Analysis
Negotiation is the process and method by which the many differences, disputes and disagreements between various peoples and parties can be used as a means to voluntarily arrive at a compromise or settlement among the arguing parties. According to Ury, (2000) negotiation in any disagreement is aimed at by organizations or individuals as a solution of achieving an outcome as best as they possibly could. This is because the essentiality of these positions could as well be established. But for such a solution to produce an outcome that’s successful, the parties must possess the need to seek benefits that are beneficial and mutual to both, upkeep a favorable relationship between them and uphold fairness and good will. Multiple situations call for the specific and various forms & types of negotiation to be applied. These could include affairs at the international and governmental level, disputes that arise out of domestic and industrial relations, legal disputes arising out of the law, so on and so forth. One of the primary places where such negotiations can be seen is the automobile industry.
The process of negotiation is an occurrence between clients, professionals, employees and employers, staff and there managers, spouses, children and their parents, public and private organizations and agencies (Creighton et al. 1998). In the case of the automobile industry it includes the parties involved within it; such as the automobile seller and myself as a buyer.
Negotiation demands that the involved parties analyze the issues they differ on, make each other aware as to their interests and needs, develop options that could arrive at possible settlements and finally bargain as to what terms should finalize the understanding between the involved parties.
Negotiation involves several stages, and these would include:-
Preparation process which involves selecting a venue for the meeting, deciding who will attend as representation, setting a time scale that’s limited to help avoid continued disagreements, ensuring that the situation and facts are known to both parties. This further ensures that no time is wasted. The preparation stage had involved finding the right car, having an approximate idea of the price and then starting off the negotiation with the dealer. It may also include a thorough discussion about the car.
The other factor is discussion. At this level/stage, each of the individuals or persons representing the opposing sides puts forward their arguments as to their understanding of the case. This will entail clarification, listening and questioning, taking down notes during the process of discussions could also be quite helpful, and equal opportunity must be awarded to each side in presentation of their case. In the case of this negotiation, it would include the dealer’s point of view regarding who should buy the product and at the same time I as a buyer would negotiate why the car might be a little overpriced.
Clarification of the Goals of both sides is the next logical step in this process. The viewpoints, goals, interests that led both sides to disagreement should be clarified during the discussion this shall establish and identify grounds of common interest between the two.
An agreement is a metric that support mutual discussions and collective understanding. This is the final and conclusive step, after all points of view and interest have been taken into consideration by both sides, and an agreement and understanding resulting into a solution that benefits both parties had been attained, then an agreement can then be finalized.
The parties involved in the negotiation process are usually two or more representatives that are the Negotiator and the Negotiates. However this scope negotiating representatives extends to business parties, governmental divisions of opposing states in form of diplomats, and the legal division of different firms or proceedings of different nations/countries. Negotiations between spouse partners. They are also those negotiations who specialize in a particular field of negotiation and this could include, Hostage negotiators, negotiators for peace especially among the UN, negotiators that specialize in leverage and buyouts, negotiators that represent different trade unions (Edelman et al. 2000).
Positions of bargaining include negotiate strategies such as Positional bargaining. This involves sticking to a dominative and fixed plan or idea in which the negotiating party holds onto its position of what it wants and the singular motive of what its arguing to attain regardless of any interests underlying. A perfect example for this would be the haggling and bargaining that occurs between a customer and a proprietor over prices of goods and items.
Interest-based bargaining which is also known as integrative bargaining and win-win bargaining is a strategy of negotiation was collaboration between the parties is applied in order to arrive at a solution that would end disputes. This strategy mainly focuses on the development of beneficial agreements that are mutual to enable each of the disputants arrive at interests that gain both parties. “Integrative" is a reference to the disputant’s potential to have their interests combined in order for the creation of a joint value that will expand on their prospects and beneficial outcome of the negotiations.
When it comes to negotiations, the two parties involved in some cases can hit a standstill or stalemate in which both sides are unable to arrive at an understanding. In these cases, it usually helps to have outside perspective or interference or experts called Neutral third parties. Third parties help make binding procedures and decisions in which they listen to both sides and make the attempt to help forge an agreement and understanding between the parties. Third party intervention to negotiate can be achieved with Arbitration and Mediation. Such a case may arise if the dealer and the car buyer are in the breach of an element of the contract requiring them to opt for arbitration related to the sales contract.
Arbitration is a form or technique of (ADR) Alternative Dispute Resolution used to arrive at solutions outside the courts of law. Here parties in a disagreement refer their dispute to one or more individuals known as arbiters, arbitrators or an arbitral tribunal whose choice or decision or in technical terms "Award" will be binding to both parties. Evidence of the case for both sides is reviewed by the third party who then has a decision imposed that will be binding legally for both sides. Arbitration is either mandatory or voluntary. In cases of mandatory arbitration, it’s only derived from a contract or statute that’s entered into voluntary where both sides agreed to have all future or existing disputes held to arbitration and these could be either non-binding or binding (Lancaster, 1990).
