Respond to students initial threads on types of Negotiation in Conflict resolution
Homework 2

Conflict Resolution – Negotiation

Respond to the thread below. It must be a minimum of 400 words in length. In these responses you are to:

· Reflect upon what you’ve learned from another student’s Initial Thread.

· Tell us how it contributes to or furthers your understanding of this Course’s subject matter.

· Describe how you could apply what you’ve learned from another student’s Initial Thread in your work with clients either now or in the future.

Chapter 4 covered power-based negotiation. According to our text power-based negotiation is an adversarial process in which each party tries to exert influence on the other in order to achieve a solution that meets his or her preferred outcomes or self-interests (page 157 & 158). In layman’s terms, this type of conflict resolution style is competitive in nature. The reason for this is because each party believes that their end goals are mutually exclusive. This is, in my opinion, the most thought of type of conflict that comes to mind when thinking of conflicts, and their resolutions, as a whole. Persuasive bargaining is an example of power-based negotiation. This reminds me most of a persuasive essay. In straight forward, or lower level, writing classes, persuasive essays typically ask that you pick a side and argue in its favor which implies a set opposing argument.

Speaking to power-based compromise, it reminds me of traditional care sales. In both scenarios each party makes a close to outlandish offer that they know the opposing team will decline. The offer must be high enough that the compromise will even out, hopefully, in their favor. The negative side is that the offer cannot be so off putting that it discourages the opposing party from participating at all. While both parties understand the art of the “game” they are playing, from an ethical standpoint the game is deceitful and could be avoided altogether if both parties could agree upon it. Unfortunately, because of the competitive nature, that agreement is impossible.

In chapter 5 we covered rights-based negotiation. Rights-based negotiation is where both parties feel the need to prove that they are right. This means not only proving that they are correct in accuracy but also that they are fair, just, and consistent with relevant rules and laws. One example of negotiation in the shadow of the law could be a student who is being bullied airing his grievances to a guidance counselor or school principal. The important part of this process is that the individual (the principle) is required to review evidence and make a decision for both parties (the bullied and the bully).

Both power-based negotiation and rights-based negotiation can be used together because they both have clear “I win, you lose” outcomes. Because of this, neither styles of conflict resolution are appropriate for more sensitive topics such as human rights. Ideally, laws would be in place to protect human rights of all kinds. Unfortunately, the laws in the United States in particular have proven to protect only certain types of people and therefore would exclude some humans from their rights by definition.

Chapter 6 takes a wildly different approach to negotiation through interest-based negotiation. Interest-based negotiation is different from both power-based and rights-based in the sense that through social exchange theory both parties are willing to work together to achieve their collective best interest (PPT slide 3), rather than working against each other to achieve what they believe to be their own personal best interest. In communication theory both parties believe that the best compromise will be met if they communicate their interests, needs, wants, and concerns rather than hiding them and being deceitful with the opposing party. Rational decision-making theory implies that people will act in a way which will benefit joint interests because both parties can gain from the same act. Adversely, game theory suggests that both parties believe that there is a finite amount of success so if one party wins “more”, then the opposing party wins “less. To me, the latter seems more like it fits into a power-based negotiation style. Please, correct me if I am wrong but power-based negotiation encourages distributive thinking rather than integrative and distribution seems more applicable to game theory because it typically has a winner and a loser rather than both parties winning or losing collectively.