NEGOTIATIONS

Negotiation has been defined as any form of direct or indirect communication whereby parties
who have opposing interests discuss the form of any joint action which they might take to
manage and ultimately resolve the dispute between them. . Negotiations may be used to
resolve an already-existing problem or to lay the groundwork for a future relationship between
two or more parties. Negotiation has also been characterized as the “preeminent mode of
dispute resolution”. which is hardly surprising given its presence in virtually all aspects of
everyday life, whether at the individual, institutional, national or global levels. Each negotiation is
unique, differing from one another in terms of subject matter, the number of participants and the
process used.
Given the presence of negotiation in daily life, it is not surprising to find that negotiation can also
be applied within the context of other dispute resolution processes, such as mediation and
litigation settlement conferences.

TYPES OF NEGOTIATION

 A distributive negotiation type or process that normally entails a single issue to

be negotiated. The single issue often involves price and frequently relates to the
bargaining process. Also referred to as ‘Win – Lose’, or ‘Fixed – Pie’ negotiation
because one party generally gains at the expense of another party

 Integrative negotiation is often referred to as ‘win-win’ and typically entails two or

more issues to be negotiated. It often involves an agreement process that better
integrates the aims and goals of all the involved negotiating parties through
creative and collaborative problem solving

DISPUTE
A dispute is a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively
affected or about to negatively affect something that first party cares about
Types of conflicts that people experience in organizations are:
1. Incompatibility of goals.
2. Differences over interpretations of facts.
3. Disagreements based on behavioral expectations etC

CHARACTERISTICS OF A NEGOTIATION
Negotiation is:
 Voluntary: No party is forced to participate in a negotiation. The parties are free to
accept or reject the outcome of negotiations and can withdraw at any point during the
process
  Bilateral/Multilateral: Negotiations can involve two, three or dozens of parties. As two
parties are involved apple and Samsung.
 Non-adjudicative: Negotiation involves only the parties. The outcome of a negotiation is
reached by the parties together without recourse to a third-party neutral.
 Informal: There are no prescribed rules in negotiation. The parties are free to adopt
whatever rules they choose, if any.
 Confidential: The parties have the option of negotiating publicly or privately.
 Flexible: The scope of a negotiation depends on the choice of the parties. The parties
can determine not only the topic or the topics that will be the subject of the negotiations,
but also whether they will adopt a positional-based bargaining approach or an interest-
based approach.

CASE STUDY
Apple and Samsung’s Dispute Resolution Case Study
What happened between Apple and Samsung makes for a great examples of negotiation in
business
For two days in late May 2012, Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Gee-Sung Choi met
with a judge in the U.S. District Court of Northern California in an attempt to reach a settlement
in a high-profile U.S. patent case, a sobering example of negotiation in business.

Back in April 2011, Apple had filed a lawsuit accusing Samsung of copying the “look and feel” of
the iPhone when the Korean company created its Galaxy line of phones.

Samsung countersued Apple for not paying royalties for using its wireless transmission
technology. Since then, the number of patents under dispute has skyrocketed, according to the
Korea Times, as has the number of courts involved in various countries. The two companies
have repeatedly accused each other of copying the appearance and functions of their
smartphones and tablet devices.

The companies showed some willingness to compromise in an effort to avoid going to court: at
the California court’s suggestion, they cut the number of disputed patents in half. But even as
the CEOs sat down at the table for their mediation, which was urged by the court, Apple filed a
motion asking the presiding judge to bar the sale of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 on the grounds
that the tablet was designed to “mirror” Apple’s second-generation iPad.
Both sides had said they hoped to avoid a legal battle. Given that Samsung is one of Apple’s
biggest suppliers, the companies had a strong incentive to move beyond their dispute and build
on their ongoing partnership. Yet the two-day mediated talks between the CEOs in late May
ended in an impasse, with both sides refusing to back down from their arguments. The suit later
went to trial twice, with Apple ultimately winning more than $409 million.

Mediation Between Business Negotiators and Chances of Success

As this example of negotiation in business suggests, mediation as a dispute resolution
technique between business negotiators is far less likely to succeed when the parties are
grudging participants than when they are actively engaged in finding a solution. When
negotiators feel they have spent significant time and energy in a case, they may feel they have
invested too much to quit.

Moreover, the longer they spend fighting each other, the more contentious and uncooperative
they are likely to become. The lesson? When a business dispute arises, you should always do
your best to negotiate or mediate a solution before taking it to the courts.

Negotiations strategies
The following three negotiation strategies for conflict resolution from the realm of business
negotiation can help parties mend their partnership, avoid the expense of a lawsuit, and even
create value.

