Negotiation is the process of settling disputes using mutual agreements and discussions. It involves two significant approaches. In the first approach, all efforts depend on the individual to resolve conflicts without involving a third party. In the second approach, a third party usually helps the parties to solve their disputes. The outcome of negotiations could be a partial resolution, problem resolution, and impasse. According to Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus (2014), negotiation depends on interpersonal skills. Negotiation is a formal method used by people to solve intergroup, interpersonal and interstate conflicts. This method is significant; particularly when parties have less or more power balance since every group has something beneficial to the other group. During the negotiation process, parties usually use persuasive communication methods in different styles.
In conflict resolution, negotiation is the process that ends any conflict by providing a peaceful settlement. It helps parties to understand each other interests and needs. Additionally, negotiation promotes a healthy relationship between the disputing parties and provides quick resolutions when compared to litigation ( De Dreu, 2014). The method is also flexible as both parties participate in an informal process in a private environment. Moreover, negotiation depends on persuasion rather than coercion and threats. The discussion relies on all parties remaining to be open to any new information.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Approaches to Negotiation
The first approach is competitive negotiation. It rests on the assumption that when one person gains, the other one loses. Other suppositions in competitive negotiations are; the world of negotiation is usually controlled by self-interest, the resource distribution system is considered distributive, the underlying motivation is either incompatible or competitive, and individuals are better positioned to make independent alternatives. In competitive negotiations, the conflicting parties' goals are direct, and one gets a competitive advantage through extreme offers. During competitive negotiation, power usually interacts with gender in that men and women view competition from different perspectives. For example, women tend to be oriented towards achievement while men teach more toward getting status, mainly while competing with other men. Therefore, men and women experience different advantages and disadvantages during competitive negotiations. However, men maintain an added advantage over women during distributive negotiation while women maintain an advantage in collaborating negotiations.
During negotiations, the competitive bargainer makes higher opening demands, and at the same time concedes slowly. Additionally, the bargainer uses confrontations, argumentation, threats, and forceful speaking. Competition is seen as a practice that stimulates productivity, but the collaboration process promotes constructive ideas and views. Notably, competitive negotiation only develops high self-esteem to the winners, while losers usually suffer from a lack of self-esteem.
Competitive negotiation has several disadvantages. First, this approach encourages brinksmanship by developing opportunities for the impasse. Second, it results in payoff actions like litigation since the primary objective is not based on substantive merits. Third, the approach makes it hard to predict responses since it depends on confrontation and manipulation to control the whole process.
Integrative Negotiation
In integrative negotiation, the negotiators settle disputes by maximizing all the interests of the conflicting parties without necessarily creating a winner or a loser. The approach requires ongoing back and utilization of reflective assertion and listening skills by both parties ( Tutzaue, 2015). In integrative negotiation, both parties have common and diverse interests, and the entire negotiation process assumes that both conflicting parties can gain mixed motives, interdependent and separate needs.
One assumption under integrative negotiation is that individuals who have different positions are not necessarily in a conflict. Other basic consumption during integrative negotiation is that the process is usually controlled by rational self-interest, the common interests are sorted and valued, and interdependence is enhanced and acknowledged. Additionally, limited resources are not in existence but can be expanded by cooperation. Lastly, the purpose of an agreeable solution is to be fair to all parties and adequate to society.
Integrative negotiation is different from traditional negotiation methods in terms of the structure of the situation, behaviors, and actions of bargainers and the negotiators' cognitive framework. Like competitive negotiations, the integrative approach also has several advantages. First, it is biased on cooperation, thus creating many pressures to accommodate and compromise that may not be in the best interests. The approach creates challenges for aspiration levels since it depends on qualitative goals. Lastly, this approach requires substantial knowledge and skills for it to be successful.
In the conflict between a brother and sister who wants to use their dad's car during an overnight trip. The assumptions on competitive negotiations are both win or lose. The rewards in such conflicts are referred to as fixed pie and are distributed between the two conflicting parties. If the brother gets the car, then the sister is out of luck is the loser. Every party in such a scenario maintains a resistance point when the other party will not arrive. Another example of competitive negotiations could be conflict management in an organization between managers and team leaders on the informal problem situation. In this case, most managers apply conflict-avoidant by forming coalitions to win. An integrative approach could solve conflicts while working with realistic and fair commitments, and here, negotiators make decisions by asking parties doable and reasonable questions. Additionally, an integrative approach can be applied when balancing power between parties. For example, if one realizes cannot negotiate equally, they may find assistance from a mediator or attorney.
References
Coleman, P. T., Deutsch, M., & Marcus, E. C. (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice . John Wiley & Sons.
De Dreu, C. K. (2014). Negotiating deals and settling conflict can create value for both sides. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 1 (1), 156-163. /doi/10.1177/2372732214549016
Tutzauer, F. (2015). Integrative Negotiation Strategies. The International Encyclopedia of InterpersonalCommunication , 19.doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic030
