Is negotiation the only

panacea for industries?

GROUP 3
Abhilasha (13PGP002)
Jaya
(13PGP023)
Suresh
(13PGP035)
Dibyajyoti (13PGP076)
Komal
(13PGP086)
Chanyo
(13PGP075)

Negotiation
Sun Tzu observed in the Art of War, Therefore a victorious
army first wins and then seeks battle; a defeated army seeks
battle to achieve victory.

Negotiation: A mean for achieving VICTORY without the

battle; for both the parties

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

11/26/2014

Negotiation
Winston Churchill, A fanatic is one who cant change his mind
and wont change the subject
Fanatics argue. Negotiating is not arguing; negotiating talks
with an objective in mind
Conflict resolution, not conflict avoidance
Mutual motivation and benefit, not manipulation

A long time resolution, not a quick fix

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

11/26/2014

Industrial Perspective
The ILO Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining
Convention (No. 98), 1949 describes collective bargaining
as: "Voluntary negotiation between employers or
employers' organizations and workers' organizations, with
a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of
employment by collective agreements."

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

11/26/2014

Industrial Perspective(Common
practices)
Confrontation and competition
The typical industrial negotiation between trade unions and
managers can be very confrontational and competitive in style
Powerful brinksmanship
The industrial negotiation are also characterized by overt use of
power, threats and taking things to the edge (and over)
Mediation and arbitration
When relationships break down and trust has completely
evaporated such that either or both sides refuse to negotiate
further, the only chance of resolution comes from the use of third
parties
Indian Institue of Management Raipur

11/26/2014

Why negotiate
http://www.watershedassociates.com/why-negotiate

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

11/26/2014

Conditions for Successful

Negotiation
Pluralism and the Freedom of Association
Trade Union Recognition
Observance of Agreements

Support of Labour Administration Authorities

Good Faith
Proper Internal Communication

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

11/26/2014

negotiation strategy

COMPROMISING

FORCING

ACCOMMODATING

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

COLLABORATING

11/26/2014

Pros and cons

Forcing
Takes lesser time.

Compromising
Natural strategy for
most people

Can lead to automatic

victory if negotiator is
powerful than
opponent

Appears fair because

both sides win and lose,
give and take

Can lead to a stalemate

if both sides try to do it

Can lead to people

having extreme
opinions

The other side can

become resentful
Indian Institue of Management Raipur

Accommodating

Both sides may become

disappointed because
neither of them gets
exactly what they want

Conflict is over quickly

Negotiator could get
people to owe him a
favor in the future

Negotiator gets the

reputation of being a
softy as he gives in
easily

Negotiator could lose

power

Collaborating

Both sides can win

Personal relationships
can improve

Can take a long time

People who have a

more forceful style
could see this strategy
as being weak
11/26/2014

Principled negotiation
Interest-based approach to negotiation
Four fundamental principles of negotiation:
separate the people from the problem

focus on interests, not positions

invent options for mutual gain

insist on objective criteria

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

10

11/26/2014

Types of negotiations
Soft
negotiators

Choose a gentle style of bargaining

the offers they make are not in their best interests
They yield to others' demands, avoid confrontation, and they
maintain good relations with fellow negotiators
Their perception of others is one of friendship, and their goal is
agreement
They do not separate the people from the problem, but are soft
on both

Hard
negotiators

Use contentious strategies to influence, utilizing phrases such

as "this is my final offer" and "take it or leave it.
They make threats, are distrustful of others, insist on their
position, and apply pressure to negotiate
They are hard on both the people involved and the problem

Principled
negotiators

They focus on the problem rather than the intentions, motives,

and needs of the people involved
They separate the people from the problem, explore interests,
avoid bottom lines, and reach results based on standards
They 11
base their choices on objective criteria drawn from 11/26/2014
moral
standards and principles of fairness

Types of
Negotiations

Distributive

Integrative

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

Negotiation as a best strategy

Find small case examples from the links (atleast 5 )
http://www.brighthubpm.com/methods-strategies/106943-negotiationtips-for-project-managers-learning-from-historic-cases/
http://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/top-10negotiation-stories-of-2012/

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

12

11/26/2014

Why negotiations Fail

The "fixed pie"
mentality

Buyer's remorse

Asking for too much

at the beginning

Winning can be
self-defeating

Starting
negotiations with
the "chip on the
shoulder" syndrome

Lack of preparation

Letting your client

push the spouse
into a corner

Lack of tolerance
for risk and
uncertainty

Lack of Preparation

Poor
Communication
with thw other party

Improper
Evaluation

Ineffective Mediator

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

13

11/26/2014

When negotiations fail

1. Reduce internal pressures
2. Avoid an offer that is not in best business interests

3. Set realistic goals and expectations

4. Prepare an alternative plan
5. Brainstorm all available alternatives
6. Choose the most promising ideas
7. Keep the best alternative in reserve as a fallback

