See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350042749

CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 1 Conflict Management and

Negotiation

Article · March 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 5,548

3 authors, including:

Vadys Thierry Lieutcheu Tientcheu

University of East London
12 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vadys Thierry Lieutcheu Tientcheu on 13 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 1

Conflict Management and Negotiation

Vadys Thierry Lieutcheu Tientcheu

Atlantic International University

 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 2

Introduction

Negotiation is the process of combining conflicting or divergent positions through

effective communication to reach a joint decision. The joint decision is intended to resolve the

differences between two or more parties, reach a mutual understanding, gain an advantage for a

particular group or satisfy various interests. It occurs in non-profit organizations, businesses,

legal proceedings, government branches, international sittings, and personal situations such as

divorce, parenting, marriages, and other daily events (Ayoko et al., 2014). Negotiations can

either occur between the conflicting individuals and parties or involve specialized professional

negotiators, who are categorized into hostage negotiators, union negotiators, and leverage buyout

negotiators or under other titles brokers, diplomats, or legislators.

According to the negotiation theorists, negotiations can be two types; distributive

and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation is sometimes referred to as hard-bargaining

or positional negotiation (Caputo et al., 2019). In this form of negotiation, the opposing sides

adopt extreme positions, despite being aware that their positions cannot be accepted.
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 3

The negotiators employ bluffing, guile, and brinkmanship combinations to cede the

conversation on their end before reaching the deal. It mostly happens in the market settings

where the involved individuals or parties set extremely high values for the consumers to

negotiate (Ayoko et al., 2014). The negotiators consider negotiation as a process as a way of

distributing the predetermined value of a specific commodity. It involves individuals or parties

that never had an interactive relationship earlier before or are unlikely to interact on the same

ground in the future.

On the other hand, integrative negotiation also referred to as principled or interest-

based negotiations, is a set of techniques that attempt to maximize the quality of the negotiated

agreement. It does so by offering an alternative to the traditional distributive negotiation

processes or techniques (Caputo et al., 2019). In contrast to the distributive negotiation, which

assumes there is a fixed value or threshold for a given phenomenon or commodity, the

integrative negotiation attempts to create a new value in the course of communication.

 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 4

The integrative negotiators concentrate on the underlying interests of their parties as

opposed to the arbitrary starting positions. They consider negotiation as a problem that needs to

be shared among the parties and not a personalized battle. They hold that the involved parties

should adhere to their principles and objectives as the basis for their agreement. This form of

negotiation involves many creative problem-solving skills and a high degree of trust to achieve

mutual gain.

Conflict management and negotiation are two indispensable processes. Whenever

conflict arises, negotiation finds its way to mitigate the issue. May it be individuals, small or big

organizations, it isn't easy to offer solutions amicably without effective negotiations.

The conflicting parties or individuals should be brought closer together by a negotiator to have a

dialogue and reach an agreement. The role of the negotiator is to talk to the disputing parties,

actively listen to their disputing perspectives and involve them in a direct talk aimed at reaching

a mutual agreement. He/she assumes the roles of solicitors through the guidelines of the court in

case the disputes are much serious. The ultimate objective of the solicitors and the negotiators is

to let the organizations move ahead without hurdles in case of conflicts.

 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 5

Unlike in ancient times, where conflicts were resolved through intimidations and

wrath, the modern form of conflicts requires peaceful methods such as negotiations

In the business realm, frequent conflicts arise due to differing terms of sale, contract wording,

work styles, or personality differences. No matter how minor the conflict may seem, the

disparities are exemplified in a standoff, in which neither of the conflicting sides is willing to

back down. Conflict negotiation, sometimes called mediation, attempts to bring the third party to

facilitate communication between the parties by focusing on the solutions that meet the needs of

both disputants. The most effective form of conflict negotiations that has proved successful

overtime is reached through win-win solutions, which satisfy both sides.

Most organizations undertake their human resources professionals and

management team through conflict management training to resolve internal conflicts whenever

they arise. There are various techniques and strategies used in conflict resolution depending on

the magnitude of the conflict and the nature of the conflicting parties. However, the first step in

any conflict negotiation is the identification of the cause of the issue. This step is vital since most

conflicts arise from mere misunderstandings and poor communications (Caputo et al., 2019).

Thus, an effective conflict negotiator should be an excellent listener and be trained to take into
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 6

account the demands of each party, navigate through the conflict resolution steps smoothly, and

reach the desired outcomes with ease.

