When it comes to negotiation, there are numerous dynamic factors that create the final results of each negotiation. Through this paper, the process of negotiation will be carefully examined beside the importance of sufficiently fulfilling every step of negotiation. Each step is equally critical, however, if the process or there is one step gone wrong, they can negatively affect the negotiation. To begin with, I will discuss why preparation is important and necessary throughout the process. This paper will also discuss negotiation processes, such as reciprocity and trust in negotiation. Each of these dimensions has a significant influence on and forms the results of any negotiation, and the success and use of any of these dynamics determines whether the outcome is favourable or unfavourable. The application of these approaches, techniques, and dynamics is contingent on the nature of the negotiations.
Negotiation refers to the process of potentially interactions of two or more than two parties, with some possible conflicts (Brett & Thompson 2016). After the first period, they will start the negotiation process, in which they will split the value generated across each side. As a result, if this phase is satisfactory, the negotiation will progress toward an agreement and enter the last stage of negotiation, which will conclude the parties’ engagement. If the parties engaged in the negotiations expect to achieve their desired agreed result, they must accomplish every step of the negotiation productively and efficiently. Whether you believe it or not, the first phase of negotiation is the most crucial, since it is generally acknowledged that the backbone of negotiating is the preparation and planning that occurs prior to the negotiation. Since experience is such a strategic advantage at the negotiating table, negotiators who plan for their future talks have a better opportunity of achieving their expected results than those who do not (Lim & Yang 2007). Furthermore, negotiators who do not prepare well enough in contrast to their colleagues are always forced to make a larger and more substantial offer. In order to be successful in a negotiation, both parties need to take into consideration the culture and power of the other side. The importance of power and culture will be thoroughly discussed in the following paragraphs.
1.The difference between cultures
A culture disparity between the two opposite parities is indeed one of the several factors that can influence the conclusion of negotiations. It’s worth noting that a cultural divide doesn’t necessarily imply that the parties are from distinct ethnics groups. These distinctions may be due to a variety of factors, including whether the group adheres to individualism or collectivism, whether they hold egalitarianism (the principle of collective rights and equality in social structure) or hierarchical (the concept of power and ranking in community) views, their career success and standard of living, and their risk and insecurity attitudes (Ghosh & Srivastava 2014). Additionally, in the global contexts, effective negotiators have the understanding and skills to deal with the dynamics of communication, beliefs, and behavioral cues of people from various cultural backgrounds (Sharma et al. 1984).
So, how could this have an effect on a negotiation’s output? Due to the type of cultural disparity at hand, the approach a negotiator handles themselves during a negotiation process can vary dramatically. For instance, assume I am a Korean who operated a firm in Korea, and I had to negotiate with a foreign employee who continuously tried to use sick-leave to take a off-working day (I preferred that that employee use his holiday pay since it is the cultural norm). The fact that a foreign worker was dealing with a Korean boss was undeniably a culture disparity. It is significant to mention that this occurred in Korea, which is a different nation for the staff. The problem arose since the employee routinely left work after mandatory working hours were completed, while his coworkers all stayed for an additional three hours. Given the business operated in Korea, I found it very irritating that he was showing no effort to fit in. This negotiation leads to a win-win situation for both sides, as we decided on a solution in which I would sign off on the sick leave while the staff agreed to try harder to adapt and fit into Korean culture. There are many reasons why I believe this negotiation went well. To begin with, both sides used very integrative strategies (which is advantageous for parties who want to establish – or have already built – a good relationship). Although the negotiation wasn’t especially pleasant, both sides expressed concern for the circumstances and were willing to negotiate. According to Alavi, Wieseke & Guba (2016), When a negotiation involves integrative issues, integrative negotiation strategies are more successful than distributive strategies. Moreover, my character put a great deal of faith in the worker’s ability to carry out these demands to try to incorporate more Korean culturalists. One of the primary reasons I think my character trusted the employee was due to the integrative tactics, which made him seem more honest. Cultural gaps in negotiation are not only a reciprocal obstacle to successful negotiation; they can also be used as a strategy to obtain a superiority over the other side. For example, in tight societies, where social values are apparently identified and strictly enforced, the foundation for trust is structural (Gomez et al. 2019). In loose societies, on the other hand, where social norms are vague and deviance is acceptable, interpersonal is the foundation for trust. Hence, in a negotiation between an Indian and Australian, the Indian, who comes from a ‘tight culture’ , can use their emotional intelligence to earn the trust from the Australian (who comes from a loose culture), even if their motives aren’t entirely honest.While negotiating with a group from some other culture, perspective is also vital to keep in mind because it helps you to understand what the other negotiator is considering and why they are acting the way they are. Traditional perspective entails placing yourself in the shoes of all the other side and examining their options and priorities , while cultural perspective taking entails considering the standard approach to negotiation that a representative from the other culture may adopt (Groves, Feyerherm & Gu 2015). As a result, the two approaches are very specific, with one emphasizing emotion and feeling and the other emphasizing observation and robotic processes. Modern perspective-taking has the advantage of being extremely sincere because it requires emotional reactions. The advantage of cultural perspective-taking, on the other hand, is that it employs a straightforward approach that would be beneficial for negotiations, specifically in the circumstance when distributive tactics will be applied.
