Conflict Ass

8/10/2019 Conflict Ass

1/13

INTRODUCTION

Negotiation is a method of conflict resolution in which the parties in conflict consider various

alternative ways to allocate resources to each other in order to come up with a solution

acceptable to them all.

In their book, Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury define negotiation as

follows: "Negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want from others.

All of us are involved in some kind of problem solving everyday, both in our personal and

professional lives. In our families and our work environments we are faced with a multitude of

issues that require making decisions made with others.

Some of these decisions are small and do not have a long term impact on our lives. Examples of

these might be where we will go to dinner tonight, what program we will watch on television, or

what movie we will see.

Other decisions are significant and require substantial consideration because of the potential

impact they will have, both on our lives and our relationships with others. Examples of these

might be whether we should sell our house and move, should we send our child to a private

school, is it time for a nursing home for an aging parent.

In spite of the fact that we frequently engage in negotiation, for many of us, our repertoire of

negotiating skills is limited. Out of habit and lack of knowledge about alternative strategies we

try to solve problems by stating, and sticking to, our position. In a conflict, one side states what

they want ("I want my second grader to be in the third grade for math") and the other side states


2/13

their position ("Your child needs to stay in the second grade for math"). Each side takes turns

(sometimes democratically, sometimes not), restating their beliefs and opinions and becoming

more and more entrenched in their own position, which they see as the only acceptable solution

to the problem as they perceive it. The goal becomes trying to convince the other side of the

rightness of their position.

NEW EMERGING NEGOTIATION SKILLS

PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGY/COLLABORATION

Problem-solving strategy is the resolution of conflicts by developing solutions that integrate the

requirements of both parties (Walton and McKersie 1965). This strategy entails searching for

alternative solutions and assessing the outcomes to both parties from all such alternative actions.

One problem-solving strategy is "logrolling," whereby both parties identify their priorities and

make concessions on their lower priority issues (Pruitt 1981). For example, for two parties to

trade concessions (i.e., use logrolling) on price and delivery, both parties need to know the priority accorded by each party to both price and delivery. Further, such tradeoffs can occur

only if the priorities of the parties on price and delivery are negative

The problem-solving approach is closer to Compromising than Competing in that it starts from

a position of respect for the other party. A person using this approach does not see the other

person as competitor or threat, but rather as a person who has legitimate wants and needs, and

that the goal of negotiation is less to make trades and more to work together on an equitable and

reasonable solution.


3/13

In particular, a problem-solver will seek to understand the other person's situation, explain their

own, and then creatively seek a solution where both can get what they need. They will listen

more and discuss the situation for longer before exploring options and finally proposing

solutions.

The relationship is important for a problem-solver, but mostly in that it helps trust and working

together on a solution rather than it being important that the other person necessarily approves

of the first person

Menkel-Meadow prefers the descriptions problem solving and adversarial as she believes the keyis to look at the total conception of the negotiation rather than the tactics or strategy being used

to implement that conception at any particular point in it. In her theory people get trapped in

adversarial negotiation by two underlying assumptions. The first of these is that the negotiation

is a zero-sum game meaning that to the extent one side wins the other side loses. While she

accepts that there can always be parts of a negotiation that are like this, accepting this

assumption seriously limits the potential for more radical solutions that might be nearer Pareto

optimality (that is where the pie has been expanded to the maximum, so that all that is left is its

division).

The second assumption is that only a limited number of items are available to be negotiated. This

is based on the idea that negot iation is in the shadow of the court , in a phras e derived from

Mnookins work. What she means by this is that negotiators concentrate on the limited rulings

and awards that could emanate from court action if negotiation fails, and so confine themselves

to discussing those issues alone. In contrast, she argues, disputants are better served by a

problem-solving approach. Such an approach would involve the negotiators identifying and


4/13

attempting to meet the disputants underlying needs and objectives (an approach that is not

dissimilar to interests-based negotiation).

