REVIEW FOR

EXAM
 NEGOTIATION IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

 Negotiation is a subject on which much has been said and written that seems self-evident until
examined more closely. To resolve conflict and avoid the use of force, it is said, one must
negotiate.
 Negotiation requires a willingness to compromise, and both sides must make concessions.
 Neither side can expect to win all it wants.
 If both sides negotiate in good faith, they can always find a lair solution.
 Iklé
 Iklé is focused on the study of the process and effects of negotiation between governments.
His main interest is on how to relate the process of negotiation to the outcome.
 Iklé defines negotiation as: a process in which explicit proposal are put forward ostensibly
for the purpose 0f reaching agreement on an exchange or on the realization of a common
interest where conflicting interests are present.
 Iklé
 According to lklé, we are able to identify five objectives or purposes of negotiation:
 1. Extension agreements - prolonging existing arrangements.
 2. Normalization of agreements - to put an end to violent conflict, or to reestablish
diplomatic relations.
 3. Redistribution agreements - demand for change on one's own favor, at the expense of the
other.
 4. Innovation agreements –setting new relationships or obligations among the parties.
 5. Effects not concerning agreements - propaganda, intelligence or dissuading the
opponent.
 Goal Effects in Negotiation

 Negotiation is a ubiquitous social activity that for years has been recognized as an
important skill in a wide range of organizational domains (e.g., Lax & Sebenius, 1986).
 Neale and Bazerman (1985)
 Assigned participants to four goal conditions-no goal, compromise goal,
challenging goal, and difficult goal-and had them participate in a
competitive, multi-transaction market simulation.
 “Goal”

 The term goal conventionally to mean "what an individual is trying to accomplish; it is the object or
aim of an action" (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981).
 Negotiators are often counseled to determine their goals in advance of meeting with counterparts, because
such goals are considered to provide the focus that powers a negotiation strategy.
 Neale and Bazerman (1985)

 The market was designed such that participants could complete several negotiated
transactions during a 25 minute period, and each negotiation had integrative potential.
 Results showed that different goal conditions created differences in performance.
 Finally, when considering joint profit between dyads as a performance outcome,
negotiators with the most difficult goal had the lowest level of performance.
Huber and Neal~ (1987)

 Also manipulated goal difficulty, this time creating easy, moderate, and difficult levels
based on outcomes of prior uses of the simulation.
 Consistent with the earlier study, negotiators assigned difficult goals averaged greater
individual profit per transaction than negotiators assigned easy or moderate goals.
Huber and Neal~ (1987)

 Huber and Neal, extended the focus on goals to include the goals of a negotiation
counterpart.
 They argued that because negotiation is an interdependent task, it is important to examine
the influence of differing aspiration levels between participants.
 Huber and Neal

 Huber and Neal, found that negotiating dyads with moderate goals, or a moderate-difficult
disparity, created the most mutually beneficial deals.
 HOW TO REACH YOUR NEGOTIATION
OBJECTIVES?
 The purpose of engaging in negotiations is to achieve business objectives, whether they are
about pricing, terms or whatever other issue you are aiming to resolve.
 According to Dr. Chester L. Karrass, if you want to achieve your objectives you need to
organize yourself and your team around a program.
 1.- Improve negotiation planning:

 This phase has to do with ensuring your planning is effective. In it you will separate your
strategies from your tactics, improve your assumption testing and information gathering,
and organize your team and resources.
 2.- Training:

 In negotiation, knowledge equals power, which is why negotiation courses, such as the
Effective Negotiation seminars from Karrass, offer a great return on investment.
 A training program will provide your team with an understanding on how negotiation
works, common strategies and tactics and the latest research in the field.
 3.- Improve the negotiator selection process:

 Selecting the individuals that form a negotiation team should be an exacting process. Make
sure to choose people based on observation and evaluation of how they have performed in
previous negotiations. Personality does matter!
 4.- Establish negotiation as a high level
activity:
 The outcomes of negotiations could make or break a company. Because certain
negotiations are essential, you should organize an elite team to take them on.
 What is conflict?
 Conflict occurs when, in a social situation, there is disagreement on major issues or there is
emotional antagonism that causes friction between individuals or groups.
 Managers spend up to 20 percent of their time to resolve conflicts: This includes the
conflicts that the manager is directly involved in as one of the main parties.
What is conflict?
 In other situations, managers may play the role of a mediator or a third party to eliminate
the conflict between involved individuals.
 There are two common examples of conflict in the workplace:
 1) Disagreement with the head of the project about the activities that are to be pursued,
and,
 2) Hatred of a colleague.
Conflicts

