Effective Method of Negotiation

Effective Method of Negotiation

What is Negotiation?

Negotiation is the interactive social process in which people engage, when they aim

to reach an agreement with another party or parties on behalf of themselves.

Negotiation is primarily a common mean of securing one's expectations from others.

It is a form of communication designed to reach an agreement when two or more

parties have certain interests that are shared and certain others that are opposed.

- According to Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 1977-

Negotiation: To confer with another for the purpose of arranging some matters by

mutual agreement; to discuss a matter with a view to settlement or compromise.

- Ginny Pearsom Bames sayes, Negotiation is a resolution of a disagreement using

give and take within the context of a particular relationship. It involves sharing ideas

and information and seeking a mutually acceptable outcome.

- The Pepperdine University of USA has developed an explanatory definition of

negotiation:

Negotiation is a communication process used to put deals together or resolve

conflicts. It is a voluntary, non-binding process in which the parties control the

outcome as well as the procedures by which they will make an agreement. Because

most parties place very few limitations on the negotiation process, it allows for a

wide range of possible solutions maximizing the possibility of joint gains.

- According to Williams, Legal and Settlement 1983, Negotiation is a repetitive

process that follows reasonably predictable patterns over time. Yet in legal disputes

so much of the attorney's attention and energy are absorbed by the pre-trial

procedure and the approach of the trial, that they fail to recognize the important

identifiable patterns and dynamics of the negotiation process

- M Anstey explains core elements of negotiation as follows:

1. A verbal interactive process;

2. Involving two or more parties;

3. Who are seeking to reach agreement;

4. Over a problem or conflict of interest between them; and

5. In which they seek, as per as possible, to preserve their interests, but to adjust

their views and positions in the joint effort to achieve an agreement.

Broadly speaking, negotiation is an interaction of influences. Such interactions, for

example, include the process of resolving disputes, agreeing upon courses of action,

bargaining for individual or collective or crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests.

Negotiation is thus a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Characteristics of Negotiation:

? Negotiation involves two or

more parties who need (or think they need) each

others involvement achieving a desired outcome. There is a common interest that

connects the parties.

? The parties start with different opinions or objectives. It is these differences that

prevent agreement.

? The parties are willing to co

-operate and communicate to meet their goals.

? The parties can mutually benefit or avoid harm by influencing each other.

? The parties realize that any other procedure will not produce desired outcome.

? The parties th

ink that negotiation is the best way to resolve their differences (or at

leas, a possible way)

? They also think that they may be able to persuade the party to modify their original

position.

? Even if they do not get their ideal outcome, both retain the

hope of an acceptable

outcome.

? Each has some influence real or assumed over the others actions. If one party is

completely powerless, negotiation will have little point for the other.

? The negotiation process itself involves interaction between peopl

e. This interaction

might be in person, by telephone, letter etc. or it might use a combination, because

it is personal, emotions and attitudes will always be important.

Conditions for Negotiation:

A variety of conditions can affect the success or failure of negotiations. The following

conditions make success in negotiations more likely:

Identifiable parties who are willing to participate: The people or groups who have a

stake in the outcome must be identifiable and willing to sit down at the bargaining

table if productive negotiations are to occur. If a critical party is either absent or is

not willing to commit to good faith bargaining, the potential for agreement will

decline.

Interdependence: For productive negotiations to occur, the participants must be

dependent upon each other to have their needs met or interests satisfied. The

participants need either each other's assistance or restraint from negative action for

their interests to be satisfied. If one party can get his/her needs met without the

cooperation of the other, there will be little impetus to negotiate.

Readiness to negotiate: People must be ready to negotiate for dialogue to begin.

When participants are not psychologically prepared to talk with the other parties,

when adequate information is not available, or when a negotiation strategy has not

been prepared, people may be reluctant to begin the process.

Means of influence or leverage: For people to reach an agreement over issues about

which they disagree, they must have some means to influence the attitudes and/or

behavior of other negotiators. Often influence is seen as the power to threaten or

inflict pain or undesirable costs, but this is only one way to encourage another to

change. Asking thought-provoking questions, providing needed information, seeking

the advice of experts, appealing to influential associates of a party, exercising

legitimate authority or providing rewards are all means of exerting influence in

negotiations.

Agreement on some issues and interests: People must be able to agree upon some

common issues and interests for progress to be made in negotiations. Generally,

participants will have some issues and interests in common and others that are of

concern to only one party. The number and importance of the common issues and

interests influence whether negotiations occur and whether they terminate in

agreement. Parties must have enough issues and interests in common to commit

themselves to a joint decision-making process.

Will to settle: For negotiations to succeed, participants have to want to settle. If

continuing a conflict is more important than settlement, then negotiations are

doomed to failure. Often parties want to keep conflicts going to preserve a

relationship (a negative one may be better than no relationship at all), to mobilize

public opinion or support in their favor, or because the conflict relationship gives

meaning to their life. These factors promote continued division and work against

settlement. The negative consequences of not settling must be more significant and

greater than those of settling for an agreement to be reached.

Unpredictability of outcome: People negotiate because they need something from

another person. They also negotiate because the outcome of not negotiating is

unpredictable. For example: If, by going to court, a person has a 50/50 chance of

winning, s/he may decide to negotiate rather than take the risk of losing as a result

of a judicial decision. Negotiation is more predictable than court because if

negotiation is successful, the party will at least win something. Chances for a

decisive and one-sided victory need to be unpredictable for parties to enter into

negotiations.

