Negotiation Analysis

!
The aim of the present paper is to describe and analyse the negotiation of a conflict situation
in which even if I wasn’t involved as a participant, I was a witness due to the fact that it
happened inside the company I am currently working for.
There is no such thing as a workplace without conflict, and if does, that's one where no one
cares. Whenever people are engaged, committed and fired up, conflict and disagreement is
bound to happen. This doesn’t mean we have to revel in conflict or create trouble just for the
hell of it, but it does mean that when conflict happens it’s not the end of the world. Quite the
contrary, it can even be the beginning of an interesting learning process. The very best and
most efficient workplaces are not the ones without conflicts, but those who handle conflicts
constructively.
!
Source of difference
The conflict I am going to talk about is not a misunderstanding, but sort of an incompatibility
between two members of two different departments which are interdependent of each other
due to the nature of the business - sales and finance. Although the sales manager enjoyed
occupying this position, working with the financial manager was a constant struggle for her.
At every meeting, the financial manager would take great care to explain why all her ideas
were unworkable. Also, he was constantly asking for sales projections and financial data from
her and always wanted it in excruciating detail. Supplying these figures was taking up a large
amount of her department’s already packed schedule. Frankly she thought, he was nothing
but a dry, negative perfectionist. The financial manager, on the other hand, thought about the
sales manager that she was a maverick. She was always interrupting the meetings with her
harebrained schemes and whenever he asked her for the data he needed to keep the company
finances in order, she would always stall and make him have to ask her again several times.
He really felt that she was nothing but a happy-go-lucky, unrealistic show-off. Finally, it got
to the point where neither of them could stand to be together in the same room. The company
clearly suffered under this conflict between two of its key employees and something clearly
needed to be done.
It couldn’t be argued the fact that both of them were trying to pursue his or her interest and
goals, but due to their dependency and the focus on their own person none of them was able
to fulfil them. When it comes to gain aspirations, both of them were interested in working
less and more efficiently, while in the case of relationship goals, each of them was expecting
the other person’s commitment to his own project or need and thus to the benefit of the entire
organisation. As far as the I goals are concerned, it is obvious from the two managers’
behaviour that both of them want to be viewed as smart, hard-working and effective and not
as incompetent. Due to the desire to achieve these goals, the resulting competitive behaviour
of both is to attack the other person, which in turn causes a spiral of increasingly negative
conflict as previously described. Last, but not least, there are the process goals, which seem
to be quite important due to the fact that a process perceived as unfair by one party can cause
dissatisfaction with an otherwise acceptable outcome, which is exactly what happens in the
case presented above.
No one likes conflicts at work mainly because trying to avoid the person you are in conflict
with and subconsciously finding fault with everything they say or do is not exactly the idea of
having a good time at work. This is why the CEO will want to diagnose the conflict and find
a fair solution without issuing an edict of compliance or taking one side or the other. In order
to do this, a sociogram may help identifying roles and functions necessary in assessing the
cause of the conflict.
A sociogram of the relationships shows the entire organisation as a social network. The
parties in conflict, meaning the managers of the two departments, sales and finance, are also
social networks. All the company’s departments including sales and finance are called
prescribed clusters. The CEO and its organisational team represent both a prescribed cluster
and a coalition, the CEO being also a star. There are also other colleagues from the two
departments, such as myself, that enjoy working together and therefore forming a clique and
an emergent cluster due to the informal nature of our relationships. Moreover, we are also
both called liaisons and interested in resolving the existing conflict between the two
managers. The personnel in each of the two departments in conflict are also emergent clusters
as they work together in an informal way in order to help solving the interdepartmental
conflict. There shouldn't exist a competitive behaviour between the two departments, but an
interdependence one, and still the two managers seem to be fighting for power, thus
compromising the overall organizational performance. Due to the lack of cooperation, useful
information is not shared between the two departments, employees are likely weary and
frustrated in their work and therefore the entire organisation is losing time, money and
resources.
!
Initiation of negotiation
It is more than obvious that the conflict has no constructive effects and something must be
done. It’s very tempting to wait for a conflict to blow over by itself, but it rarely does, in most
cases it only gets worse with time. The price of inaction is high, because unresolved, long-
running conflicts result in antagonism, break-down in communications, inefficient teams,
stress and low productivity. In short, unresolved conflicts make people terribly unhappy at
work.
The conflict between our two managers is a more entrenched one that have been going on for
a while. At every meeting they clash, they are just itching to pounce on the slightest mistake
the other person makes. They can barely stand the sight of each other and have begun to
avoid each other as much as they can.
The CEO of the company wanted his sales and financial managers to work well together, but
because he also knew that something was needed to break the ice between them, he decided
to initiate the discussion and invited both of them in his office. As they sat there, next to each
other across his desk, the resentment between them was apparent. Anyone could sense how
each of them was ready to spring into action without waiting for any proper introduction,
which was exactly what happened. The initial stated positions of each of them was to defend
themselves, while blaming the other and throwing harsh arguments to persuade the other to
admit his/her fault.
At some point of the arguing between the two, the CEO took the lead by asking the sales
manager what she admires about the financial manager, thus taking them both by surprise.
