Negotiation Style and Conflict Management
Conflict management can best be understood by first defining what conflict is, scholars Hudson, Grisham, Srinivasan and Moussa (2005) observe that conflict is generally a result of differences that become difficult to settle between two or more rival groups or individuals. They continue to point out that conflict can assume one of many forms such as dispute over resources, disagreements on pertinent concerns between individuals or groups, differences in knowledge and culture etc. Hence from this definition of conflict, the term conflict management can be understood to be all activities and efforts that are geared towards resolving differences among and between conflicting groups so as to reconcile them.
Negotiation can simply be defined as the means through which conflicts are managed or a process through which conflict management can be successfully attained. Moreover, negotiation is a process that spurs collaboration between conflicting parties and unifies them through a common agreement or understanding. Thus, negotiation is the fulcrum that balances off the differences held by conflicting parties in a dispute of any nature during the conflict management process. Hence conflicting parties engage in negotiations in order to bury their differences. As such negotiations may require that concessions and sacrifices be made by either parties or both in order to arrive at an amicable pact that serves the interests and concerns of the negotiating parties
According to Yousefi, Hipel & Hegazy (2010) negotiation is just one out of many alternative options for disputes settlements such as litigation and mediation through lawful means. However, mediation when compared to litigation has far more advantages for stake holders. This is because negotiations first ensures that parties involved in the dispute are directly involved in the negotiations and in this case have more control over the outcomes of the discussions as compared to law suits as a means to resolve conflicts. Traditionally law suits are managed by lawyers in court on behalf of the conflicting parties which requires time and financial resources to execute. Secondly, since negotiation takes place between individuals directly engaged in conflict they save costs and time associated with court battles and law suits. More importantly negotiation reduces the chances of hostilities between conflicting parties as they are directly engaged in efforts to marry their differences during the negotiations.
Sturm & Galdin (2007) concur with Yousefi at al. (2005) on the premise that conflict resolution through negotiations adequately addresses differences between conflicting parties. This is because through negotiations conflicts can be settled promptly, fairly, affordably and in a manner that is mutually satisfactory to the parties engaged in the negotiations. Further, negotiations can take the form of systematic interventions where negotiators adopt different negotiation strategies to push for their demands or for their concerns to be addressed. Ultimately, negotiations may involve concessions and sacrifices from both parties in order to arrive at an agreement.
In one on one negotiation, parties in conflict are given an opportunity to present their grievances and concerns which basically lays out differences between the two parties. At this stage of negotiations individual parties prepare for the negotiations. For instance Pistone (2007) presents a case of negotiations where a basketball player named Michael Jordani in dispute with the National Basketball Association over terms of contract where the player demands a comeback The negotiations are such that Jordani’s lawyer adopts a problem solving strategy while the NBA adopts a competitive strategy in the negotiations. Negotiations in this case are meant to avoid a situation where the dispute ends up in court for redress.
Whereas Jordani’s lawyer negotiates for better terms of payment and remuneration for his input in his team as a basketball player, NBA’s lawyer argues that his performance has dwindled due to injuries succumbed by the player rendering him much less competitive hence not quite beneficial to the team. In the negotiations, both parties present their limits of concessions and put their offers on the table so to speak. During the negotiations Jordani’s lawyer engages in tactile communication skills through active listening and body language skills in attempts to convince the NBA lawyer to concede to the demands of his client Mr. Jordani. Ultimately, both parties have to make concessions during the negotiation process where each party gives supporting details and information as to why their demands are genuinely a concern to be addressed or taken into consideration during the negotiations.
At the later stages of the negotiations, the attorneys of both parties had several concerns put forward for consideration. First, NBA’s attorney noted that his client was interested in signing Jordani but hesitated due to dwindling ticket sales which put the NBA in a financial fix. In NBA’s defense, signing an injured player would only serve to further reduce their earnings. Jordani’s attorney responded that low ticket sales were as a result of Jordani’s injuries since the low sales begun after the incident; NBA’s attorney disputed this and attributed the low ticket sales to many other factors Jordani’s injuries notwithstanding. Secondly, NBA’s attorney manages to convince Jordani’s attorney that his client is in financial difficulty but is very willing to sign Jordani on the team. In the end, the two do not conclusively agree on a settlement but make arrangements for another meeting at a golf course that would end the negotiations. Both parties leave the negotiating table hopeful and optimistic that a mutually beneficial settlement would be arrived at during the next meeting .
Conclusion
Negotiation in conflict management is crucial in the essence that it is an alternative to other conflict resolution mechanisms that require time and financial input which can be avoided through negotiations. Further, negotiations bring together parties in conflict who share and air their views and concerns about the differences held. In essence negotiation serves to reconcile conflicting parties by ensuring that the agreement arrived at is as a result of direct contribution of the negotiating parties as discussed (Sturm & Guldin , 2007; Yousefi et al , 2005).
References
Hudson, K., Grisham, T., Srinivasan, P and Moussa, N.;. (2005). Conflict Management, Negotiation, and Effective Communication: Essential Skills for Project Managers. Cloisters Square, perth, Australia.: Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
Pistone , R. A. (2007). Case Studies: The Ways to Achieve More Effective Negotiations. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 7(3), 1-50. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj
Sturm, S., & Galdin, H. (2007). Conflict Resolution and Systematic Change. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1(3), 1-24.
Yousefi, S., Hipel, K. W., & Hegazy, T. (2005). Attitude-Based Strategic Negotiations for Conflict Management in Construction Projects. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 99-107.
