Negotiation can be considered one of the most effective ways of conflict intervention. When people negotiate, they participate in a particular process rather than a single event. Negotiation can be considered a communicative process directed toward eliminating or minimizing the causes of a conflict and reaching an agreement. Negotiation can be dependable on the approach taken during that process. Two distinct methods for negotiation are competitive and collaborative.
The collaborative approach can be framed within a mutual gain perspective, where parties will engage in “a rational discussion within a fair process if they believe their interests can be sufficiently met.” (Spangle & Isenhart, 2003, p. 49). In that regard, in collaborative approaches imply that the other party is “connected and not compatible” (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007, p. 225), and treated accordingly. The collaborative approach can be viewed from the perspective of integrative power, where the win/lose situations can be turned into considering the interests and rights of both parties.
The collaborative approach can be seen as more successful as it can satisfy the individual needs and the need for fairness. Accordingly, the conflict might be resolved more quickly when the problem is transferred from being a particular problem into a single mutual problem. Nevertheless, the collaborative approach might fail when the other party considers the willingness to cooperate as a weakness and acts competitively, taking advantage of such a situation.
In that regard, collaborative language implies that the negotiator is as firm as in a competitive approach, where the goals are unchangeable while the methods to achieve them can be flexible. (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007, p. 232)
The competitive approach in negotiation can be related to the distributive perception of power. Competitiveness implies a “zero-sum game,” i.e., a win/lose situation, unlike the collaborative process. The negotiation in such an approach is utilized to reach a specific goal that cannot be divided between the parties. Accordingly, only one party can get it, and the other party does not. In such negotiations, the rights and interests of the other person are out of the question, and thus the results are more important than the relationship itself.
The language of competitiveness can be seen as the more intuitive in negotiation, where according to the theory of the power, people assume that the other party has more energy, and thus collaborative languages can be interpreted as weakness; “most inexperienced bargainers automatically assume a competitive stance regarding negotiations since they believe that “toughness” can only be achieved through competitive tactics.” (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007, p. 236).
In general, both approaches in negotiation have their advantages and disadvantages and specific situations when to be used. Nevertheless, collaboration can be seen as more effective, where association stands between cooperation and competition. Additionally, the negotiation being a collaborative process assumes that people will reach a joint goal where both the parties will be satisfied. Additionally, the collaborative approach should be used when the collaboration will lead to better results than not collaborating at all.
References
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (2006). The handbook of conflict resolution : theory and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spangle, M., & Isenhart, M. W. (2003). Negotiation : communication for diverse settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2007). Interpersonal conflict (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.