HIGH RISK NEGOTIATION TECHNIQUES

Unexpected temper losses

High balling

Boulwarism

Waiting until last moment

Psychological ploy

LOW RISK NEGOTIATION TECHNIQUES

Flattery

Addressing easy point first

Silence

Inflated opening position

Oh poor me

BARGAINING STRATEGIES

Distributive bargaining:

is a negotiating strategy that operates under zero-sum (win-lose) conditions. That is, any gain

I make is at your expense, and vice versa. Probably the most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is in labour management negotiations over wages. Typically, management comes to the bargaining table determined to keep its labour costs as low as possible. Since every cent more that labour negotiates increases management’s costs, each party bargains aggressively and treats the other as an opponent who must be defeated.

When engaged in distributive bargaining, a party focuses on trying to get the opponent to agree to a specific target point, or to get as close to it as possible. Examples of such tactics are persuading your opponent of the impossibility of reaching his or her target point and the advisability of accepting a settlement near yours; arguing that your target is fair, while your opponent’s is not; and trying to get your opponent to feel emotionally generous toward you and thus accept an outcome close to your target point.

Integrative Bargaining

In contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative bargaining operates under the assumption that there exists one or more settlements that can create a win-win solution.

In terms of intra-organizational behaviour, all things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining. Why? Because the former builds long-term relationships and makes working together in the future easier. It bonds negotiators and allows both sides to leave the bargaining table feeling that they have achieved a victory.

For instance, in union-management negotiations, both sides might sit down to figure out other ways to reduce costs within an organization, so that it is possible to have greater wage increases. Distributive bargaining, on the other hand, leaves one party a loser. It tends to build animosities and deepen divisions when people must work together on an ongoing basis.

Hard strategy and Soft strategy: 

A soft approach minimizes or avoids the issue and the conflict. It works because many people respond positively to warmth and kindness; they are willing to reciprocate and approprepate your commitment to the relationship. Soft approaches are useful in everyday transactions where the stakes are low or in difficult situations where negotiators are able to call upon the importantce of their relatuoship. 

A hard approach minimizes the relationship and tries to narrow the issue. It works when facing those who have no formulated goals or plans as well as those who lack self confidence. Weak or confused barganiingers are more likely to comply with the proposals of a forceful personality. The hard approach is suited for short term relationships where the other side is not fully prepared.

ERRORS DURING NEGOTIATION

Accepting positions: Assuming the other person won't change their position. 

Accepting statements: Assuming what the other person says is wholly true. 

Cornering them: Giving them no alternative but to fight.


Hurrying: Negotiating in haste (and repenting at leisure).



Hurting the relationship: Getting what you want but making an enemy.


Issue fixation: Getting stuck on one issue and missing greater possibilities.


Missing strengths: Not realizing the strengths that you actually have.


Misunderstanding authority: Assuming that authority and power are synonymous.


Misunderstanding power: Thinking one person has all the power.


One solution: Thinking there is only one possible solution.


Over-wanting: Wanting something too much.

Squeezing too much: Trying to gain every last advantage.


Talking too much: Not gaining the power of information from others.


Thinking in absolutes: Assuming that there are only a few possibilities. 

 Win-lose: Assuming a fixed-pie, win-lose scenario.

NEGOTIATION-DEFINITION

Negotiation is a process in which two or more individuals or groups, having both common and conflicting goals, state and discuss proposals for specific terms of a possible agreement.

Negotiation is one of the most common approaches used to make decisions and manage disputes. It is also the major building block for many other alternative dispute resolution procedures. Negotiation is a problem-solving process in which two or more people voluntarily discuss their differences and attempt to reach a joint decision on their common concerns. Negotiation requires participants to identify issues about which they differ, educate each other about their needs and interests, generate possible settlement options and bargain over the terms of the final agreement. Successful negotiations generally result in some kind of exchange or promise being made by the negotiators to each other.