This was not what they had expected and she needed a moment to get her mind around that
particular question. She finally said that his reports are always excellent and that his
department runs like clockwork, but she also admired that he handled that situation with the
bank last month quickly and without a hitch. The CEO’s next question was directed to the
financial manager who was asked what he appreciates about her. After having heard the first
question, he was caught less by surprise and smoothly replied that sales were up 17% this
quarter because of her last campaign and that it looked like the trend will continue. He also
said that the customers he talked to seemed all to like the new pricing structure she
introduced.
From that moment on the mood in the room had shifted and the three of them could have a
real conversation about the two managers' differences and the discussion seemed to be
following the right track of how to resolve them. They were inviting each other to talk about
their current situation describing the facts as objectively as possible, while keeping
accusations, assumptions and mutual attacks out of the conversation. Of course that they were
not accepting the entire blame, but taking responsibility for each one's contribution to the
conflict. Believe it or not, they started to realise that even if they have very different
personalities, they really appreciate each other's contribution to the company in his/her own
way.
Furthermore, the CEO suggested them to negotiate and come up with a trial plan that should
be used until the next scheduled meeting of the two departments. In order to do so, both of
them approached the ACE method, going for arguing appropriateness as the right thing to do,
consistency by appealing to the other's sense of justice and fairness and finally finding
effectiveness in the outcome desired and in the solutions that should bring about the best
result for both parties.
!
Alternatives
Normally, in the early stages of any conflict the most powerful tool to resolve it would have
been to simply ask the other colleague what was going wrong between them. Sometimes
there may be a perfectly good reason why the other person behave as he does and a potential
conflict evaporates right there.
Unfortunately, this wasn't the case here. Some conflicts, as this one, are so entrenched that
they cannot be solved by the participants alone, therefore outside help is needed in the form
of conflict mediation. Mediation involves finding a third party such as a manager, HR
employee, a business coach, a co-worker, etc. trusted by the people involved in the conflict,
and then trusting that person to help find a solution.
!
The style, strategies and communication used in negotiation
As far as the type of personality is concerned, on the one hand I may say that the finance
manager is Type A personality because he places time pressure on himself and others being
obsessed with time. He is often focused on obstacles and becomes impatient with them until
eliminating them in order to have more reasons to discuss his accomplishments. On the other
hand, the sales manager is more of a Type B personality as she considers that a well-done job
requires time and cannot be done in a hurry.
When it comes to their temperament in negotiations, I might go for a moderate pragmatist
type for the finance manager as he is more organized, detail-oriented, who trust facts and
figures and seeks concrete, tangible results, while the sales managers is more of a harmonizer
as it is nearly impossible for her to focus on details, thus being able to see the big picture and
always generate creative alternatives for different problems.
In order to also have an idea about their negotiation style, I would probably go for the
competitive style for the finance manager, as winning and achieving his tasks effectively and
efficiently are his main goals, while I might agree with the cooperative/collaborative style for
the sales manager, due to the fact that she manages to neither leave empty-handed, nor have
remorse for stepping on people and their feelings in order to succeed.
In perceiving people and things, we normally seek to develop mental pictures consistent with
our cognitive structures.Therefore, a sensor, like our financial manager, will seek validity in
things that can be verified by physical senses, while our sales manager, who is more of an
intuitor, will seek the unusual and creative and will see validity in things consistent with her
conceptual structures.
!
Power vs. Reason
Personal power is the most critical component in negotiating. Generally, the existence or
extent of the power depends upon the counterpart’s perception of it and acquiescence to it.
Since negotiation is about fulfilling needs on both sides, reward power is implicit in every
negotiation. Our two managers wouldn’t negotiate unless they were convinced that the other
side had the ability to help them or hurt them. In fact, they shouldn’t be negotiating unless
there is potential for mutual gain. The two managers managed at some point during the
discussion to convey understanding, empathy, cooperation and respect, as well as a
willingness to create a mutual solution, thus creating the power of identification.
!
Outcome
Though they never became friends, they were able to work effectively together and
appreciate each other’s strengths. So, as a consequence, the two managers set a common goal
so both parties know the outcome they’re aiming for, thus succeeding in reaching the
outcome a lot more likely. They decided to listen and appreciate each others' ideas more.
They agreed that they both have great ideas and even if they don’t agree with one, they can
still listen and make constructive suggestions. Moreover, they suggested to introduce a new
rule such as excusing themselves from the meeting in case they start to attack each other as
they did before and talk about it in private instead of in front of the entire team. And last, but
not least, they agreed upon implementing the follow-up stage after each completed task in
order to evaluate how it went.
!
Evaluation
To sum up, it can be said that a conflict at work cannot be won. Winning a conflict ie. getting
the outcome someone wants regardless of what the other person wants can be gratifying,
sure, but the problem is that the underlying issue has not been solved. It will simply reappear
later over some other topic. Dodging conflicts on the job just doesn’t work, what does is
biting the bullet and doing something about it there and now. I have seen what looked like
huge, insurmountable, serious conflicts go “poof” and disappear into dust when handled
constructively. I have also seen an itty-bitty molehill of a problem grow into a mountain that
threatened to topple an entire company. Therefore, much better than winning or dodging a
conflict at work is resolving it.
!
!
!
!
!