Running Head: Negotiation And Conflict Application

Negotiation and Conflict Application Paper

Charismatic people rule the world. Charisma gives you a tremendous advantage

in almost every conceivable situation, from business meetings and sales calls, to

everyday household and personal issues that may arise. With charisma you’ll be able

to inspire people, ignite their enthusiasm, persuade them to see things your way, and do

what you want them to without creating defensiveness or resentment. Charismatic

people are able to see things from another person's perspective. It provides a person

with an enormous advantage in your career, in business and politics, and in

negotiations. It has always been my belief that confidence is essential in negotiations;

however through my readings and research I’ve further developed my point of view.

Successful negotiations incorporate a person’s conflict management style and his or her

level of confidence and charisma.

The purpose of negotiation is to resolve situations where what you want conflicts

with what someone else wants. The goal is to achieve a win-win situation and it’s to find

a solution that is acceptable to both parties, leaving all involved feeling that they've won

in some way. It’s the process of making joint decisions when the parties involved have

different preferences and points of view. The criteria for effective negotiation are

quality, harmony and efficiency. Often people are not prepared in negotiations.

Instead, most people interact with each other according to personal styles developed in

their families, religions, and communities. Thus rather than pursuing a particular type of

strategy, many individuals negotiate on the basis of habit, intuition, and stereotypes

about other persons (FAO, 1996; Fisher, 1991).

Good planning, a sound strategy and preparation are essential to successful

negotiations. Three basic negotiation styles are cooperative strategy, competitive

strategy and analytical strategy. Cooperative strategy is also called the "soft

bargaining" approach. It minimizes the degree of conflict by generating trust and

kindness. Parties are looking for common ground and joint interests, and you want

everyone to benefit. You compromise, and you expect others to do the same. The

approach is at its best when other individuals similarly cooperate. However, it does not

work when you’re perceived as "soft" and easily exploitable. Competitive strategy is

"hard bargaining" in which you give nothing and demand everything. You apply

pressure to get your way. This approach is important when you absolutely must win,

even if other persons will lose. The approach works well when you face weak or

confused negotiators. It is less appropriate when a long-term relationship has to be

maintained, or when your opponents are well prepared. Finally, analytical strategy is a

problem-solving exercise to create options that benefit both parties. This is sometimes

called "interest-based bargaining," or "principled negotiation." You try to separate the

people from the problem, focus on interests, not positions, generate options for mutual

gain, and use objective criteria to make decisions. "Principled negotiation" does not rely

on a forceful personality or on a position of power in the relationship. Rather, he or she

recognizes that everyone has legitimate interests to be satisfied. These interests are

met through a search for mutual agreement rather than by application of one-sided

force (FOA, 1996; Ampil-Tirona, 2000).

All three styles have its strengths and weaknesses. In cooperative, it’s only

obvious, people respond positively to others who are friendly and agreeable. No one

wants to do business or even be around someone who’s a grouch. So soft bargaining

elevates a relationship, showing that both sides care about each other. This strategy
 4

works well for people who are familiar with one another, and share a common view. On

the other hand in the cooperative strategy that kindness can be perceived as a

weakness. If you represent a group, your cooperation with a conflicting interest lessens

your credibility with your constituents. In an effort to be liked and maintain the

relationship, the negotiator using this strategy may be overly cooperative and give too

much (FAO, 1996).

In the competitive strategy your goal is to win even if it means you have to fight.

In this situation the pros are people often accept the proposals of a competitive

negotiator when they have no good alternatives of their own. In addition, there may not

be time or resources to mount a defense against a strong competitor. The down fall of

this strategy is it does not work if there is a long-term relationship to protect. Hard

bargainers have to maintain force, and this consumes their time and energy. Most

people don’t want to be around hard bargainers. They are seen as bothersome. If

"soft spots" are exposed, the hard bargainer loses his or her effectiveness (FAO, 1996).

The analytical approach, while offering some benefits has its limitations. It offers

advantages for a weak group that confronts a strong opponent. The approach is one of

the best means to create "win-win" solutions in a wide variety of conflicts. However, it

can be impossible to avoid taking positions when individuals on the other side of a

dispute are being irrational. This is especially true when the conflict is largely about

differences in beliefs and values. By refusing to take a position, you may unnecessarily

prolong the time to settle a conflict. Analytical methods do not work when the problem

is the people do the negotiating, not the issues (FAO, 1996).

Regardless of the negotiation style used, negotiation aims to resolve conflict,

negotiation is also a matter of seeking alternatives and opportunities. It is an

agreement to disagree. The disagreement goes on until there are proper resolutions.

And that is true even for our personal lives or corporate lives (Ampil-Tirona, 2000). I’ve

spent the majority of my career in a highly competitive environment. And I’ve found

through my experience and course work that negotiation skills have become the critical

framework for corporate capability at all levels of an organization. It’s integral to the

problem- solving process. As a result of my experiences I’ve found that I am highly

assertive and almost equally aggressive, meaning my conflict management style is

aggressive assertive. While I am proactive; and I stand up for myself without being

pushy; I do find myself struggling with a need to take control of situations, especially

those I find chaotic and unproductive. The disadvantage of this conflict management

style is I can be judgmental. The problem is what’s the difference between being

judgmental and assessing the situation as a good negotiator recognizing and

responding to the negotiating style and personality of the other party.

Direct conflict management approaches are based on the relative emphasis that

a person places on assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness is one’s attempt

to satisfy one’s own concerns. Cooperativeness is the attempt to satisfy the other

party’s concern. And then there is avoidance. It’s unassertive and uncooperative. The

negotiator downplays disagreement and fails to participate in the situation.

Accommodation or smoothing is unassertive and cooperative. An accommodator lets

the other’s wishes rule and smoothes over differences to maintain superficial harmony.

A compromiser is moderately assertive and moderately cooperative. The compromiser

works toward partial satisfaction of everyone’s concerns and seeks acceptable rather

than optimal solutions so that no one totally wins or loses. Competition and

authoritative command is assertive and uncooperative. This command works against

the wishes of the other party. It fights to dominate in win/lose competitions.

Competition and authoritative command also forces things to a favorable conclusion

through the exercise of authority. In collaboration and problem solving the strategy is

assertive and cooperative. The negotiator using this strategy seeks the satisfaction of

everyone’s concerns by working through differences and findings and solves problems

so in the end everyone gains (Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn, 2003).

This course and the readings and activities have allowed me to further develop

self awareness. It has enabled me to communicate more effectively. Also focusing on

my negotiation skills and conflict management skills has improved my interpersonal

relations. Improved interpersonal skills aid in the development of empathy for others.

Empathy is embodied by a charismatic person. Self awareness allows me to sharpen

my negotiation skills. It will make me more effective in future settings, including my

career and personal affairs. My goal is to balance confrontive or aggressive with the

persuasive and assertive, while remaining observant and introspective.

References

Ampil-Tirona, G. (2000, August 23). Negotiating skills needed in competitive

Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn. (2003). In H. a. Schermerhorn, Organizational

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Forestry Division. (1996).
Chapter 6: Negotiating Conflicts. Retrieved Oct. 2010, from Planning for forest use and
conservation: guidelines for improvement:
[Link]

Wilson, J. (2010). Understanding your style in conflict situations. PT in Motion, 2(1), 10.