Introduction

The general area of

conflict management
is concerned with the way
thati n t e r d e p e n d e n t p e o p l e m a n a g e t h e o p p o s i t i o n o f g o a l s , a i m s , a
n d v a l u e c r e a t i o n t h r o u g h c o m m u n i c a t i o n . C o m m u n i c a t i o n p l a ys a
n a c t i v e r o l e i n shaping how people experience and work through conflict, a task
that is verychallenging given peoples interdependence where one party can
interferewith the other achieving their desired goal
. Negotiation
is defined as formsof conflict management that involve two or more parties, who have a
conflicto f n e e d s a n d d e s i r e s t h a t c h o o s e t o n e g o t i a t e t h r o u g h
a g i v e a n d t a k e process involving proposals and counterproposals to
search for a mutuallyacceptable agreement. Negotiation does not rely on third
parties to facilitatet h e p r o c e s s a n d m a k e d e c i s i o n s ; r a t h e r , t h e p r o c e s s
a n d a g r e e m e n t s a r e generated by the parties in conflict. Negotiating is most often
learned by theold fashioned "sink or swim" method when the representative for "our
side"i s t o l d t o " g o n e g o t i a t e a n d d o y o u r b e s t " . A n y e a
r l y s u c c e s s c a n b e accidental. Success and failure will produce a pattern of
behavior from whichthe negotiator will learn how to negotiate.We need to wary about
our approach towards the opposite party and shouldusually avoid the below listed
strategies.1 . S t a r t i n g with a win-lose a p p r o a c h 2.Inability
to change negotiating style3.Making concessions for the sake of client
relationship4.Bargaining instead of negotiating5.Establishing objectives as
a fixed point instead of a range6.Not choosing team members
wisely7.Failing to establish priorities8.Not planning for possible
concessions9.Attempting to negotiate with unclear
authority1 0 . F a i l i n g t o t a k e n o t e s 1
1 . T a l k i n g a n d n o l i s t e n i n g 1 2 . M i s
c a l c u l a t e d t h e Z O P A a n d d i d n o t r e - e v
a l u a t e d u r i n g t h e negotiation

Negotiation Approaches and Taking Positions to Ac

h i e v e t h e Ultimate Goal
All negotiations are similar in that they involve people taking initial
positions,offering proposals to help resolve the conflict,
making counter-proposals,offering concessions, and coming to agreement.
However, negotiations
canb e d i s t i n g u i s h e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t r a t e g y a n d t a c t i c s t h
a t a r e u s e d t o conduct the negotiation. There are two general strategies of
negotiation tactics: (1) distributive, and (2) integrative
Distributive
This type of bargaining emphasizes the importance of maximizing
individualg a i n s a n d m i n i m i z i n g l o s s e s . I t a d o p t s a f i x e d
p i e a p p r o a c h w h e r e resources are viewed as being limited
a n d i t b e c o m e s i m p o r t a n t t o c l a i m ones rightful share of the pie.
Distributive bargaining is competitive
withe a c h b a r g a i n e r t a k i n g p o s i t i o n s t o a c h i e v e v i c t o r y o v e r
t h e o t h e r s i d e . Distributive negotiators tend to use the followin
g k i n d s o f s t r a t e g i e s a n d tactics: D i s t r i b u t i v e n e g o t i a t o r s t r y t o
k e e p t h e o p p o s i n g s i d e f r o m g a i n i n g information about their
p o s i t i o n o r b o t t o m - l i n e w h i l e t r yi n g t o c o l l e c t information about the
resistance point of the other party. Distributive negotiators misrepresent and
withhold information as well
asm a k e e x a g g e r a t e d s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t t h e i r p o s i t i o n s i n o r d e r t o m
i s l e a d people about their true
objectives. D i s t r i b u t i v e n e g o t i a t o r s m a y u s e b l u f f s , t h r e a t s , a
n d m a n i p u l a t i o n t o reduce the options of the other
party. D i s t r i b u t i v e n e g o t i a t o r s u s e t h r e a t s , p u t d o w n s , d e m a
n d s , a n d b l a m e statements. D i s t r i b u t i v e n e g o t i a t o r s d e v e l o p t h e i r
p o s i t i o n b y u s i n g m o r e a n d m o r e facts to build the case for the validity of their
proposals.
Integrative
T h i s t yp e o f b a r g a i n i n g e m p h a s i z e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f m a x i m i z i n
g jointg a i n s . R a t h e r t h a n v i e w i n g b a r g a i n i n g f r o m a w i
n - l o s e p e r s p e c t i v e , integrative bargaining adopts a win-win or
i e n t a t i o n w h e r e p a r t i e s t r y t o create agreements where both can prosper.
Integrative bargaining assumesthat both parties share multiple overlapping issues and
that the best way tod e a l w i t h t h e s e m u l t i p l e i s s u e s i s t o b e f l e x i b l e i n
ones position and to

