ASSIGNMENT FOUR

Sigmund A.D. Wiggins

Department of Human Resource, Amberton University

HBD- Conflict Management and Resolution

Dr. Paul Lee

August 03, 2022.

Negotiation can be considered as the capacity to attain a mutual understanding and

settlement of a disagreement in an amicable manner. A negotiation in which one party

prevails and the other party does not get their preferred outcome is referred to as a win/lose

situation. In other words, one party wins the discussion or a deal of some sort, and the other

party is not satisfied with the results.

According to Hocker and Wilmot (2021), both sides in the negotiation process must

concur on the process rules to preserve the identity, procedure, and relationship dimensions in

order to prevent a win/lose situation throughout the negotiation process. Thus, in an attempt

to avoid a win/ lose situation in the negotiation process, there are a few suggestions that can

be considered:

A. It is possible to negotiate successfully by trying to comprehend the underlying issue

and outlining the objectives of both parties. By studying the choices listed, it will be

easier to focus on the alternatives and approaches to reach an agreement.

B. Asking the opponents directly what they want and, if it is something you cannot

supply, offering compensation that they will accept as an alternative is another

technique to clearly address what the other party wants.

C. Identify the potential reasons for the conflict and develop a plan that will help all

parties involved to reach a compromise to avoid a future occurrence.

D. Offer possible compensation after a conversation and a resolution has been reached

whereby it is an agreed compromise, so that none leaves the table feeling aggrieved or

disappointed but feeling that the decision is a fair one for both parties.

E. Identify a potential win/ win situation whereby everyone involved will feel justified

and the situation can be resolved through a fair negotiation process.

Techniques that are competitive or distributive are typically the ones where one side in

the fight loses out. In this kind of tactic, the person usually only cares about winning the

argument and has no interest in building a relationship with the other party in the future. The

telltale signs can be seen in someone's conduct, body language, voice tone, or linguistic

structure.

The other party might be completely unwilling to make any concessions or negotiate at

all, so in order to resolve this, more research is necessary on the subject by posing a lot of

questions and doing more extensive research into the matter of what you are negotiating

about so that you are aware of all the points on which they are basing their arguments. It may

also be beneficial to halt, reflect, and come up with a new plan of action.

3. Discuss the value of collaborative negotiation.

Constructive, moral, or interest-based negotiation are other names for collaborative

negotiation.

The strategy is to consider the relationship as a significant and valued component whilst

pursuing a just and egalitarian settlement rather than constantly caving in to maintain the

relationship.

In collaborative negotiation, it is presumable that the pie can be increased by locating

things of value to both parties, creating a win-win scenario where both parties can feel like

they have acquired something of value upon leaving the table. In order to bring both parties

together to cooperate on fixing their problem, it attempts to turn individual demands into a

single problem.
 4. Why is it important to separate people from problems?

Since there are two sides to every argument, namely, the side you are on and the side your

opponent is on, it is crucial to keep people and problems apart. There are position and

counter-position as a result. This is ineffective as a negotiation tactic. The argument can be

settled amicably with a win for both parties if the opponent's problem is examined and a

mutual understanding is attempted rather than removing people from the problem and giving

your opposing viewpoint.

5. . Give three situations in which intervention would be appropriate.

Most disputes are settled by the persons concerned. But occasionally a dispute gets so bad

that it prevents two parties from coming to an amicable agreement. Third party action is

necessary in certain circumstances. Intervention is a planned process used to incorporate

change into a person's beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. The following three scenarios call for

intervention:

1. The quality control of the product is something that two supervisors from the same

company disagree on. Since this quality management and assurance approach has not

been established, work has been suspended until it is resolved. Thus, in order to

remedy the situation, there is a call for the senior manager to intervene at this point

and review the quality control strategy with both of the supervisors to finalize the

strategy and have it implemented.

2. Two writers are expected to collaborate to develop a story on Nelson Mandela, the

former Apartheid President of South Africa. This story is a part of a group assignment

they must complete for a newspaper a column. One author wishes to write favorable

things about President Mandela and how, through nonviolent means, he assisted

South African to end the Apartheid scheme and how he was successful in achieving
 freedom for the Blacks in his country. Another author wishes to discuss how Mandela

involvement in protest actions led to him being imprisoned for over two decades.

Based on the nature of the article and what the editor hopes to project, the editor can

intervene and give guidance so that there can be an amicable resolution.

