(More on Negotiations cont. 2)

Negotiating Process

There 3 possible negotiating processes, ie adversarial, consensual and dialectic.

i) adversarial (win/lose, ie one wins and the other loses; do whatever is required to win; little likelihood of compromise; some examples include politics, courts, some negotiation, most industrial relations, etc; what happens
"...People exchange selective information to support their own case. Relationships may or may not be close - they may remain formal..."
Bob Dick, 2019

This is a commonly used approach with outcomes disappointing most and sometimes all.

ii) consensual (easy win/win with participants agreeing on some shared goals; start by identifying areas of agreement and build on them; works best with genuine shared goals and no 'burning issues')

iii) dialectic (tough win/win; agreement is crafted from disagreement by pooling information, exploring disagreements, making collective decisions, ie
"...- honest information, directly communicated
     - vigorously seeking out different views, opinions and information
     - striving to understand what others say, a genuine curiosity
     - assume that disagreement signals that understanding is inadequate..."
Bob Dick, 2019

"...Dissent is welcomed because it can lead to deeper understanding. Relationships are valued and eventually enhanced......decision-making and performance improve..."
Bob Dick, 2019

This can lead to a process called mutual education as participants deepen their understanding by learning from each other.

More on dialectic (an example)

There are 2 polarised, opposing points of view.

The aim is to develop a creative, mutually-satisfying, 'best of both worlds' alternative, by getting the opposing parties to work collaboratively so that they develop an alternative which has (most of) the advantages of both options and none (or few) of their disadvantages.

Steps to develop this include

- start the process by agreeing on the desired outcomes of the process

- working separately as each party defines their preferred position

- mix-up the groups so that each sub-group has representatives from the different options and ask them to identify the advantages and disadvantages of all the options; with everybody
"...encouraged to give more attention to the disadvantages of their own preferred option and the advantages of the other option..."
Bob Dick, 2019

Each sub-group presents its findings to the whole group for discussion

- then each sub-group working cooperatively develops an alternative that includes as many possible advantages of the 2 options, while avoiding as many as possible of the disadvantages.

- the findings from each group are presented and discussed by the whole group

- a preferred alternative is selected or 'elected ' (maybe voted on, if several alternatives are presented)

- the whole group determines and agrees on how it will be implemented, ie developing an action plan (who, what, why, how, when, etc)

NB need an independent person to facilitate the process and to ensure the integrity of the process.