After the identification of the root cause of conflict and the negotiator or

mediator gets a clear understanding of the motives of the conflicting parties, they should start

looking for methods that will initiate a dialogue between the parties. This phase of mediation or

conflict negotiation requires the negotiator to communicate with each party independently to

understand what they can compromise or willing to "give up" and the needs they are unlikely to

back down (Caputo et al., 2019). In this phase, the negotiator should typically create a revised

agreement or contract with each party by incorporating the compromises agreed upon during the

independent communication. Although most of the time the original agreement or contract

between the negotiator and the individual parties does not change, the phrasing or wording which

triggered the conflicts is likely to vary slightly. The mediators present the two independent

agreements to both parties to initiate discussion and see whether a mutual agreement can be

reached.

If mutual agreement is not reached at this phase after the presentation of the drafts,

the conflict negotiation process initiates the alternative solutions and compromises. For instance,

if party A wants solution 1 and party B wants solution number 2, the negotiators should suggest

another solution, number 3, which should constitute the integral parts of solutions 1 and 2 but

should have a quite different end solution from those proposed in the initial drafts. This

technique alleviates the feeling that either of the parties is considered important by the

negotiator, and their needs were given priority during the negotiation process. Generally, the

technique eliminates biases and creates mutual trust between the negotiator and the conflicting
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 7

parties (Corvette, 2013). If an agreement is not reached at this phase, the conflict negotiation

process will typically proceed into the litigation or arbitration phase.

Styles of conflict negotiation

Like the management theories in which no specific style can produce perfect,

consistent results in all situations, no specific negotiation style can best fit all forms of conflicts.

Five profiles can be used in the negotiation process. The five of them might not be applicable in

the solution of a single problem, but all of them are equally important and cannot be ignored

(Corvette, 2013).

a) Compete (You lose- I win)

In this style, the negotiators focus on pursuing their own desires, even if it means

compromising the needs of others. Although they may not necessarily need to affect the desires
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 8

of others, their means of meeting their short-term gains are so narrow that they have to affect

those of others unconsciously. They plunder through the negotiations like pirates. They utilize

whatever tactics or powers, including their position, brand strengths and sizes, personalities,

economic threats, and market shares (Caputo et al., 2019). This extreme negotiation is what

characterizes the negotiates behaviors as psychotic or aggressive. This approach works best

when the negotiator wants to get quick results. It also critical when the mediator is aware that the

issue at hand is not negotiable and requires immediate compliance. It can also counterbalance a

certain issue or be utilized as an effective balancing tool between the opposing parties, especially

those with a competitive conflict profile. Although the approach is effective in some situations, it

should be used up to a limited extent or use the blended version because locking the horns of two

strong conflicting parties in competitive battle results in a spiraling deadlock.

b) Accommodate (You win- I lose)

This approach is the opposite of the competitive style. In this approach, the

relationship between the opposing parties and the negotiators is inevitable. The mediators tend to

believe that the only way to win people is by telling them what they want to hear or give them

whatever they want. This way, the parties don't only offer products and services to the mediator

but also give a pool of information (Caputo et al., 2019). As a result, negotiators who adopt this

method form solid relationships with the opposing parties and their colleagues. The approach

works best when an individual or the company is at fault, and the process of repairing requires an

intimate relationship. If the company or the individual lacks other incentives such as gifts or

olive branch to offer the colleague and opposing parties to rebuild the broken unity, a healthy

relationship becomes the only critical tool (Caputo et al., 2019). For example, suppose the

mediator is in a weak position within the organization, and the opposing parties know they can
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 9

easily crush him/her. In that case, they should give in gracefully because the results of resistance

may be detrimental.

c) Avoid (I lose-You lose)

This approach is commonly referred to as passive-aggressiveness because mediators

who adopt this approach participate in a cold war. Instead of talking to the opposing parties

directly about the issue, they attempt to take revenge without informing the opponents. In the

market realm, sellers of various commodities may try as much as possible to avoid the competing

buyers and instead invest their money on marketing their products and services, share their best

ideas with their loyal consumers, and sometimes reward their customers through promotions

(Caputo et al., 2019). The approach works best when the value of investing time in solving

conflicts greatly outweighs the expected benefits or in cases where the issue being negotiated is

trivial.

d) Compromise (You lose/win some-I lose or win some)

This approach requires one or both negotiators to get a more profound understanding

of the impacts the conflict will probably cause and agree to settle for less than they need or want.

