Introduction
The realization of successful transactions among people and/or institutions involves a negotiation process that leads to mutually accepted solutions. Negotiation can be understood as a process that involves two parties with different goals or needs based on a common issue. These two parties find a way of reaching an agreement. People conduct negotiations either face-to-face or through virtual means in business transactions, agreements, and court proceedings among others.
One of the main conditions that must be realized is the acceptance of a win-win situation for the parties involved. In the absence of such conditions, concessions, goodwill, agreement, and better relationship can never be achieved. In the wake of increasing globalization and technological shifts, online negotiation has become an integral part of many businesses. In this case, the two parties meet virtually to reach a consensus.
Under such environments, trust is a key ingredient for the successfulness of the negotiation process. The essay presents a detailed discussion on online negotiation. The first discussion will provide an overview of the definition of the negotiation process. It will also provide insight into the approaches to dialogue theories with a view of discussing how such concepts are important for the success of negotiations. Primarily, the essay will focus on online negotiation, its benefits, challenges, and ways of overcoming them.
Overview of Negotiation
Negotiation is a word derived from the Latin term ‘Negotiationem’ that means to bargain. The term is related to the needs of people who coexist in a particular region. In ancient ages, men used to negotiate their ways of possessing items or sharing their ideologies among families and clans (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 14). Since people required peaceful coexistence in the wake of civilization, powerful negotiations were initiated to ensure that harmony and cooperation prevailed.
Consultative bargaining soon erupted in the process with increased democracy and freedom of communication. In the business fields, negotiations have played major roles in the interventions of buyers and sellers (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 14).
In a political dimension, leaders strive to demark their territories through negotiations, especially in cases that involve the sharing of powers. In the society, social gatherings have been facilitated through negations. Events such as social celebrations where people from different backgrounds meet are normally realized through negotiation processes (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 14).
Approaches to Negotiation Theory
Prescriptive, normative, or descriptive characteristics distinguish various categories of the negotiation theories. The nature of the theories has been based on various disciplines or perspectives in which they originate. From such disciplines, a discussion of negotiation definition can either be reflective on functional, disciplinary, or conceptual characteristics.
Politicians see negotiation as a process used to bring the conflicting parties together based on the decision of unanimity rule. Other people have also viewed negotiation as diplomatic, mechanical, weighted interactions, or relative power that is mutually shared (Van Beest and Scheepers 50).
All theories of negotiation have a common base where the parties must have an agreement. At the outset, the party must be contented that their purpose will be served in a better way if the negotiation results are acceptable. These two parties at the opposite ends always have a profound belief that their interests must be considered first. Initially, the two sides have no interest in reaching the agreement. The perceived opinions amongst the involved parties lead to the negotiation process (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 8).
William Zartman, a negotiation researcher, came up with five different levels of approaches that included structural, strategic, procedural, behavioral, and integrative arbitration tactics (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 8). Structural approaches initiate a negotiation event as a conflict between two opposing parties who have visions that can never be compact.
Theorists who use this approach emphasize the means that are brought on board by the two parties to the negotiation. These theorists outline that the main factor that determines a breakthrough in the negotiation process is power. Each party strives to exercise their powers at individual levels in the negotiation process to achieve their goals (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 8).
The power of individual party can be examined in terms of their convincing ability to win in addition to the available resources that are brought onboard. This approach derives its route from the political theory that lays emphasis on survival. The strong characters survive by doing what they can while the weak must suffer (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 8).
Although the application of the political theory to the negotiation process is significant, its outcome is not guaranteed to either the strong or weak. This approach has a game changer where properties such as those of symmetry-asymmetry balances must be considered to ensure the strong groups or individuals do not have absolute control (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 12).
A major drawback of this approach is that it omits the skills used in negotiations that are essential in shaping the outcome. In addition, there is also emphasis on the placement of negotiation positions. Besides, this approach sometimes leads to the loss of opportunities due to the tendency to hold back positions (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 14).
