1.

In carrying out negotiations for salaries and conditions of service, parties

can adopt a number of approaches or strategies. Outline with examples the
approaches that may be used by parties in negotiations. [25]

Negotiation is part of a wider collective bargaining process which gives labour and
management a platform to resolve their differences and agree on issues such as
wages, hours of work and the working conditions of employees. It is against this
backdrop that this discussion seeks to explore the various approaches that may be
used by parties in negotiations. Relevant examples from Zimbabwe and the world at
large will cited as the essay progresses.

Negotiation has been defined by Hopmann, (1995) as a form of problem-solving

where two groups with conflicting interests exchange things in order to reach a
mutually agreeable resolution. Armstrong (2006) gives the view that to negotiate is to
converse with a view to finding terms of agreement. The word negotiation and
collective bargaining have been used interchangeably in most literature but
Armstrong (2010) contends that, Collective bargaining is the establishment by
negotiation and discussion of agreement on matters of mutual concern to employers
and unions covering the employment relationship and terms and conditions of
employment. In Zimbabwe, negotiations and collective bargaining are covered under
Part X section 74 to 82 of the Labour act Chapter 28:01.

There are various approaches to negotiation and this discussion will cover at least
six and give examples of how each approach operates in real world. The first
approach to negation is where negotiations taken as are as a game of strategy.
According to Raiffa, (1982) this approach adopts an approach similar to that which
players of games like chess or poker adopt. Raiffa, (1982) states that, Tit for Tat has
emerged as one of the stronger tactics adopted by negotiators during the negotiation
process. The process is dominated by reciprocity and concessions. For example if a
negotiator is first to make a demand, you are expected to cooperate with what the
other part is going to give as a counter offer. If you are to make a counter offer (move
second) you reciprocate what the other party has offered on the table. Thus for
example, if the other party cooperates, respond cooperatively and if the other
party competes, respond competitively. Reciprocity is referred to by Lewicki et al
(1994) as a kind of exchange in which negotiators make equal concessions, move-
by-move.

The second approach views Negotiations as a power struggle. The IPMZ module
(2010) refers to this as the coercive approach. The coercive approach is based on
the ability of one party to overcome the resistance of its opponent by means of
power, which may stem from the legitimate authority of management or from the
power base of the workforce (Barnhizer 2005). Although negotiators may have
several sources of structural power, the most commonly investigated source of
power is the negotiators best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). A
negotiators BATNA has become the primary indicator of a negotiators relative
power in negotiation. Employers derive their power from the fact that they control the
wages, they can fire and hire employees and own the means of production. On the
other hand employees source of power is derived from their ability to collectively
organise and withdraw their labour (Lewicki et al 1994). Thus in negotiations, factors
such as the ability for an employer to easily replace an employee and the ability of
an employee to withdraw his labour has an impact on either part accepting the other
partys position. for example in a country like Zimbabwe where un employment is
very high and skills are abundant employers hold an upper hand in negotiations for
they can simply threaten to replace employees for much lesser wages than they are
currently earning. The situation was worsened by the labour Act amendment of 2015
which upheld the dismissal of employees on three months notice.

The two track or boundary role model is based on the principle that, the way the
parties negotiate is determined by the interests of the constituents they represent
(IPMZ module 2010). Armstrong (2006) argues that, the negotiator who represents
an organization operates in the boundary between his or her own organization or
constituents and the organization(s) represented by the other negotiator(s). In this
role, the negotiator must balance competing demands made by his or her own
organization with those made by the other representative and his or her constituents.
The argument here is that when Trade union members meet employers
representatives at National Employment councils to bargain or negotiate they do so
based on the fact that they have a mandate from their constituencies. This is the
reason why in most negotiations before agreeing on a position negotiators of ask for
adjournments to consult with their constituencies.

The fourth approach to Negotiations views negotiations as an inter-personal and

inter-party exchange where party forces operate in so far as negotiators are
representatives of groups. Personal forces derive from relationships built up at the
bargaining table. Barnhizer (2005) argues that relationships established between
negotiating teams have an influence on the negotiation outcome. Kelley ibid argues
that if parties establish a positive interpersonal relationship, the outcomes are likely
to be positive and the opposite also holds true. An example is how the main labour
union in Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade union was able to negotiate
favourable working conditions for its employees when it was still pro-government and
how the antagonistic approach it took when it led to the formation of the main
opposition party in Zimbabwe has failed to negotiate better conditions for its
members.

Integrative and Distributive bargaining negotiations may be conducted as exercises

in either collaboration or strategic confrontation. In the former, the participants
attempt to solve a common problem using an influential approach. In the latter, each
attempts to coerce or outwit the other (IPMZ MODULE). According to Armstrong
(2006) Distributive Negotiation is negotiation in which the parties compete over the
distribution of a fixed sum of value where a gain by one side is made at the expense
of the other. Both parties are attempting to claim as much of the fixed value as
possible for themselves. Distributive negotiation is also referred to as competitive,
zero-sum, and win-lose bargaining. This is also often illustrated in sharing of the pie
phenomenon where the bigger a piece one party gets the smaller the other party will
receive. On the other hand, Integrative Negotiation is a process in which the parties
cooperate to achieve maximum benefits by integrating their interests into an
agreement. Integrative negotiations is also referred to as cooperative, problem
solving, and win-win bargaining. According to Barnhizer (2005) the differences
between each type of bargaining are rooted in a competitive or cooperative approach
to negotiating.
The Systems model to negotiation is of the view that, a conflict begins when some
change in existing circumstances, sometimes inadvertent, sometimes deliberate,
creates a situation in which one party feels it must confront another. That is, conflict
starts with some input from the environment. According to Armstrong (2006) the
systems model was derived from Dunlops (1958) systems model which states that,
industrial relations can be regarded as a system or web of rules regulating
employment and the ways in which people behave at work. According to this theory,
the role of the system is to produce the regulations and procedural rules that govern
how much is distributed in the bargaining process and how the parties involved, or
the actors in the industrial relations scene, relate to one another. The system is
expressed in many formal or informal guises: in legislation and statutory orders, in
trade union regulations, in collective agreements and arbitration awards, in social
conventions. Trade unions will always be anxious to preserve any aspects of custom
and practice beneficial to their members and resist attempts by management to
make changes.

In conclusion, approaches to negations vary in approach and perspective but it is

worth noting that, the success or failure of negotiations is dependent on a whole host
of factors not in any single approach adopted. Thus it is wise to remember that once
an approach has been chosen always allow for flexibility to accommodate situational
adjustments as negotiations progress. It is also essential that parties to negotiations
prepare well before engaging in negotiations.
Reference list

Armstrong, M., 2010. Armstrong's essential human resource management practice:

A guide to people management. Kogan Page Publishers.

Harvard Business Essentials (2003).'Negotiation' Harvard Business School Press,

J. Lewicki, A. Litterer, W.Minton, M. Sauders,(1994). 'Negotiation', 2nd Edition, Irwin.

Hopmann, P.T., 1995. Two paradigms of negotiation: Bargaining and problem

solving. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 542(1), pp.24-47.

Labour act Chapter 28:01.

Raiffa, H., 1982. The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press.

The IPMZ industrial relations module (2010)

Barnhizer, D.D., 2005. Inequality of bargaining power. U. Colo. l. Rev., 76, p.139.