Part A

Essay: Negotiations: concept, reflect and preparation

Negotiation is a technique instead of a policy. It is a tactic which is used whenever the
advantage lies in it for you, otherwise you dont use it John Bolton (Negotiation quotes, 2014).
Thats what negotiation is, a process and a technique which resolves conflicts and puts
forward an advantage for two or more parties by combining their individual conflicting positions
into a common one, which is decided and agreed mutually by both parties (Alfredson and Cungu,
2008; as cited in Kissinger, 1969). Negotiation has been considered as a series of events of a
sensible and balanced decision-making processes by numerous theorists. Most of the
philosophers share a common theory about it i.e. the negotiating parties always share a common
faith that one party can achieve its required goals only when it negotiates with the other one. In
other words, the negotiating parties can fulfill their set objectives, not by dealing individually,
but only by agreeing to the solution proposed by the second party. Thus, negotiation is a mirror
image of a mutual opinion which arises a shared common interest between the parties (Alfredson
and Cungu, 2008; as cited in Schelling, 1960).
Generally, the most adopted approaches of the negotiation include Integrative negotiation
and the Distributive negotiation. Both of these approaches are employed under specific
circumstances. The negotiators first access their goals and then adopt the most suitable approach
consequently. Both of these approaches are explained, contrasted and critically analyzed as
follows:
In the Integrative negotiation approach, the goal is to create a win-win situation for both
parties i.e. both of the parties can get maximum advantage together through negotiation. This
approach is employed by business partners when both partners tend to maintain a relationship for
longer time period (Marzec, 2014).
The general strategies required by this negotiation approach include that both parties list
and share their priorities with each other. By keeping a transparency of priorities, the parties can

access that which of their assets or matters are critical to themselves but beneficial for the other.
Moreover, the parties must put forward solution which are proved to be beneficial equally for
both (Marzec, 2014).
However, this approach has some limitations. For example, several complex issues arise
among the parties during the course of the ongoing negotiation. The parties has still to face and
deal with non-integrative bargainers. Moreover, this approach is quite time consuming
(Alfredson and Cungu, 2008, p. 17).
On the other side, the Distributive negotiation approach is totally opposite to the
integrative one. In this approach, the main objective is to create a win-lose situation for both
parties i.e. one of the parties gains an advantage, while the other consequently loses. A fixed
amount of resources exist in such situation. Both of the parties do not share their proprieties with
one another since they do not tend to maintain a long-run relationship with each other. This
approach is employed by when first partner makes a purchase from the other one (Marzec,
2014).
The general strategies required by this negotiation approach include that both parties list
their priorities but keep them to themselves only. They do not keep a transparency of priorities,
rather both of the parties try to access the critical information of each other. The offer is made by
first party, after which the other party proposes terms and conditions relating to making the
purchase. The agreement is made upon several concessions since the parties still tend to achieve
a genuine result (Marzec, 2014).
However, this approach has also various limitations. For example, if one party does not
agrees to the terms and concession proposed by the other, there is a clear chance that they do not
end up into a mutually advantageous agreement at all. Moreover, the parties try to pressurize
each other through their respective prepositions, and thus this approach asserts over-emphasis on
power (Alfredson and Cungu, 2008, p. 17).

Often multiple conflicts arise while negotiating. There are generally three approaches to
resolve them, namely, interest-based, rights-based and power-based negotiation. In the interestbased negotiation approach, the positions of partners are neglected, whereas more emphasis is
put on the interests. When the negotiation is based on interests, then wide-ranging creative
solutions options come forward. So, in order to resolve a conflict through interest-based
negotiation, both of the parties should maintain a transparency in discussing their interests,
agreeing to a common solution such that both are satisfied. Next, in the rights-based
negotiation approach, when the parties fail to get their goals and interests through negotiation,
they consult the judiciary bodies for getting their issues resolved under state laws. Lastly, in the
power-based negotiation approach, the parties tend to get their interests by pressuring other
through use of power (Alternative dispute resolution approaches, n.d.).
Now, since a detailed overview of the different types of issue-resolving negotiation
techniques have been given, lets analyze that how the BATNA is significant for interest-based,
rights-based and power-based approaches in negotiation. Firstly, lets define what BATNA is. It
stands for Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). It is a substitute guarding
technique in case the deal is called off among the parties. It shows what the party must do and
what could be the consequences if the deal does not come to end. Thus, the negotiating parties
should know their BATNA before they enter into a negotiation (Negotiation skills, n.d.). The
BATNA shows the party the possible gains or loses it can achieve after negotiation, thus it helps
it to decide either to enter into the negotiation or to reject the proposed agreement (Thomas,
n.d.).
A carefully made BATNA empowers the parties to resolve their issues before they
become severe. For example, during the 1960s, Kennecott had its EI Tenanted copper mine
situated in Chile. Due to political crisis. The mine was endangered to become nationalized. Thus,
the company made a BATNA which included steps such as offering government a major section
of the equity interest in mine; expanding the mine by getting loans from global financial
investors; convincing Chilean government to secure the loan subjected to New York state law;
and buying maximum insurance. Through this tactful BATNA, the company was saved from
getting economic exposure. Even though the mine nationalized, but the company won in getting

