Describe A Range Of Negotiation Styles And Evaluate Their Effectiveness

Describe a range of negotiation styles and evaluate their effectiveness

Definition

Negotiation, according to Tubbs and Moss (2006) is a “set of methods for resolving conflicts between and among people”. They also quote Walker and Harris (1995) who define negotiation as “the process of resolving differences through mutually acceptable trade-offs”.

To define conflict, Tubbs and Moss choose a definition by Wilmot and Hocker (1998): “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals”. Conflict therefore does not only apply to the situations, sometimes extreme, to which it is commonly applied, such as child-parent or spousal difficulties, or to war or civil disruption. It also applies to buyer-seller situations, assigning resources to a project at work, or asking the boss for a pay rise вЂ" situations where the participants recognise that they have differences to resolve, but do not always consider themselves to be involved in conflict.

Resolving conflict

Mayer (2000) believes that a conflict is only resolved when the parties believe the conflict has ended, no longer feel in conflict, stop using conflict behaviour and implement new behaviours. Such resolution can happen on many different levels вЂ" some people focus on reaching a settlement, others on transforming the conflicted parties, and others perhaps on achieving social justice.

Whatever level the resolution is on, it can only be reached through effective communication - caring about what the other has to say, focusing on understanding, tolerance, and connecting through good feedback.

Negotiation is then a process of �good communication’ that leads to a resolution of conflict, and if we use Wilmot and Hocker’s definition of �conflict’, has a role to play in numerous everyday situations.

Models of Negotiation

According to Walker and Harris, any negotiation will follow a predictable path with six steps that they define as:

1. Analysing the negotiation situation

2. Planning for the upcoming negotiation

3. Organizing вЂ" choose the negotiators and agreeing the game plan

4. Gaining and Maintaining control

5. Closing the negotiation

6. Continuous improvement вЂ" reviewing how it went and applying the lesson next time

These steps are sometimes expanded or refined for particular types of negotiation. For example, Scacchitti and Guertin (2005) offer the following as the steps involved in negotiating with a supplier:

So negotiation is a process and it can take place within a number of contexts вЂ" for example industry norms (as in this example the conditioning of the supplier), organizational requirements, and cultural variables. This is why the planning stages of a negotiation (in the bold dotted box above) are so vital. Each of the context variables affects the way in which the plans will be developed and executed.

Styles of Negotiation

Whether negotiations are taking place between individuals or groups, each will bring to the table a certain approach, orientation or style, and the two most common styles are cooperative and competitive.

Morton Deutsch (1973) says “In a cooperative situation the goals are so linked that everybody вЂ?sinks or swims’ together, while in the competitive situation if one swims, the other must sink.” In other words, the cooperative approach leads to win-win resolutions. Win-win outcomes occur when each side of a dispute feels they have won. Since both sides benefit from such a scenario, any resolutions to the conflict are likely to be accepted voluntarily (Burgess and Burgess, 1997)

This form of outcome is often quoted as the most desirable as the parties work in cooperation, developing a relationship and fostering trust, and so often arriving at mutually beneficial outcomes. However, it assumes that a solution can be found that will satisfy both parties. When there is a limited resource (a fixed pie) that must be divided one way or the other there may be no possibility of mutual gains and so a competitive approach may be adopted.

The competitive approach will generally lead to animosity and distrust and can be destructive, leading to win-lose outcomes. Win-lose situations result when only one side perceives the outcome as positive. Thus, win-lose outcomes are less likely to be accepted voluntarily (Burgess and Burgess, 1997).

Finding an Effective Balance

On entering a negotiation, the parties will have a feeling for whether they need to cooperate or compete to reach their desired outcome. According to Lax and Sebenius (1986), there will always be common and conflicting goals when negotiating an acceptable agreement, and so cooperation and competition are both necessary to some extent for a resolution to be achieved. They state “negotiators must learn, in part from each other, what is jointly possible and desirable. To do so requires some degree of cooperation. But at the same time, they seek to advance their own interests. This involves some degree of competition. They propose that the key to successful negotiation is to find a balance between these approaches and they coin the term “The Negotiator’s Dilemma” to define the basic tension between cooperation and competition that is present in any negotiation.

In my work role I often have to negotiate with suppliers and my experience equates with the Lax and Sebenius theory. The way this plays out in reality means that finding the balance takes time and negotiations can therefore take place over extended periods вЂ" sometimes weeks or months вЂ" while proposals and counter-proposals are made, at each stage with no expectation that they will be accepted, but rather, as Lax and Sebenius say, to establish with the other party what is both possible and desirable.

The