The Art of Negotiation in Conflict Resolution

Unit 2 

Question 2-1 

Integrative negotiation also goes by the name interest-based bargaining, which refers to a situation where the conflicting parties come together to find a win-win resolution to their dispute. Broadly, the strategy focuses on establishing mutually beneficial settlements basing on the interests of the opposing parties. Integration of interests refers to the merging of interests with the aim of creating a common value for the two parties. It is difficult to achieve integrative negotiation, especially if there is only one contentious issue (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2013). The strategy works best in situations the disputants have several problems, but it becomes tricky where they conflict on only a single issue. In multiple issues, the disputants trade the issues across, therefore, reaching a quick settlement, unlike in a single issue conflict. For instance, Gregory and Craig from Michigan both claimed ownership on the same piece of land, and both stood firm on their claim that they acquired the land legally; it can pose a challenge resolving the conflict since each one of them would demand to take the entire parcel of land. Each of them stood their ground and losing the land was not part of the negotiation, they wanted to participate in at the time. 

Question 2-2 

There is a big difference between distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining in the sense while pursuing the former; an individual seeks to gain everything while ensuring the other party losses everything, whereas, in the latter, both individuals seek a middle ground where both parties win. Broadly, in distributive bargaining individuals think of themselves alone and strive to take as much as possible from the other party. Ideally, it provides no room for negotiations and the party that emerges victorious takes everything from the opponent a situation that might attract retaliation by the losing party. Lewicki, Saunders & Barry (2013) contend that d istributive negotiation results in one party losing and another winning, whereas integrative bargaining results in a win-win situation. The winner takes it all kind of approach that comes with distributive bargaining, which invariably leaves one party bitter and discontented which serves to prolong the conflict. For instance, if John and James claim ownership to a particular piece of land and John takes it all for himself, whereas James loses the whole of it to John it will pass as distributive bargaining. The two can also decide the share the land half-half to mean everyone benefits from the land, therefore, providing a perfect example of integrative negotiations. 

Unit 3 

Question 3-1 

The distributive strategy applies in child custody cases where a parent takes custody of all children since dividing the children among the parents causes them psychological problems. One parent can also be a perennial drug abuser and, therefore, allowing such an individual to take custody of some of the children might be dangerous to their sustained growth. Children also deserve growth together since separating them causes them to have stress and depression, which affects their overall growth and development. On the other hand, integrative bargaining applies where one party fights to own a piece of land with a house where one demands the piece of land while the other claims ownership of the house. In a situation, one party may settle for the land while the other settles for the house. In the integrative bargaining situation, such as the one identified above, both parties take some portion of the property under dispute. Even though no one gets the entire package as each one of them would have wanted, they all get a portion of the prize, therefore, giving them some level of satisfaction. Winner-takes-it-all approach only helps to worsen an already bad situation since the party that losses immediately begin to strategize how best to dispose of the winner and the cycle continues (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2013). The approach creates bitterness and a need for revenge in the losing party and when an opportunity present itself, they engage in a similar action the other person did to them without considering the consequences of such as act. 

Question 3-2 

Yielding refers to the strategy where one party loses while the other wins. For instance, an individual abandons his or her demands and allows the other persons to have their claims in full. On the other hand, inaction also describes a situation where one loses nothing in a conflict (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2013). Under this case, a person’s outcome and the opponent’s outcomes have no consequences prompting one party to abandon the conflict. Most people choose the above option when the opposing party becomes unethical during the negations process. 

Question 4-1 

I disagree with the statement because lying is wrong under any circumstances. Lying refers to the act of giving false information about something or someone. Lying is wrong because it provides short-term solutions to the individual, but the long-term consequences hurt even more not only to the lying individual but also to other people involved directly or indirectly. For instance, if a person is found dead and an individual lies to the authorities that he witnessed the murder and frames another person for it, the framed individual will end up in jail and serve a sentence for a crime that he did not commit while allowing the real culprit to get away with the crime. The lying person will have denied justice to the murdered person and caused pain to another innocent person who could be engaging in constructive activities. Lying is wrong because it causes pain and suffering to other people even though it might appear to give relief to the person telling the lie. Lying sabotages the truth and keeps the party in a state of apprehension for fear of the consequences of their actions (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2013). Overall, lying is a bad habit that causes pain to other people around us. 

