Demonstrates your understanding of the concepts and theories learned in class and from the course documents; you must relate how the concepts of the authors you selected apply to the course material •Uses originality and creativity in describing the research, data, or concepts.
Presents issues and thoughts in an organized manner; that is, add your original thoughts in how these concepts apply in actual application.
Solution
Introduction
There is a difference between principled negotiation and traditional negotiation. In both negotiations, there are several conflict resolutions approaches. The conflict resolution has been evolved with time. Some new trends have been adopted by many companies to resolve different conflicts. The most important thing is to understand the difference between Principled and traditional negotiation. Many things can be derived from both approaches. However, the principled negotiation is emerging in different organizations, as it seems the quick conflict resolution approach.
Thesis Statement
In both, traditional and principled negotiation, it seems necessary to satisfy both parties. It depends on the organization and the nature of the conduct that can lead towards the traditional or principled negotiation. Principle and traditional negotiation strategies are to be shaped to resolve different conflicts. However, the difference between these strategies must be considered to find the best solution.
Discussion
Principled Negotiation Strategies
In the principled negotiation, the intention is to increase the win-win situation for both parties. Interestingly, both parties are looking to accomplish something, and the solution can justify this intention. The role the lawyer in the principled negotiation is quite visible, as he intended to create this situation. In the Principled negotiation, the prominent strategy is to separate people from the problem. Separation from the problem being negotiated is an effective strategy, which evades the emotional elements in the process. All issues are to be discussed on merit, and no one can be influenced by different emotions. The emotional attachments can lead towards the partial behavior, and it seems the biggest hurdle in the effective conflict resolution (Alcantara, 2013).
Another strategy in the principled negotiation is to integrate with the interest of both parties instead of focusing on their positions. Integrating with the goals and objectives of each party is essential to direct the negotiation process and make the difference. Specific and concrete details can be a derived from the implementation of this strategy.
When creating the win-win situation, it is important to come up with different options or alternatives. Working on a single option seems traditional, as interests may change or evolve with the time. To gain better results, parties may have to limit their focus on their interests and navigate several options (Apollon, 2014).
In the process of the principled negotiation, another prominent strategy is to create the objective criteria. It seems the purposeful process, which can satisfy both parties at the end. Interestingly, this strategy may help both parties make the results or solutions quite predictable, which can generally be accepted (Carrel & Heavrin, 2008).
BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) is another concept or technique, which is a base for the successful, principled negotiation process. It usually eliminates chances of failure and helps the negotiator find better alternatives. In the conflict resolution process, it is compulsory to navigate different alternatives and streamline accordingly. The best solution or alternative is to be executed, and it can be implemented successfully in the principled negotiation process. The conflict resolution process is vulnerable, and the best alternative must be prioritized to evade the impact of the failure. Comparatively, in the traditional approach, the negotiation process is based on the single alternative as a solution (Falcao, 2012).
Issues
However, all these strategies in the principled negotiation cannot be implemented in the several business situations. Usually, the parties intend to gain the benefit at the expense of other parties. One party in the business a want to win as much it can get the advantage. The concept of the competitive negotiation comes into the life when integrating with the different business situation. For Instance, in the competitive negotiation, both parties are looking to contain the egocentric interest. Both parties want to gain more than each other, and therefore, it seems competitive. Also, it has been revealed that the underlying motivation is antagonistic in the competitive negotiation concept. In the Principled negotiation, the parties usually start with the high opening demand and compromise slowly (Loo, 2006).
Despite having good strategies of the principled negotiation, some additional issues are in the limelight. For Instance, when principled negotiation emerges in the complicated business situation, there is always a risk or threat of communicative distortion, brinksmanship, impaired relationship, and mistrust. Therefore, due to these possible issues, the principled negotiation is always complicated in the different business situation (Lim & Yang, 2007).
However, due to some key considerations, it can be used in the competitive negotiation. For Instance, another concept “PIOC” has emerged in this negotiation process. People, Interest, option, and criteria are four key elements. All these aspects are elaborated along with several insights. However, when it comes to the concept of the collaborative negotiation, these elements can also be considered. For Instance, in the collaborative negotiation, sometimes referred as principled negotiation, people have both, diverse and common interests. Common interests are usually valued. However, the prominent issue is the vulnerability to dishonesty & exploitation. When integrating with some common and diverse interest, there is a need for substantial knowledge and skills. It may take much time to resolve the conflict as compared to the traditional negotiation method (Lax & Sebenius, 2006).
Now, it is pertinent to illustrate some traditional negotiation strategies to make a comprehensive comparison.
Traditional Negotiation
In the traditional negotiation, formal and informal negotiation strategies have emerged. For Instance, in the formal negotiation, the party is usually favored by the strong power base. It is a fact that the traditional approach to the negotiation usually ignores the critical elements or aspects of the conflict management. Normally, in the traditional approach to negotiation, it has been revealed that the negotiation jujitsu is a powerful tool for the principal party to create the influence. In the Principled negotiation, the strategy is to value the common interests. However, in the traditional process, the intention is to bring the other party on the line. The party wants to create the influence on another party. In the positional bargaining, it is a kind of denial to the respondent. Parties usually depend on the single issues to have the fine solution in the traditional approach (Gelfand & Brett, 2004).