The mutual agreement reached is often half the value or need stated at the opening position or

the initial draft brought about by the two opposing parties (Caputo et al., 2019). In cases where

properly exchanged trades or good rationale are lacking, halfway between the two predetermined

positions becomes the fair end. However, the approach may favor the party that takes extreme

positions because half the position will favor them over others. If so, the approach becomes

biased and might trigger intense conflicts instead of offering solutions as expected. The approach

is most appropriate when one is pushed by time and is dealing with someone he/she can trust
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 10

(Caputo et al., 2019). The conflict profile in this approach assumes that although both parties will

win and lose, one should ensure that losses are less significant and the wins are crucial. Although

meeting halfway leaves gold on the table, it reduces overstraining on forced relationships

between the negotiators and the opposing parties. It should only be used when one has nothing

else to offer, i.e., in lousy situations.

e) Collaborative (You win-I win)

Unlike the compromising approach, in which parties settle for less than they need,

the collaborative approach ensures that the conflicting parties meet their goals or needs by

creating many mutual benefits as possible with respect to time and available resources. The

negotiators in this approach evolve through other profiles, enjoying mutual benefits and healthy

relationships, and grow to become collaborative negotiators (Caputo et al., 2019). They can

easily revert to other negotiation styles when forced by circumstances. They are adamant that

their goals should be met regardless of the prevailing situations and acknowledge that their

opposing parties have needs and goals to be achieved. Tragically, most individuals or

organizational managers are overly compromising and accommodating, resulting in a

competitive approach where the buyers or the opposing parties claim more than their fair share.

In case these competitive buyers come across skilled and knowledgeable collaborative approach

negotiators, the competitive style that arises cannot be rewarded with concessions. Most buyers

become overstretched, especially under tremendous time pressure and temptations to

compromise their vital needs instead of investing their valuable time in collaboration dominate.

Collaborative negotiators spend a lot of time, energy, and resources to find innovative solutions

that will benefit involved parties because they feel more secure in the sense that they will have

value to share with their conflicting parties later on (Caputo et al., 2019). They have the mantra
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 11

that their personal winning is not satisfactory. They try as much to make sure their opponents

meet their goals or needs.

Methods of collaborative (win-win) negotiation

a) Focusing on the solution instead of the problem or the opposing party.

Win-win negotiators worry less about the nature of the problems or the victims of

such problems. They are much concerned with a positive destination that benefits everyone

involved. They may go through various hurdles in the process but attempts to keep their eyes

glued on the goals or outcomes. The major characteristic of this style of negotiation is that the

agreement reached in the process of conflict resolution cannot be improved further by

discussions (Lipsky et al., 2015). The end results cannot be manipulated further to favor the

negotiator or the opposing parties. By definition, no more value is left by this conflict resolution

style on the table since all creative options have been explored thoroughly and exploited.

However, a team or company can miss the rewards promised by the win-win approach because

of the following pitfalls;

b) Compromise

Most mediators or negotiators tend to believe that compromises are positive

approaches that lead to win-win deals. However, that is not always the case. By definition,

compromise means the process of resolving conflict whereby one or both conflicting parties

accept to settle for less than they really wanted (Lipsky et al., 2015). The parties, in this case,

lower their aspirations, and this contradicts the characteristics of a win-win negotiation deal.
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 12

c) The relationship

Having the desire to create a healthy and long-lasting relationship in any form of

negotiation is admirable. However, durable relationships don't guarantee a win-win agreement.

Mutual relationships are the key, where every side of the opposing parties has to create value for

their organization and that of others. Suppose one of the organizations reaps more than the other

in every negotiation. In that case, they should be concerned about knowing what other

individuals or organizations thinks about them, and the frames of negotiation set aside (Lipsky et

al., 2015). Although most parties acknowledge the need to engage in good relations with the

opposing parties as the most vital step in conflict resolution, they don't really want to cultivate

one.

Creation of the best alternatives to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)

These are the best alternatives that can be taken by the negotiating parties if the

negotiation process does not yield fruits and no agreement can be reached. BATNA is considered

the driving force that shapes the negotiating process and is the key focus of any negotiator if an

agreement cannot be reached. No opposing party is expected to accept worse resolutions that

surpass the BATNA. When creating the best alternatives, care should be taken to ensure that

alternatives are accurately valued by analyzing all considerations such as time value, resources

value, and the value of the relationship, and the possibility that the opposing parties will live

their positions of the bargain (Ayoko et al., 2014). However, these considerations are difficult to

determine their value because they are based on their qualitative or uncertain considerations

instead of quantifiable and measurable factors. Most negotiators see BATNA as a point of

leverage in any form of negotiation rather than a safety net.