 The former is the type of conflict that occurs often in the form of a fundamental
disagreement in a group on the objectives of the work and the means to carry them out, and
the latter is the emotional type of conflict which is related to problems among individuals.
Emotional conflicts will destroy the energy of the individuals and distract them from work
priorities.
Conflicts
 Superior-subordinate conflict is the most distressing type of conflict for the individuals
involved (Schermerhorn, 1999).
 Conflicts have two aspects: one destructive, the other constructive.
 Constructive conflicts have positive results for the group or organization, such as
improving the function or creativity.
 While, destructive conflicts reduce efficiency and job satisfaction to the detriment of the
organization or group.
 They even sometimes result in absenteeism and the high cost of staff replacement. An
effective manager is able to detect the following conflict situations and to deal with it.
Conflict Situations

 Vertical Conflict: occurs between different levels of the hierarchy and usually involves
superior-subordinate disagreement over resources, objectives, due dates and performance
results.
 Horizontal Conflict: occurs between individuals or groups in the same organizational level
and usually include a lack of consistency and compatibility over the objectives of the
scarcity of resources and factors related to the relationships of individuals.
Conflict Situations
 Line and Staff Conflict: occurs between the members of Line and Staff and usually
involves disagreements over who controls and decides about specific issues such as
personnel selection or measures related to the termination of service.
 Role Conflict: occurs when job expectations are unclear, incomplete or distressing and
typically involves suspicious expectations, high or low expectations or no expectation
adjustment.
 The term conflict refers to the interaction of individuals who interrelate with each other but
disagree in the context of major or minor goals and values. This definition emphasizes
three characteristics: interaction between individuals, interdependence, and incompatible
goals (Robins, 1998).
Types of Conflict

 Institutionalized conflicts: This type of conflict results from the specific nature of the goals
and objectives of the organization. Conflict between the organization’s and the employee’s
interests and goals is an institutionalized conflict.
Emergent conflicts

 Another form of conflict that results from formal and informal interactions in everyday
work. This type of conflict may be caused by competition for organizational resources
between individuals. Both conflicts are challenging with the difference that
institutionalized conflicts are predictable and strong while emergent conflicts are potential
and less predictable (Kiakajoori, 2004).
Levels of Conflict Intrapersonal conflicts

 Intrapersonal conflicts the second level of organizational conflict is interpersonal conflict

that typically occurs between individuals or between an individual and a group.
 Intergroup conflicts This type of conflict, which is to be discussed in the articles, begins
when a class or a group deems that another group leaves or is going to leave a negative
impact on the group (kabiri, 1995).
Initial conditions resulting in conflicts within
and between groups
 Competition for benefits: Today's organizations have limited resources and the groups
within organizations compete for this limited amount of resources.
 Interrelated tasks: If two groups are mutually interdependent in an organization, more
conflict will arise than when the two groups are independent of each other. The more
diverse the objectives, priorities and staff in interdependent groups, the more the conflict.
Intervention in Interpersonal Conflicts

 By recognizing the importance of conflict settlement on productivity and on employee

motivation, the exercise of leadership includes active interventions in various conflict
situations that also require different strategies for action. In interpersonal conflicts, the way
situation is perceived determines how the process takes place, beyond structural or
contextual factors.
 Five individual strategies of conflict management have been identified in literature (Blake
& Mouton, 1964; Thomas, 1976; Bonoma & Rahim, 1979; Pruitt, 1983), integrating a
descriptive model that also contains prescriptive guidance for organizational daily life.
Competition

 Also called confrontation or domination, it refers to a situation in which one party

continually tries to persuade the other to yield and it may include threats and intimidation.
This strategy may be appropriate when quick decisions are demanded and there’s not
enough time to discuss the differences. However, will inevitably produce “winners” and
“losers”, it generates malaise and encourages desires for revenge. When both parties are
equally powerful there is high probability of rupture or increased hostility.
Avoidance

 Is an active way of doing nothing to the conflict, paradoxically. It may be an appropriate

strategy when, for example, the issue is trivial or if it is desirable to "cool down" a
complicated conflict before it can be approached in a more constructive way. However, it
may be ineffective if used in situations that require an immediate solution and binding for
both parties. On the other hand, it tends to enhance future disruptions as its use deny, in
fact, the existence of the problem that led to the situation. So if there is no active
resolution, the return of conflict is inevitable.
Problem solving

 Using this strategy, also called integration or cooperation, the individual seeks to satisfy
both the personal interests and those of others. This approach enables the identification of
areas of agreement and disagreement, and selecting of a solution to the problem that can
incorporate the perspectives of both parties.
Accommodation

 Also called “yielding” or “submission”, this strategy, which implies some subordination of
self-interest and the acceptance of others’ interests, proves to be appropriate for dealing
with situations in which conflict resolution is more important to one of the parties and the
need or desire to preserve personal relationship prevails. It can also be a way to get "social
credit", giving up something unimportant, tacitly expecting to get something in return in
the future.
Compromising

 This may be an appropriate strategy when the parties are at impasse in resolving a conflict
or need a temporary solution. In practice, It consists in exchanging concessions (fifty /
fifty). This is what happens, for example, when the objectives of both parties are mutually
exclusive. It is an inadequate way to address conflicts associated with complex problems,
which, more than a means to momentarily solve the conflict, require rational efforts to find
solutions to enable qualitative gains for both parties.