Theory of Negotiation Literature Review

The analysis of decisions has become to be known as the fundamental basis of negotiation theory. Majority of economists have identified other elements such as the game theory, behavioral decision making process and the negotiation analyses to be imperative in the whole formulation of the negotiation theory. However, other writers have drawn a difference between strategic analysis, structural analysis, process analysis, behavioral analysis and integrative analysis of the negotiations. It is more benefiting when each individual makes his or her own separate contributions in the making of interactive decisions. This is the basis of negotiation analysis which examines the manner in which bright individuals should unite and make collaborative and joint decisions. The theories require being interleaved and should be given an approach of a synthetic point of view.

According to Meiners and Miller (2004), negotiation can be said to be a specialized and a kind of formal mechanism for resolving of conflicts. This machinery is mostly employed when very crucial issues have to be agreed upon (p.228). When one party discovers that the other partys agreement is necessary in the achieving of its goals, then negotiation becomes the most invaluable tool in success. Negotiation is aimed at building a shared environment that leads to a long-term trust which in most cases involves a neutral and third neutral party that extracts the matters from various emotions while keeping the concerned individuals to remain focused.

Negotiations have been identified as the most reliable options of problem resolutions although it requires skills and experiences.  Some authors have defined negotiation as the process of joining two objects from two contrasting positions into a general decision under the decision of the unanimity. This phenomenon makes it possible for the outcomes can be affected by the process. In any business environment, negotiations have always led to the making of decisions that have completely changed the business at large.  However, a majority of theories of negotiation have been known to share the common notion of negotiations that it is a process which needs stepwise observation. Negotiation process has been considered to be a power margin by the structural analysis. In fact, strategic analysis theory has considered the negotiation process as another emergence of the Game theory which is a repeated history.

In his argument, Musambachime (2001), has highlighted that in integration analysis, the intuitive notion of process is more preferred. In this process, the negotiations undergo specific successive stages such as stalemate, pre-negotiation and settlement (p.3). The structural, procedural and strategic analysis is built on some rational actors who prioritize evident goals and they are able to make take-offs between various conflicting issues and are largely in their negotiation and able to take various uncertainty in the account. The negotiations however have been seen to differ from the mere coercion. This is seen when the negotiating parties have had the possibility to withdraw from the negotiation. Researcher have identified that it is easier to investigate into the bi-lateral negotiations than the multilateral negotiations. There are four major analyses which have been proposed to be involved in negotiations (Lawrence, 2000, p.545). These have come to be referred to as negotiation theories. The types of analysis include the strategic analysis, the structural analysis, the process analysis and the integrative analysis.

In yet another argument Bazerman and his collegues (2000) has formulated that the structural analysis has been proposed to be based on the distribution of the most empowering elements amongst the negotiating parties, (p.5). One of the most significant features of structural analysis is that it tends to move further away from the notions of power of the Realism implying that it does not only reflect on power to be a major possession that is manifested in military and economic resources for instance but also reflects on power as a form of relation.

In structural analysis, which is purely based on the elements distribution, power symmetry between two uniformly strong parties or the power asymmetry between the weaker parties and the stronger parties. In his research study, Zhao (2002) conceptualized that evidence has been gathered by most economical observers that the entire elements from which the individual parties can draw power add up to structure (p.58). These elements may take the form of material nature for instance the hard power such as weapons or the social nature or the soft power comprising of the contracts, norms or precedents.

The instrumental power elements have either been defined as the relative position of the parties, in the position of resources, or as the relative abilities of these elements to enable their options thrive. It has been possible to criticize the structural analysis with significant ease. This is because the structural analysis often predicts that the strongest comes to be in the winners position (Lens, 2004, p.145). However, this observation that the strongest will come to be the winner does not always hold to have any validity.

The second form of analysis most economists have come to agree upon is the strategic analysis. According to this analysis, the negotiations are always described with the techniques such as the Prisoners Dilemma of the matrices. This concept was depicted by the later economists from the Game theory (Lens, 2004, p.146). Other recent depiction of this form of analysis has been the Chicken Dilemma which is an example of such common games.

There is a common observation that the strategic analysis begins with the postulation that the two parties have some for of rejection or a veto. This implies that the two negotiating parties can take either of the two steps to cooperate or to defect. This illustrations show that the structural analysis creatively evaluates all the possible outcomes of negotiations. These outcomes are the combinations that may be possible considering the two events, the cooperation (C) or the defection (D). The four combinations can be C, C C, D D, D or D, C. it has been found that C, C or the cooperation from the two parties results into the best results.

Major hurdles have been identified with the strategic analysis that takes the form of C and D analysis. This problem arises due to the fact that the two parties can never achieve surety that the other party will definitely cooperate. There are two main reasons which may derive into this observation first, the decisions are made virtually at the same time and the second reason is that the dispensations of one party might not be returned. This shows that the two parties have two totally contradicting incentive to defect or to cooperate. Therefore, if one of the parties makes a concession or cooperates while the other party does not, there is a more chance that the defecting party will gain more than the cooperating party.

In strategic analysis, Quinn, Bell and Wells (1997) have unanimously provided that the trust which seems to overwhelm the decisions may be built exclusively in the repetitive games through the emergence of a tit-for-tat tactic which is a pattern of behavior (p.24). These observations have been the key to economical analysts which give them the ability to make weighty decisions which help to build the business or sail it forward. This implies that without the strategic analysis, the decision making process would have to rely on some other tools that are not handy like the strategic analysis. Business men and companies have adopted the strategy and good results are expected.

According to Lawrence (2000), the other form of analysis that has gained publicity among the economic experts is the process analysis. Some earlier economic researchers compared the process analysis to the haggling (p.549). In the process analysis, the two parties begin from two different points where they then converge at some point after going through a series of concessions. The process analysis, just like the strategic analysis, both have some forms of veto such as to sell or not to sell or to pay or not to pay. At the same time, the process analysis features various structural assumptions since one side may be stronger or weaker for instance, the more the party is more eager to sell, and the scenario where the party is not readily to pay some given price.

In their research article, Meiners and Miller (2004), have argued that the process analysis specifically focuses on the processes dynamics study for instance both the Cross and the Zeuthen had struggled to find out the formula in so as to make the prediction of the behavior of the other party possible (p.238). This venture will try to find out the rate of concession so as to predict the possible outcome. Therefore, the process of negotiation is purely considered to be unfolding between the fixed points that is the discord starting point, and the convergence endpoint point. Another aspect taken into great consideration is the security point which is the result of optional withdrawal.

The last from of analysis is the integrative analysis that divides the process into a number of successive stages. The technique does not emphasize on major points. The integrative analysis successfully achieves all functions through the spread of the analysis to the steps of pre-negotiations where the parties make their initial contacts. The results are always explained as the actors performance at some different stages which award the parties (Zhao, 2002, p.60). These forms of stages may comprise of the crest behavior, the settlement, the pre-negotiation and the formula finding of distribution.

In general, provide how many ways in which the process of negotiating arises, it is possible to imagine how many different kinds of negotiation that exist. However, the negotiation theorists have often provided a number of different concepts that assist in the sorting out and deeply understanding process. Perhaps, one of the simplest symbols is to talk about the taking the discussion. The tools of negotiation have built business empires as they provide the basis of creativity. It should however not to be forgotten that the development of any busies relies on the factors of production which include the labor, capital and other crucial factors such as entrepreneur. Simply put, the negotiation theory has been an important aspect in creating opportunities in the cross-cultural dimensions. The difference between different types of culture is highlighted and in more straight, the theory explains on how to deal with various conflicts that arise in an economic environment.


Post a Comment