On the other hand, Mediation involves a mediator (third-party) assisting the parties to a dispute arrive at a settlement by facilitating negotiations between both parties. Mediation includes dynamics and timetables usually lacking in most ordinary negotiations. The procedure is most confidential and private. The mediator takes up the roll of a neutral party that helps facilitate the process of negotiation rather than running it. The mediator’s skill and use of techniques to access and improve on the dialogue between the disputing parties is a major factor to pulling off a successful agreement arrived at the disputants. In the case of this negotiation, it may include opting for a neutral person who listens to both the parties and then gives a solution.
During negotiations, a party/individual could tell you to get lost, go jump off a bridge or no deal because they stubbornly refuse to have or continue negotiations with you. So where a party finds itself in a situation where current negotiations are failing and an understanding or agreement cannot be attained, they could take up the course of action known as (BATNA) Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. BATNAs are often viewed by negotiators not as fall back plans or nets of safety but rather leverage when negotiations are going nowhere. As a course of action, BATNAs are not so invested in by negotiators. However BATNAs are the only standards that provide protection to prevent a negotiator from agreeing to terms that are unfavorable and from rejecting terms that would be in their best interest. to put this simply, were the agreement proposed is a better option to the BATNA then the negotiator should accept it, but were the agreement provides no improved and better options to the BATNA, the reopening of the negotiations should be taken into consideration. For example, if an offer for a motor vehicle is at $8,500 but there exists a better deal of one at $6,500, the vehicle pricing at $6,500 will be the BATNA, therefore if the dealer does not bring the price down to $6,500 the buyer could simply walk away and purchase the other Vehicle. Note that, the ability to increase ones negotiative power reflects directly on their ability to have a good BATNA. One doesn’t have to concede as much when they possess an alternative that’s good (Potapchuk et al. 1990).
Power in Negotiation relies heavily on the ability of someone to affect another party’s decision.
Methods of this negotiating power could include; - employing an extreme position in the start of a negotiation. The general idea here is the negotiators make it known to the other parties that they are in control of the situation and take a hard approach or harder line on both parties, however later on they soften their approach appropriately. This specific method is no always so effective since the more the opening positions are extreme, the more the concessions become smaller and more time is used up in trying to achieve an agreement. Negotiators should understand the parties interests, should be able to listen, empathize and communicate very clearly to both parties, it a big asset for a negotiator to be aware of the differences in culture and possess various skills and styles of negotiation.
Again, there is the power of persuasion. The effectiveness of negotiators persuasion will depend on how they select their ideas and facts to be presented that will mean that, they have to take into consideration the message its structure and content and the style of delivery.
Employment of an Advocate helps provide relative solution to the core problem affecting individuals and parties in conflict. A negotiator that’s skilled could at the same time serve the purpose of being an advocate for one of the parties involved in the negotiation. Under this procedure, an attempt is made by the advocate to attain an outcome for the party that he is representing that’s most favorable to that party. Using this process, an attempt shall be made by the negotiator to reach a determination that minimizes the outcome that the opposing party is able to accept then has their demands adjusted accordingly.
More still, Methods such negotiation hypnosis, Cherry picking an act involves the negotiators pointing out to individual data or cases that certify certain positions while paying no attention to the significant and important part of those cases and data that could led to contradiction of the position.
Bad guy/ good guy approach is yet another tactic of negotiation. Under this tactic, one negotiator plays the role of a bad guy using intimidation of threats and anger while the other negotiator plays the role of a good guy in which he acts understanding and considerate to the situation of the parties. Blame is laid on the bad guy for the difficulties encountered in the negotiations while trying to pull an agreement out of his opponent.
They are various forms of negotiation strategies. However the most common of these are Distributive negotiation. At times called hard-bargaining or positional negotiation, it has a tendency of utilizing market haggling. In this type of negotiation, each party inherits a position that is quite extreme with full knowledge that that position shall not be accepted, and then applies a combination of bluffing; guile and brinksmanship in order throw the opposing party off balance before reaching an agreement. This is conceived in negotiation as a process of distribution of an amount of value that is fixed (Ury, 2000).
Another strategy that could be employed is Integrative Negotiation, also named principled or interest based negotiation. Under this type of negotiation, a number of techniques are applied that attempt to increase the likelihood and quality of the agreements in the negotiation by granting an alternative/option to the common techniques of distributive negotiation. Therefore, while an attempt is made by distributive negotiation to assume an amount of value that is fixed, or “fixed pie" to be distributed among the parties, Integrative negotiation makes an attempt to bring out value during the negotiation proceedings.
References
Creighton, James L., Jerome, D. P., and Mark, D. C., (1998). Public Involvement and Dispute Resolution – Volume 1: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Research Report 82-R-1,
Edelman, L., Frank, C., and James, L. C.,(2000). The Mini-Trial, U.S. Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Alternative Dispute Resolution Series, Pamphlet #1,
Lancaster, C. L., (1990). ADR Roundtable, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Working Paper 90-ADR-WP-1, 1990
Potapchuk, W. R., James, H. L., and John, S. M.,(1990). Getting to the Table: A Guide for Senior Managers, US Army Engineers Institute for Water Resources, IWR Pamphlet 90-ADR-WP-3,
Ury, W., (2000). The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop. New York: Penguin Putnam