A strategic approach is coined from both decision and rational choice theories. This approach emphasizes the role played by the goals of the parties in the determination of the negotiation outcome (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 8). Under this approach, the negotiators must always be guided by their mathematical maneuvers and options that leads to greater benefits for them.
The players are also allowed to select the appropriate actions that can lead to the formulation of a concrete decision. This approach always picks a normative negotiation theory based on the best available solution in negotiating issues. Therefore, it is deemed a bargaining technique (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 8).
The framework for this approach is based on the game theories. The game concept focuses on certain mathematical models to define and foretell feasible choices that can lead to the optimization of the negotiation process. Another aspect is the consequences of the actions that are based on the decisions of other parties. The approach also borrows some ideas from the critical risk theory that lays emphasis on the use of cardinal numbers to elaborate the behaviors exhibited in decision-making (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 8).
This theory uses probability estimations when making decisions by conceding defeat in the process of negotiation. In this case, the players must derive their critical risks that are used to initiate the probable solutions. The limitations of the strategic approaches include the omission of the use of power by the undifferentiated parties involved in the conflict. However, the assumption is seen as a win-lose available solutions that are optional based on the rationales adopted by the parties (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 7).
The behavioral approaches lay emphasis on the personalities of the negotiators. The behavior of the negotiators either can be seen as either ruthless or conceding diplomatically to ensure peace (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 8). Online negotiators who use this approach tend to have a dilemma.
These people are observed to be more demanding to ensure that a solution is reached; hence, their approaches are unlikely to succeed. This approach is based on the psychological traditions that have perspectives that all negotiations are about the individuals involved in the process (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 10).
The behavioral models tend to lean on the emotions, skills, and conducts of people. They emphasize on attitudes, persuasion skills, trust, perceptions, and motivation factors that affect the negotiation results. The result of this approach is a win-lose scenario (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 17). These factors significantly influence the nature of online negotiation processes.
The concession approach is centered on learning. The negotiation is viewed as a learning process whereby the parties must reach one another’s concession behaviors. The interests of the individual parties play a crucial role in the determination of the outcome of the negotiation process. The main limitation of the approach is that it emphasizes the positions of parties and absence of predictability (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 15).
Lastly, the integrative approaches pose negotiations as interactions that have win-win potential. This theory finds a way of creating value to ensure that wider varieties of ideas are available for the parties involved in the negotiation process. This approach uses a criterion that is objective to ensure that mutual gains are created (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 23). It also ensures the sharing of information during the formulation of solutions.
It supports cooperation, joint decision-making and mutual gain among the parties. This state of affairs compels the parties to uncover their interests, generate options, and look for common solutions that are mutually beneficial.
This approach is derived from the political, international relations, and social decision-making approaches. The assumption in this approach is a win-win potential with limitations being seen in terms of time consumption and unaddressed barriers that can break the negotiation process (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 26).
Online Negotiations
The use of information technology in negotiation has been increased in the line of businesses such as those involving emails among others. Online negotiations borrow ideas and knowledge of communication and technology in place. In the current world scenario, globalization has ensured business transactions across borders with long distances (Lelieveld et al. 635). Communication plays a crucial role in ensuring that successful negotiations are conducted.
Online negotiations range from organization functions such as harmonization of employee payments, working conditions, and business deals that are conducted at the local and international levels. Besides, online negotiations can be conducted on acquisitions, mergers of businesses, political negotiations, and court proceedings among others (Lelieveld et al. 635).
Anonymity and Affective Display in Online Negotiation
Personal connections to both parties play a critical role in online negotiation. These connections can either be in terms of friendship and acquaintanceships and must be considered as the basis of the negotiations. The degree of similarity as per the judgment of the two parties will determine the success of the online negotiation.