Menkel-Meadow quotes the example of negotiation between a husband who prefers to holiday in

the mountains and a wife who prefers the seaside. An adversarial approach would result in

splitting the time between sea and mountains or taking turns from year to year. A problem-

solving approach would identify that the husband likes fishing and hill walking and the wife

prefers swimming, sunbathing and seafood. A solution might therefore be found at a seaside

resort near mountains or a mountain resort with a pool and a good restaurant with a reputation

for fish.

Schneider also adopts the descriptions problem solving and adversarial in her updating

of the work of Williams,15 further referred to below. Where she uses these terms, however,

she is using them as labels for specific groups of behaviours, which is different from

Menkel- Meadows total conception of the negotiation.

When we insist on our position as a way to solve the problem, in order for one party to be

satisfied with the outcome, the other party must be dissatisfied. One party must give up

their position in order to reach agreement. Reaching an agreement depends on who can be

the most powerful, the most persuasive, and/or the most willing to endure until the bitter

end. If neither party is willing to back down, the problem solving process may become


5/13

stalled with no agreement being reached at all. This type of "positional bargaining" is

limited in its effectiveness in the following ways:

1. It can be inefficient. Haggling, attempting to convince, and resorting to tactics such as

stonewalling or holding out often result in multiple meetings which invariably extend over

a long period of time. This not only creates a stressful situation for the participants, but

may ha ve a negative impact on a child s education because while this inefficient problem

solving is going on, the child may not be receiving important services and support.

2. It can produce unwise agreements. When we bargain from two positions - yours and

mine - we are essentially considering only two possible solutions to a problem. By putting

our efforts into trying to convince the other side of our solution, we forfeit the opportunity

to consider other possibilities that may meet our needs and be more satisfying for everyone.

3. It can be hard on the relationship. This type of problem solving creates stress, anger and

resentment for all participants. Bitter feelings may impact future problem solving effortsand may have a detrimental impact on a childs program as well as his attitude towards his

school experience.

Let us look the model for collaborative problem solving based on the work of Roger Fisher,

William Ury, and others. In collaborative problem solving, parties work side by side to

solve the problem together. Rather than negotiating from opposing positions, the parties,

through a number of different techniques identify problems in terms of INTERESTS.

Working with interests is a key concept in collaborative problem solving. An interest is the

underlying need or concern that a party is trying to have satisfied. It is the thing that is


6/13

motivating someone to seek a solution. A statement that describes one possible solution to

meet that need or concern is a position. When we go beyond the position to uncover the

needs and concerns, we create an opportunity to explore a variety of options or possible

solutions that we may not have previously considered. By expanding the pie in this manner,

we are able to move beyond agreements which are marginally sufficient to agreements that

maximize s olutions, meet more of everyones needs and are win -win rather than win-lose.

This process has the potential to create greater satisfaction with agreements and build

positive working relationships.

Th e advantages of wor ki ng coll aborati vely to solve problems:

Working with interests often results in the identification of more possible solutions than

were originally considered;

By "expanding the pie", we end up with fair agreements that potentially meet more of our

needs and are "win-win" rather than "win-lose";

Creates greater satisfaction for all of the parties and promotes a foundation for future

problem solving that is respectful and energizing rather than negative and depleting.

Prepari ng for Coll aborative Problem Solvin g

1. Figure Out Your Interests

2. Figure Out Their Interests

3. Think of Some Options That Would Meet the Interests


7/13

4. Consider What a Fair Standard Might Be

5. Keep an Open Mind

STEPS IN THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS

As we develop our skills in problem solving, we will find that collaborative problem solving

is not a linear process that proceeds methodically through prescribed steps. Identifying all

of the interests of the parties must be accomplished before generating options. However, in

order to do this effectively, we may need to move back and forth through the first steps, i.e.,

sharing information, defining issues, sharing more information, etc. in order to develop a

clear picture of the interests. Reaching agreement often proceeds in a series of baby steps.

Ones best next step is the step that will take us most effectively in that direction.