Question 4-2 

Frames in negotiations refer to the manner by which individuals present their offers. The way individuals describe their proposals during negotiations have an immense impact on the way other people view them. Frames affect negotiations in that they interfere with the judgment-making process of the recipient to a particular offer. Psychologists argue that the human mind interprets reality differently depending on how the reality is presented to them. Negative packaging attracts negative feedback, whereas positive packaging attracts positive feedback (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2013). Frames are important in negotiations since they help influence the recipient’s decision, which weakens hard stances. One ought to present to the other party the benefits that he or she will derive from the offer rather than what the individual will lose. For instance, telling an individual the gains the person will get from an offer draws positive feedback from the person, whereas stating the same person of the losses that come with the offer will bring a negative response. Negotiators ought to use positive words while describing their proposals even if some negatives come with the same package. The frames offer false satisfactions, which help to break the truce during negotiations, especially in ones that both parties hold a firm and dissenting stances on their demands. 

Question 4-3 

False conflict refers to the perception where parties assume the existence of conflict where none exists. For instance, one might assume another colleague at the workplace, and desire his/her job, and the other party become jealous when in reality none of them eyes the other’s job. Overconfidence also presents another example of cognitive bias. Notably, scenario implies that overconfident negotiators believe that they are always correct or true. For instance, when one gets into a negotiation and claims to have all rights to a particular property or position even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Overconfident negotiators stand the risk of missing crucial information from the other party. This is because they tend to shut down the important pieces of information before even listening to them (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2013) Egocentrism is also another example of cognitive bias. Egocentric individuals focus on their interests and objectives while showing little concern to the interests of others. For instance, if people have a struggle over land and one party keeps claiming ownership over the property to the extent of asking the other party to vacate and look for alternative land before even the negotiations are done. Egocentric negotiators put self before reason during the negotiation process. 

Unit 6 

Question 6-1 

There are two routes to influence, including the central route and the peripheral route. It is essential for one to understand those routes since they might inform the strategy that one applies during the negotiation process. For instance, in peripheral route, one might appeal to the speaker’s credentials rather than the content the speaker is delivering while in the central route one might appeal to the figures and message to convince the other party otherwise. Calling to one’s credentials or physical appearance serves to distract the individual from the message and draws one’s attention to thins or factors outside the conversation (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2013). Peripheral routes also help to stem down the anger in the other party and also ease the existing tension. Decisions made under tension are always very punitive as compared to those made when one is calm and undisturbed. Appealing to the content, on the other hand, attempts to convince the other party on the importance of the details contained in the agreement. The details can help assure the other party otherwise and sway the negotiation in one’s favor 

Question 6-2 

Existing relationship brings about cooperation in the process which in other cases does not exist altogether. Parties in an existing relationship will tend to cooperate in a quicker way compared to individuals who had not known one another. Additionally, the parties will also exhibit reluctance to use coercive tactics during the negotiations to ensure that they preserve their existing relationship that would not be possible if they use coercion (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2013). 

Question 6-3 

Communal sharing refers to the relationship that is need-driven. For example, people sharing a resource. There is the equality-matching relationship where an individual does something for the other expecting the other person to do something else in return. For instance, during the election period in which the voters cast their ballot for their preferred choices and the elected leader, in turn, are expected to change the lives of the electorates. Market pricing relationships focus on what one party can drive from the other also called unequal relationship (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2013). This relationship is applicable in cases such as the stock valuation. Authority ranking on the other refers to relationships that exist because one person has authority above the rest such as student-lecturer relationship or boss-employee relationship at the workplace. For example, the relationship that exists in the military set-up where one person issues a command and the other person receives and obey the command. 

Question 6-4 

The returns can influence the role and options of the target in the sense that the value of the offer the opponent presents has a significant effect on the entire process. Alternatives also influence the target’s role during negations (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2013). One should state the value of the offer he or she is presenting at the onset of the negotiations as it can influence the agreements. One also needs to evaluate the alternatives the conflicting partner has regarding the offer being made at the beginning of the talks. 

Reference 

Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., & Barry, B. (2013).  Negotiation  (7th ed.). New York United States: McGraw-Hill Education.