Do you have
any questions?

Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, Cases

Buy custom Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, Cases essay

The negotiations are clarified as composing of multi-independent parties, which bear conflicting interests. The parties confront the conflicts through adjusting their demands to reach a consensus through mutual agreement. The process of consensus is defined as being based on the “mutual adjustment” of the individual demands, as a mode of negotiation. The other possible source of conflict is from the competition, which is evidently a source of elucidation of dominance, in which the recessive group would fight for the equal rights with the dominant group. The mutual agreement that is beneficial from this conflict is reached through “collaborative problem solution”. This is a form of sealing the split gains and possible loses, accrued from lack of a compromise between the conflicting parties.

In forming a negotiation, there is evidently the need for a pre-negotiation plan that is essential for implementation of the negotiation process. The process of negotiation under the constraints of pre-negotiations seeks to address the need for veering into the frame of the problem. This is, then, closely followed by the process of defining the major goals of the negotiation process. The other element that is vital in pre-negotiation is the selection of a viable strategy, where conflicting parties should champion for a plan that could conveniently address the challenges of the conflict.

The next aspect of negotiation basics is the specific planning, which includes the process of defining the issues under conflict, planning for the priorities in terms of the ideologies of the conflicting parties and setting up supportive arguments. The major thought that characterizes the basis of specific planning is the implementation of the strategy. The process of implementation of this strategy is reached through setting up the targets and limits for results that are achievable from the negotiation process, and working towards achievement of those results. Once the end results are foreseeable, it is easy for one to articulate the best outcomes from such a move, by setting the targets and limits to be the guidelines for negotiations.

The classification of negotiations comes about as a result of both the distributive and the integrative modes of argument. The distributive mode of negotiation looks at the win-lose bargaining, where there is subjection of the conflicting parties to the form of competition. The end result of the competition would give a win due to the proclivity of the argument, while the other party is considered to have recessive losses. The parties would be in contention with the decisions therein, since it is entirely based on the argument put across. In contrast, the integrative mode of negotiation is based on the win-win strategy, which is termed as the collaborative mode of bargaining. This mode looks at the essentiality of the conflicting situation that gives the best share of the solution to each party. The parties are termed to be at a collaborative mood, since there is acquaintance of equal mutual gains.

            In this regard, this section implicates the basics of negotiation, where there is elucidation of the approaches of conflict resolution under the mirror of negotiation. The book gives the essentiality of equal engagement of the conflicting parties in order to synthesize the best outcome that could be a viable tool for consideration of the arguments of the contender. The best approach that is evidently a sound tool for negotiation is the collaborative mode of negotiation, which seeks to elucidate the essentiality of equal mutual gains from an argument. This mode of approach looks at a win-win formula for the contenders, where each of the conflicting parties veers through the situation victoriously.

Section 1.10 pgs 112-114 processes

This section looks at the process of negotiation as being pegged to the process of communication. The process of communication is defined as the transmission of information from the sender to the receiver. In negotiations, the communication is defined as miscommunication, if the process of transmission of the information contains errors or the receiver does not harbor the capabilities of interpreting the essentiality of the information. This results into a poor laying down of the argument, which essentiality depicts errors in responses. Miscommunication arises as a result of a dislike form of the conflicting parties, in which the parties have cultural instincts that separate them from the viability of negotiations. Such parties are due to misinterpretation of ideologies, since their arguments are based on past injustices.

The parties that generate the conflict of miscommunication might also be victims of misperceptions, in which the contenders might be typical stereotypes. Moreover, lack of sound grounds for projection and the essence of selective perception during negotiation processes leads to miscommunication; a broader element of misperceptions. The frame of the conflict for the parties might also influence the perceptions. This implies that the perception for the viability of the negotiation process may be inclined to the conflict frame. The process of negotiation might be distorted, if the negotiators ascend the plea of guilty for the cognitive errors.

It is evident that the cognitive errors from the negotiators affect the process of negotiation, since the parties rely on this judgment. In this breath, the major errors are identifiable as being “irrational escalation of the winner’s curse, overconfidence on the part of the negotiator and the common misconception of the law of small numbers.” Once the negotiators have participated in these cognitive errors, it is evident that the end results would be affected, since there would be articulation of the elements of biasness and rejection of either party’s cognitions. Negotiations under these circumstances would be essentially based on errors and is, thus, termed as a devaluation of the negotiation process. Consequently, these cognitive errors might be dealt with through the process of clarification of questions, where each party has a chance of self expression. Moreover, the negotiator has the jurisdiction of reversing the roles of negotiation and reframing the process to take heed to the responses, given by each party. Through this, the best outcomes are mostly prevalent leading to an error free negotiation process.

