Reflecting about negotiation processes
The negotiation party involved five agents representing the interest of the five employees of Enterprise Corporation as the Salary Committee. I represented the interests of Max Eberly, who is the only design engineer for the company and has two years of work experience. The negotiation team had a difference in allocation of increment to the five employees because of differences in salary scale and number of experiences within the company. There need to negotiate for a fair settlement for the five employees, since each had a critical role within the Enterprise Corporation. To settle for an amicable allocation, we, as members of the salary committee negotiated by allowing each agent to present his or her case for why the employee being represented should have a salary increment.
Each negotiator was given two minutes to present his or her case. The negotiators then highlighted years of experience and responsibility at the company as the primary factors that will influence the amount of salary increment to be added to each employee. This decision was arrived at following a unanimous agreement that more experienced employees should get higher salary increments as a reward for loyalty and steadfast commitment to company production culture. However, there was disagreement on the scale to use in allocating increment based on responsibility in the company.
Specifically, as the negotiator for Max Eberly, I present my worries to the committee that should we allocate salary increments to this employee that is below the current offer by a rival company, we will lose the talented engineer. After the pro and anti arguments on job responsibility salary allocation formula, the committee agreed that for the sake of equality and designing a uniform increment basis at present, all the five employees will be awarded a similar increment of $2,100 on top of the same increment as attached in appendix 1. Conflicting interests almost hindered the settlement process.
Understanding some core aspects of negotiation
From the arguments of the salary committee members, I learned that a strategic negotiation process is completed through compromise and flexibility since I had to settle for an equal salary increment for Max Eberly, despite the fears him leaving the company. The eventual settlement challenged my previous knowledge of negotiation as a free-flowing process. Similar to the negotiation process I carried out alongside Khalid, I had to compromise after listening to the arguments of the other four negotiators. I am convinced that the negotiation unfolded the way it did because each agent was determined to get the best deal for their clients. If I was to be involved in a similar negotiation, I will become more proactive and persuasive to get a better deal since these principles put a negotiator in a strategic settlement position.
The use of video-conferencing media was better than the text-based media because each party had time to study the body language and instant feedback from each negotiator. However, the multiple-user video-conferencing was more challenging than a duo-video conferencing since I had to put up with multiple interruptions. As technological process advice when using video-conferencing for negotiation with multiple participants, there is a need to observe self-discipline among the participants, in terms of observing allocated time and staying within the negotiation premises. In terms of technology, there is a need to expand the video-conferencing interface to ensure that multiple users appear on the screen at once.
Appendix 1
Settlement Sheet