Many parties use power in negotiations to achieve the best possible result for themselves while avoiding making any compromises. When others are more reliant on the incentives or punishments one can deliver, one has more control. As a result, power and dependence are inextricably connected (Bacharach & Lawler 1981). Conversely, power is sometimes not a tactic, as all negotiations require power in some specific way. It can be obtained in a variety of forms, such as the knowledge one party has on the other or the faith one party has in the other. Power imbalances have a major impact on the results of negotiations. Suleiman (1996) observed that when the rival had little influence over their results, bargainers got better results Similar results have been found in other studies on the relationship between power and bargaining results (Fellner & Guth 2003). In a negotiation, a boss not only has power over a worker because the manager has the power to send instructions and directions to the worker, to monitor the completion of job duties and to punish wrongdoings, but also to maintain the worker’s standard of living (through the ongoing payment of the wage) in return for their performance (Kuang, Moser 2011). Power will frequently play a significant part in the conclusion of a negotiation in practical systems. Sosis, Feld & Kim (1998) stated it as an individual’s relative ability to modify the terms stated by the other parties providing or withdrawing services or imposing penalties. This happened due to the power it wields over the aims and priorities that any side can possibly achieve, as well as the right to step back if necessary. However, since control is frequently misused, this method can function both positive and negative ways. Dur & Mateo (2010), for instance, explored how making a severe first proposal in a negotiation (normally referred as a “scare tactic”) will disturb recipients and raise the probability of the opposite party to reach an impasse. Furthermore, they claim that in this situation, the negotiators that have less power are more likely to get away from the negotiation, despite the fact that this is not the case in most negotiations. Let’s take a case of an in-class negotiation as an example. Control was used extensively by the mining firm, which 5 learners were assigned to either a community council or a corporation. There were five separate parts to the agreement in this case, stretching from maintaining roads to the location of the next mine. This had a disappointing effect for both sides because there was no agreement in the time allotted. Owing to the complexity of the debate, it seems more than possible that the relationship between the two bargaining parties might have been severely strained in a real-world circumstance (Batra 2017). This, I suppose, is mostly because of the mining firm’s distribution tactics during the debate. When the participants do not expect a continuing relationship, these tough-stance negotiating tactics are typically used. These competitive strategies were used in a variety of ways, which includes making a slew of highball deals and placing unreasonable demands on the council to make compromises that they could not offer. In addition, a number of false claims were committed, such as ‘we could give you a rise in tax (was not worth to either party), which would charge us a great deal of money, if you only let us place our mining site at Allen Road (which was worth an incredibly high sum to both party candidates). As we continue our exploration of power and its effect on negotiations, it’s worth remembering the various approaches to power. As I previously stated, distributive tactics and power go interdependent since they all run circles around a win/lose situation. A power orientation often normally contributes to a distributive arrangement, which potentially may lead to a conflict, according to (Hewlett 2015). Of course, confrontation is nearly unavoidable when control is wielded. The very act of putting it into action stems from a desire to ‘win’ over your adversary. This is precisely why many parties prefer integrative, non-power-based tactics to power-based tactics. When negotiation is regarded as a cooperative activity rather than a confrontational activity, Wachs (2012) notes, “it is obvious that the negotiating side has more opportunities to compromise for the good of the business and the employees.” As a result, many organizations choose not to seek the use of force in the negotiation process.
Therefore, by addressing all of the factors, we can witness that culture and power are two considerable determinants that can drastically alter the results of a negotiation. As some of the points discussed in this piece demonstrate, each of these aspects can have positive and negative consequences for both sides. Differences in culture almost certainly alter the negotiating process because many principles must be conformed to instead of just one.
Cultural disparities may include variables such as whether they hold egalitarian or hierarchical values, or whether they embrace collectivism or individualism. Power, on the other side of the coin, is frequently driven by variables such as how much documentation each party has about each other and how their relationship is structured. Power can be adopted in a variety of ways depending on circumstances, but it will always lead to a significant effect on the result of a negotiation. Pretty much across the board, they are just two of several variables that will have an effect on the outcome.