Competitive Positional and Problem Solving Interest Based Negotiation

Question: Discuss about the Competitive Positional-Based Negotiation And Problem Solving Interest Based Negotiation. Answer: Introduction In systems that contain a variety of agents, there is a need for them to interact freely and openly so that they can be able to fulfill their dreams, objectives and improve their performance (Caverley, Cunningham and Mitchell. 2006. p 64). This general manager has taken a very important step as there exists a need in coming up with a mechanism that facilitate exchange of information, coordination, collaboration and conflict solving mechanisms among the members in the company. Sometimes workers experience shortages, uncertainties and false information thus they are unable to make viable decisions about the company or addressing a problem whenever a need arise. Negotiation process is very important since it aids in acquiring and modifying preferences in human negotiations. Through the performance of different viable approaches of interactions that involves discussing of the desires and interests of the participants, there are high chances of individuals increasing and improving the quality of their negotiations. (Irmer and Druckman 2009. P 224-225). Similarly, our main motive is trying to realize benefits through the process of providing the agents and workers the capability to carry out discussions on interests during negotiations. We shall research how both the competitive and problem solving negotiations approaches calls for open illustration of the relationship connecting both goal and values of the workers. We seek to determine at the end how this models captures the different forms of relationships connecting main objectives, sub-goals, excellent goals and values and conclude which fits for this company. We shall also research on a variety of arguments that can be used to justify the strength and weakness of these approaches and demonstrate the manner in which these arguments might affect the companys new implemented objectives and ultimately its preference on potential discussions. Comparison in differences and advantages of competitive positional based compared to problem solving interest-based negotiation shall be determined. Finally, we seek to discuss some of the different reasons that will act as a motivation in adoption of any of the approach by the company. Objectives To evaluate competitive and interest based negotiation approaches. To evaluate the features of each approach To determine the best approach of negotiation that will suit Barbaras company. Methodology It is very important to know how to conduct a research and identify credible methods that will enable the researcher to come up with desired data or information. It will be of great importance that we work with a variety of information so that we can have the best hypothesis for our paper. Null hypothesis is very crucial as it helps in disapproving something hence in our case we shall end up disapproving one approach. Most of the sources that I used to gather a lot of my data are other peoples work. Information analysis There exist two important forms negotiations which are basically competitive position based and interest-based. Substance is very important when it comes to position based negotiation and the main actual item being negotiated about remains the point of focus for both parties (Davis and Smith 2003. p 57). Negotiations in position based approach view the other party as an opponent who need to be defeated. Every party has tendency of self-serving with the main aim of seeking glory over the other and prefer their own pre-determined solutions that they consider to be better off and in case of giving up, they accept it but with a lot of grudges (Wagner 2008. p 67). The main problem associated to position based negotiations is that it always breeds to resentment. The outcome of one party winning make the other one experience a loss , thus tend to step aside with a mood of resentment and thus possibility of attempting return with an aim of compensating themselves on what they have lost in one way or another (Corken, and McGreevy 2016. p 206). If in any case you are going to work with the other proponent for a prolonged duration and on a project that is too long to mention, there is a possibility that a win-lose result in dialogues will have an impact that may deposit the beginning for bitterness and permanent conflict (Noce, Bush and Folger 2002. p 30). Similarly, on competitive negotiation, substance is also considered to be very important in interest based negotiation. This method of discussion puts into consideration the essence of association particularly if the two parties work in a mutually supportive way in achieving a common goal or objective. The main motive and agenda in interest based is reaching a mutually acceptable result that will benefit the two parties. Their interest must be achieved and in case of emergence of a challenge, it is the responsibility of the participants to address it without accusing any individual (Corken and McGreevy 2016 p 7). If both parties achieve, people yield to objective criteria which the two sides can reach to an agreement on practicing fairness and legitimacy. the outcome is achieved when credibility is attained between the two sides in interest based negotiation as they continue to come up with a relationship of trust (Covey and Brown 2001. p 3). The traditional measures of success in positional based bargaining focus on outcomes that are self-serving in achieving majority of the compromises, breaking the other partys bottom line and finally receiving the final benefit. In position based negotiations, the negotiators try to enhance their reputation by their capacity to outwit their enemies (Covey and Brown 2001. p 7). The fact that parties always tend to focus strictly on the number of concessions that makes them end up in losing those that are important to their constituent is the major challenge and problem mostly experienced in getting the most concession in a negotiation(Elgstrm andJnsson 2000. p 695). One party might end up getting more than the other but this is not always better and breaking the bottom line is not an always wise strategy. Both power and influence are important ingredients in interest based negotiation. Control of time, personal power and the control of information are the three basic factors that tend to heavily influence the course of negotiation (Nolan-Haley and Hinds 2003. p 364). The basic principle of interest based negotiations is emerging with a better understanding of both your interest and that of your party and later develop options that are creative that will be able to address those issues. This approach is viable since it raises the chances of establishment of a viable relationship between the two parties and reaching results that can be termed as mutually beneficial. In order of introducing standards that can be agreed upon by the two parties, persuasive principles or criteria of fairness and legitimacy are put into application. (Feldman et al. 2006. p 91-92). It is very important to know that not every negotiation is successful but having livable choices in the events the dialogue becomes unsuccessful, one may get the chance of enhancing their assurance and competency