Negotiation is a complex process of discussion and decision-making that depends on many factors, such as the parties’ purpose and motivation, their relationship and interdependence, resources, and negotiation skills. These factors determine what tactics and approaches are used by participants to finish negotiations successfully. This paper will discuss such fundamental aspects of negotiations as relationships and motivations of the parties to demonstrate their importance and impact on the communication process.
One of the most critical aspects of successful negotiations is the relationship of the parties. A friendly attitude developed in an informal setting, even in five minutes of communication, most often allows participants to trust each other and make concessions more confidently. As Salacuse (2020) points out, people tend to react to the actions of others analogically. Consequently, friendliness and trust induce a desire to be more amenable, and secrecy and irreconcilability are more likely to cause conflict. In addition, since negotiations between the parties usually mean further cooperation, trusting and friendly relations reduce the likelihood of non-compliance with agreements, the emergence of conflicts, and ensure a long-term partnership.
Moreover, most often, the parties are interdependent, since they intend to benefit from each other’s actions, but if only one party is dependent on the other, the negotiation is uneven and stressful. The relationship factor also changes the approach and success of conflict resolution. If the parties are inclined to cooperate, they can use the tactic of compromising, which means giving up part of their interests, or collaborating, which implies consensus (Smith et al., 2020). However, if one side depends on the other, or they are hostile, they are more likely to choose competing or accommodating tactics, which means that only one wins (Smith et al., 2020). Thus, the relationship between parties is critical to negotiating.
The second important aspect of negotiations is parties’ motivation or goal as this determines their style and tactics. According to purpose, negotiations are divided into such as types, distributive and integrative, which are opposite to each other (Lewicki et al., 2016). Distributive negotiators aim to divide limited resources between the parties to satisfy their interests and get the most benefit. For example, such negotiations can relate to the division of territories after a military conflict. Integrative negotiation aims to achieve results that satisfy all participants and create value (Lewicki et al., 2016).
For example, building an international organization is the integrative goal of the founding countries. Consequently, the purposes of these types of negotiations explain their main differences; for example, their competitive and collaborative nature. Another difference is that distribution negotiations have only one winner, and integration negotiations have no losers. In addition, the first type of communication is based on secrecy and pressure, while the second is based on openness and discussion. However, none of these types of negotiations are more advantageous, since their use usually depends on the parties’ final goal.
Nevertheless, since integration negotiations are usually more beneficial to all participants, it is worth considering some of its tactics. The first tactic is to find a bridge solution, which means that negotiators must develop new ideas instead of the original ones that will satisfy all parties (Lewicki et al., 2016). However, it is necessary for this decision that participants understand the underlying interests and qualitatively reformulate a solution that will fully satisfy all participants. For example, one side wants to use only vehicles for delivering goods, since they are safer, and the other side requires the use of bicycles, since they are environmentally friendly. The bridge solution for them will be the use of electric cars because they satisfy both parties’ interests.
The second tactic is logrolling, which requires two or more concerns for discussion. This approach is based on the fact that the parties agree, and one gets the preferable solution on one issue, and the other receives the most appropriate decision for another problem (Lewicki et al., 2016). However, logrolling most often requires testing different options until the parties find the most convenient answer for them. For example, employees want a more extended lunch break, and the employer is not happy with employees’ frequent 15-minute breaks. The solution for them may be to extend the lunchtime by 30 minutes, provided that the breaks are reduced to 10 minutes. Consequently, both integrative tactics aim to ensure that the negotiating parties win, even if they make minor concessions.
In conclusion, discussion of certain types and tactics of negotiation demonstrates that the parties’ relationship and their motivation are crucial to determining their communication style. The goal of obtaining the greatest benefit for oneself with limited resources forces the negotiator to compete and leaves no room for a collaborative way of resolving conflicts. At the same time, the motivation to find the most beneficial solution for everyone reduces the likelihood of conflict and allows participants to come to a win-win situation. Nevertheless, regardless of the reason and style of negotiations, friendly and trusting relationships are extremely important for negotiators as they improve communication, avoid conflict and simplify the process of making a shared decision.
References
Lewicki, R.J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D.M. (2016). Essentials of negotiation (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Salacuse, J.D. (2020). The importance of a relationship in negotiation. Harvard Law School. Web.
Smith, T.L., Tague-Busler, M., & Herbig, S. (2020). The key to survival: Interpersonal communication (5th ed.). Waveland Press.