engage in cooperative problem solving. By engaging in cooperative problemsolving

the pie becomes expandable, as the focus becomes on developingcreative
solutions that expand the pie in ways that ensure both parties can get what they
need. Integrative negotiators tend to use the following kinds
of s t r a t e g i e s a n d t a c t i c s t h a t a r e e x a c t l y o p p o s i t e o f
w h a t d i s t r i b u t i v e negotiators apply: Integrative negotiators share their
information openly and divulge
theirn e e d s a n d o b j e c t i v e s . I n f o r m a t i o n d i s c l o s u r e i s v i e w e d a s f a c
i l i t a t i n g t h e problem-solving process as it allows negotiators to define problems,
identifycauses, develop solutions, and evaluate the merits of proposed solutions.
Integrative negotiators tend to use soft rather than hard tactics. They
tendt o m a k e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t s u p p o r t t h e o t h e r p a r t y a n d u s e
e x p l o r a t o r y problem-solving messages. Integrative negotiators drop particular
agenda items, separate issues, andrecombine issues in creative ways as they
move through the negotiation. This opens up the room for developing novel
solutions to the problem.
Bargaining Mix
Another important question which needs to be asked before initiat
i n g a negotiation is the about the Bargaining Mix. This relates to the interests partof
the negotiating parties where we need to ask what are the interests
andpriorities of the key parties involved in negotiation. People generally
fail toassess their interests which may be due to a lack of insight or a consequenceof
the bargaining process itself. Incorrect assessment of interests often leadsto failure of
maximizing value out of a deal.
BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)
While approaching for a negotiation deal it is of utmost importance
to knowyour best alternatives or back up plans.

Having a good BATNA increases thenegotiating power. Therefore, it is

important to improve BATNA wheneverpossible.A BATNA is not interested
in the objectives of a negotiation, but rather tod e t e r m i n e t h e c o u r s e
o f a c t i o n i f a n a g r e e m e n t i s n o t r e a c h e d w i t h i n a certain time frame.
As a gauge against which an agreement is measured, itprohibits a negotiator
from accepting an unfavorable agreement or one thatis not in their best interests
because it provides a better option outside the negotiation.

Since BATNA is the alternative to what a negotiated agreement

w o u l d b e otherwise, it permits far greater flexibility and allows much more
room
fori n n o v a t i o n t h a n a p r e d e t e r m i n e d b o t t o m l i n e . W h e n a n e g o t i a t o
r has as t r o n g B A T N A , t h e y a l s o h a v e m o r e p o w e r b e c a
u s e t h e y p o s s e s s a n attractive alternative that they could resort to if an
acceptable agreement isnot achieved.When creating a BATNA, a negotiator should:

Brainstorm a list of all available alternatives that might be consideredshould the

negotiation fail to render a favorable agreement;