This state of events can be based on the identity of an individual in the negotiation environment that also influences the outcome of the process (Olekalns and Druckman 455). For example, online negotiating parties normally include their pictures when responding to emails emphasize on their commitments to the process of negotiation. It is evident that online negotiations are successful if the parties know each other through initial face-to-face meeting, photographs, and/or video conferencing.
The initial meeting between parties has been identified to yield fruits in their cooperation and relationships due to the effect of limiting the anonymity perspective. Researchers have noted that individuals who have been in negotiation before seeing one another normally have difficulty in cooperating as well as developing a rapport with either negotiators or other party.
Experiments on the visual access have also been identified to boost cooperation whether the negotiations are realized through face-to-face, video conferencing, or pictures (Olekalns and Druckman 455). The affective display is termed as a normal state of physical arousal that is always displayed when one is communicating. This state sometimes varies in intensity; hence, it can lead to changes in mood and emotion among others.
In the negotiation processes, unpleasant or high-intensity anger can be portrayed as negative arousal while happiness can be seen as positive arousal (Belkin, Kurtzberg, and Naquin 28). These factors are highly influenced by the language of communication in negotiation.
Affective display of an individual in a negotiation process must always be considered since it influences people to change their judgments. Positive arousal ensures the enhancement of cognitive flexibility that leads to attention improvement while the negative arousal leads to reduced cooperation. However, a detailed cognitive orientation processing is gained (Belkin, Kurtzberg, and Naquin 28).
Most studies have outlined the importance of the affective displays of other parties on negotiation especially those at the receiving end. The affective displays that tend to be negative as being indicated by the opponents can be observed by the indicators to be their source of power in online negotiations.
A research conducted by Lelieveld et al. (2011) indicates anger directed by one party may be used by a negotiator to obtain a more concession from the opponent (Lelieveld et al. 635; Belkin, Kurtzberg, and Naquin 28). Sometimes, the expression of anger among the players in the conciliation process can bring about a distributive gain. This situation implies that people with higher powers in the negotiation processes express anger in most cases (Lelieveld et al. 635).
When too much anger is expressed, it can inspire the opponent to be deceptive for the scale to balance (Lelieveld et al. 635). Online negotiation whereby one party portrays overblown anger may lead to a reverse impact where the sender is perceived to be weaker. A research conducted by Sinaceur et al. (2011) demonstrated the use of threat in negotiation. The negative consequences were stated to be results of not complying with one party’s request.
It revealed one of the most efficient means of expressing concessions by the other party in negotiation process. It is more productive than anger expression when communicating (Sinaceur et al. 1018).
This is because individuals with more powers in negotiation in most cases tend to have control on their feelings and decisions while the opponents imply traits of weakness such as losing control among others (Sinaceur et al. 1018). Therefore, it can be noted that the receivers secure their positions of power in most cases. As a result, the negotiator must ensure that the content of negotiation is the most important aspect or else the parties will portray negative tactics (Sinaceur et al. 1018).
A conclusion can be made that negative effects indicate signals that show dominance that can then be used to change one’s perceived opinion or behavior in the negotiation process especially in uncertainty conditions especially on the online negotiation where judging one’s power is difficult (Sinaceur et al. 1018).
Other researchers have also indicated that positive expressions such as being happy when communicating always result in opposite effects on the negative displays of other party especially when online negotiations are being carried out. Take for example if a person sends a message that clearly portrays his anger, such can be analyzed by the receiver as a stronger position in negotiation; hence, the receiver can perceive that there is no concessions(Van Beest and Scheepers 50).
When the information is conveyed well, the receiver tends to think that the source is less powerful. It is indicated that people with lower power always are appreciative, grateful and admire when responding to positive messages while they feel guilty when responding to negative messages (Van Beest and Scheepers 50).
People of higher powers are always portrayed to have dominance and are independent while lower power people are fond of warm and are communal. It can be concluded that positive effects are associated with people of lower powers while negative effects are associated with people of high powers especially the senders of information.