On the other hand, the involvement of leverage as a tool of articulation of power to siege a temporary advantage over one of the conflicting parties could settle down the woes of a dominant party. Leverage is an important skill of application in the process of negotiation, where the recessive party is seized from the argument. Going by this, the dominant party has the full mandate of articulation of ideologies on an advantageous ground. This could lead to the healing process of negotiation, since the platform for arguments could be inclined to the mutual benefit of the dominant party. It results in the best outcome, since leverage helps in the predetermination of the end results of the case. The tools of leverage might be categorized through the “enhancing the effectiveness of the messages,” “ways of enhancing the sender’s credibility and the ways that the receivers elicit or resist the messages.” Moreover, leverage can be categorized through the modes of arranging the broader context of the message to reinforce the communication process. This is through the use of the broader contexts to give the explanations of the smaller parts of the message, which gives rise to a better mode of understanding the ambiguity in the recitation process.

Section 2.5 pgs 147-151 contexts

This section provides the contexts of the nature of party relationships in the process of negotiation. Here, there is elucidation of the process of negotiation under the constraints of the presence of an audience. For the process of a sound negotiation, there must be building up of trust, depending on the ability of the negotiator to articulate the self drive of “fostering positive emotions.” If the negotiator does not have the capabilities to embrace self drive under the constraints of the audience, the judgmental process would be jeopardized, since the audience is made up of the groups of bystanders with varied notions about the eventuality of the case. It is evident that the audience forms the source of pressure that could frustrate the sound judgment of the negotiator.

On the other hand, the process of negotiation might be affected, if the judgmental aspect is inclined to the multiparty procedures of negotiation. Multiple parties are known to sway the eventuality of the case in their individual favors, which essentially affects the decision making process. The presence of multiple decision makers makes the negotiation process to be befitted with the constraint of group decision making, whose eventuality is the contest over the power of the best decision.  This bears an eventuality of varied ends, in terms of the best practice of choice over the conflict. It also affects the process of negotiation, since the negotiators would have bilateral instincts, based on coalition buildings.

Consequently, the cultural differences among the people cause the effect of “egalitarian or in-egalitarian distributions.” This is a formation of the negotiation process that is wholly dependent on the stereotypical instincts that the variations in the culture of the people bear. For instance, the elements of masculinity and feminism, in power association, which are evidently the cultural instincts are also the sources of pinning down the decision making process during decision making process.  The cultural influences in the negotiation process are evident from the prior selection process of the negotiator. For instance, one, having male chauvinistic traits, would elude the win-win formula retrospectively to a male chauvinistic situation. Conversely, the win-lose formula would be applicable for the weaker sex. Such happenings are dependent upon the cultural factors, which place the girl child in the society as being weaker.

Section 3.4 pgs 240-243 managing negotiation difficulties

This section deals with managing the difficulties, evident in the negotiation process. There are reasons, which form the stalemate for the negotiation process. Restarting such stalled negotiations would need the expertise involvement of the wit of the negotiator. Such stalled negotiations are termed to be at an impasse state, and the eventuality of the conflict is said to be at an entrenched hostility. Such a case is said to bear more issues than the feasibility of the negotiation processes. The integrative part of the negotiations reaches an impasse, if the conflicting parties lack the ability of invention of mutually exclusive outcomes. These are outcomes, whose sample space is known but whose outcome cannot be foretold by a single try. Such conflicts lack the mandate of a distributive law that can bear fruit in terms of ends of the negotiation process.

The best approach for such impasse negotiations is the invention of a third party negotiator, which forms a fresh ground for relaying of resolutions. Such third party invention is termed as the arbitration of the negotiation process, in which the arbitrator has a chance of comparison of the competitiveness of the arguments from each party. This gives a fresh platform for relaying ideologies of conflict, which also marks the start of the resolution process.  The major advantage of the arbitration process lies in the speedy process of proclivity of impasse negotiations. It also bears a setback in terms of the lowering the capabilities of self indulgence from the conflicting parties, since the arbitrator acts in the capacity of the resolution on behalf of the conflicting parties.

Mediators are also essential tools of moderation of the conflicts among the parties. This is from the fact that the mediators form the platform for relaying the resolutions therein, although they do not covet the power of synthesizing the eventuality of the case. This implies that as much as impasse, negotiations might need the intervention of mediators; their resolutions are only an elevation to the constraints of the impasse. The eventuality of a negotiation process lies in the jurisdiction of the conflicting parties, which have the power of articulation of the final resort. Therefore, the essence of managing the difficulties in negotiations defines the essence of a mediator as a shed of light into the negotiation process, but whose verdict could not lead to the end of the stalemate. Moreover, the contributory efforts from the mediator are relevant, since they might lead to fresh negotiation grounds.

Buy custom Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, Cases essay

Related essays


Get 15% off your first custom essay order.

Order now

from $12.99/PAGE

Tell a friend