Negotiations are a process of joint decision making and finally reaching a mutually beneficial outcome and solve a disputed situation. Negotiation has always had a strong relationship with power. It has always been an area of utmost importance for negotiators to understand how one with less power can still emerge from a negotiation with a positive result.
Zartman and Rubin (2002) point out that when two parties face each other in a negotiation table, they operate with the greatest autonomy rather than abide to the other’s manacles. If in a situation the one with greater power has an upper hand in the argument, the possibility of attaining an agreement becomes more difficult (Zartman & Rubin 2002).
However, during a negotiation process the power that we see is one that is perceived by us and not necessarily true (Kim & Fragale 2005). It is believed that when the perceived power is equal among the negotiators the outcome of the negotiation is positive, but when perceived power is unequally distributed among parties, it tend to lead to a negative outcome (Zartman & Rubin 2002).
This paper discusses the negotiation process that took place in the role-play session of my negotiation class. This is a report of what I observed as a party in the negotiation and how we as a negotiating group achieved the best possible outcome.
I was a part of the group that supported the NBN tower. I played the role of a health inspector. I was responsible to prove that there was no truth over the heath concern related to NBN tower. I was also responsible to present various designs that would eventually reduce any health risk of the people living there. As I was responsible only for the health related issue, I spoke only when there was any mention or issue raised of the health hazards that the tower to the people living in the community.
When we first entered the room, I observed that the sitting arrangement was around rectangular tables such that the negotiators faced each other. This was a position that helped us to separate ourselves from the other side and use the space to signify the difference between the two groups.
The whole conversation began with each of the groups explaining their role and side in the play. Ardi, the team leader of my group, explained our stand. We opened the discussion for the negotiation with the stand that we could have the tower made with the capital and infrastructure available to us. However, the other side did not think so and they wanted to focus more on the needs of the community.
Our group was supporting the construction of the NBN towers. Our reasons for support were precise – we wanted the tower to develop the area as it would help us get the internet, enhance education of students, help us in case of an emergency, such as in case of a bushfire. However, the group opposing it argued that the tower would not be good for the environment. Their most strong argument was that of radiation emitted from the tower might be harmful to the community.
The opposing group was adamant on their demand of no NBN tower but the fund going to the betterment of the community. This almost showed that we were facing trouble at the negotiation table. However, we fought back with a backup plan. As the negotiation ended, our team leader wrote out the solution on the board, which was a good idea as this allowed all to observe what the outcome to the negotiation was. In addition, came up with a solution then fell behind. The outcome was as follows –
- The group agreed on construction of the NBN Towers but that it should be in Moyston rather than being in the middle of the town,
- The tower will be constructed in a non-residential farmland in Pomonal,
- An environmental report on the tower is to be made for presentation to the committee and
- Laura must be compensated for the health hazard radiation had caused.
The second negotiation process was very different from ours. They were discussing the issue of building a refugee centre in the town. The chairs in the discussion were arranged in a circular manner, which created a sense of equality among the groups. However, the atmosphere in the other group was different as in their group it seemed as of both the groups entered the negotiation expecting to win. However, in our case we entered the discussion to reach the best possible solution.
Negotiations are a part of everyday life. Negotiations help in bringing together divergent parties together during policy formation. A common forum creates the space for the differing parties to share their ideas and views as well as look into the interests of the stakeholders. As in case of the negotiation, we had stakeholders like Laura, who was allergic to radiation, come forward with the problems that a tower could cause to the community. However, through discussion, a decision was reached which was mutually beneficial.
References
Kim, PH & Fragale, AR 2005, ‘Choosing the path to bargaining power: an empirical comparison of BATNAs and contributions in negotiation ‘, Journal of Applied Psychology ,vol 90, no. 2, pp. 373-381.
Zartman, IW & Rubin, JZ 2002, ‘The Study of Power and the Practice of Negotiation’, in IW Zartman, JZ Rubin (eds.), Power and Negotiation, University of Michigan Press, Michigan.