Introduction

Negotiation is a significant tool used to resolve disputes between two or more people. It is helpful because each party seeks to gain as much as possible from the resolution of a disagreement. Throughout life, issues that require intervention are common as problems arise at home, school, or work. Therefore, when resolving disputes through negotiating, the mediators must make the right decision by considering all sides of the conflict. Overall, mediation is the process where two individuals or groups reach an agreement about different ideas or needs.

Describing the Situation

The workplace has various disputes including disagreement between colleagues and conflicts between employees and employers. For instance, employees in my company are disputing with the management where the employer is demanding for optimal production, and employees are requesting for a favorable working environment. Notably, in the past three years, the company has lost ten employees because of work-related injuries, which include inhaling toxic fumes, fire explosion, and falling from higher grounds. Thus, employees are using the situation to demand insurance cover, compensation for the bereaved families, provision of safer working equipment, and pay rise. To resolve the dispute, employees are using different measures including industrial actions and sending a negotiation team to demand a safe working environment. Besides requiring workers to be more productive by increasing the working time from eight to ten hours per day, workers will no longer receive overtime pay and must face a 10% salary deduction. Generally, it is evident that each side in the conflict can provide what the other party requires once they satisfy the demand.

Examining Negotiation Strategies

To resolve the employer-employee impasse, the use of various negation strategies is essential. Positional bargaining is one of the procedures used in the negation process. In positional bargaining, negotiators hold to a fixed position and argue for it irrespective of other underlying interests (Keough, 2017). According to Keough (2017), positional bargaining is the first strategy used by negotiators seeking to resolve a dispute. From the situation mentioned above, it is clear to both employees and employers that it is necessary to have a conducive work environment, insurance cover, and compensation for the bereaved. Similarly, for the organization to meet the employees’ demand, it will require more time and money. In turn, it is necessary to reduce wages, remove overtime payment and increase operational hours. Generally, both parties can use the positional bargaining approach to maintain a fixed stand.

Distributive bargaining is another strategy used to resolve conflicts. Lewicki, Saunders & Berry (2014) define distributive negotiation as the process where mediators give up less in comparison to the other party during a dispute resolution. For example, in the situation above, the employees have set a target that includes the provision of insurance cover, a good working environment, compensation for the bereaved families, and a 5% pay increase. Conversely, the employers contend that besides the elimination of overtime pay, a 10% reduction in salaries is a must while work time increases by two hours each day. In the situation, the employee’s terms are the target point where the negotiation ought to end. However, since the negotiation process involves two or more parties, the distributive bargaining approach contends that workers must set the resistance point. The resistance point is the negotiator’s final terms beyond which it impossible to continue with the negotiations (Lewicki, Saunders & Berry, 2014). Therefore, employees can use the distributive bargaining strategy to maximize gain in the negotiation process.

Examining the Effectiveness of the Strategies

For a negotiation strategy to be effective, the negotiating team must capture all the interest of the involved parties. Thus, the initial negotiation process relies on the positional bargaining approach. However, as Keough (2017) points out, the method is often problematic because as the negotiations progress, negotiators are more likely to hold to a position making it difficult to resolve a dispute. Consequently, the approach was not valid, mainly because it could lead to bad feelings emanating from the adversarial you-verses-my approach. Moreover, it is difficult to use the method, and simultaneously ensure that both parties are satisfied. Resultantly, the position bargaining method was not effective in resolving the dispute.

Through the distributive bargaining approach, the negotiators identified a common ground that satisfied both parties. Notably, they critically examined the target position and the resistance point of the employers. Though the employees prioritized the target position, the negotiation team settled for resolution point. Accordingly, the employer agreed to provide compensation for the victims, cover all workers and ensure that employees work in a safe environment within three months. However, the management department argued that it was impossible to raise wages. Employees, additionally, agreed to increase daily working time by two hours as long as the company honors overtime pay and maintains the current salary for all workers. Therefore, the distributive bargaining approach provided an amicable solution that met the interest of all parties.

Recommendations for Solving a Similar Dispute in the Future

In the future, I would recommend the hard bargaining stance. The hard bargaining position contends that despite the mutual relationship between employers and employees, each party can consider to part permanently (Lande, 2017). Accordingly, workers can move to another firm that provides better working conditions while the company recruits new employees. Overall, the hard approach can be beneficial to both employer and employees if they do not agree on the issues presented.

Furthermore, another method I would recommend is an integrated or interest-based approach. The approach focuses on identifying the primary interest of each party and explores the factors that lead to a particular situation. The method is highly effective because unlike the distributive bargaining approach that focuses on the symptoms of a problem, it identifies the root of a conflict. For instance, in the situation mentioned above, the cause of the problem is the lack of an organizational culture that prioritizes the safety and well-being of all workers. In turn, such a culture minimizes workplace disputes, enables workers to be productive without an increase in working time, and improve the bottom line of the firm. Consequently, this will allow employers to raise pay without affecting the firm’s goals. Therefore, the integrated approach will be the most appropriate method for resolving workplace-related disputes in the future.

Conclusion

The process of negotiation is an integral part of resolving disputes that are common in the workplace, home, and schools. Some of the strategies used in the negotiation procedure include positional, distributive, hard and integrated bargaining. The distributive approach was used to address the employee-employer conflict outlined in the situation mentioned in this research. Therefore, in case a similar problem occurs in the future, the integrated strategy will be more applicable. Overall, the negotiation process must focus on addressing the underlying factor that leads to disputes.

References

Lande, J. (2017). Taming the Jungle of Negotiation Theories. First published in The Negotiator’s Desk Reference (Chris Honeyman & Andrea Kupfer Schneider, eds. DRI Press 2017).

Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., and Berry, B. (2014). Negotiation. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, pp.34-100.

Keough, C. M. (2017). Negotiation and Bargaining. The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication, 1-10.