A sense of urgency and deadline: Negotiations generally occur when there is

pressure or it is urgent to reach a decision. Urgency may be imposed by either

external or internal time constraints or by potential negative or positive

consequences to a negotiation outcome. External constraints include: court dates,

imminent executive or administrative decisions, or predictable changes in the

environment. Internal constraints may be artificial deadlines selected by a negotiator

to enhance the motivation of another to settle. For negotiations to be successful, the

participants must jointly feel a sense of urgency and be aware that they are

vulnerable to adverse action or loss of benefits if a timely decision is not reached.

No major psychological barriers to settlement: Strong expressed or unexpressed

feelings about another party can sharply affect a person's psychological readiness to

bargain. Psychological barriers to settlement must be lowered if successful

negotiations are to occur.

Issues must be negotiable: For successful negotiation to occur, negotiators must

believe that there are acceptable settlement options that are possible as a result of

participation in the process. If it appears that negotiations will have only win/lose

settlement possibilities and that a party's needs will not be met as a result of

participation, parties will be reluctant to enter into dialogue.

Styles of Negotiation:

There are different styles of negotiation. Style of negotiation is also a strategy. In

some occasions the style reflects the attitude of the party and an experienced

negotiator can guess the result from such a conduct of the party as becomes evident

by the style. Negotiation style is reflected in communication skills, interpersonal

behavior of negotiators, language, voice tones, choices, listening power, non-verbal

gestures and judgment. Generally there are three main styles of negotiation. A brief

description is given below:

- Co-operative Style:

In this type of negotiation style, strategies which are typically used include the

making of concessions, the sharing of information and the adoption of behaviors

which are fair and reasonable. Thus a co-operative negotiator typically explains the

reasons for her concessions and proposals and attempts to reconcile the parties'

conflicting interests; her proposals are measured against standards which both

parties can agree, such as the legal merits of the case and fairness between the

parties.

The advantage of the co-operative style of negotiation is that it tends to produce

fewer breakdowns in bargaining with subsequent recourse to litigation, and to

produce more favorable outcomes for both parties. This leaves both clients and

negotiators in a position where they can 'do business' again. However, the co-

operative style is subject to certain difficulties in operation where the parties to the

negotiation are unequal in wealth or power or where one party will not bargain for

joint or mutual gain;

- Competitive Style:

Thus the competitive negotiator makes concessions reluctantly because they may

'weaken his position' through position loss or image loss. He tends to make high

initial demands, few concessions and have a generally high level of aspiration for his

client.

It is often suggested that this style leads practitioners into specific negotiation

strategies, for example, never making the first offer, always attempting to conceal

the client's true objectives always being the person who drafts the final offer; and

the use of exaggeration, threat and bluff to create high levels of tension and

pressure on the opponent. If used effectively these tactics cause the opposition side

to lose confidence in there case and reduce their expectations of what can be

obtained for there client It is therefore, an essentially manipulative approach,

designed to intimidate the opposing side into accepting a negotiator's demands.

- Problem-solving Style:

A problem solving style to a dispute over access might be based on the assumption

that whilst both parents want access to their children for some of the time, neither

would, in practice, want access for the whole of the time. On this basis a negotiated

settlement advantageous to all parties (including the children) may be effected.

The problem-solving style thus commence with both negotiators trying to ascertain

the underlying needs of their clients. This can best be achieved through client

interviews in which the lawyer explores with the client how he wants the dispute to

be concluded in social, economic, ethical and psychological terms. Focusing on the

actual (rather than the assumed) needs of clients leads to solutions often more

complex and yet more satisfactory in terms of social justice than those which a court

could order, or which could result form competitive negotiation.

The four basic tactics which Fisher and Ury describes as being essential to the

process of problem solving negotiation are:

1. Separate the people from the problem; in the other words, separate the

interpersonal relationship between the negotiators and their clients from the merits

of the problem or conflict

2. Focus on interests not positions; that is, consider the interests of the clients so

that is party's motives, goals and values are filly understood by each side

3. Generate a variety of options; for example, brainstorm to develop new ideas to

meet the needs of the parties

4. Insist that the result of the negotiation be based on some objective standard that

is, assess proposed outcomes against easily ascertainable standard base on objective

criteria.

Basic structure of the negotiating process:

It is important to note that there are some basic structures of negotiation process.

These structure increase the ability and skills of negotiator also helps to create

successful environment for the effective negotiation. The most essential structure

may be described as:

Agenda-setting:

Unless an agenda has been agreed in advance you will agree with the opposing

lawyer the practical issues of how the negotiation will be conducted, what the agenda

for the discussions will be, recorded and minute

Clarification of the facts:

A possible first is for you, or your opponent, to identify and agree the relevant

available facts of the dispute and the law relating to those facts. This could then be

followed by your identification of and agreement on, any missing or conflicting facts,

or difference in documentation. At this point you cold seek to resolve such difference

through further investigation, and through listening to and questioning the order side.

Evaluation and repositioning:

- You will next assess alternative solution in relation to the needs of both parties (co-

operative problem solving style) or you will make strong counter proposals to your

opponents position (competitive style)

- You will eliminate unworkable proposals (co-operative problem-solving style) or use

a variety of negotiating tactics to enhance your position and discredit that of your

opponent (confrontational style)

- You will generate new proposals (co- operative problem-solving style) or identify

trade-offs and concessions (competitive style)

- You will consider ending the negotiation if the tradeoffs are too high for both

parties (co-operative problem-solving style) or if the trade -offs are acceptable to

your side although not to the other(competitive style)

Closing:

Finally you will need to find a way of closing the negotiation. The alternatives at this

stage include:

- Adjourning to obtain further information and instructions from your client

- Adjourning to report a final offer from the other side to your client and seek his

instructions

- Reaching a final agreement as authorized by your client

If the outcome is successful and a settlement has been reached, you will need to

check your understanding of the settlement with that of your opponent to make

certain that you are in agreement. You must next decide how the settlement is going