1. Avoid being provoked into an emotional response.

Negotiators make several “moves” to question each other’s legitimacy and assert their own
power, write Deborah M. Kolb and Judith Williams in their book Everyday Negotiation:
Navigating the Hidden Agendas in Bargaining. This “shadow negotiation,” which takes place
under the surface, helps to explain why discussions of concrete, seemingly rational issues can
lead to angry outbursts, hurt feelings, and simmering conflict .
Here are a few examples. First, a negotiator may challenge your competence or expertise—for
example, by saying you don’t have the experience to perform a particular task. Second,
someone might demean your ideas in a way that it makes it difficult for you to respond, perhaps
by saying, “You can’t be serious!” Finally, a coworker might criticize your style with a line such
as “Stop being so sensitive.”

By challenging, demeaning, and criticizing you, the other party (whether consciously or not) may
be attempting to provoke you into an emotional response that will shift the balance of power in
their favor.

How can you defend yourself against such moves without being accused of overreacting? Kolb
and Williams suggest several responses, which they call “turns”:

Interrupt the move by taking a break, which should give everyone time to gain control of their
emotions, in addition to halting any momentum that is going against you.
Try naming the move; that is, let your coworker know that you recognize it as a power play. If
someone says, “You can’t be serious!” you might respond, “Actually, I’m quite serious. Instead
 of cutting me off, how about if you give me a chance to clarify my plan?”
Correct the move, substituting the other side’s negative remarks with a more positive
interpretation. If a coworker incorrectly blames you for a decision that went wrong, provide him
or your boss with hard evidence of the facts.
Divert the move by shifting the focus back to the issue at hand. To the person who criticizes you
as overly sensitive, you could say, “I think it’d be best if we avoid personal judgments and
concentrate on the proposal.”
2. Don’t abandon value-creating strategies.

Negotiators who understand the importance of collaborating with one another to create value
nonetheless often abandon that approach during dispute resolution. Treating disputes as
different from other aspects of dealmaking, they tend to view business dispute resolution as a
zero-sum game—one in which only a single issue (such as money) is at stake. Consequently,
they tend to look at the dispute resolution process as a win-lose battle, to their detriment.

By contrast, you should be able to find the same set of value-creation opportunities in disputes
as you do in deals. For example, try to capitalize on shared interests, or noncompetitive
similarities, recommend Harvard Law School professor Robert C. Bordone and University of
Oregon professor Michael L. Moffitt. If both parties would likely suffer reputational damage if
their dispute went public, then they might agree to keep certain aspects of their dispute
resolution process confidential. Reaching agreement on seemingly peripheral issues can help
parties build a foundation of trust and optimism that enables them to collaborate to resolve the
main sources of their conflict.

Disputants may also be able to create value by trading on their differing preferences and
priorities (see also, Integrative Negotiations, Value Creation, and Creativity at the Bargaining
Table). Suppose Party A places a high value on receiving a formal apology from Party B. Party
B might be willing to grant the apology in exchange for a lower settlement payment to Party A.
Through such tradeoffs, negotiators can increase the odds of a peaceful and lasting resolution.

3. Use time to your advantage.

The perceptions we hold about the dispute resolution process may change over time as a result
of our experiences dealing with the conflict and with the other party. For example, a couple that
endures a rancorous divorce might grow more cooperative over time for the sake of their
children. Rather than viewing your dispute as permanently intractable, try to view it as being
constantly in flux.

It helps to remain in contact with the other party during dispute resolution, recommends Tufts
University professor Jeswald Salacuse. Doing so may allow you to encourage them that your
existing approaches to the conflict resolution are not working and that the prospect of
negotiating offers some hope of improvement. When parties recognize the importance of
meeting regularly, they may be able to slowly work through their differences.
 DO’s AND DONT’s

• Don’t take it personally.

• Don’t force it.
• Don’t appear needy.
• Be prepared to walk away.
• Do your research.
• Ask for what you feel is yours.
• Practice, practice, practice.

Mediation Between Business Negotiators and Chances of

Success
As this example of negotiation in business suggests, mediation as a dispute resolution
technique between business negotiators is far less likely to succeed when the parties are
grudging participants than when they are actively engaged in finding a solution. When
negotiators feel they have spent significant time and energy in a case, they may feel they have
invested too much to quit.

Moreover, the longer they spend fighting each other, the more contentious and uncooperative
they are likely to become. The lesson? When a business dispute arises, you should always do
your best to negotiate or mediate a solution before taking it to the courts.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• When a business dispute arises, we should always do our best to resolve that
dispute , negotiate or mediate, before taking the matter to courts.
• The longer we spend fighting, the more conscious and uncooperative we
become.
• If apple and Samsung had mediated, instead of arguing and refusing to
backdown, they may have saved a lot of time, energy and money
•
• “During a negotiation, it would be wise not to take
anything personally. If you leave personalities out of it,
you will be able to see opportunities more objectively.”