Introduction
It is essential to map out the negotiation space to understand the issues and potential outcomes clearly. This means understanding the interests of all parties involved, their positions, moral views and beliefs, and areas where there is possible agreement or disagreement. By mapping out the negotiation space, parties can identify areas of common ground and develop creative solutions that meet the needs of all parties involved more sufficiently.
Negotiations
The process of negotiation is a give-and-take between two parties, and each party should feel like they have had a fair chance to voice their concerns and offer their solutions. If either party feels like they have been ignored or steamrolled, the negotiation is likely to break down (Schaerer et al., 2020). It is also important to remember that the goal of negotiation is not necessarily to find a middle ground that both parties can agree on (Caputo et al., 2019). As long as both parties feel they have had a fair chance to negotiate, the outcome is less important than the process. Sometimes, the best product is for one party to get what they want and the other party to be satisfied with the process.
Distributive negotiation is a win-lose situation where each side tries to get the best possible deal for themselves. It is also called “positional bargaining” because each side takes a position and tries to hold firm (Jeong et al., 2019). The focus is on what each side is willing to give up to get what they want. An example would be if someone were trying to buy a car. The dealer is trying to get as much money for the car as possible, while the buyer tries to pay as little as possible. The parties may keep changing prices, with the buyer raising their bid while the seller lowers their requirement to attain a friendly price for both parties (Schaerer et al., 2020). In some cases, the parties might not be satisfied with the final price and might have to opt for another option or take the deal, although it might be unfair. Thus, the procedure that leads to the agreed results or choice becomes essential to the outcome.
Integrative negotiation is a win-win situation where each side tries to find a mutually beneficial solution. It is commonly referred to as interest-based bargaining because the parties focus on their interests rather than their positions (Hüffmeier et al., 2018). The focus is on finding a solution that meets the needs of both parties. For instance, an employee requiring a pay rise from their boss engages in a negotiation that aims at a fair amount that meets the needs of both parties (Hüffmeier et al., 2018). Another example is when two companies work together to find a new supplier. They would focus on their shared interests, such as finding a supplier that is cost-effective and has a good reputation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the outcome of a negotiation is essential, but the process is often more critical. The method of negotiation can determine whether a deal is reached, and it can also resolve the terms of the agreement. The process can also determine the relationship between the parties after the negotiation. Distributive negotiation is more common than integrative negotiation. This is because it is usually easier to find a solution acceptable to both parties than to find a beneficial one. However, integrative negotiation is often more successful in the long run because it leads to more creative solutions that are more likely to benefit both parties. The negotiation process is essential because it allows the parties to explore their options, identify their interests, and come up with creative solutions.
Reference List
Caputo, A. et al. (2019) ‘The relationship between cultural values, cultural intelligence and negotiation styles‘, Journal of Business Research, 99, pp. 23–36. Web.
Hüffmeier, J. et al. (2018) ‘Strong or weak synergy? revising the assumption of team-related advantages in integrative negotiations‘, Journal of Management, 45(7), pp. 2721–2750. Web.
Jeong, M. et al. (2019) ‘Communicating with warmth in distributive negotiations is surprisingly counterproductive‘, Management Science, 65(12), pp. 5813–5837. Web.