Negotiators decide what to do on the basis of their expectations about how the others will respond. The outcome of a negotiation depends upon how accurately the negotiators diagnose the situation that confronts them and the skill with which they choose and enact appropriate moves. This has much to do with the choice of negotiating strategy. 
Morley (1984) suggests that one way to view negotiation is as a struggle. This approach emphasizes concealment and competitive tactics. An alternative view of negotiation is as collaboration, a process in which parties make sacrifices rather than demand concessions in the pursuit of some overriding goal. The basis of these two approaches is reflected elsewhere. 
Strauss (1978) divides negotiations into those that are competitive and those that are collaborative. Scott (1988) presents two contrasting styles, which he labels competitive and constructive. Pruitt (1981) discusses competitive and co-ordinative negotiating tactics and the concept of integrative bargaining. He defines integrative bargaining as the search for mutually beneficial agreements.
These might involve working towards novel outcomes that could produce considerably greater benefits for both parties than a straight compromise.
Negotiators with a high need to win are likely to favour competitive strategies, especially if they feel that they are in a strong bargaining position. Experimental evidence also suggests that in those situations where negotiators feel that they have to satisfy tough constituents (for example, members of their union or work group), they will adopt a more competitive approach. 
Competitive strategies are also likely to be adopted where one or both parties do not trust the other’s intentions, where they feel that their opponent will exploit them and where they expect the other to only make concessions when forced. 
Skilled negotiators are more likely to favour collaborative strategies when two basic conditions are satisfied. The first concerns trust. It would be unwise to adopt a collaborative strategy unless some measure of trust exists between the parties. This is because collaborative negotiation tends to involve the disclosure of information about goals, priorities and limits that a competitive opponent could use to his or her advantage.
Collaborative negotiation also tends to involve offering concessions in the hope that they will be reciprocated. This could weaken a negotiator’s position by projecting a ‘soft’ image, both to other negotiators and to constituents. The second condition for the effective use of a collaborative strategy involves the nature of the benefit associated with possible outcomes. When the reward structure encourages the belief that a mutually beneficial exchange and outcome is possible, a collaborative approach to negotiation is likely to be more attractive. 
This could be the case when, for example, each party controls resources that would cost little to give up but would have high value for the other, or when all parties believe that a problem-solving approach to negotiating their difference might lead to a more beneficial solution than could be achieved through a win—lose competitive approach.

Post a Comment

Lebih baru Lebih lama