The top strategy of the traditional negotiation process is the problem analysis. Sharing insights and examine different issues are two main elements in this process. Interestingly, the most important thing is to examine the main issues in the agreement or contract instead of evaluating the whole contract. Also, the traditional approach contains the strategy of preparation. For Instance, if there is a conflict in the employer-employee contract, the best strategy is to find different areas of agreement. It helps to reduce the time and make quick decisions to resolve the issue. The big difference between strategies is the time and consideration of the issue. Principled negotiation may lead towards the examination of multiple issues. Conversely, the traditional negotiation strategy is based on the examination of the single issue (Falcao, 2012).
In the traditional approach of negotiation, the negotiator may use the emotional control. The frustration of a manager is an example of the emotional control. If a manager is frustrated due to lack of work efficiency in the workplace, he can depict this frustration in the negotiation meeting and get the benefits. On the other hand, principled negotiation is just based on the interests and ignores the emotional integration. The traditional negotiation also shows the contingent contract. It is good to make results quite predictable. However, this process ignores different uncertainties, which can create the impact on the contingent contract. The negotiator may develop the decision-making ability to come up with the effective and workable conflict resolution. It is a good strategy in this process. However, the decision-making process is limited. Comparatively, the principled negotiation demonstrates the versatility in the decision-making process, as both parties can also inform the negotiators about their decisions (Falcao, 2012).
Even in the traditional negotiation, the negotiator wants to portray the effective communication strategy. However, the poor communication is the biggest issue for both parties. For Instance, when using the traditional platform to resolve the conflict, it seems tough to implement the communication strategy.
The biggest issue in the traditional negotiation process is the situation. In this process, the negotiation process is usually considered as a battle, which increases frustrations. Both parties perceive the process as a win or lose situation. On the other hand, in the principled negotiation ethical and moral values are visible. The most important thing is the satisfaction after the conflict resolution, and it looks prominent in the principled negotiation (Alcantara, 2013).
In the traditional negotiation, the exploratory approach has emerged as a key strategy. Asking questions to derive several insights on the spot is a good strategy, which may save the time for the negotiator. Comparatively, the preparation is a prominent strategy of the Principled negotiation, which takes most time and cost of the negotiator. Therefore, when it comes to time and cost reduction, the explanatory strategy is suitable (Gelfand & Brett, 2004).
The big issue that can be occurred in the negotiation process is the reluctance of parties to depict their desired outcomes. Accordingly, the best strategy is to provide a platform to force people to explain everything. However, the biggest obstacle is the powerful influence or dynamics, which may create some limitations for parties. Conversely, parties are open to discussion in principle negotiation. The negotiation platform strategy is workable if there is less power; influence (Lax & Sebenius, 2006).
Another issue, which is emerging is the lack of trust or believe. Parties usually do not believe in each other regarding information or facts. Thus, the parties are more depended on the negotiator than information. Thus, the appropriate strategy is to create the trust between parties and make the difference.
These were some key strategies, issues, and differences in the Principled and traditional negotiation process. It depends on the negotiator how he perceives both negotiation approaches and comes up with the effective conflict resolution for both parties.
Conclusion
In the end, it is to conclude that the difference between principled and traditional negotiation creates the impact on the parties and negotiator. Trends in the conflict resolution management have been changed, and it is a suitable time to adopt new techniques. It is up to the negotiator to shape the negotiation process. For Instance, the negotiator can alter the traditional negotiation process through changing some traits and strategies. Moreover, the negotiator may adopt the principled negotiation as a quite new approach to enhance the viability of several negotiation benefits.
Summary
The difference between Principled and traditional negotiation has been depicted through illustration of strategies. Interestingly, both approaches have separated strategies. Along with the prominent thesis statement, strategies and issues along with some key concepts and theories of principled negotiation have been elaborated. Furthermore, a comprehensive comparison between Principled and traditional negotiation is illustrated through comparing some key issues, concepts, and strategies. The impact of these negotiations approaches on parties. Through the perfect implementation of different strategies, the negotiator can come up with effective conflict resolution.
References
Alcantara, C. (2013). Negotiating the Deal: Comprehensive Land Claims Agreements in Canada. University of Toronto Press.
Apollon, G. (2014). Cross-Cultural Deal Mediation as a New Adr Method for International Business Transactions. Law and Business Review of the Americas, 20(2), 255-301.
Carrel, M. R., & Heavrin, C. (2008). Negotiating Essentials: Theory, Skills, and Practices. Pearson Education India.
Falcao, H. (2012). Value Negotiation: How to Finally Get the Win-Win Right. New York: Pearson Education South Asia.
Gelfand, M. J., & Brett, J. M. (2004). The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture. Stanford University Press.
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2006). 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals. Harvard Business Press.
Lim, J., & Yang, Y. P. (2007). Enhancing Negotiators’ Performance with Computer Support for Pre-Negotiation Preparation and Negotiation: An Experimental Investigation in an East Asian Context1. Journal of Global Information Management, 15(1), 18-42.
Loo, T. J. (2006). Street Negotiation: How to Resolve Any Conflict Anytime. Tristan Loo.
+447462439809