Negotiation for Conflict Resolution
There are a number of critical functions that negotiation serves. Bridging gaps between parties who wish to work together is among these functions (Kong, Dirks & Ferrin, 2017). Through negotiations, the parties are able to address contentious issues and arrive at an agreement that delivers gains for all parties. For negotiations to be effective, the parties involved need to adopt the most appropriate style. The choice of style should be based on the issue at hand. For example, in a situation where the parties are pushing for conflicting ideas, the compromising style of negotiation appears appropriate. The competitive and collaborative negotiation styles seem most appropriate for the case involving the Integrated Program Team and the subcontractor.
Competitive Style
The competitive style is one of the most commonly applied in negotiations. One of the principles that define this style is assertiveness (De Moura, Daher & Costa, 2017). A party makes demands and refuses to concede. Furthermore, when one adopts the competitive style, they dismiss and refuse to consider the needs and desires of the other party (Brinke et al., 2015). This principle applies to the situation between the integrated program team and the subcontractor. The situation has arisen because the subcontractor is unable to complete the assigned project in time and within the budget. Therefore, the subcontract should pay the price for the mistakes made. As part of the competitive negotiation, the integrated program team could push the contractor to deliver on their mandate by the originally stipulated timeframe and budget. Failure to do this will force the team to terminate the contract.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another principle that constitutes the competitive style is using lies and misguiding moves (Strudler, 2016). For example, the negotiator may offer to make concessions but fail to honor the promise. While this move could compromise the relationship between the concerned parties, it allows the negotiator to secure compromises and concessions from the other party. This principle would help the integrated program team to pressure the subcontractor to honor their mandate as originally stipulated. Furthermore, as the team offers small concessions, it is able to win the trust and confidence of the subcontractor. While the application of this principle seems dishonest, it is simply aimed at protecting the interests of the integrated program team while maintaining the relationship with the subcontractor.
The third principle that underlies the competitive negotiation style is making threats and raising arguments (Brinke et al., 2015). When one engages in competitive negotiation, they threaten the other party with consequences that will be effected if the other party fails to honor certain demands. For example, in the case of the integrated program team and the subcontractor, the former could threaten the latter with the cancellation of the contract. The issuing of threats is effective in securing concessions. Failing to provide all relevant information is another principle that characterizes the competitive style (Tasa & Bell, 2017). Using this principle, one party withholds information from the other with the aim of gaining an edge. In its negotiation with the subcontractor, the integrated program team could withhold such details as the fact that it can extend the deadline and has the resources to cover the extra cost. As it withholds the information, the team will compel the subcontractor to strive to complete the project as originally agreed.
Collaborative Style
The collaborative style is another negotiation model that yields results. Essentially, this style involves making concessions and pursuing outcomes that serve the interests of both parties. (Bruce & Madani, 2015). The collaborative style is appropriate for the case because it will enable the subcontractor and the integrated program team to reach a mutually-satisfying agreement. One of the critical principles of collaborative negotiation is separating relationships from the substance of the issue being discussed. This principle promotes sobriety and objectivity. The integrated program team and the subcontractor should focus the negotiation on how to move forward with the project. They should not be distracted with the need to protect their relationship. As they focus on substance, they are able to develop concrete solutions and engage in candid discussions. Another principle of collaborative negotiation is focusing on interests instead of positions (Bruce & Madani, 2015). This means that the negotiating parties should strive to achieve outcomes which safeguard the interests of all. This is as opposed to adopting a hardline position and refusing to consider the interests of the other party. Through focus on interests instead of positions, the integrated program team and the subcontractor will be able to work together to achieve a solution which satisfies all.
The primary objective of negotiation is to develop solutions. To do this, parties need to begin with a list of possibilities and alternatives. This is the third principle of collaborative negotiation. This negotiation style challenges the parties to brainstorm and engage in respectful discussions. The integrated program team and the subcontractor should identify possible solutions to the problem that they face. For example, they could consider extending the deadline or scrapping the project altogether. Each alternative solution should be assessed critically on the basis of its individual merit. Fairness is the fourth principle which makes up the collaborative negotiation style (Bruce & Madani, 2015). When they adopt the collaborative style, the parties involved should consider the merits of all alternatives and agree on the solution that is fairest. Essentially, collaborative negotiation aims to create a win-win situation. The integrated program team and the subcontractor need to work together if any progress is to be made. To achieve this, the subcontractor could offer a discount to compensate for the extra costs incurred and the extension of the project deadline. On its part, the team should extend the deadline and cover the extra cost. This is a win-win situation that allows for the project to be completed while protecting the relationship between the two parties.
In conclusion, the situation that the integrated program team and the subcontractor face demands an urgent solution. This solution can be created through negotiation. The competitive and the collaborative styles are the best approaches to the negotiation. The competitive style will allow the integrated program team to secure its interests. On the other hand, if it adopts the collaborative style, the team will manage to create a solution which both parties find to be acceptable. Since it delivers gains for both parties, the team should adopt the collaborative style. This style will also protect the relationship between the parties.
References
Brinke, L., Black, P. J., Porter, S., & Carney, D. R. (2015). Psychopathic Personality Traits Predict Competitive Wins and Cooperative Losses in Negotiation. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 116-122.
Bruce, C., & Madani, K. (2015). Successful Collaborative Negotiation over Water Policy: Substance versus Process. Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, 141 (9), 1-10.
De Moura, J. A., Daher, S. F., & Costa, P. C. S. (2017). Using Psychological Data to Investigate Differences by Gender and Negotiation Styles in E-Negotiation. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 3636-3641.
Kong, D. T., Dirks, K. T. & Ferrin, D. L. (2017). Interpersonal Trust within Negotiations: Meta-Analytic Evidence, Critical Contingencies, and Directions for Future
Research. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (5).
Strudler, A. (2016). Respectful Lying. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19 (4), 961-72.
Tasa, K., & Bell, C. M. (2017). Effects of Implicit Negotiation Beliefs and Moral Disengagement on Negotiator Attitudes and Deceptive Behavior. Journal of
Business Ethics, 41 (1), 169-183.
