Negotiation is a dynamic two-way communication process in which two or more parties try directly to resolve their differences and defend their interests through dialogue in order to reach an agreement or a satisfactory solution for all those involved in that process.
If we review the origin of the word 'business', its Latin etymology 'negotium' means denial of leisure, in other words, business is synonymous with being active, the opposite of being idle, although it does not refer to any activity (Padilla, JR, 2008).
Usually we believe that negotiation only occurs between executives of large corporations and that its origin has to do mainly with economic issues, although the reality is that it is a daily process that occurs in all human activities. Negotiation arises as a process to try to resolve differences or disagreements between two or more parties. Here we analyze it within the labor framework of organizations and we will show some techniques or methods of some experts on the subject, which can be applied in a negotiation to find solutions to conflicts that may arise in organizations.
KEY WORDS: Negotiation, conflict, negotiation process, agreements, differences.
INTRODUCTION
In the negotiation process we have different actors, be they managers, employees, team leaders or union representatives, who seek a solution that satisfies their interests at stake. Negotiating is a comprehensive act of behavior in which the negotiator must know what his abilities, strengths and weaknesses are, to confront them against those of the other party to reach an agreement.
Two or more parties that need each other participate in a negotiation; that are important to each other. When one of the parties participates in a negotiation process it is because they want to obtain something of value, although they must also be willing to give up something valuable. Furthermore, between the parties there must be shared values, as well as cultural patterns that will allow them to recognize each other, without which it would be impossible to resolve their differences (Padilla, JR, 2008).
Each member in a negotiation process must assume different roles and organizational or group guidelines must be established. Likewise, in a negotiation the interests, the resources at stake and the values with which each party faces the process are present. The complexity of this process constitutes one of its most relevant characteristics and determines that there is no negotiation process that is the same as another. For that reason, there are several negotiation models and techniques, here we present some approaches applied to that process.
THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS AND ITS SOLUTION METHODS
It is indisputable that negotiations are more fruitful when the parties freely share information about their interests and goals, although this requires trust, which may be in short supply at the negotiating table. This seems to be especially true in Asian countries, such as India and Japan, and in negotiation participants from different cultures (Gunia, B. et al., 2012).
Negotiators often fail because they place too much emphasis on selling their own position and do not care at all about the other party's point of view. An alternative to reaching a better result is for negotiators to think like detectives. This means figuring out how the other party thinks and figuring out why they want what they want. This approach assumes a particular mindset and methodology. A wrong assumption about the motivations of the other party leads negotiators to propose solutions to problems that do not exist, to give up value or lead the negotiation to failure. This was, for example, the case of the pharmaceutical company that reached a dead end with a supplier, in relation to the exclusivity of the purchase of an ingredient. Believing that it was an attempt to increase prices,the company left the negotiation. In reality, the supplier was refusing because another friendly company needed a small amount of the ingredient to make a local product (Malhotra, D. & Bazerman, MH, 2007).
Many deals that appear good on paper never materialize with value-creating companies. Sometimes the problem starts at the negotiating table. In fact, the same person everyone believes is crucial to the success of the deal, 'the negotiator', is the one who often breaks it. This is because most negotiators have a deal-closing mentality: they see the signed contract as the final destination rather than the beginning of a cooperative process. Worse still, many companies reward negotiators based on the number and size of the deal they strike, which does not incentivize them to change. (Ertel, D., 2004).
What stands between one of the parties and the 'yes' you want to hear? The answer is that executives face obstacles in three common and complementary dimensions: Tactics (interactions at the negotiation table); Agreement design (the ability to build an agreement that is believed to be durable) and A system, which represents the structure of the negotiation itself. Each dimension is crucial in the process, yet most executives forget the third dimension: Negotiators focus on improving their personal skills at the negotiation table or they focus on diagnosing underlying sources of value in a deal and then reconstructing the terms to satisfy all participants. The negotiators of the third dimension instead of just bringing the game to the negotiating table,they modify the scope and sequence of the game itself to achieve the desired result. They evaluate extensively to identify elements outside the agreement that could create an even more favorable structure. They go back to the beginning, from the ideal resolution to the current deal structure, and carefully choose which players to approach and when. And they manage and channel the flow of information between the parties involved to overcome the impediments to obtain the yes (Lax, D. and Sebenius, J., 2003).And they manage and channel the flow of information between the parties involved to overcome the impediments to obtain the yes (Lax, D. and Sebenius, J., 2003).And they manage and channel the flow of information between the parties involved to overcome the impediments to obtain the yes (Lax, D. and Sebenius, J., 2003).
