According to Cnmin-Huni.s (2004), interest-based negotiation emphasizes the understanding and building of interests as problem-solving tools in order to avoid conflicts. This strategy focuses on finding a win-win solution for both parties to their disputes. There are several skills associated with this type of negotiation which is listening, deciphering positions into interests, gathering information, suggesting, and enabling communication. There are two major concepts that one needs to understand in order to incorporate this method of negotiation into their organization. The first useful concept involves understanding integrative negotiation. This covers the interests of the negotiating parties. The second concept is the distributive negotiation which works by weighing how much each side wants during conflict resolutions. However, this type of negotiation concentrates more on using the integrative technique, and its main aim is to make the process of negotiation more integrative and less dispersive.
Interest-based negotiation technique was used to address conflict issues that took place at Kaiser Permanente (KP). This is a non-profit health organization in the USA and is rated to be America’s third largest integrated health organization. In the year 1997, the labor-management partnership was created between KP and 26 unions that represented 80,000 employees of the organization. In the year 2000, conflict pertaining labor agreements under the new partnership arose. John Stepp, who was the chief facilitator of the negotiation, came up with two grounds that had to be undertaken so as to dispel the concerns of both parties. The first was aimed at getting KP to agree to local wage rates, and the second ground was getting an agreement from the unions that indicated there would be no nationwide strike by their members who were employees of the organization. Both KP and labor unions identified their interests. For the labor union, their interest was on a wage increase and pay equity. For example, commencing the formation of the BTG, the agreement was settled whereby, and money was to be allocated to each regional labor union to pay for equity, shift distinction, and work reclassification. The main interest which was presented by the Kaiser Partnership Group (KPG), raised the concern that the agreement could prompt nationwide strikes and influence local unions to decline or end their partnership (Leventhal, 2006).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The interests differed from positions due to several reasons. One, Kaiser made sure that all participants in the negotiating process were trained. The training was not only limited to the senior level, but it also extended to the lower level, and this comprised of the local union level where the agreements were made. Also, from the case study, it is evident that a win for one side does not mean a loss for another. The agreement that was reached made sure that both parties’ interests were placed first. This is different from positional negotiating since the technique is based on a given pie to split, which was not the case with the KP conflict. If it was a position, a win for one side would mean a loss for the other.
Also, the main facilitators for both sides had past experiences in successfully executing interest-based negotiation processes. This means that they both were familiar with the concept and therefore, their main concern was on concentrating on the interests of each party instead of negotiating in such a manner that one party’s loss is the other party’s gain. This is a common skill practiced by facilitators who use interest-based negotiation during conflict resolutions (Ertel & Gordon, 2008). Another reason why it an interest and not a position is highlighted in the case study where it is explained that in four-year partnership with the unions, KP incorporated interest-based ethics into the company’s day-to-day actions (Leventhal, 2006). This culture provided a good foundation to sustain an interest-based negotiation during their 2000 issue.
From the case study, the labor union’s entering point was on wage rate and work compensation increases (Leventhal, 2006). This was an issue that KP was not willing to pay since they found it quite consuming. On the other end, labor unions leaving point comprised of the minimum interests that needed to be met so as to keep them in the bargaining process. This included their mentioned interests which were reimbursement for equity, shift gaps, work reclassification and no wage rate decrease. The unions were greatly in need of the money so as to get new job training and also equality. By executing this, the employees under these unions would feel that they are treated with respect and are susceptible to being exposed to new opportunities.
KP’s entry point can be said to be the agreement on ensuring that national strikes are not to take place since the labor unions had the upper hand in controlling them (Leventhal, 2006). This was to be immediately after the started demands of the labor unions were to be put into consideration. An agreement had to be obtained from the labor unions assuring that there would be no nationwide strikes from the employees. Their leaving point was gaining five years of labor peace, which was a major achievement given the record of several strikes before the agreement. Also, there was to be an improvement of patient care including the ability to deliver it in a more cost-effective way, resulting from the joint activities necessitated by the partnership.
References
Cnmin-Huni.s, C. (2004). Negotiation Strategy: Planning Is Critical. The CPA Journal , 44-45.
Ertel, D. & Gordon, M. (2008). Best practices: negotiating - what's the point of the deal, really? Ive y Business Journal Online.
Leventhal, L. (2006). Interest-Based Negotiation: Conditions for Success with Evidence from Kaiser Permanente. Dispute Resolution Journal , 51-57.
