Overview Of The Challenges Of The Negotiation Process

Negotiation and bargaining are forms of human behavior and are manifested at virtually every level of individual and group interaction (Winham, 1979). Negotiation as therefore been used as a tool in the management of relations. The practice is characterized by a back and forth communication designed to reach an agreement between two or more parties with some interests that are shared, conflict or even be different. Owing to the fact that as a process that involves human interaction, parties involved in negotiation often face a handful of challenges;Communication is key in any form of interaction and lack of proper and clear communication leads to a breakdown in relations, or in this case impedes negotiation. There are often barriers to communication and this may occur at any moment in a negotiating process.

These barriers lead to a message becoming distorted and risks wasting time by causing confusion and misunderstandings. In most cases the message is received in a way that the sender did not intend it to – causing a breakdown. Some common communication barriers include; The use of over-complicated and technical terms that one party may not be familiar with, emotional barriers and taboos where some parties may find it a little difficult to openly express their emotions and discuss on certain topics like sexuality, lack of attention and distraction, differences in perception and viewpoints, language differences and when expectations are already set such that it leads to wrongful assumptions. Negotiators must be aware of these and the many more barriers and should try to minimize their effect by constantly checking understanding and offering the appropriate feedback. Parties should be able to speak directly and be prepared to clearly explain problems, articulate shared or unshared interests and work towards a common agreeable solution. Negotiation is a process that demands compromise and flexibility. Parties will at times not seek a mutually agreeable solution but rather that which solely benefits them. Parties will employ strategies that are selfish in their nature, seeking to maximize gains and minimize losses as in the case of distributive bargaining.

The process thus becomes competitive, each party seeking to have an edge over the other rather than seeking for a solution. This situation is challenging to negotiation because negotiators now engage in a game to outwit the other by keeping vital information from each other, misrepresenting information about their positions, use of bluffs, threats and manipulation in order to reduce the option of the other. Should all parties involved in the negotiation embrace such an approach, then the process will surely be challenged. As mentioned earlier, negotiation is a process and therefore the element of time is absolutely essential. Lack of enough time for the parties to air their individual grievances on the table, talk through it and find amicable solutions challenges the very integral part of negotiation – openly sharing. Negotiations in some cases looked upon as a solution to conflict and there have been moments when negotiators have been called to the table to solve an issue during ongoing conflicts and under a short window of time. Solutions to long standing South Sudan conflict have failed because negotiators would, among the many reasons, try to find quick solutions in order to stop the ongoing conflict. When ceasefires are called in a violent conflict, history has shown that negotiators often have a little window between the process and violence, often leaving them to make quick decisions that are ineffective or rather not even reaching a mutual agreement. In an overwhelming period, it’s easy for negotiators to undermine the value of proper preparation and just like time, the process demands for preparation.

Negotiators should do extensive research on the subject to be handled, conditions of the environment, history and other many factors that may influence the deal. The parties should take it seriously that they would even do research on the other parties; to know what to avoid in terms of beliefs and custom and even the psychological state of the other party. Apart from learning about the subject matter and the other parties’ preparation is also done internally. A negotiator should know what their objectives and bottom line are, what they are willing to let go in the processes, their bargaining chips, the position they should take in relation to their interests. A lack of proper preparation would therefore be challenging to a negotiation and the outcome would be negatively affected. This lack of proper preparation may also cause last minute changes by the negotiators to enhance their positions. Such quick changes in the process are often unwelcomed and causes a breakdown in negotiations. In the International system, negotiations are often seen as the main alternative to peaceful conflict resolutions (Meerts, 2015). Negotiations are therefore under constant threat of being destroyed by violent actions if the parties view them as less effective instrument in defending their own interests. If both parties are in a mutual hurting stalemate, then a peaceful solution is probable. However should one, or more parties, prefer a war over words then negotiation would be rendered useless. International frameworks like international organizations were established by countries in order to help contain such violence and control negotiations under certain rules and guidelines. Statistics show that in the last 50 years, two-thirds of conflicts have been solved through negotiation, one-third by military victories and the trend is expected to continue (Meerts, 2015, 2016).

Violence still therefore stand as a challenge to negotiation, even internationally. As the world is becoming more and more complex and interdependent, more actors are involved in international processes. This changes the way negotiations are conducted, making it more challenging and complex horizontally and vertically; horizontally because of the strengths of individual states and the weaknesses of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, so these states, while pushing for their own interests will have a central role and impact in the negotiations while the organizations will try to contain those and guide their members in the direction of outcomes; and vertically as constituents and counties within the state become more powerful and with the medias key role in allowing parliaments and populations to become more involved in negotiations through external pressures like lobbying (Meerts, 2015). The modern means of communication are also challenging in that they are too transparent even when negotiators need to employ some levels of secrecy in order to arrive at desired outcomes. The creation of these international organizations breeds a new challenge to international mediation; bureaucracy. The organizations at times have needs of their own and will push for them even if they are not at par with those of member states. The European Union has been a perfect example of the struggle between the organization and member states. In order to have successful international negotiations, organizations are growing more and more and this therefore asks that negotiations be more embedded under rules and regulations. This causes rigidity reduces effectiveness due to loss of flexibility. Negotiators, in this case diplomats, will always try to find a way around this rigidity by negotiating away from the official table in informal bilateral deals even though structures and processes are necessary in closing these deals (Walker, 2004). While informality is an important part, negotiators are found to lose oversight and less able to control the process.

A key factor in negotiation are the humans themselves. People bring both positive and negative effects to the process. Humans can be moody, egocentric, impatient, and at times plain ignorant. Mutual empathy enhances a great negotiation process when the actors understand each other. The process can be challenged should their egos collide, if they engage in ‘egotiation’; a phenomenon where protecting the negotiators reputations is more important than the interests of his or her own country (Meerts, 2015). Negotiation has had its own share of challenges, the above mentioned being the most noticeable. Each challenge however has a solution that can be attained. By enhancing fully the understanding of the processes in negotiation, more successful agreements can be achieved in modern society. The role of a negotiator is still very central and as such they should invest more in research or rather give researchers and trainers more access to real negotiation processes. This will enhance effectiveness and communication of the process, with the negotiators connecting effectively with the other parties. When these challenges are met, the role of negotiation will be much effective. Negotiation has often been thought of as a synonym for compromise and this is true because it requires flexibility. Parties involved in the process cannot find absolute satisfaction but rather what is acceptable.

One way to picture the processes of negotiation is a continuum (Winham, 1979). All parties have their positions on opposite ends of the continuum and an agreement can only be reached by compromise and in some cases, convergence. Negotiators would consider their position; what they desire and what they will settle for and then they would try to think of a probable outcome and the minimum disposition of the other parties. The idea of concessions is now introduced making it a crucial step in negotiation (Winham, 1979). Negotiators first negotiate without vagueness to find out what the issues are, so as to possibly project an outcome and work towards that that is mutually agreeable. Information is openly shared and all parties divulge their needs and objectives to create a space where everything is out in the process. Trial and error begins and parties calculate and recalculate options available. This is the integrative bargaining approach that adopts a win-win orientation where all parties come to an agreement and are found satisfied with the outcome of the process.