Moving the negotiation to a Justice System, where mechanisms have emerged as an efficient means to solve conflicts, one of them being negotiation, as a dynamic process in which the parties seek to resolve differences and defend interests. And when citizens seek to confront conflict, they traditionally turn to the state to find solutions. But something different happens in several Latin American countries, including Peru and Mexico: impartiality and technical quality are two very rare arguments in the Justice System. For example, a judicial process in those countries must take place within a reasonable time. However, undue delays abound. For many citizens it is a primary aspiration to resolve a judicial process in a reasonable time,depending of course on the magnitude of its complexity, since the costs assumed by the litigants are high, unavoidable and unfair. The inefficiency of the Judiciary raises negotiation costs and reduces the number of possible transactions, limiting it only to those with low risk. And the businessmen are the first to suffer the consequences of the inefficiency of the Justice System in resolving conflicts. The uncertainty caused by the Judiciary is very risky. The idea of an efficient Justice System has emerged over time as a fundamental support for economic and social development. But the threat is serious: without an efficient and transparent Justice System, governance falters (Castro-Sayán, DV, 2011).unavoidable and unfair. The inefficiency of the Judiciary raises negotiation costs and reduces the number of possible transactions, limiting it only to those with low risk. And the businessmen are the first to suffer the consequences of the inefficiency of the Justice System in resolving conflicts. The uncertainty caused by the Judiciary is very risky. The idea of an efficient Justice System has emerged over time as a fundamental support for economic and social development. But the threat is serious: without an efficient and transparent Justice System, governance falters (Castro-Sayán, DV, 2011).unavoidable and unfair. The inefficiency of the Judiciary raises negotiation costs and reduces the number of possible transactions, limiting it only to those with low risk. And the businessmen are the first to suffer the consequences of the inefficiency of the Justice System in resolving conflicts. The uncertainty caused by the Judiciary is very risky. The idea of an efficient Justice System has emerged over time as a fundamental support for economic and social development. But the threat is serious: without an efficient and transparent Justice System, governance falters (Castro-Sayán, DV, 2011).And the businessmen are the first to suffer the consequences of the inefficiency of the Justice System in resolving conflicts. The uncertainty caused by the Judiciary is very risky. The idea of an efficient Justice System has emerged over time as a fundamental support for economic and social development. But the threat is serious: without an efficient and transparent Justice System, governance falters (Castro-Sayán, DV, 2011).And the businessmen are the first to suffer the consequences of the inefficiency of the Justice System in resolving conflicts. The uncertainty caused by the Judiciary is very risky. The idea of an efficient Justice System has emerged over time as a fundamental support for economic and social development. But the threat is serious: without an efficient and transparent Justice System, governance falters (Castro-Sayán, DV, 2011).Without an efficient and transparent Justice System, governance falters (Castro-Sayán, DV, 2011).Without an efficient and transparent Justice System, governance falters (Castro-Sayán, DV, 2011).
Negotiations often become difficult and time-consuming processes, representing large costs such as setup expenses, professional fees, and even some time costs, related to what is left to do while negotiating. Of course, the benefits of a good deal must outweigh those costs. Also the gains that can be obtained in a negotiation can be diverse. When negotiated well, you can meet common needs, solve problems on both sides, or promote particular improvements and innovations; apart from the fact that the protagonists of the negotiation can obtain new information that leads them to know their counterpart better and even develop a more precise vision of their situation and context (Padilla, JR, 2008).
Regarding the Justice System, relative to cost-benefit, the parties involved seek to maximize their benefits and also minimize costs. The best known mechanisms are negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration. Mediation is negotiation carried out with the help of a facilitator. The mediator is a neutral third party, who guides the negotiation process by advising and listening to the parties, in the search for a solution to the conflict. It is a flexible process, where the conciliation is an assisted negotiation. On the other hand, if justice is unstable and inefficient, transaction costs rise. And negotiation is a first step in avoiding costly delays and inefficiencies. Entrepreneurs prefer to go directly to the other party to reach an agreement,they prefer to negotiate and try to lose as little as possible (Castro-Sayán, DV, 2011).
Malhotra., D. and Bazerman, M. H (2007) outline five basic principles of investigative negotiation and determine how they apply in multiple situations. The first principle of investigative negotiation is to understand the motives and goals of the other party. The second principle is to determine what is forcing the other party. In general, if the other party behaves irrationally it is because her hands are tied; then the only way to reach an agreement is to overcome these limitations. The third principle is to know how to interpret demand as opportunities, it is to see onerous demands as windows that allow you to see what the other party appreciates more, and to use that information to create opportunities. The fourth principle is to seek common interests.Even the worst rivals can have complementary interests that lead to creative deals. Finally, the fifth principle, if it seems that we are losing a negotiation, we must stay at the table and try to learn more. Even losing, we can get to know the customer better for future negotiations.
