The ability to frame a problem is an essential contributor to the outcomes of negotiation. Without a consistent vision, negotiating parties will not gain a better understanding of each other’s expectations (Carnevale, 2019). Ultimately, it will lead to spoiled negotiation outcomes and unrealized prospects that could have been utilized as competitive advantages in the future. According to Richards et al. (2020), when a problem is framed comprehensively enough, it gives enough room for consistent discussions. Overall, the impact of the ability to frame a problem on negotiation outcomes can be perceived as above average.
Over time, negotiating parties can be expected to either hinder or improve their interaction by means of communication. Consistent with Kiruthika et al. (2020), negotiation is a process that cannot exist without reciprocal attitudes and the willingness to contribute to joint efforts. It means that negotiations often fail after some time because parties stop caring about each other’s benefits.
Interaction processes are just as important as the ability to frame a problem due to the fact that negotiations are founded on mutual investments. Inputs and outcomes can be predicted on the basis of prior interactions (Carnevale, 2019; Svanberg et al., 2018). In the case where one of the negotiating parties does not reckon with the needs of another negotiator, it will be rather likely that the parties would lose traction and stop interacting, distancing themselves from each other’s goals and aspirations.
The development of the negotiation depends on how the parties treat their partners and what tactics they tend to use when having to achieve their objectives as soon as possible. For instance, Liu (2019) mentions how the inability to acknowledge cultural differences might become the key obstacle to adequate negotiations. This is why negotiating parties often expect the lists of needs and available resources to be compiled and exchanged in advance.
References
Carnevale, P. J. (2019). Strategic time in negotiation.Current Opinion in Psychology, 26, 106-112. Web.
Kiruthika, U., Somasundaram, T. S., & Raja, S. (2020). Lifecycle model of a negotiation agent: A survey of automated negotiation techniques.Group Decision and Negotiation, 29(6), 1239-1262. Web.
Liu, M. (2019). How power distance interacts with culture and status to explain intra‐and intercultural negotiation behaviors: A multilevel analysis. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 12(3), 192-212.
Richards, J., Guerrero, V., & Fischbach, S. (2020). Negotiation competence: Improving student negotiation self-efficacy. Journal of Education for Business, 95(8), 553-558.
Svanberg, J., Öhman, P., & Neidermeyer, P. E. (2018). Client-identified auditor’s initial negotiation tactics: A social-identity perspective.Managerial Auditing Journal, 33(6/7), 633-654. Web.