Negotiators who intervene on online negotiation normally perceive that messages with positive effects portray the senders as being in possession of lower powers (Van Beest and Scheepers 50). They tend to be submissive and desperate. This situation is perceived as an advantage to the opponent.
However, the approach is different from that adopted by the sender who uses anger as an expression when sending e-mails. As a result, it is deemed more powerful. Some people who pose anger in the end always demand higher value and expect more out of the deal. The positive effects lead to an individual getting less gain at the outcome of negotiation (Van Beest and Scheepers 50).
In ensuring negotiation outcome to be in one’s favor, the parties always strive to receive positive messages. This situation puts them in a position to feel that they are powerful due to their perception of the weaker end as portrayed by the other party who sends information that is more powerful. This set of circumstances influences the results of the negotiation process (Van Beest and Scheepers 50).
Expectations of Negotiator in Online Negotiation
Some aspects of the relationship lead to the optimism of the negotiator on outcome. The negotiator can easily ensure that parties arrive at fruitful conclusions if they are known to each other. Most of the legal negotiations have been fruitful in situations where two parties have met face to face prior to the negotiation dates (Van Beest and Scheepers 50).
The communication medium used in the negotiation process plays a critical role in ensuring that negotiator is optimistic about the positive outcome in the negotiation process. The voice of participants in the negotiation process can also make the negotiator be optimistic about the outcome of the process.
A research conducted by Lelieveld et al. indicated that parties who meet face-to-face are more likely to trust one another than those who meet virtually during negotiation (635). It is important for the representatives to ensure that such parties meet prior to online negotiation. In such cases, the negotiator is likely to be optimistic about the positive outcome. In incidences where distances are barriers to negotiation, the negotiator must strive to ensure that video conferencing is used in the process (Van Beest and Scheepers 50).
Importance of Online Negotiations
Online negotiations have been noted to possess various benefits. At the outset, there is a physical absence of the parties involved in the negotiation. The use of body language can therefore not be used to posse judgment on one party to be more superior or inferior. The virtual environment provides an equal ground thus party who tends to be shy may take the virtual nature of the environment as an advantage (Lelieveld et al. 635).
The second advantage is that virtual negotiations eliminate the aspect of physical advantage in cases whereby the room being used can enable one party to feel more comfortable than the other party. Virtual negotiations do not have a physical selection of location. The opponents chose only when they are comfortable to negotiate and the favorable time for such activities to take place (Van Beest and Scheepers 50).
Another advantage is seen in terms of enhanced flexibility. There is no time wastage since the negotiators can easily schedule an impromptu meeting or follow-up to close the deal quickly. Issues of expenses in transportation are also omitted; hence, the problem of distance as a barrier is solved (Van Beest and Scheepers 50). Online negotiations provide more information, especially where facts are required.
One can easily search for more information on the internet quickly and at a lower cost. This state of events can be helpful especially when the other party tries to discredit various alternatives that one might bring on board during the negotiation process. Furthermore, they have been deemed quicker in the realization of concession and problem solving. Besides, online negotiation ensures that hostility is observed in face-to-face negotiations is reduced (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 15).
The absence of non-verbal cues normally ensures the reduction of hostility and conflict in the negotiation process. This type of negotiation also guarantees the effective elimination of status differences between parties that negotiate. As a result, the parties treat themselves as equal. Communication under such circumstances is done without bias (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 15).
Challenges of Online Negotiation
Negotiations that are conducted via emails are prone to challenges due to virtual contact of the two parties. Most people always perceive the responses of the other parties as rude owing to the lack sincerity on the negotiation processes. Situations that require immediate responses via emails sometimes take time due to network issues.
In such circumstances, other parties can perceive such situations as negative tactics that are used to delay the process. If the problem being solved touches the emotions of the parties, the absence of the other party hinders aspects of facial expressions. As a result, negative results can arise (Olekalns and Druckman 455).