A M odel for Collaborative Problem Solving

1. Share Perspectives

* Use our communication skills to understand the others perception of the situation, their

needs, and desires

2. Define the Issues

* Clarify the topics for discussion

3. Identify the Interests


8/13

* Go beyond the stated positions or solutions to figure out what the parties really need to

have satisfied in order to reach agreement

* Look for the common ground between all parties

4. Generate Options

* Brainstorm and generate ideas, looking at the problem from all angles and considering as

many different ideas as possible

5. Develop a Fair Standard or Objective Criteria for Deciding

* Using an agreed upon criteria, combine and reduce options

* Strive to "expand the pie" and create agreements for mutual gain.

6. Evaluate Options and Reach Agreement

II. PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION METHOD

1. Introduction: the basic conceptsPrincipled negotiation is the name given to the interest-based approach to negotiation set out inthe best-known conflict resolution book, Getting to Yes , first published in 1981 by Roger Fisherand William Ury. The book advocates four fundamental principles of negotiation: 1) separate the

people from the problem; 2) focus on interests, not positions; 3) invent options for mutual gain;

and 4) insist on objective criteria.

Separating People From The Problem.

It means separating relationship issues (or "people problems") from substantive issues, anddealing with them independently. People problems, Fisher, Ury and Patton observe, tend toinvolve problems of perception, emotion, and communication. (1991, p. 22) Perceptions areimportant because they define the problem and the solution. While there is an "objective reality,"


9/13

that reality is interpreted differently by different people in different situations. When different parties have different understandings of their dispute effective negotiation may be very difficultto achieve.

People problems also often involve difficult emotions fear, anger, distrust and anxiety for

example. These emotions get intertwined with the substantive issues in the dispute and make both harder to deal with.

Fisher, Ury and Patton consider communication problems to be "people problems" as well. Theylist three types of communication problems. First, disputants may not be talking to each other.While their comments are formally addressed to the opponent, they are actually addressing someoutside audience. They are grandstanding, or playing to the crowd. A second communication

problem arises when parties are not listening to each other. Rather than listening attentively tothe opponent, parties may instead be planning their own response, or listening to their ownconstituency. Finally, even when parties are both listening and talking to each other,misunderstandings and misinterpretations may occur.

Interests

Negotiating about interests means negotiating about things that people really want and need, notwhat they say that want or need. Often, these are not the same. People tend to take extreme

positions that are designed to counter their opponents positions. If asked why they are takingthat position, it often turns out that the underlying reasons--their true interests and needs--areactually compatible, not mutually exclusive.

By focusing on interests, disputing parties can more easily fulfill the third principle--inventoptions for mutual gain. This means negotiators should look for new solutions to the problem

that will allow both sides to win, not just fight over the original positions which assume that forone side to win, the other side must lose.

Criteria

While not always available, if some outside, objective criteria for fairness can be found, this cangreatly simplify the negotiation process. If union and management are struggling over a contract,they can look to see what other similar companies have agreed to use as an outside objectivecriteria. If people are negotiating over the price of a car or a house, they can look at what similarhouses or cars have sold for. This gives both sides more guidance as to what is "fair," and makesit hard to oppose offers in this range.

Lastly, Fisher, Ury, and Patton counsel negotiators to know what their alternatives are. If youdont know what your alternatives to a negotiated agreement are, you might accept an agreementthat is far worse than the one you might have gotten, or reject one that is far better than youmight otherwise achieve. For this reason, Fisher, Ury, and Patton stress the importance ofknowing and improving your BATNA before you conclude negotiations. (Click here for moreinformation on BATNAs.)


10/13

In Getting to Yes , Fisher, Ury, and Patton argue that almost all disputes can be resolved with principled negotiation. They reject the notion that some conflicts are inherently win-lose or that positional bargaining is ever a superior approach. Other theorists, however, disagree--as do we.Principled negotiation is an excellent tool to use in many disputes, but we have found that itneeds to be supplemented with other approaches in the case of intractable conflicts. It also is

more attuned to U.S. and Western European cultures which emphasize rational cost-benefitanalysis, and de-emphasize the importance of relationships and emotions. Cultures which seerelationship issues as central aspects of the conflict may find principled negotiation less useful. (

There are 3 phases to successful win-win negotiating:Phase 1: Bef ore the negotiation: You cant win if you dont play!This phase is part of the science of negotiating this is the preparation and planning step whenyou:

Gather the facts and do the math; Do your SWOT analysis and consider the other partys inter ests as well; Anticipate the other partys issues and style;

Identify your dealbreakers so that you know what you cant live without and if thedeal goes there, youll be prepared to walk away.

