Negotiation is the most basic method of conflict resolution. It is backward and forward communication between the parties of the argument with the objective of trying to find a solution. It is a process of combining diverging viewpoints in order to arrive at an agreement. Negotiations can prevent or end a conflict while guaranteeing that both parties get at least fraction of what they desire. When both parties obtain major advantages, the negotiation is considered most successful. Nonetheless, any negotiation involves the risk of making a bad deal, and sometimes, a failed negotiation can worsen the existing conflict (Zartman 14).
Negotiation entails investigating the facts of a conflict, revealing both the common and differing interests of the parties, and haggling to resolve as many conflicts as possible. Negotiation happens every day in all facet of life including the national government, companies and families.
This paper tackles the advantages and disadvantages of employing negotiation as a means of resolving conflicts. In order to explain the pros and cons, the paper first discussed the fundamentals of negotiation such as its formats and different negotiation style. Both formats and styles of negotiation have their advantages and drawbacks. They deal with conflicts differently and thus the style of the negotiator and the type of negotiation must be considered
Fundamentals of Negotiation
Negotiation is a process of communication in which different parties tackle issues in order solve and to reach a resolution. Negotiations happen regularly on micro and macro scales, in everyday life or even in workplace.
Negotiation has two major formats and these are positional bargaining or distributive negotiation and principled negotiation or integrative negotiation. Positional bargaining involves discussion of issues based on a position. Each side has intense position rooted in its needs, wants, and boundaries. In the majority of situations, these positions are on opposite sides of the gamut. Consequently, the parties treat the negotiation as a zero-sum competition since only one party can prevail in the negotiation. The negotiation begins with an extreme initial position then the parties make compromises to arrive at an agreement. The minor the concessions are, the more triumphant one party feels. The negotiation fails when a stalemate is achieved, and no concluding agreement is made. Positional bargaining works effectively when compromising on a point with another party that has contradictory principal interests, haggling on price, or acting in a circumstance of instant crisis (Long 1).
On the other hand, principled negotiation involves parties that work together to form a value-creating contract that leaves both parties contented with the conclusion as well as with the status of the relationship. It makes a mutual atmosphere in which parties institute common interests and collaborate to construct equally advantageous solutions. Parties understand and trust each other in this type of negotiation. They are able to solve the common problem in a creative way. The parties based their judgment in terms of issues and interest rather than in position.
Aside from negotiation formats, negotiation has different styles. The five major negotiation styles are competing style, accommodative style, avoiding style, compromising style and collaborating style. These negotiation styles deals with conflict in different ways (Lemieux-Charles 1130).
The competing style is considered as the most adversarial wherein negotiators deem negotiations as competitions with winners and losers. This style is rather strategic and aggressive. The accommodative style is a submissive style and the opposite of the competing style. Here, accommodators willingly give information and to yield or make concessions.
The avoiding style is likely to avoid issues rather than deal with them head on. It is passive aggressive wherein avoiders tend to stumble upon as less clear and less sincere. Communication in this style can be feeble.
The compromising style is a negotiation that meets halfway. One party makes some compromises, while the other side also make some compromises. At the end of the negotiation, no clear winners can be seen, but the outcome is deemed to be a fair result. Here, different parties begin with an extreme positions but eventually, both parties meet in the middle.
The collaborating style ensures that the needs of both sides are met. Both sides of the conflict think of a way on making a joint value. The parties consider beyond their box and work together to a solution (Long 1).
Advantages and disadvantage of Negotiation
The major formats of negotiation have advantages and disadvantages. In a pie analogy, positional bargaining is a negotiation wherein each party is competing for the largest slice of the pie. Both parties become antagonistic, and communications may entail lack transparency and coercion. A lack of trust develops, and the relationship between parties may become unstable. Parties become even more ingrained in their stands as the negotiation continues and they focus only on their individual objectives. However, this format of negotiation is beneficial in conditions of sudden crisis or in haggling on price. On the other hand, the second format of negotiation which is the principle negotiation is considered as win-win rather than a zero-sum game. Here, both parties do not feel worse than when they begin the negotiation. In a pie analogy, principled negotiation involves different parties that work together in order to make a larger, equally advantageous pie in which to share (Notinini 4).
In terms of negotiating style, each style also has its advantages and disadvantages. The style of the negotiator and the type of negotiation must be considered. The competing style is very advantageous during fast negotiation or with few variables involved such as merely negotiating over prices. This style is disadvantageous when applied against another competing style. It may result to stalemate or frayed and antagonistic relationship.
The accommodative style, being a submissive style often involves accommodators letting the other party win a conflict. This is disadvantageous when negotiating against a competing style. The advantage of this style is that it prioritizes the relationship and is very flourishing in negotiations in which fixing or keeping relationships is essential. But employing accommodative strategies must be done carefully as giving away plenty of concessions or excessive information might direct to a less than desired result in a negotiation (Lemieux-Charles 1130).
The avoiding style is advantageous in negotiations between parties who do not respond well to aggression or conflict. The avoiders simply avoid the issue rather than make adjustments. This style has its advantages in an extremely emotional negotiation. Here, the avoiders can pass up confronting passions and emotions and instead concentrate on the objective so as to reach an agreement. It is also advantageous in simple or trivial negotiations. The disadvantage of this style is brought by the looming communication problems. It may result in resentment and stalemate, or edgy relationships.
The compromising style is advantageous in positional bargaining. It works best under time constraints and is very effective for parties with ongoing and strong relationship. However, the agreements are frequently not the most favourable agreements for both parties even if this style helps maintain relationships strong.
The advantage of collaborating style is it focus on value creation and is usually promoted by those who sustain the principled negotiation format. In a pie analogy, collaborators make the pie bigger and struggle to meet the most favourable agreement. It is beneficial at forming strong relationships or keeping good ones. But the collaborating style is the most intense style and the most mentally tiring style. Another con of this style is that it needs the most preparation. Moreover, it does not go well when negotiating against competing style negotiators because they may attempt to take advantage of the condition. Collaborators must be cautious of sharing information to prevent being taken advantage of (Long 1).
Conclusion
Since negotiation entails different formats and styles, along with it are advantages and disadvantages. Negotiations deal with conflicts differently and thus the style of the negotiator and the type of negotiation must be carefully assessed.
The positional bargaining makes both parties become antagonistic and there is lacking lack transparency but is beneficial in conditions of sudden crisis or in haggling on price. The principle negotiation is considered as win-win rather than a zero-sum game. Both parties work together in order to arrive at an equally advantageous solution (Long 1).
The competing style is very advantageous during fast negotiation but is disadvantageous when applied against another competing style. The accommodative style is disadvantageous when negotiating against a competing style but is beneficial in negotiations in which fixing or keeping relationships is essential. The avoiding style is advantageous in an extremely emotional negotiation. But is disadvantage because of the looming communication problems. The compromising style is advantageous for parties with ongoing and strong relationship but the agreements are frequently not the most favourable agreements for both parties. The advantage of collaborating style is it focus on value creation and is beneficial at forming strong relationships but it is also the most intense style and the most mentally tiring style (Lemieux-Charles 1130).
Works Cited
Lemieux-Charles, Louise. “Managing conflict through negotiatiON.” Can Med Assoc J 151.18 (1994): 1129-1132.
Long, Jessica. Effective Negotiation Strategies and Preparation. ACC, 2013.
Notinini, Jessica. Negotiating essentials. Lafayette, CA, 2008.
Zartman, William. Negotiation and Conflict Management. New York: Routledge, 2008.