Most negotiators who are based internationally have problems of cultural barriers to communication processes. Issues that surround social norms, body languages, physical appearances, and manners are excluded from the communication process. This state of events can derail the understanding amongst the involved parties (Olekalns and Druckman 455).
The parties only rely on the sound intensity, speed, and reflections to get useful information. This situation leads to low social awareness and instability as well as the lack of cooperation when interactions are conducted online. Most negotiators who solve issues virtually at the first step bring both parties face-to-face. The process is aimed at building rapport to create social awareness of the negotiation with a view of conducting the process successfully.
Those who fail to meet face to face, a video supported conferencing technique is used to aid in negotiation process. In this case, both parties get along each other by introducing themselves, setting up individual goals, and acquaint themselves with the issue at hand (Olekalns and Druckman 455).
Management of trust is quite hectic in online negotiation. Most people are honest when delivering information in person. In some cases, parties hold back private information thereby posing a challenge to the online negotiation process.
Most researchers who have indicated that most information given online tends to be full of lies, mostly irrelevant and ambiguous thus clarity is always minimal have confirmed this situation. The provision of inadequate information is also noted in emails and phone calls, especially when strangers are involved in the negotiation process (Olekalns and Druckman 455).
Proper Way of Managing Online Negotiations
The first step in making online negotiation requires prior knowledge of the parties involved in the negotiation process. The negotiator must ensure that both parties are first brought together for face-to-face meeting. This step is specifically done to ensure the creation of social awareness. The meeting of such individuals can also be done through video conferencing in cases where transportation costs are high.
The parties must introduce themselves and provide information about their concerns. The next step entails vigilance. At the beginning of negotiation, both parties have high mutual trusts; hence, they can communicate information via any means that are readily available. The negotiators must be attentive to the language of communication. They must constantly monitor the whole process and correct misunderstandings that can arise. The close monitoring process must also embrace social awareness of both parties.
Conclusion
Negotiation is mostly conducted on a face-to-face basis with emphasis on the personal contact. The expression of personal behavior by the other party portrays the sincerity of the negotiation process. Although such aspects are observed in negotiations, online negotiations have been noted to increase in the current world due to increased technology and globalization. People tend to be occupied on many occasions.
This situation makes face-to-face meeting a waste of time and other resources. As a result, people have embraced online negotiation as a way of solving conflicts and striking deals among activities. This new way of negotiation has been found to come with its pros and cons as has been elaborated in the essay.
Therefore, its choice mainly depends on the two parties’ relationship prior to the ongoing deals. The familiarity of the parties to the issue at hand is essential in ensuring trust that is a key in making such negotiations successful. Therefore, it is recommended that online negotiation should be implemented only if a rapport has been well established between the parties involved.
Works Cited
Belkin, Liuba, Terri Kurtzberg and Charles Naquin. “Signaling dominance in online negotiations: The role of affective tone.” Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 6.4 (2013): 285-304.
Daniels, Steven, Gregg Walker and Jens Emborg. “The unifying negotiation framework: A model of policy discourse.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 30.1 (2012): 3-31.
Lelieveld, Gert-Jan, Eric Van Dijk, Ilja Van Beest, Wolfgang Steinel and Gerben Van Kleef. “Disappointed in you, angry about your offer: Distinct negative emotions induce concessions via different mechanisms.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47.3 (2011): 635-641.
Olekalns, Mara and Daniel Druckman. “With feeling: how emotions shape negotiation.” Negotiation Journal 30.4 (2014): 455-478.
Sinaceur, Marwan, Gerben Van Kleef, Margaret Neale, Hajo Adam and Christophe Haag. “Hot or cold: Is communicating anger or threats more effective in negotiation?” Journal of Applied Psychology 96.5 (2011): 1018.
Van Beest, Ilja and Daan Scheepers. “Challenge and threat responses to anger communication in coalition formation.” Journal of Economic Psychology 38.1 (2013): 50-57.