ROLE CONFLICT

Role conflict is the result of divergent role expectations. It exists hen the expectations of a job are mutually different or opposite and the individual cannot meet one expectation without rejecting the other. For example. The supervisor, the man in the middle, is a bumping post, he has to take it from both ends. He has to perform strikingly different roles. He is both a boss and a subordinate. As a part of management team he should have the corresponding values and attitudes. As a member from the worker’s group he should have their values and attitudes. He is expected to wear both the hats gracefully. Role conflict arises when roles are so conflicting supervisors do not know which set of expectations they should follow. Different forms of role conflict are mentioned as below-

Intra sender role conflict:

this occurs when an individual is expected to perform a task within specifiedlimits but it is not possible to bhevahe in a manner consistent with role assignment. For example if the libreian is asked to purchase rare, precious books from approved book sellers and the books are not found there but are found in roadside bookshops-intra sender conflict may develop.

Inter sender role conflict:

if a building contractor asks a carpenter to do something that is different from the instructions of the architect, the municipal building codes or his unions work rules, that is called intersender role conflict.

Inter role conflict: 

this types of conflict is the result of facing multiple roles. It occurs because individuals simultaneously perform many roles, and they conflict with each other. Many professors who try to evaluate the performsnce of students many find it uncomfortable to fulfill the demand of other roels like the role of trainer, developer or teacher.

Person role conflict:

this types of conflict arises when the expected behavour is incompatible with a persons own basic values and attitudes. For example, a politician asks one of his supposrtor to paly dirty tricks on an opponent, and the suposrter refuses on moral grounds.

Intra-Group Conflict:

Intra-group conflict relates to values, status and roles played by an individual in the group and the group norms. Individual may want to remain in the group for social needs but may disagree with the methods and procedures followed by the group. The conflict may arise when social changes are incorporated in the group. When group faces new problems and when values are changed due to change in social environment. Intra-group conflict is like Inter-personal conflict except that the people involved in the conflict episode belong to a common group.

Inter-Group Conflict:

Conflicts between different groups, sections and departments are called inter-group conflict.

For example, conflict between production and sales departments over the quality being produced and the customer requirements.

Horizontal Conflict:

Horizontal Conflict is caused due to incompatibility of goals, sharing limited resources and difference in time orientation. It leads to tension, misunderstanding and frustration on the part of both the parties. Horizontal conflict relates to employees or group at the same level. Organizational goal at implementation level vary from department to department. The sources of conflict between department consists of pressures towards suboptimization. Each department may suboptimize by independently trying to achieve its own departmental goals. For example production departments may prefer long economical runs whereas sales departments may insist on wuck delivery. Again when two departments are functionally interdependent, breakdowns in the performance of one deparment can lead to serious conflicts.

Vertical Conflict:

Vertical conflict refers to conflicts that might take place between different levels of hierarchy.

Conflicts between subordinates and superior occur due to incompatibility. It is generally caused because of differences in perception, value system, goals that may be assigned, cognition and difference in individual behaviour. Conflict is also caused due to inappropriate communication between individuals at two different levels.

Line and Staff Conflict:

Line and staff conflict has been traditional. Line authority creates product and services and contributes directly towards the revenue generation. While staff authority assists line authority and acts in advisory capacity. Staff and line authority have a different predispositions and goals. They have different skills and expertise. Since staff authorities (managers) are in the chain of command and have a day to day assess to the top boss, have a tendency to dictate terms to the line authority and usually disregard the working knowledge of the line authority. They have tendency to dominate and disregard the efforts put in by line authority managers. On the contrary staff managers have a technical know how and they are able to advice the line authority to cut down cost of production and save on wastage etc. Line authority does not like their advice at times. Staff managers get frustrated when their suggestions and ideas are not implemented by line managers and hence the cause for conflict. In the process the organizational goals are not achieved as per plans.

BASIC TYPES OF INTRA PERSONAL CONFLICT

Approach_approach conflict :An individual must choose among alternatives, each of which is expected to have a positive outcome

Avoidance_avoidance conflict: An individual must choose among alternatives, each of which is expected to have a negative outcome

Approach_avoidance conflict: An individual must decide whether to do something that has both positive and negative outcomes

LEVELS OF CONFLICT

Intra personal: Intra personal conflict is also called the conflict within the individual.

Inter personal: conflict that occurs between two or more individuals. Or Situation that occurs when an individual or group frustrates, or tries to frustrate, the goal attainment efforts of the other.

Intra group: within a group: conflict that occurs within groups or teams in an organization

Inter group: between groups: conflict that occurs between groups or teams in an organization