the governmental and financial costs of nationalization increased. This shows that if careful
BATNA is made, then the party can prevent from facing potential risks and retain its chances to
satisfy its set interests (Thomas, n.d.).
Now, lets examine that how the BATNA is significant for interest-based, rights-based
and power-based approaches in negotiation. In the interest-based negotiation approach, when
the BATNA is made carefully, then none of the parties interests can be neglected. Next, in the
rights-based negotiation approach, when the BATNA is made cautiously, the party who has
forecasted to face negotiation-failure either call-off the negotiation, or pre-set the legal
documents for regaining its interest. Lastly, in the power-based negotiation approach, when the
BATNA is made wisely, then the parties effectively use their power such that they do not have to
face more pressure from the other one.
So far, it has been critically analyzed that what negotiation is, its types and significance
of BATNA for interest-based, rights-based and power-based approaches in negotiation. Now lets
interpret that how the power and persuasion can be used on negotiation style. Here, first see
which negotiation approach is most suitable and why. In my opinion, the Integrative negotiation
approach is more suitable than the Distributive one. This is so because, the Integrative approach
outlines mutual and individual gains both, which is the main motive of a negotiation. However,
the gain is not kept mutual in the distributive approach. Secondly, the Integrative approach has
an ability to make flexible trade-offs, where it lacks in the distributive approach. Lastly, the
Integrative approach is creative enough to share the gains equally between both parties. This,
also, does not exist in the distributive approach (Negotiation skills, n.d.).
Now, lets examine that how the power and persuasion can be used in the Integrative
negotiation style. Power is a critical element that can be used in this negotiation style. The
parties should remember that a force if misused can destroy the mutual agreement on the spot.
Thus, power can positively lead a negotiation to a win-win situation when the parties understand
the goals and interests of each other. The power can be used effectively in setting substitute
options for achieving mutual goals. This means an alternative must be there in Integrative
negotiation otherwise the power is of no use. So, the negotiating parties under an Integrative

negotiation approach are satisfied when their resources are well-mobilized through the power.
The power is not merely confined to allocation of resources, but it also means having the power
to negotiate effectively. Moreover, even if one of the party has weak BATNA, it still has the
potential to negotiate successfully if it puts forward right power into it (Hoffman, 1990).
Similarly, persuasion is another critical element that can be used in the Integrative
negotiation style. Whenever two parties come into mutual contact, conflicts do rise. However,
the key to resolve them is to persuade the other effectively such that he/she get convinced by the
proposed agreement. Thus, in Integrative negotiation style, since the aim is to get a win-win
situation, the parties should have the tendency to persuade one another such that maximum profit
comes out for both of them.
Lets wind up this critical evaluation of negotiation and its techniques by critically
discussing the negotiation as part of a team or a group. A research was conducted by Thompson
and his colleagues (Zhong, 2001; as cited in Thompson, Peterson and Brodt, 1996) for studying
that how team affects the course of negotiation. The results showed that when a team negotiated
with a solo party, then outcome was more positively imperative, than that shown by two solo
negotiating parties. Thus, teams and groups perform better in negotiations. Moreover, Thompson
and his colleagues further accessed the effect of information-sharing among the teams. The
results further showed that teams tend to share more information, critically examine them and
offer their perspectives which provides better negotiation outcomes (Zhong, 2001).
Thus, it can be seen that negotiation is a critical yet best adopted methodology which can
resolve conflicts among parties and let them enjoy shared equal interest. BATNA is an equivalent
solution to a failed negotiation, which can uplift the achievement of the companys interests if
designed carefully. Moreover, power, persuasion and team-involvement in parties are the keys
which can make a negotiation successful.

Part B
Post-negotiation Analysis
Here, the given scenario involves the negotiation of my job interview with the HR
manager of a company XYZ. The manager wanted to analyze and evaluate my existent skills and
expertise based on the STAR approach. He was not satisfied with my CV and past performance,
thus he assigned me with the new task to set HR policies of his company such that the corporate
image of the company is enhanced.
The approach of STAR (Situation Task Action Result) is detailed here below:
Situation. I was assigned with a test-assignment of devising new set HR policies of his
company such that the corporate image of the company is enhanced.
Task. I was made responsible to critically analyze the current HR practices of the
company, examine its shortcomings and flaws, and improve them by adding or altering the HR
strategy and devising a new more efficient one.
Action. Firstly, I did it by critically analyze the current HR practices of the company and
found that there is not dress-code set of the employees of the company. The employees do not
arrive on time and take random leaves without their pay being cut. Thus, the overall productivity
of the company was declining. Thus, I designed a new set of HR policies which proposed rules
including setting a proper dress code which must be followed by employees. Secondly, I
proposed office timings to start sharply from 8a.m. Employees arriving late then that for 3
consecutive days would be fined and listed as an absentee for a day. I did it since the daily
attendance can enhance productivity of the company since most of the workforce would be
coming regularly. Moreover, the dress code will show a uniformity among employees and better
represent a company. I employed my critical researching skills for conducting this action plan.
Lastly, I talked to employees and got their feedback for these respective changes. Moreover, I
also consulted top management and discussed the matter through formal meetings for raising the
awareness of the issues among employees.