 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 13

According to the negotiation theory, alternative options by the negotiators should be

straightforward to evaluate and the efforts made to understand the alternatives that best represent

the BATNA of a specific party are not always invested (Aslani et al., 2013). The proposed

alternative options should be actionable and as real as possible to be of value to the parties. Time

should also be invested alongside these best alternatives to avoid frequent failure of these

negotiation criteria. Surprisingly, most organizational managers overestimate their best

alternatives to a negotiated agreement and invest little time trying to table their real options. The

process often results in faulty or poor decision-making, and the negotiating powers and outcomes

remain relatively low (Aslani et al., 2013). The negotiators also need to analyze the BATNA of

other organizations and attempt to figure out if there is any significant difference with theirs.

The criteria of the best alternative to a negotiated agreement were developed by

William Ury and Roger Fisher, renowned negotiation researchers in the Harvard Program of

Negotiation (Ayoko et al., 2014). The criteria were explored in their books and articles on

principled negotiation, starting with Getting to Yes.

The equilibrium theory of conflict settlement posits that if in a team of players,

every player has his/her own considerations on the decision of other players, then, no player is

likely to benefit from altering decisions made by the players in that case, not even the players

themselves. For instance, if Paul and Phil have are in a given equilibrium, and Paul is making the

best decisions while taking into account the perspectives of Phil, the results of the decisions

reached are unlikely to affect any of them even when altered. Similarly, the players are in Nash

equilibrium if any if one of them or a group is making the best decisions they can while

considering the points of view of others.

 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 14

Most individuals or management teams adopt cold-blooded, aggressive, and ruthless

negotiation approaches to solve disputes among themselves or assume the third party's role.

However, in reality, as emphasized by negotiation researchers and experts such as Ury and

Fisher, the process of conflict resolution should not be that way (Ayoko et al., 2014). As the

world approaches complicated and more sophisticated modes of communications, the negotiation

modes should be dynamic to match such evolutions. The negotiation process should adopt

effective styles that allow all parties involved to attain their desired goals and needs in a

distributive way.

The alternatives designed to develop a very strong and reliable BATNA should be

attractive. For author negotiators to get to Yes, they should give three major suggestions such as;

➢ Coming up with a list of alternative actions that should be taken if the purported

agreement cannot be reached.

➢ Developing promising ideas and converting them into tangible and partial alternatives.

➢ Sorting the listed alternatives that sound best and best mitigates the conflict at hand.

The major rule of BATNA is that it should never be disclosed to the conflicting parties unless it

is beneficial. If a negotiation involves two or more cultures, the parties involved should account

for all cultural cognitive behaviors and should not participate in biases or judgments that favor

one culture over the other (Ayoko et al., 2014). The individuals involved should try as much as

possible to separate themselves from the objectives tabled.

While using various approaches to resolve conflict, emotional intelligence is

inevitable. Most negotiations are dominated by mixed motives in which the opposing parties

battle for the value of their claims and at times cooperate to create value. This ability to manage
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 15

mood fluctuation of moving the claims back and forth to reach an agreement is critical and

requires skills to master.

Effects of emotions on value creation and claiming

Negotiation researchers Peter Carnevale and Alice Isen found that a positive mood

in any negotiation leads to greater value creation. They emphasized that good feelings suggest

that the issue under negotiation is at low risk, and negotiators can easily achieve their goals

because it alleviates the need for vigilance associated with negative emotions. They found that

anger in a negotiation is turbulence that motivates persistent value claiming, leading to more

conflicts rather than the anticipated solution. They acknowledged the famous belief that angry

negotiators are likely to attain few joint gains and are unlikely to effectively work together with

their opponents in the future even when a mutual agreement is reached (Zartman, 2019). The

angry negotiators are unlikely to claim more value for themselves and appear to incur more costs

and psychological torture due to their negative emotions than their counterparts.

