Position negotiations are a test of will and place the result above the relationship. Being “nice” is not a solution – it makes you vulnerable to someone who plays “hard” in a negotiation situation. In large multilateral negotiations, position negotiations become even more complex and the derailment of negotiations becomes easier for a party that does not get what it wants. Conventional approaches to negotiation involve giving as little compromise as possible from one`s own open position and deceiving the other party about one`s true opinions. It is a matter of stacking a series of composite decisions against each other in order to have bargaining power and to slowly grant concessions in small steps. A number of strategies and tactics are used to make this process more efficient. Parties are encouraged to hide their true interests and adopt extreme positions at the beginning of a negotiation in order to minimize the risk of losing too much in the process. The negotiation process is often slow and there is a risk that no agreement will be reached. It helps to stay in touch with the other party during dispute resolution, recommends Professor Jeswald Salacuse of Tufts University. In this way, you can encourage them to say that your existing approaches to conflict resolution are not working and that the prospect of negotiations offers some hope for improvement.
When parties realize the importance of meeting regularly, they may be able to slowly overcome their differences. Before a negotiation begins, a party must know its BATNA because it determines its power in the negotiation. At each stage of the negotiations, it must revise its BATNA, as any agreement – or potential agreement – must be compared to BATNA to assess whether it is a viable agreement. If you are a rebel group and the agreement is a ceasefire proposal, your BATNA must continue to fight. But what is the strength of this BATNA? If you suspect that you might lose because you ran out of ammunition, then it may be a very weak BATNA, although it is stronger if the other party does not know. BATNA is not a static concept. The need to achieve interests is clear – what is less clear is how to do it. Positions are clear and accessible; Interests are sometimes deeply buried and can be tacit. They argue that any method of resolution should be judged on three criteria: the perceptions we have about the dispute resolution process may change over time based on our experience in dealing with the conflict and with the other party. For example, a couple who are going through an angry divorce may become more cooperative over time for the benefit of their children. Instead of seeing your dispute as permanently intractable, try to think of it as constantly evolving.
A low degree of assertiveness, combined with a low level of cooperation in resolving a conflict, produces an avoidance response (negligence; lower left quadrant); a “lose-lose” situation. “I lose and you also lose because for some reason I don`t want to resolve the conflict between us.” A reformulation of interests could help guide the negotiations, bring an element of realism to the negotiations and remind the parties that a viable agreement should be reached that meets the needs of both parties. Harvard professors Fischer and Ury`s groundbreaking book Getting to Yes changed the face of negotiations around the world. They argue that the positional negotiation approach to solving problems is ineffective and that agreements reached in this way are often bad compromises for everyone – and are not permanent. However, negotiators who understand the importance of working together to create value often abandon this approach to dispute resolution. They treat disputes differently from other aspects of negotiation and tend to view the settlement of commercial disputes as a zero-sum game – a game where only one issue (e.g.B money) is at stake. As a result, they tend to view the dispute resolution process as a win-lose battle, to their detriment. As a rule, the negotiation process involves opponents attacking each other`s unattainable demands and gradually yielding to a compromise position that both can accept. Such agreements are often unsatisfactory for all parties. Rather, we propose an interest-based approach where smart agreements are found through a multi-faceted process in which the parties recognize the needs of the other party and attempt to meet them.
In doing so, relations are maintained and agreements are concluded in a sustainable manner. Parties are encouraged to hide their true interests and take extreme positions at the beginning of negotiations in order to minimize the risk of losing too much. The negotiation process is often slow and may not lead to an agreement. A close collaborator of lock-ins is the “Take it or leave it” offer. This is a common negotiating approach, but it does not promote a common solution to problems. One possible answer is to ignore them and continue to negotiate, perhaps by introducing other solutions. When a new deal is reached, try to find ways to save face to get the other party out of their “take it or leave it” position. Conflict is the “process that begins when one party perceives that the other is frustrated or thwarting a concern on its part,” said Kenneth Thomas, author of the Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology and co-founder of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict fashion tool.
Thomas describes conflicts as situations in which the needs, desires, or values of both parties collide or interfere with each other in one way or another. Conflicts must not be harmful; It all depends on how we handle the situations. Although there is no obligation to have a shareholders` agreement, it is strongly recommended to ensure the safety of all parties. In negotiations with a traditional approach to position, each party will decide before the start (and revised during negotiations) what its final outcome will be. They agree to make concessions in their motions, but that is the point they will not go beyond. Negotiators take several “steps” to challenge each other`s legitimacy and assert their own power, write Deborah M. Kolb and Judith Williams in their book Everyday Negotiation: Navigating the Hidden Agendas in Bargaining. This “shadow negotiation” that takes place beneath the surface helps explain why discussions about concrete and seemingly rational topics can lead to outbursts of anger, hurt feelings, and simmering conflicts (see also How Emotions Affect Your Ability to Negotiate). We believe that this interest-based approach is the most sustainable method of trading, especially in a very busy conflict environment, but it involves a completely different way of thinking about trading that you will learn in this online course.
However, it can be used in many different scenarios where: If one shows both a moderate level of egocentrism and assertiveness and a willingness to cooperate with another, the intermediate behavior of the compromise (center of the quadrant model; Share). Compromise does not completely avoid conflict and does not fully cooperate with the solution. It`s a half-baked “win-win.” There is no single conflict management strategy that works with everyone all the time. There are both effective and ineffective times to demonstrate each of these behaviors. While you prefer one style of conflict management to another, it`s helpful to let go of your “inner chameleon” and sincerely learn how to adjust your responses to conflict. Accept that this can be a circular process that repeats itself several times. Success will build confidence in the process and encourage the parties to find viable solutions to conflicts. .