Chose the most promising alternatives and expand them into practicaland attainable
alternatives; andA l t h o u g h i t w o u l d b e a b s u r d t o s t a r t a n e g o t i a t i o n w i t h
a
predeterminedd e c i s i o n n o t t o f i n d a n a g r e e m e n t , a v i a b l e B
ATNA acts as an essentialinsurance policy. A well conceiv
e d a n d c l e a r l y d e f i n e d B A T N A g i v e s a negotiator the advantage to
break off the negotiation if it becomes clear thata beneficial outcome is not
possible. The negotiator would then know the consequences should the
negotiation fail. The '
willingness
' of a negotiator tobreak off a negotiation shall allow the negotiator to adopt
a more firm
andf o r c e f u l s t a n c e w h e n p r o p o s i n g i d e a s a n d i n t e r e s t s a s t h
e b a s i s f o r a n agreement.In deciding whether a BATNA should be
revealed to the other party/ partieswill depend on the strength/attractiveness
of the BATNA. If a negotiator hasa strong BATNA, it may be beneficial to
disclose it, as this would prevent
theo t h e r p a r t y / p a r t i e s f r o m a c t i n g a s i f a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e
 d i d n ' t e x i s t . However, if a negotiator has a weak BATNA, it would be better not
to disclosethe BATNA, especially if the other party indicates the y are
over-estimatingt h e i r o w n B A T N A a s t h i s w o u l d p r o v e t o b e a
b o n u s t h a t s h o u l d n o t b e squandered through disclosure.A negotiator who
knows more about the alternatives available to the
otherp a r t y / p a r t i e s w i l l b e m o r e a b l e t o p r e p a r e f o r a n e g o t i
a t i o n . S h o u l d a negotiator learn that the other party is over-estimating its
BATNA before
thes t a r t o f a n e g o t i a t i o n , a n d t h e n t h e y w i l l b e a b l e t o e f f e
c t i v e l y u s e t h i s information to lower the negotiation expectations of the other
party?I n s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e b o t h p a r t i e s p o s s e s s a s t r o n g B A T N A , t h e
n e g o t i a t i o n would seem rather fruitless because there would be very little
incentive to

reach an agreement. In this scenario, both parties would be better

o f f t o seek elsewhere to pursue their business. The better a negotiator's BATNA,
the greater that negotiator's power, given t h e a t t r a c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t
n e g o t i a t o r c o u l d r e s o r t t o i f a n a c c e p t a b l e agreement is not reached.
BATNA allows far greater flexibility and room
fori n n o v a t i o n t h a n i s t h e c a s e w i t h a p r e d e t e r m i n e d b o t t o m
l i n e . H a v i n g available options during a negotiation is a good alternative which
empowersyou with the confidence to either reach a mutually satisfactory
agreement,or walk away to a better alternative.
RV (Reservation Price)
Once the BATNA is identified the next step is to vouch for the
reservationP r i c e . T h e r e s e r v a t i o n p r i c e i s t h e l e a s t f a v o r a b l e p o i n t a t
which one willaccept a negotiated agreement. For example, for a
s e l l e r t h i s m e a n s t h e least amount (minimum) or bottom line they would
be prepared to accept,w h i l e f o r a b u y e r i t w o u l d m e a n t h e m o s t
( m a x i m u m ) o r b o t t o m l i n e t h a t they would be prepared to pay. It is also
sometimes referred to as the walkaway point.
ZOPA
A "Zone of Possible Agreement" (ZOPA) exists if the
r e i s a p o t e n t i a l agreement that would benefit both sides more than their
alternative optionsdo. For example, if Party A wants to buy a used car for
$5,000 or less, andParty B wants to sell one for $4,500, those two have a
ZOPA. But if Party Awill not go below $7,000 and Party B will not go above
$5,000, they do nothave a zone of possible agreement. The ZOPA is critical to the
successful outcome of negotiation, but it may takesome time to determine whether
a ZOPA exists. It may only become known once the parties explore their various
interests and options. If the disputantsc a n i d e n t i f y t h e Z O P A , t h e r e i s a g o o d
c h a n c e t h a t t h e y w i l l c o m e t o a n agreement.