Programming emotional strategies to face difficult negotiations

Some negotiations are difficult and cause tensions to the negotiators, particularly if

they fear confrontations. In this case, most negotiators may be tempted to negotiate at a distance

through writings, emails, or phone calls, but the benefits associated with distance negotiations

can never match those reaped from face-to-face communication (Zartman, 2019). The negotiator

is expected to conduct discussions with other negotiation advisors and generate a pool of

knowledge before presenting the argument to the conflicting parties. The argument presented

should be clear and concise. They should utilize the following strategies:
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 16

Sincerity

Showing sincerity through long-distance negotiations and the papers is a daunting process. It

would also be a challenge for a negotiator or the opposing sides to alter the direction of the

negotiation in their favor via long-distance communications. Although some models like video

conferencing have proved effective to some extent as they show confronting body language and

resembles face-to-face communication, technical malfunctions can occur and derail the flow of

communication. When communicating face-to-face, one can clearly see facial expressions and

reassuring body language and easily seek clarifications in case of misunderstandings

(Zartman, 2019). This helps one develop trust in whatever the mediator is hammering down and

converge to an amicable resolution to the prevailing situation.

Additionally, being able to see someone you are negotiating with face-to-face

enables the negotiator to dispel any fear and gauge the emotional climate of the conflicting

parties. The ability to read and interpret their gestures helps one understand how they perceive

and react to the information given. This enables the negotiators to know when they are pushing

the conflicting parties too hard or when the information is in harmony with their perspectives.

Relationship strategies that can be utilized in a difficult negotiation

The hallmarks of effective and successful negotiation results are not only clear and

precisely formulated goals or sophisticated tactics and strategies but require a more resilient

relationship with the opposing party. If the negotiation becomes difficult, the relationships

become vulnerable. They may even disappear, especially when embarked by emotional outbursts

or careless remarks, which may silence the opposing party immediately or motivate them to

overreact, causing more chaos. If such happens, the flow of conversation between the opposing
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 17

parties is cut off during this negotiation deadlock (Ayoko et al., 2014). The parties withdraw

from the negotiation process and concentrate on the accuracy of their individual positions. The

parties begin to clarify the power and supremacy questions, that is, which of the two parties is

stable enough to run without the other? As soon as one of the parties answers this question, the

negation threatens to fail, thus using sanctions or alternatives to survive. The most important

strategies to save the relationship in a negation process include building contact, stabilizing the

contacts for long term, keeping the contact, and treating the conflicting parties selectively.

Although building contact between the conflicting parties is vital in conflict

resolution, the nature of the contact is not clearly defined, in that, if the situation becomes

difficult, the relationship loses its resilience, and the negotiator can never get relevant

information from both parties. The underlying importance of this strategy is to establish a very

concrete relationship with the opposing parties using targeted actions within a given time-bound.

The negotiator should also stabilize the established relationship, especially with the most

important negotiation partners (Ayoko et al., 2014). The underlying importance of this strategy is

to enable the negotiator to have at least some individuals to consult and have one-on-one

conversations, even in deadlock negotiations. The kind of relationship established in this case is

resilient, and trust dominates the relationship.

Conclusion

For the team managers, negotiators, or mediators to lead or administer effective

leadership in any given organization, they should be able to negotiate with all internal and

external stakeholders to build and maintain relationships and create values that can be utilized

cross-culturally. Team leaders and managers should also be able to identify the causative agents
 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 18

of conflict within their organizations, manage them and harness them to benefit the organization

and foster the personal growth of the parties involved. There are various types of conflict that

can surface in any social setting, each of which requires specific negotiation styles to address.

However, some conflicts require the integration of more than one approach to reach a mutual

agreement. The most common styles of negotiation include compete, accommodate,

collaborative, compromise, and avoid approaches. The five of them might not be applicable in

the solution of a single problem, but all of them are equally important and cannot be ignored.

Several approaches can be combined in some instances depending on the nature of conflict and

the outcomes of the first approach. If a mutual agreement is not reached, the best alternatives to a

negotiation agreement can be utilized.

 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 19

References

Aslani, S., Ramirez-Marin, J., Semnani-Azad, Z., Brett, J. M., & Tinsley, C. (2013). Dignity,

face, and honor cultures: Implications for negotiation and conflict management. In Handbook of

research on negotiation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ayoko, O. B., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Jehn, K. A. (2014). Handbook of conflict management

research. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Caputo, A., Marzi, G., Maley, J., & Silic, M. (2019). Ten years of conflict management research

2007-2017. International Journal of Conflict Management.

Corvette, B. A. (2013). Conflict management: Pearson new international edition: A practical

guide to developing negotiation strategies.

Lipsky, D. B., Seeber, R. L., & Avgar, A. C. (2015). From the negotiating arena to conflict

management. Negot. J., 31, 405.

Zartman, I. W. (2019). I William Zartman: A pioneer in conflict management and area studies:

Essays on contention and governance. Springer.

 CONFLICT MANAGMENT AND NEGOTIATION 20

View publication stats