Individual Negotiation Reflective journal Essay Example

Reflective assay on negotiation across culture

Customer Inserts His/her Name

Customer Inserts Grade Course

Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name

Part 1

I came to learn that diversity in culture is a major issue that forms the basis of diverse opinion. Being one of the members in a group of 8 from different cultural background was an eye opener on how difficult it is arriving at the same point over matters. I recognize a difficulty of hard position bargaining, particularly on the parties and culture diversity. Not unless there is a gentle style of negotiation it is not easy to arrive at consensus across the cultural diversity. My team not only cut across borders but it also across culture. It is profoundly that culture influence how people think, behave and communicate. It also affects the way the negotiation is done and kind of transaction we make. The difference in culture among us creates barriers that completely stymie or impeded the negotiation process (Dupont & Guy-Oliver, 1991).

It was impossible for anyone of us as negotiators to overcome diversity of our culture no matter how experience and skill we are. I discover that ten particular element consistently arise to complicate intellectual negotiation. What constitute basic framework that identifies cultural differences are elements of negotiation behavior that arise during negotiation process. We were to apply the framework our negotiation and it enable us to understand our counterparts better and to anticipate possible misunderstandings (Dunn, 1996).

As negotiator from different culture we tend to view the purpose of the negotiation differently. Some of my colleague base on their cultural believes hold a view that in a business negotiation there must be sign contract between parties. This opposes the view of my other colleague that hold believe that goal of a negotiation is not is a sign contract but rather a creation of relationship between the two sides. A similar scenario is seen in the Asian negotiators whose negotiation goal is often the creation of relationship. They give more time and effort to negotiation preliminaries. On the other hand North Americans often rush through this first phase of deal making.

Part 2

According to my observation I notice the importance of determining how your counterparts view the purpose of the negotiation. Negotiation is not merely about convincing the other party on the ability to deliver on low cost-contract but it is inclusive of persuasion from the very first meeting that you have potential to build a rewarding relationship over long term. I also discovered that if the other parties in the deal are basically a contract deal marker then try to build a relationship may be waste of time (Druckman, 1976).

On our three meeting we held, it was obvious that because of difference in personality, culture or both, business person appear to approach deal making with two basic attitudes. Negotiation is either a process that both parties can gain (win-win) or a struggle that one side win and other lose loses. Win-win negotiator sees deal as a problem-solving process and collaborative. On the other hand win-lose negotiators view is all about confrontation. During this three meeting that we held it was apparent that because of culture diversity and personality difference we were not able to settle fast enough on the issue. We saw a need of coming up with individual responsibility such that task everyone contribute towards achieving consensus over our diverse views (Druckman, 1976).

On top of culture, personal style seems to be major factor on my team. The strategy of assigning responsibility to every individual aided in articulating our personality difference among member of the team. We experience variety of personal style during the three meeting where negotiator with an informal style tries to begin the discussion on a first name basis. Such negotiator seeks to develop a friendly relationship with other teams. It was with this different in ideologies that we resort to individual participation. Each culture has its own formalities with their own special meaning and that is what we wanted to appreciate as we contribute to team negotiation (Druckman, 1976).

Part 3

Trust is a necessary element that lubricates the negotiation process. At all time I should keep my aspiration clear and respond effectively to the negotiating partner, mutual trust evolves with time. Influence here, should not be confused with dominance. As a project leader I will be dealing with Provincial Government should seek discounts, awards and bonuses on closing a deal or on achieving the targets after closing the deal. Similarly, ought to put stringent rules (in case deadlines are not met) on failure to achieve a target. Such types of measures will be adopted in civil engineering projects that have time constraints during which the deal must be finalized. As a manager in Fernet Brio I will priorities the company objective to achieve its goal. I will make sure that the entire bargain through negotiation is achieved. I ought to look for positive in every possible circumstance in my bargain. The silver lining according to Margaret Neale a director for Stanford business school is the trade off issues that it can be cared more and it can be care less about, then we are able to create value in any transaction. I must be aggressive such that negotiation do not fall into trap and leave resources in the table. I should come with adequate plans such that I am aware of the priorities and alternatives and incase of fail agreement I must know my bottom line and my work away point. Additionally, I must be aware of time constrain and know whether that is the only time I will see my opponent in the negotiation (Cohen, 1993).

On the other offer from the Provincial Government there will be no problem addressing them. As a manager and a leader I value training on the safety and security to reduce casualty. I will only negotiate that the government give more incentive such as zero rate tax on the training equipment.

Part 4

At the first of our negotiation we have explained to the opposite group our company offer. Unfortunately, it was unacceptable, so we have changed our plan to be more flexible and to satisfy their requirements, because we have a long term relationship (15 Years) from our opinion we did that, because we would like to the best to them. At this point it is important to acknowledge other factors that surround negotiation style. Culture is amalgamated with other factors such as personality, interaction and situation. The importance of culture became overwhelming and we end with believe that negotiation tend to selective through the stereotype biases and perception. In general culture factors hinder relations and even prolong, complicate and even frustrate particular negotiation where otherwise exist an identifiable basis for cooperation (Cohen, 1993).

Nonetheless experience and skills of diplomats often prevent incipient misunderstanding from getting out of hand. The misconceptions and stereotype that is brought about by cross-culture differences can be effectively overcome through education, training and experience. Significant challenges reveal can be prevented through providing training in cultural diplomacy. International negotiation without adequate training may lead parties to rely on their own subjective cultural assumptions. When there is adequate exposure parties will be able to minimize the culture differences, attribute motivations typical in their common culture rather than empathizing with other cultures, ignore rather than explore values and assumptions, and essentially negotiate with themselves (Carnevale & Dong-Won, 2000).

The active participation in the team enables us to arrive at consensus on the two negotiation deals. All the members easily come out of culture differences after having understood diversity on individual opinion (Cohen, 1997).

References

Carnevale P. & Dong-Won C. (2000). Culture in the Mediation of International Disputes. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 105-110.

Cohen, R. (1993) An Advocates View’ in Culture and Negotiation. California: SAGE Publications.

Cohen, R. (1997) Negotiating Across Cultures: international communication in an interdependent world. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Druckman, D. (1976). Cultural Differences in Bargaining Behaviour: India, Argentine, and the United States. The Journal of Conflict Resolution

Dunn, D (1996). Diplomacy at the Highest Level. London: Macmillan Press.

Dupont, C & Guy-Oliver F (1991). The Negotiation Process’ in International Negotiation. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishers.