admindispute.
It is a back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and your negotiating partner have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed. However, the parties may reach a deadlock or stalemate and refer the dispute to various dispute-resolution platforms.
It is a problem-solving process in which two or more people voluntarily discuss their differences and attempt to reach a joint decision on their common concerns.
In this forum, disputes are resolved through consensus or concessions. Implicit in the definition is the common idea that the parties should be willing to change their positions as a consequence of discussion and persuasion. This usually involves some exchange of concessions, until an agreement is finally reached.
A successful negotiation “is one which satisfies the parties’ competing interests as quickly as possible in ways that are seen to make sense so that the settlement is viable and sticks when put into effect.”
In a negotiation, normally there are interests of parties at stake that would be subject to variation or compromise. There are three methods of negotiation, namely soft, hard and principle negotiation.
Soft negotiation — as the name suggests — is a quieter form of negotiation that revolves much on persuasion as opposed to demand. It avoids personal conflict and requires the parties to make concessions to reach an amicable resolution.
However, soft negotiation may result in a party feeling exploited and bitter afterwards.
Nevertheless, it is a better form of negotiation as compared to hard negotiation which is on the extreme.
Hard negotiation is based on hard stance or position being taken by parties.
It is also known as positional bargaining because both parties are unyielding and aim at winning at all costs. It usually results in the parties being inflexible; it is protracted and costly and may ruin the relationship between the parties. In hard negotiation, each party adopts a position and argues it. Though it is a conflict of wills, parties may reach a compromise even though there is a tendency to identify the ego with the position which makes compromise difficult. The resolution of the dispute sometimes breeds unfairness as the more powerful party is more likely to prevail.
Mary Welsh asserts that settlement reached by both soft and hard negotiation runs the risk that they will break down due to dissatisfaction with the agreement by one or other of the parties.
Frequently, such agreements are reached by a grudging and exasperated acceptance of a compromise and with little willingness to make the agreement work.
Principled negotiation is centred on principles and parties argue or haggle on principles evolving on particular dispute. It is also known as a combination of soft and hard negotiation which is intended to help the negotiators to determine issues on the merits rather than by haggling and confrontation.
Principled negotiation deals with the problem as opposed to the parties to the dispute.
It is encouraged to attack the problem and not the people, thus personal attacks on the other negotiator are avoided. It is hard on the merits of the case and soft on the negotiating parties. Emphasis is laid on the human factor and recognition is given to the fact that good working relationships must be maintained after the negotiation has ended.
In principle negotiation, the interests take precedence over positions. It focuses on the mutual interest of the parties.
Where there is a conflict of interest, some fair standard of the independence of the will of both is adopted to divide the conflict. This is useful in that parties do not focus on their positions and egos.
Mostly, disputes fail to be resolved because parties focus on their positions as opposed to their mutual interests.
Principle negotiation focuses on solutions that bring in mutual advantage to the parties. The parties do set aside time to think on a wide range of options and possible solutions which may be conducive to the mutual gains of the parties. There is more time spent exploring possible solutions as opposed to haggling over positions.
The mindset of the parties is pushed to look at solutions unlike focusing on the problem itself. Principled negotiation insists on scientific assessment or fairness. This could include market value, expert opinion and trade custom where agreement is still not possible.
To broker a successful negotiation, each party must be conscious of three paramount concepts.
He should ensure accuracy of perceptions. Each party must put himself in the shoes of the other and try to see his point of view. No assumption must be made that there is a sinister motive behind a suggestion.
Each party must explain exactly how he feels and act in a way likely to build credibility or trust. Both parties should discuss the other’s perceptions and help the other try and save face.
Secondly, each party should ensure that he is expressing appropriate emotions and to understand the reason why the other party is expressing an emotion.
Thirdly, there is need for communication between the parties. This requires active listening and attempts to avoid misunderstandings. Understanding the other’s point of view does not mean that you have to agree with it but it is important that each party does understand the other.
There are behavioural tendencies that are more often than not more likely to detract from the success of a negotiation and should thus be avoided by negotiators.
The parties should avoid use of words that are likely to irritate the other party.
Parties should also avoid making counter proposals immediately in response to proposals — they tend to cloud the issues and avoid proper consideration of the initial proposal.
Parties should further avoid appearing as if they are in a soccer match where they attack and defend.
This happens when one party becomes heated and uses emotive language or behaviour to attack the other or defend suggestions.
Some tend to muddle the issues during negotiations to develop various arguments on one issue.
It is better to have one good argument than a number of arguments some of which may be poor.
A party is likely to ignore the good argument and challenge the poor one.
Source: Alternative Dispute Resolution in Zimbabwe by Rodgers Matsikidze.
Online Reporter