Introduction
To begin with, it should be stated that negotiations is the integral part of any cooperation. The fact is that, the concept of negotiations presupposes particular behavior of the opponents, independently on their attitude towards each other, thus, there are specific rules and principles of behavior. The phases of negotiations, which are originally defined, presuppose the particular principles, which should be incorporated. The aim of this paper is to discuss and analyze the phases of negotiations, give an example of actions, which should be taken, and discuss the pros and cons of each type of frame, used for the negotiation process.
Phases
Originally, all the negotiations are divided into three main phases: preparation, negotiations and analysis. Taking into consideration the negotiations on the matters of Chevrolet and Volvo Alliance, it should be stated that the preparation phase is the fundamental, as only properly prepared negotiations may be properly arranged, held and terminated. This phase presupposes the collection of the necessary information, studying the opponent and the subject of the negotiations. Moreover, in order to arrange smooth negotiations, there is strong necessity to study the negotiation style of the opponent (in order to know all the tips and tricks, which may be used) and elaborate several alternatives of the negotiation course, if the key course will reach the dead end. (Ury, 2001)
The next phase is the negotiations as is. It is divided into several steps:
- Setting the tone. Participants should clearly define and state their positions and aims, which they pursue. This step also presupposes the explaining of the possible benefits for the opponents.
- The next step is the exploring of the needs, which form the basis of the positions and interests, explained in the previous step. The opposite party does the same, and the conflicting points are defined. Nevertheless, if such points appear, there is strong necessity to develop creative alternatives without losing the win-win focus. Then, the tactics may be neutralized if necessary.
- After the interests have been defined, the parties represent their starting positions in the refining step. The first sketches of the agreement are made.
- The final step is the reviewing the results of the negotiations. Parties make the final amendments, and formalize the reached consent.
The final phase is the phase of reviewing the course and the results of the negotiations. Both parties analyze their mistakes and achievements, and define whether the negotiations were successful.
If all the described actions are undertaken timely, the success of the negotiations is inevitable. Originally, there is strong necessity to pay sufficient attention towards the preparation phase, thus, the possession of the necessary information on the opponent, his or her interests and price, which may be paid for these interests, will define the success of the negotiation flow. (Shell, 2006)
Frames
As for the matters of the frames, these may be explained on the example of the negotiations of the Soviet Union and the USA during the Caribbean Missile Crisis. Originally, in spite of the fact that the negotiations ended successfully for both parties, the essential frame of ideological visions restricted the course. The parties did not wish to let the opponent succeed, nevertheless, both parties did not wish to compromise more than the opponent. The frame of mutual mistrust essentially restricted the negotiation process, and, probably the results of the negotiations. Another frame, that may be stated is the extreme aggravation of contradictions, and the fact, that the world was on the edge of a nuclear war: both parties were afraid to make a mistake in the negotiations, and provoke the missile strike.
The fact is that, all the restricting frames tend to create obstacles for the successful and beneficial negotiations, nevertheless, the latter one helped the parties to avoid the further aggravation of the situation, and they managed to reach the mutual consent, sacrificing their own political interests for the sake of the peace.
Cognitive Biases
The cognitive bias of framing, which featured the negotiations on the merging of Samsung and Whirlpool companies prevented them from merging their managerial and industrial powers. Framing, which presupposed the attitude of Whirlpool managers towards Samsung as the second-sort manufacturer did not allow the negotiations end successfully. Samsung delegates, in their turn, did not wish to deal with the representatives of Whirlpool who even did not aim to conceal their prejudice towards Korean colleagues. (Shell, 2006)
Overconfidence, is the cognitive bias, which means the overestimating of one’s own opportunities, or the interest of the opponent to deal with the company. Sonar Inc representatives were too self confident during the negotiations with NASA representatives, nevertheless, they did not know that NASA has several alternatives, thus, the negotiations were failed. (Ury, 2001)
Self Serving Biases may be different. Originally, self-confidence explained in the previous paragraph may be harmful, nevertheless, if negotiators feel self confident, and negotiate with respect to the opposing party, the success of the negotiations is inevitable. The brightest example is coffee supplier for Mcdonald’s.
Reference
Lewicki, R., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. (2007). Essentials of negotiation (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Lewicki, R, Barry, B., & Saunders, D. (2007). Negotiation: Readings, exercises and cases (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Shell, R. (2006) “Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People” Penguin Publishing
Ury, W., L. (2001) “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In” Penguin Publishing