in attempt to control the other party (Hopmann 1995. p 34). In interest based negotiations, power is basically used not against the people but rather to create a condusive working environment influence with colleagues. The main objective of this approach is to bring people to realization of who they are than making them feel inferior. The initial stage in Interest based negotiation model is preparation which later introduce a process of reaching solution that are mutually beneficial (Hopmann 1995. p 37). Conflict can emerge at any time of the negotiation process or preparation process within the team and hence settling personal differences before starting any negotiation is very important. (Hopmann 1995. p 44). In competitive negotiations, it is assumed to be a game of zero summation since the amount to be gained by both parties is fixed and are based on win-lose situation. (Kelman 2006. p 16). It can therefore be argued to be a circumstance where a piece of an orange is being fought for where if one child gets the other one does not. There is existence of dont care attitude in competitive negotiation where each party thinks about its own issues without minding about the other. (Lynch 2001. p 208). There exist risks that are associated with rigidly applying each of the negotiation approach (Menkel-Meadow 2001. p 96). For instance, competitive is biased when it comes to confrontation thus calling for the use of force and pressurization. Therefore it tend to be unfriendly on relationship leading to mistrust, rejection, feeling frustrated and furious leading to collapse of negotiations and destruction of communication thus yielding not only misjudgments but also misinformation (Miller et al. 2010. p 179). Findings In the process of gathering the data from different articles, it was found that there exists some elements characterizing each type of negotiation. The aim was to bring to light the important outcome on the results thus we can be able to effectively plan for their use. From these data it was realized that only a small percentage of negotiators in a society make use of chances style planning and analysis represents effectively. This stands to be an important selective area for both internal planning strategy development and external negotiation (Nickerson and Zenger 2004. p 619). Conclusion Ultimately, negotiation is a process that can be approached in a number of ways regardless of the strategy chosen and success depends on how well an institution is prepared. The most important thing in negotiation is coming up with a benefiting result and this is dependent on the ability of the negotiator to consider the entire element pertaining an issue and carefully weigh the validity of the options available. It is compulsory for the negotiators to be able to coordinate the event in order and at the same time try to be as fair and honest as the situation allows. Since the party in the negotiation table have the aim of reaching a common ground, the negotiators can benefit by trying to capitalize on this common ground. The workers in this company should change their attitude on their negotiating skills by viewing the other side as a partner rather than viewing them as opponent and work together. They should be aware that they hold the power and skills in modeling answers that will make both parties to feel contented. Recommendation From this analysis of the two approaches of negotiations, it can be recommended that Barbara apply interest based approach since it has fewer risk associated to it. The outcomes that it yields tend to be more satisfying to each party as opposed to those of competitive negotiations. The viewpoints of position based are not only opposing but also they are fixed and the ultimate outcomes are either compromise or no agreement. There is a likelihood of the failure of meeting the needs of the disputants which leads to division of the differences of the two positions due to these compromises. This at the end makes each party only achieve a half of what they really required. On the other hand interest based enhances balance and equality by issuing each party with what they needed. Solutions offered in interest based approach are entirely more rewarding for all parties in the negotiations as their desires and issues are addressed and met with equity. The entire process calls for collaboration thus there is support and assistance by both parties and this make sure that there are no malicious intentions by the time conclusion has been reached in the negotiation. Between the two parties, this approach enhances positive and constructive relationships. References Caverley, N., Cunningham, B. and Mitchell, L., 2006. Reflections on public sector-based integrative collective bargaining: Conditions affecting cooperation within the negotiation process. Employee Relations, 28(1), pp.62-75. Corken, R. and McGreevy, P., 2016. Good negotiation and land-use planning: the status of negotiation in the NSW planning profession. Australian Planner, 53(3), pp.201-210. Corken, R. and McGreevy, P.D., 2016. Organizations, people and policies: barriers to good negotiation in the NSW planning system. Australian Planner, pp.1-8. Covey, J. and Brown, L.D., 2001. Critical cooperation: An alternative form of civil society-business engagement (Vol. 17). Boston, MA: Institute for Development Research. Davis, R. and Smith, R., 2003. Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Communication in Multiagent Systems, pp.51-97. Elgstrm, O. and Jnsson, C., 2000. Negotiation in the European Union: bargaining or problem-solving? Journal of European Public Policy, 7(5), pp.684-704. Feldman, M.S., Khademian, A.M., Ingram, H. and Schneider, A.S., 2006. Ways of knowing and inclusivemanagement practices. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), pp.89-99. Hopmann, P.T., 1995. Two paradigms of negotiation: Bargaining and problem solving. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 542(1), pp.24-47. Irmer, C. and Druckman, D., 2009. Explaining negotiation outcomes: Process or context? Negotiation and ConflictManagement Research, 2(3), pp.209-235. Kelman, H.C., 2006. Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in negotiating their social environment. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, pp.1-26. Lynch, J.F., 2001. Beyond ADR: A systems approach to conflict management. Negotiation Journal, 17(3), pp.206-216. Menkel-Meadow, C., 2001. Aha--Is Creativity Possible in Problem Solving and Teachable in Legal Education. Harv. Negot. L. Rev., 6, p.97. Miller, J.K., Farmer, K.P., Miller, D.J. and Peters, L.M., 2010. Panacea or snake oil? Interest?based bargaining in the US airline and rail industries. Negotiation Journal, 26(2), pp.177-201. Nickerson, J.A. and Zenger, T.R., 2004. A knowledge-based theory of the firmThe problem-solving perspective. Organization science, 15(6), pp.617-632. Noce, D.J.D., Bush, R.A.B. and Folger, J.P., 2002. Clarifying the theoretical underpinnings of mediation: Implications for practice and policy. Pepp. Disp. Resol. LJ, 3, p.39. Nolan-Haley, J. and Hinds, B., 2003. Problem-Solving Negotiation: Northern Ireland's Experience with the Women's Coalition. J. Disp. Resol., p.387. Wagner, L.M., 2008. Problem-solving and bargaining in international negotiations (Vol. 5, pp. 1-169). MartinusNijhof Publishers.