susie's colleague, John Dirt,
is also a vice president of development at Hearts. He also has a major conflict regarding a
construction project. He is looking to build a nuclear power plant in an East Coast town. The town is
vehemently against having a power plant, and the discussions have been heated in conflict. This is
a win-lose situation, or a dysfunctional conflict. Most dysfunctional conflicts are unhealthy and stem
from emotional or behavioral origins.
In the workplace, conflict is inevitable, usually occurring when one party perceives that their interests
are being opposed or negatively affected by another party. Conflict can produce either a positive or
negative outcome. By being able to identify potential conflict before it arises and knowing how to
effectively manage it, you will be able to help your staff increase the chances of turning conflict into a
positive outcome. There are two types of conflict, functional and dysfunctional.
Functional conflicts
Functional conflicts are constructive, support your company's goals, and improve performance. It
generally involves people who are genuinely interested in solving a problem and are willing to listen to
one another.
Stimulating functional conflict is a great way to improve your team's performance and generate new
ideas. It involves getting your team to either defend or criticise ideas based on relevant facts rather
than on the basis of personal preference or political interests.
There are two widely accepted techniques for doing this: devil's advocacy and the dialectic method.
Devil's advocacy
This method involves assigning a team member the role of a critic. This person should always question
and critique any ideas that your team may have, usually resulting in critical thinking and reality
testing. However, it is recommended that this role gets rotated amongst your team to avoid any
particular person from developing a strictly negative reputation.
Dialectic method
This approach involves facilitating a structured debate of opposing views prior to making a decision.
By hearing the pros and cons of all the different ideas, your team will have greater success in making
sound decisions. However, it should be noted that a major drawback of this method is that the
emphasis to win a debate often clouds the issue at hand.
Dysfunctional conflicts
Dysfunctional conflicts on the other hand, consist of disputes and disagreements that hinder your
company's performance. This generally involves people who are unwilling to work together to solve a
problem and is often personal.
When dysfunctional conflicts arise in the workplace, there are various methods for dealing with it,
including: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising.
Integrating
This method is also known as problem solving and generally involves encouraging opposing parties to
confront an issue and cooperatively identify the problem, generate alternative solutions and select the
most appropriate solution. Misunderstandings and similar disputes can often be resolved using this
method.
Obliging
This occurs when a person neglects their own concern in order to satisfy the concern of the opposing
party. A characteristic of this conflict management style includes playing down differences while
emphasising on commonalities.

Dominating
Also referred to as forcing, people that adopt this approach often have an "I win, you lose" mentality.
Dominating relies on formal authority to force compliance and is generally appropriate when unpopular
but necessary solutions are implemented.
Avoiding
This involves either passive withdrawal from the problem or active suppression of the issue. It is
generally appropriate for trivial issues or when the negative effects of confrontation outweigh the
benefits of resolving the conflict.
Compromising
This is a give-and-take approach for resolving dysfunctional conflicts and is particularly useful when
the parties involved possess equal power.
The following are some examples of situations that can produce either functional or dysfunctional
conflict:

Incompatible personalities

Overlapping or unclear job boundaries

Competition for limited resources

Inadequate communication

Interdependent tasks

Unreasonable rules

Unreasonable deadlines or extreme time pressure

Collective decision making (the greater the number of people participating in a decision, the
greater the potential for conflict)
Decision making by consensus
Unresolved or suppressed conflicts
As a leader or manager, you should be continually aware of staff interactions within the workplace. As
such, you should carefully observe and react appropriately to these early warning signs as they have
the potential to lead to major conflict, reduce morale, motivation and cause business inefficiency.