Negotiation Style and When Negotiation Is Appropriate Paper Example

Part 1: Negotiation Style Self-Assessment

Conflict arises when there is a difference of opinions towards a single perspective. Conflicts also arise within two or more known or unknown groups trying to settle some grievances (Dyer, Dyer, & Dyer, 2013). There are several types of conflicts depending on the style and structure of the problem. The results of the negotiation style assessment test indicate that I prefer using collaborating conflict management style. The total score on the collaborating style was above 21, indicating that I strongly exhibit features that are consistent with the collaborating style.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

This information will be useful since when negotiating with others since I will have to listen to the opinions, interests, and concerns of the different parties. I will also need to step into the shoes of the parties to develop a shared purpose statement. This style of conflict possesses a set of alternative measures, pooling of the available resources, commitment towards the other parties, and open discussions of the issues involved. This style does not work for a single chain of perspective, rather it is an integrated system of available alternatives. Commitment and honesty from both parties ensure that both parties will be satisfied with the ruling.

This style is appropriate when a group is being affected by trivial matters such as the lack of responsibility or when the groups involved are trying to compete. It is also useful whenever there are good reasons to address the involved parties. When the mediator wants to set the tone for all future conflict resolutions and give the parties involved a shared responsibility, collaborating conflict management should be used (Thomas, 2002). This style is not appropriate when a quick solution is required. This is because it consumes a lot of time and effort. One has to sift through several solutions before settling on the one that satisfies all the other parties. The time spent may negatively affect workplace productivity and increase resentment and hatred.

My preferred bargaining tactics are those that ensure all the parties feel valued and understood, there is freedom of expression, and a mutual respect and understanding are fostered. There should be an open discussion of issues, analysis of the available alternatives, and avoidance of any criticism and blame.

Part 2: When Negotiation is Appropriate

Negotiation is a process to arrive at a common or mutual interest fulfilling agreement so as to remain alive in the competition or in business. There are several instances when one should negotiate. Job seekers are usually afraid of involving themselves in a salary negotiation when they are offered a position. In some cases, the interviewer asks about the salary expectations by the end of the interview. However, a candidate should negotiate for his/her salary and additional benefits after getting the job offer, due to the following reasons:

At this step, the candidate could walk away from the job if he/she thinks that the offered salary does not meet his/her expectations.

The job offer specifies that the candidate is well suitable for the position applied. At this point, the candidate is in the strongest position and he/she can negotiate his/her salary after reviewing the industries standards.

At times, negotiation regarding the salary shows one's self-confidence and trust. Mostly, the interviewers show concern regarding the negotiation.

There are several instances when one should not negotiate. Some of these instances are listed below:

When the risks are high: when the risks with the negotiation are high, e.g. negotiating with a high profile client, which can lead to great losses in the future, in business.

When the outcome can lead to worse situations: when the outcome of the negotiation can lead to worse situations, like a lawsuit, it is not advisable to negotiate.

When there are more losses than gains: when the involvement in the negotiation only gives more losses than gains, in term of outcome or costs, then it is not beneficial to negotiate.

When the second party is a fraud: when the second party is fraud or uses illegal means to negotiate, which can lead to more severe issues, one should not negotiate.

Mutual adjustments occur when the parties involved are aware that they can influence and change the other's outcome and do everything they can to influence the outcome. Mutual adjustments promote concessions and flexibility amongst the negotiating parties. There are two dilemmas in mutual adjustment (Urlacher, 2014).

The dilemma of Honesty: it involves the extent to which truth must be revealed to the other party. Revealing to the other party everything about your situation can give the person the opportunity to take advantage of the professional. On the other hand, not saying anything about needs and desires can lead to a deadlock.

The dilemma of Trust: involves how much the professional must believe what the other party tells him. If the professional believes everything, the other can take advantage of the negotiation. If you do not believe anything that the other person says, the professional will have a great deal of difficulty in reaching an agreement.

The process of making concessions if fundamental in ensuring that a settlement is reached. When a party comes up with several propositions that are being rejected whereas the other party is not making any alternate propositions, the negotiations may break off.

References

Dyer, W. G., Dyer, W. G., Jr., & Dyer, J. H. (2013). Team building: Proven strategies for improving team performance (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Thomas, K. W. (2002). Introduction to conflict management: Improving performance using the TKI. Mountain View, CA: CPP.

Urlacher, B. R. (2014). Groups, Decision rules, and negotiation outcomes: Simulating the Negotiators Dilemma. Negotiation Journal, 30(1), 5-22.