Phase 2: During the negotiation: If you want something, ASK!This phase is the art of negotiating:Set the tone a principled negotiator is fair, honest, creative, collaborative;

Explore underlying needs including actively listening for facts and reasons behind theother partys interests so you can try to develop creative alternatives without losing thewin-win focus;

Be prepared to refine and craft an agreement listen for new ideas, think creatively tohandle conflict, build a cooperative environment;

After reviewing and recapping the issues, formalize the agreement with a writtencontract.


11/13

Phase 3: After the negotiation: Youve made your bed, now youll have to lie in it!This phase is the post-mortem where we return to the science of negotiating weve learnedsomething from the quality assurance movement:

a better outcome;

To conclude, in the art and science of win-win principled negotiating, the product of thenegotiation isnt a document; its the value produced once the parties have done what theyagreed to do. Negotiators who understand that the outcome is what matters prepare differentlythan deal makers do. They dont ask: What might they be willing to accept? but rather Howdo we create value together?

E. Alternatives.

1. Alternatives are other ways of satisfying interests.

2. Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA).

a. Absolutely essential to know whether to accept alternative arrived at through negotiation

versus ending negotiation.

b. Must consider other sides BATNA as well as your own.

c. Develop your BATNA:

(1) Invent a list of actions possible if no agreement.

(2) Improve some of ideas from list, create practical alternatives.

(3) Select the alternatives that seem best.

d. Strengthen your BATNA:


12/13

(1) How can you make BATNA easier, more probable, or better at satisfying interest.

(2) If you only accept a deal that is better than BATNA, improving BATNA leads to better

result, either through better agreement or going to the BATNA.

e. Consider their BATNA:

(1) Understanding BATNA helps you understand how to make agreement easier.

(2) Understanding their BATNA allows you to estimate whether agreement is possible.

f. Reservation Value: Translation of the BATNA into a value at the table the amount at which

you are indifferent between reaching a deal and walking away to your BATNA.

g. Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA): the bargaining range created by the two reservation

values. The ZOPA defines a surplus that must be divided between the parties.

Information such as costs or competitive data is kept confidential and is used to control the process and to win arguments. Each side develops their own set of outside standards used

specifically to invalidate the other party's proposals.

Caucus ing occurs to determine changes to positions, to reinforce positions, to game play, and to

determine trade-offs. The long-term effect is that both sides have to work with an unsatisfactory

agreement for the next 2 - 4 years, and the cost to the relationship is expensive.

The spok esperson leads the negotiations and is typically the only one controlling the process,

strategy, and tactics. Again, the rest of the bargaining committee loses their spirit due to a lack of

participation.


13/13

The a uthority to change the contract rests with the spokesperson rather than with the consensus.

Internal splinters start to occur within the bargaining committees. Lawyers are used extensively

and, in some cases, as spokespersons.

Negotiatio ns are characterized by driving your own agenda through the use of theater.

Emotional outbursts or walking out (histrionics) are used as a tactic to make a point or create

pressure.

Negotiation s become institutionally rigid. Standardized procedure does not allow flexibility in

variations to structure and process. It does not allow for the full freedom of ideas and solutions to be created. It usually fosters mistrust rather than trust.

Great Negotiator

Great negotiators build strong, durable, win-win relationships because they have an obligation

to help their counterparts in negotiations come out winners.
http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/people_skills_win-win.htmlhttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/people_skills_win-win.htmlhttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/people_skills_win-win.htmlhttp://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/people_skills_win-win.html

Documents

Conflict Ass