The success of negotiation totally depends upon the efforts of both sides. Generally, the approaches the applicant and the manager rely on are considered the basic factors, which determine the winner of the negotiation. Win-lose negotiation means both sides to be ready to understand and accept all pros and cons of the salary. In contrast, win-win negotiation provides beneficial terms for each part concerned.
We will write a custom Assessment on Salary Negotiation Role-Play specifically for you
301 certified writers online
In this respect, the role-play negotiation will help to define different effective tactics and strategies with regard to the goals pursued by the negotiators. A careful analysis of practices and observations will help define which tactics and approaches are the most effective ones.
Distributive and Integrative Negotiations
First of all, there is a need to point out that successful negotiations depend upon the strategies the sides rely on. They say that the so-called win-lose approach is mostly based on negative perspective. It means that in most cases any side will win. However, one the other hand, one is to keep in mind that a person who negotiates a lot has more chances to succeed.
For this reason, one can state that a person who is more skilled and experienced will be the winner of negotiations. Of course, there is a great difference between distributive negotiations and integrative ones. There are also mixed-motive negotiations, but the company doesn’t rely on them, unfortunately. So, the first two approaches are to be discussed.
When win-lose tactics take place, for the applicant it is better not to answer the question, or answer the question in a special manner, so there could be no harm for negotiation position of the applicant. On the other hand, there is also an opportunity to respond with another question, or just listen to the negotiator (Hiring Manager: So, what salary do you expect to get? – Applicant: I would like to listen to your offers).
This answer means listening and gives an opportunity to respond with another question. On the other hand, the negotiator thinks that he or she has some advantages over the applicant; or he/she understands that the applicant wants to analyze the given information in the first place.
Another approach, which is to be discussed, is win-win negotiation. One of the most well known tactics integrate negotiation depends on is the so-called forbearance. One can see that the applicant is searching for the issue the manager can agree with.
In this case, one can understand that delaying action or the so-called procrastination gives the applicant and the manager some more time to consider unresolved point differently. When analyzing the applicant’s interest in another question, one can admit that the applicant wants to obtain specific information. It is one of the win-win purposes.
Adjustment and Concessions Made and the Strategies and Tactics Used By Each Side
While analyzing the responses of all the team members, it has been stated that adjustment and concessions are primarily made while using the tactics of integrative negotiation. Specifically, the respondents apply to assumptions and judgments leading to an agreement and compromise.
This is explicitly seen from the first remark of Hiring Manager (“Mr. Applicant, what salary do you expect”), as well as the one expressed by Applicant (“Sir, what is the best salary you offer for the position of HR Officer?”).
Adjustment statements are also represented by each side of debate while making arrangement concerning when it is possible to start working (Hiring Manager: “Can you start by tomorrow?” – Applicant: “Yes I can start tomorrow”).
Regarding other responses presented by team members, features of adjustment are presented in the distributive negotiations, particularly on the part of the Applicant who accepts all the conditions offered by the Hiring Manager, even if not all of them are suitable.
Regarding the distributive bargaining represented by Team Members, the concession was made at the end of the dialogue that was accompanied by an ultimate alternative (Applicant: “If you agree to pay me $ 40000, I will accept your offer otherwise I leave”).
In such a manner, the initial target point made by the Hiring Manager was an effective strategy because the probability for the Applicant to move closer to a resistant point ($ 50000) was low.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
There are many other tactics and strategies used by each side of the negotiation, which are specifically revealed in the distributive negotiations. Because distributive bargaining is often associated with competition, both the Hiring Manager and the Applicant compete with each other for better conditions.
Sources of Power and the Application of Power Influences Employed by Each Side
While being involved into negotiations, the opponents should have sources of power that are usually presented as “best alternative to a negotiated agreement”, or BATNA (Lewicki et al., 2010, p. 21). The stronger BATNA the opponents have the more chances to win the negotiations.
In this respect, the distributive bargaining represented by Team Members provides a bright example where each side takes advantage of different alternatives to gain more power in discussion. Hence, the applicant applies to general statements about qualifications and salaries, as well as company’s reputation.
In addition, the applicant makes the Hiring manager face a difficult choice – to accept his/her offer, or lose an experienced and qualified employee. In response, the Hiring Manages makes use of facts about their own company, as well as applicant’s situation (The Hiring Manager: “We know you present boss, Mr. Anderson.
He may actually discharge you. There is reconstruction in your company”). Judging from the given situation, “good distributive bargainer identify their realistic alternatives before starting discussions with the other part so they can properly gauge how firm to be in the negotiation” (Lewicki et al., 2010, p. 21).
In this respect, the Hiring Manager has less realistic alternative and, as a result, he/she has failed to stand for the initial target point.
Use of Central and Peripheral Route Influence Principles to Effect The Negotiation Outcome
While using the tactics of distributive negotiation, peripheral rout is used to convince the applicant to accept a lower salary. This strategy has been used in the discussions by the Team Members who exemplify managers of higher positions, but with low salary levels.
In such a ways, they display the situation and distract the applicant from this intention to increase the salary minimum. Using both central and peripheral routs of influence can maximize the value of deal and provide beneficial option for either of the parties.
Indirect approaches have also been used in the integrative bargaining when the Hiring Manager applies to neutral and inviting phrases to make sure the participants that the terms and salaries are beneficial.
A central route, therefore, is used to influence the applicant through direct addressing, as it has been presented in the integrative negotiation when the Hiring Manager has immediately proposed to start working the next day right after the job interview. Besides, the Manager has successfully used his/her power and authority to influence the Applicant’s decision.
The Ethicality of the Negotiation Tactics of Each Side
Achieving the highly beneficial terms is among the priorities of negotiation. However, the negotiation should take into consideration ethical and moral concerns while using specific arguments in favor and against. In this respect, the ethicality of the argumentation should also come to the forth; alternatively, improper responses can lead to a conflict, which can bring in no benefits of either of the opponents.
The probability of conflict emergence is higher while conducting distributive bargaining because it presupposes that one side of debate will lose and another one will gain much more beneficial terms.
Regarding the case under analysis, the distributive bargaining has certain inconsistencies in terms of argumentation, which turned out unethical on the part of the Applicant who failed to provide evidence of his/her qualification and experience. Instead, the candidate forwards an ultimatum without reasoning.
As per the integrative negotiation, ethical concerns are slightly revealed because both the Applicant and the Hiring Manager seem to agree on the identified terms. Nevertheless, exposing managers from other organizations who took on a salary cut to work at Z-firm could be considered unethical. In addition, this can increase pressure over the candidate and make him/her accept a salary cut.
Regarding the observations made, it should be concluded that both negotiation strategies have strengths and weaknesses. The study of role-play negotiations has revealed that better terms can be achieved if using persuasive argumentation (central route) and apply to convincing arguments that are not rely on empty promises but known facts and logically constructed justifications.
With this in mind, distributive bargaining seems to be more beneficial because it provide more privilege for either of the debating sides. Moreover, it also generates competition and desire of the opponents to prove their assumptions.
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2010). Negotiation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.