3. When a newlywed couple gets established into their marriage and realizes they are

growing away from one another, which has generated continual disputes that have

forced both sides to desire out of the marriage because they can no longer stand being

around one another. They are no longer emotionally invested in one another, and they

only communicate when it is absolutely necessary. They are also no longer motivated

to share anything with one another. In this case, a marriage counselor or

trusted friend's third-party involvement will be required to repair the relationship and

seek avenues to rebuild and move forward.

6. In the workplace, what role do you believe a manager should have in

Managers typically steer clear of conflict. They desire completion of the task with little to

no controversy. They often keep their distance from the conflict in the hopes that it will

be handled quickly. Additionally, they often think that participating in the unimportant

dispute will reflect poorly on them. This, however, is not what is anticipated of the

management.

Managers must act impartially if necessary to intervene in the disagreement while it is

happening. They should be accountable for fostering a positive work environment in

addition to maximizing productivity in the short term by avoiding conflict. They should

assess the situation more like a decent parent would when their children are fighting than

like a judge in a court where the conclusion must be clear-cut and legal.
 For instance, if Simone and Samantha disagree over how to support a project aimed at

improving the community. Here, the manager is aware that Simone's suggestion would

have a greater impact and would help the organization reach its goals. The manager in

this situation should combine the majority of Simone and Samantha's recommendations to

produce a proposal that will finally produce the desired results. People are the foundation

of a company. As a result, the manager must handle issues with extreme tact and

consideration.

7. In what situations do you believe intervention should be mandated? Voluntary?

We are aware that disputes can occasionally become so heated that two parties cannot come

to an amicable agreement. A third party's intervention is necessary in this circumstance.

When someone is unwilling to address the issue, intervention should be mandated; yet, when

someone is trying to resolve it, intervention should be voluntary. For instance, if two

employees are fighting at work for a cause linked to their jobs and are unable to resolve it,

their supervisor should step in and mediate the situation. This is a situation in which

intervention should be required. However, in instances where an independent employee is

voluntarily to intervene so that they can aid in mediating the process to resolve the issue, then

both parties involved in the conflict need to cooperate to reach an amicable resolution.

However, the distinction between what is required and what is voluntary becomes

hazy when viewed from the standpoint of morality or ethics. In the aforementioned scenario,

if the independent employee had not stepped in, their team's productivity might have

suffered.
 8. What should be the goal of mediation?

The act of mediating entails getting involved in the dispute to find a solution. Contrary to

other forms of intervention, where the intervener has the capacity to decide, mediators are not

able to make decisions or impose solutions. They assist parties in resolving their issues

amicably so that a compromise can be reached. A few of the mediations' anticipated

objectives are:

a. Assist in lessening the psychological trauma.

b. Contribute to increased adherence to agreements and orders.

c. Save your money and time especially if there is a tendency to want to go to court.

d. Facilitate your ability to advance in life.

9. What is arbitration? Give an example of when it would be appropriate.

In arbitration, a third party is given the authority to determine the resolution of the

disagreement, in contrast to mediation, where the mediator just facilitates discussion and

lacks the authority to render a judgement or impose a solution. In arbitration, a private or

judicial party is granted the authority to choose how the dispute will be resolved. The

arbitrator's decision is enforceable in court when both parties contractually agree to

arbitration. This procedure is known as binding arbitration. The judgment of non-binding or

voluntary arbitration, however, may not be accepted by both parties, in which case the subject

may be brought before a court for additional arbitration.

The following are the basic tenets of arbitration: The goal of arbitration is to get a just

settlement of conflicts by a neutral third party without undue expenditure or delay.

Parties should be free to decide how their conflicts are handled, with the court staying out of

the way as long as those safeguards are required by the public interest.
Arbitration has the potential to result in only one side getting what they want and another

party receiving nothing, in contrast to collaborative negotiation where both parties are often

somewhat happy.

The use of an arbitrator is decided upon by two parties when they believe they are unable to

resolve the disagreement through mediation or on their own. Trevor and Stephen are two

examples of roommates. Trevor denies borrowing any money from Stephen, but Stephen said

that he gave him a loan of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) in cash. Both parties consent in

this instance to having the dispute resolved in court. The arbitrator in this case is the court

judge.


 Reference:

Collaborative Negotiation. (n.d.). Retrieved August 01, 2016, from

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). (n.d.). Retrieved August 01, 2016, from
http://www.intervention.com/faqfintv.html#what

Hocker, J. L., and Wilmot, W. W. (2021). Interpersonal conflict. McGraw Hill.

What is Arbitration? (n.d.). Retrieved August 01, 2016, from