Problems Faced By Parties During A Negotiation Process

Lack of proper communication between parties

One of the most common downfalls that fuels negotiation breakdown is poor communication. This is experienced more so when either parties fail to give each other the required attention in order to resolve the issue at hand. Due this, the negotiation can easily breakdown and misunderstanding arise the more. Transmitting and clear conveying of information is termed as communication. Negotiation is therefore termed to be on the rocks when information is not being conveyed properly. The bedrock of negotiation is communication, supported by information gleaned from various sources to better position oneself while negotiating.

In addition, communication in negotiation includes sharing knowledge and experiences, giving advice and asking questions, the ability of both parties to fully participate in the said process dictates the tone at the bargaining table. According to Shell (2006), the duration unto which the negotiation process will consume is dependent on the communication between the parties. Productive talks can only be realised if the parties brood proper communication. The climate of the negotiation environment drives the manner in which the process will undergo. More time will be taken if the poor communication exists. Risks of impasse and deadlock are at bay for the parties’ negotiation process due the aforementioned.

Lack of confidence and overconfidence

Negotiation also tends to lean towards confidence in order to achieve success in the process. Lack of confidence by either both or one of the parties’ negotiators can result in low rate success in negotiations or no success at all. The negotiators behavior is likened to the confidence they portray, which is also linked with the expected achievement. Confidence is more than a personal trait while it comes to negotiations. Being in a position to effectively assess the strengths and weakness of the deal, and more so using the information at hand to ones’ best favor. The belief in oneself to conduct a successful negotiation is paramount in order to solve the issue. Lack of self-belief may result to mistrust amongst the parties. Assertiveness and decisiveness are associated with confidence, and when this lacks during the negotiation process, then mistakes are bound to happen, and when this is experienced, the process becomes more tedious.

At the bargaining table, over confidence may come across as unprofessional. This may consequently break down talks and rupture any bridge of understanding between the parties. Confidence being to a stretch the foundation of the negotiation realm, modesty in the same is of quite importance. Either of the parties shouldn’t seem to be too arrogant since, this may portray over confidence, which in the end may cause the issues seem unsolvable. Determination of success in the negotiation between the parties is highly encouraged, but failure may be experienced if the parties aren’t humble to accommodate each other.

Fear

This may be associated with lack of confidence if depicted by either of the parties. However, this goes beyond having no ego. Self-assurance is just but what is required while heading for a negotiation, right? However, it is may not be surprising when there is sight of trouble, panic is displayed, giving way to fear and apprehension. Fear, is not always associated with lack of confidence. In the case where one has fear the adversary will reject the offer and end the session may scare one. Despite having put up a confident ego, one may be forced to improvise and use a more tender tone to know the concerns of the other party.

The fear of losing the negotiation may cloud on one’s mind, hence offsetting a heated environment with the opponent. Following the negotiation system process makes the adversary sense uneasiness, which they may use to their advantage. Fear may also be induced by feeling incompetent. This may be brought about by feeling less skillful in the negotiation process. Failing to close in swiftly, may be sell out that of lack of experience, which may ultimately clone out incompetence. Many technique book promote closing the deal quickly. Therefore, if the negotiator find the process not falling into plan, then feat may creep in, hence derailing the whole process. Considering that negotiation is a process which may continue for months, it is basically an ongoing process which end result is towards achieving a certain goal. If it is not understood that the simplicity or complexity of the desired goals to be achieved determines the pace of the negotiation, then, fear may dominate resulting to unwanted fall outs.

Rigidity

Often, negotiations between parties fail due to rigidity. It is not surprising that either both or one party hold a very rigid view towards how they want the negotiation outcome to be. Having a mindset with an inability to adapt and accommodate each other in the negotiating table, causes complications which may have an unwanted end result. Unyielding structure of how to handle the issue in development causes complications. Both parties should at least have a clear end result in mind.

However, openness should be inevitable in order to cater for the redesigning the deal. Factors such as time, on which the deal will be deliberated, should also be flexible since the matter may not be resolve in one sitting. Desperation towards having the deal being settled upon immediately, creates room for displeasure amongst the parties. This may therefore result to the negotiation ending prematurely or either parties having not conclusively explore the interests which may mutually benefit them. Knowing what is required at the end of the negotiation is important. But more to it is the process of how to arrive to the desired outcome of the dialogue. Rigidity at certain levels is a negotiation killer.

Time Pressure

In negotiation, time pressure is inevitable. Judgements and decision making in negotiation fuels time pressure for both parties. The rate at which information is processed, and a response is arrived at constitutes to time pressure. This pressure highly works on the negative especially if there is selectivity of information processing. When parties tend to dwell on irrelevant points, it may provoke tension, which may cause the main reason of the negotiation to be overlooked.

When there is limited time, certain responses may be brought up, and this may consequently result to antagonism in the bargaining table. Factors such as either of the parties’ trying to get the ‘best deal’ out of the dialogue, causes an indifference between the parties due to time constraint. As earlier mentioned, the probability that some responses are given highly depends on time pressure. When time is adequate, the preference of choices to respond with is usually a non-issue. However, due to time strain, emotions are brought on to the bargaining table, and rush decisions are arrived at. The need to finish the ‘task’ – that is the negotiation and do other activities or finish the negotiation due to the established deadline, embodies the reason behind time pressure.

The implicit and explicit methods as explained above respectively, while applied in a dialogue may cause misunderstanding. Time pressure not only does it dictate the process of the negotiation, but it also influences the outcome of the dialogue. High pressure may in good faith quicken the negotiation process consequently producing quicker concessions, quicker agreements, and lower demands than low time pressure. Although time pressure in negotiation has a significant effect, other situational factors also play a major role on its impact.

Lack of patience

In the bargaining table, a virtue which is mostly valued by the society at times, lacks. This is patience. Patience really is a virtue. Problems seem to arise mostly when patience is not shown by either or both parties. Patience is also closely accompanied with listening. Giving the other party time to express themselves and being keen on their wants and needs for the said dialogue is more than golden. Patience is equaled to time consumed. Where more time spent may mean better negotiation outcomes. It takes time to understand the issues, weigh risks, test the other party's strength, find weaknesses, know what they want, and change expectations. It takes time to discover what the other party really wants. And, patience gives the other party time to get used to the idea that what they wish for must be reconciled with the realities of what they can get. A quick negotiation has none of these virtues.

Patience has another big payoff during a negotiation. It provides both parties an opportunity to find how to best benefit each other. Before a negotiation begins, it is not possible for either party to know the best way to resolve problems, issues, and risks. New alternatives are discovered as information is brought to light. This discovery is part of the negotiation process. Both sides can benefit as a result of patient bargaining.

Needless to say, lack of patience leads to a bad negotiation. In any negotiation setup, both parties have the right to express themselves without interference. It is without reasoning that negotiation is taking place due to lack of similar views. Therefore, during the dialogue there might be an expected tension between the parties. However, this does imply that basic listening cannot be applied. Patience can’t better be expressed except through listening. Portraying and exercising patience shows more confidence.