Result. Majority of the top management and the employees gave positive feedback for
the proposed new set of HR policies. Thus, they were introduced and practiced efficiently. As a
result, the attendance got increased by a noticeable ratio within the first month.
Outcome. After seeing my efficient performance, I got hired as a junior HR manager in
the respective firm.
In this whole post-negotiation process, I employed the Compromising technique of
negotiation. It an assertive and cooperative approach in which my concern was to consider my
goals and fulfil the objective imposed on me by the interviewer. I showed assertive attitude by
fulfilling the task such that I get recruited in the company. Likewise, I showed cooperative
approach by seeking the solution after consulting with top management and employees both. I
completely addressed the issue. These were among my strengths. However, the weakness my
approach had that I did not explored the issues in much depth as I could have done through
Collaborating technique (Thomas and Kilmann, 2014).
If such situation occurs again, I will surely fully adopt the Integrative negotiation
approach in which my and the companys interests are best fulfilled equally. Moreover, I will
adopt the Collaborating technique in which I will work with the company more deeply by fully
satisfying the interests of the other party (company management and employees). By going
deeper, I will be able to identify the underlying issues of the negligence of the employees i.e.
why they do not come daily to their duties?

Part C
In anticipation of future negotiations similar to situation presented above, I will adopt
following four alternatives:
Firstly, I will research the personal opinion of the employees toward their job roles and
the behavior of their leaders and top management with them. In addition to this, I will study that
what flaws exist in the HR department of the company. Thirdly, I will adopt quantitative
analytical models rather than qualitative for analyzing the employees performances. Another
approach presented is to negotiate such matters later in future through team or groups. When a
homogenous group of employees will be formed into a team, they can better analyze the
employees related issues within the companies. Better information sharing will take place.
When there will be more transparency of information, then better and authentic results will be
achieved. Lastly, I will apply the change of HR policies initially within small department,
examine its results, make amendments if required, and then finally practicing it overall.
Here, the best BATNA approach chosen is to get a team formed for resolving such
employees issues. If there have been a team including me in the HR department, then better
results would have been made. Moreover, it would be best if team members are heterogeneous
i.e. each member is chosen from different department of the company. In this way, crucial
matters and confidential data of each division can be accessed and analyzed more efficiently.
As a proof, consider the research which was conducted by Thompson and his colleagues
(Zhong, 2001; as cited in Thompson, Peterson and Brodt, 1996) for studying that how team
affects the course of negotiation. The results showed that when a team negotiated with a solo
party, then outcome was more positively imperative, than that shown by two solo negotiating
parties. Thus, teams and groups perform better in negotiations. Moreover, Thompson and his
colleagues further accessed the effect of information-sharing among the teams. The results
further showed that teams tend to share more information, critically examine them and offer their
perspectives which provides better negotiation outcomes (Zhong, 2001).

Bibliography
1. Negotiation quotes. (2014). Brainy quotes. [Online] Available at:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/negotiation.html [Accessed 4 April 2014]
2. Alfredson, T. and Cungu, A. (2008). Negotiation theory and practice. Easypol. [Online] Available
at: http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/550/4-5_negotiation_background_paper_179en.pdf
[Accessed 4 April 2014]
3. Marzec, E. (2014). Differences between distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining.
Demand media. [Online] Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/differences-betweendistributive-bargaining-integrative-bargaining-11582.html [Accessed 4 April 2014]
4. Negotiation skills. (n.d.). [Online] Available at: http://cas.upes.ac.in/pdf/NEGOTIATION
%20SKILLS.pdf [Accessed 4 April 2014]
5. Alternative dispute resolution approaches and their application in Water management: a focus
on negotiation, mediation and consensus Building. (n.d.). [Online] Available at:
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/water_cooperation_2013/pdf/adr_background_paper.p
df [Accessed 4 April 2014]
6. Thomas, R. E. (n.d.). Strategic negotiation. University of Florida. [Online] Available at:
http://warrington.ufl.edu/centers/purc/purcdocs/papers/9809_Thomas_Strategic_Negotiation_Co
ncepts.pdf [Accessed 4 April 2014]
7. Hoffman, B. (1990). Conflict, power and persuasion. [Press] Available at: http://swq.es/businessmanagement/Social%20Interactions/CONFLICT,%20POWER,%20AND%20PERSUASION
%20NEGOTIATING%20EFFECTIVELY%20-%20BEN%20HOFFMAN.pdf [Accessed 4 April
2014]
8. Zhong, C. J. (2001). Group heterogeneity and team negotiation. Kellogg journal of organization
behavior. [Online] Available at:
https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/ktag/resources/papers/Zhong.pdf [Accessed 4
April 2014]

9. Thomas, K. W. and Kilmann, R. H. (2014). An Overview of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode

Instrument. (TKI) [Online] Available at: http://www.kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview-thomaskilmann-conflict-mode-instrument-tki [Accessed 4 April 2014]