8. Consider mediation
Indian Institue of Management Raipur

14

11/26/2014

Negotiations also may go wrong

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/12/09/what-failed-negotiations-teach/i3FwKpWFfJ5bN0X33gEqxH/story.html

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

15

11/26/2014

Cultural Milieu

During his extensive research, Hofstede scored countries on a scale from 1 to 120 based on the dimensions of
culture. Below, in Table 5, the scores of China and Norway are displayed. According to his research, Hofstede
showed that the Chinese scored a higher numerical value in the power distance index (PDI). Therefore, Chinese
citizens believe they are far removed from the countrys center of power, they feel there is little they can do to
affect the country on a large scale and are more comfortable with inequalities. Conversely, Norway scored much
lowermeaning that its citizens believe they are closer to the center of power. On the topic of individualism (IDV)
versus collectivism, the two countries once again do not see eye-to-eye. A higher numerical value in this category
means that a country is individualistic and that a citizen identifies first as an individual and second as a member of
a group. The opposite of this indicates that citizens see themselves as members of a group first and as an
individual second. In this respect, Norway is much more individualistic while China is collectivistic. China and
Norway also differ in respect to the masculinity index (MAS). Receiving a lower numerical value indicates that a
country is more masculine. As discussed earlier in this manuscript, this index has nothing to do with sex. Rather,
masculine cultures are motivated by success and achievement, while feminine cultures care more for others and
the quality of life. China, as shown in the table above, is almost an extreme example of masculinity; Norway leans
more towards the feminine side of the spectrum. Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) is the only dimension in where
China and Norway are somewhat similar. Although the two countries are similar, China scored a lower numerical
value, which indicates that, in general, Chinese citizens experience less stress in ambiguous situations than their
Norwegian counterparts. When all of these are considered simultaneously, it is clear that these two countries will
certainly struggle with negotiation if special attention is not paid to cultural differences.

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

16

11/26/2014

 Cross-cultural negotiation is a very sensitive matter. The slightest gesture can carry a certain
meaning in one culture, while meaning something else in another. Such is the case with the
American hand gesture indicating peace. The same gesture in Great Britain carries a much more
offensive meaning. Granted this is just an example, but it is important to realize that if
communication or negotiation between two countries that are very similar can fail, the same can be
said for countries that have much less in common such as China and Norway. The problem with
China and Norway basically boils down to one of Hofstedes (1997) dimensions of culture. Norway
has a low power distance indicating that citizens perceive power to be shared and much closer.
Conversely, China has a much higher power distance, which means that its citizens are far removed
from the center power. Where these two cultures collide revolves around that dimension when the
Nobel Peace Prize was given to a Chinese prisoner. Norway claimed that the selection committee
was an independent body, but such was not the case because the committee was selected by
Parliament and was comprised of most, if not all, Norwegians. In an attempt to express its discontent
with Chinas government, Norway offended China and, in a way, brought this upon itself. Meanwhile,
China felt the threat of change and may have over-reacted. Until these two countries can find some
way to mend the wounds, their relationship will continue to be strained and possibly worsened. Each
country retaliated and lost sight of issues of mutual importance. Without compromise, these two will
continue on a downward spiral. A possible common interest that might get these countries moving in
the right direction could be negotiation of a free trade agreement. Obviously, engaging in a free trade
agreement will not heal the wounds or reverse the damage, but it will get China and Norway moving
in the direction of a mutually beneficial relationship that will lead to more cross-cultural negotiations.
Indian Institue of Management Raipur

17

11/26/2014

Violent situation
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/8598/

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

18

11/26/2014

Other examples
http://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/top-10negotiation-failures-of-2013/
Take 3 examples from the above link

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

19

11/26/2014

When not to negotiate

When you have not done your research or are ill-prepared

When there is a locus-of-authority issue, that is, when the other party sitting
at the table does not have the power to consummate a deal
When the other side is obviously bargaining in bad faith or using a multitude
of unethical tactics
When you have reached your bottom line on one or more issues and more
movement downward would place you or your firm in a precarious position

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

20

11/26/2014

references
http://www.literacynet.org/icans/chapter05/proscons.html

Indian Institue of Management Raipur

21

11/26/2014