Gunia, B. et al. (2012) extensively investigated intercultural negotiations and note that they can help optimize results, no matter what the level of trust. Negotiators should first assess the amount of trust or mistrust of the other party, and vice versa, and decide which of the three levels best describes the relationship: Level 1. When trust is likely (Assume trustworthiness, know your counterpart personally, try to be sympathetic, behave consistently and predictably, take your counterpart's perspective, highlight similarities between negotiators, keep interim agreements to the end). Level 2. When trust seems possible (Highlight overall goals, focus on the topic, not the people, look to the future and find a shared vision,identify a common enemy, take a break, suggest another approach, or call in a mediator). Level 3. When trust is not possible (Bidding on multiple topics at once, looking for patterns and hidden signals in your counterpart's offers and responses, thinking holistically to better understand your counterpart's interests, making concessions to each other, introduce factual data and norms that could help clear obstacles, express sympathy, apologize, or complement your counterpart). Negotiators at level 1 or level 2 may have opportunities to greatly increase confidence. For example, if the parties at Level 2 highlight general goals or a shared vision, you may be able to switch to Level 1 strategies.But past research suggests that mistrust is generally deep and difficult to shake, leaving negotiators at Level 3 with little choice. In these cases, research suggests that experienced negotiators can follow Level 3 strategies to infer valuable information about their counterparts, allowing them to reach satisfactory deals even when trust is derailed.
According to Ertel, D. (2004), organizations and negotiators must move from a mind that closes agreements, that is, from a mentality that presses the counterpart to obtain everything possible, to an implementation mentality, which places the foundation of a healthy working relationship for much longer. Achieving an implementation mindset requires five approaches: (1) Starting with the end in mind, negotiating teams should imagine what kinds of problems they will face 12 months after closing the deal, (2) Help their counterpart prepare, if they agree to something they cannot deliver, both parties will be affected. (3) Seeing alignment as a shared responsibility, after all, if the interests of the counterpart are not aligned, it is also our problem.(4) Send a unique message. Negotiators should brief both parties' implementation teams together so that everyone has the same information and (5) Manage the negotiation as a business exercise, combining disciplined preparation with post-negotiation reviews. And above all, companies must remember that the best deals do not end at the negotiating table, but start there.
Another technique applied in the negotiation process is the Harvard negotiation method, which shows how to superimpose interests on positions. The Harvard method had a worldwide connotation through research by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and a group of intellectuals in the late 1970s. The Harvard negotiation method looks for ways out where there is mutual gain for both parties. It is enough to review the services offered by legal studies in the world today to realize the value of negotiation (Castro-Sayán, DV, 2011).
For Padilla, JR, (2008) there are seven relevant elements that must be carried in any negotiation process: (1) Negotiate to transform (and to improve). Those involved in a negotiation aspire for its result to change their previous situation and also to improve it. (2) Conjugate differences and coincidences. A good start is understanding that negotiators must manage differences and common interests at the same time. Through negotiation the parties try to bring their initial positions closer together. On the other hand, if everything were differences and there was nothing in common, it would be impossible to bring the initial positions closer together and if there were no shared values between them it would be impossible for them to resolve their differences. (3) You only negotiate with someone important. By negotiating with someone you are recognizing their importance.You do not negotiate with just anyone, but with someone whose position or actions or omissions can directly affect, for better or for worse. (4) There is no negotiation without yielding. There are times when there are similar claims between the parties and each must be willing to make concessions to get what he wants from the other. To get something of value in a negotiation everyone must be willing to give something of value in return. Whoever seeks to achieve what he sets out to do, without compromising on anything, is not negotiating but imposing his conditions or simply exercising his power over the other. (5) The objective is to reach an agreement, but not just any agreement. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, it is not possible to bridge the differences that exist between negotiators. But if your real intention was to reach an agreement, it can be assumed that there was negotiation,although the result has been unsuccessful. When one of the parties has no intention of reaching an agreement and participates in the process by deceiving the other party to profit, it is not a negotiation but a form of deception or cheating. (6) Negotiation is a process Negotiation is an attempt to transform reality or improve it. The parties must make concessions, since they need each other and must reconcile their differences, prioritizing what unites them to try to reach agreements. This list of characteristics gives an idea of how complex the negotiation process is. (7) It is not advisable to improvise. Planning a negotiation is about anticipating the things that should happen, and also the things that should not, throughout the process. The importance of knowing how to prepare to face a negotiation is not being exaggerated,because finally, in good measure, there resides the negotiating power of an actor.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE
- Castro-Sayán, DV (2011). Negotiation as MARC: Approaches to the Harvard Method. Revista de Economía y Derecho, vol.8, No. 32, spring 2011, 39-41, 43-45, 50 Ertel, D. (2004). Getting Past Yes. Negotiation as if Implementation Mattered. Harvard Business Review, November 2004, 61-64, 66-68 Gunia, B., Brett, J. & Nandkeolyar, A. (2012). In Global Negotiations, It's All about Trust. Harvard Business Review, December 2012, 26 Lax, D. and Sebenius, KJ (2003). 3-D Negociation. Playing the Whole Game.
- Malhotra, D. & Bazerman, MH (2007). Investigative Negotiation. Harvard Business Review, September 2007, 73-76, 78 Padilla, JR (2008). An Inward Look. The Negotiation Process. Debates IESA, volume XIII, Number 3, 2008, 14, 15, 18, 19
