Negotiation and conflict resolution Prepared by msc.Flutura Xhabija SHGPAZ, Albania 24/06/20141SEECEL PROJECT

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Phases of Negotiation

Session One: Course Overview Often we all negotiate and the benefits of good negotiation skills. Importance of preparing for the negotiation process, regardless of the circumstances. Various negotiation styles and their advantages and disadvantages. negotiation skills

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Strategies for dealing with tough or unfair tactics. When you hear the word “negotiation” what picture comes to mind? Often, we think of atmosphere that is tense, negotiators who are tough, and stakes that are high. The reality is that we negotiate a lot, and many negotiations are quite amicable. Defining Negotiation (I)

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Negotiation is a process centered on a discussion that is intended to produce an agreement. Negotiating involves issues of ego, leveraging, saving face, being right, and compromise. Negotiation often leads to compromises. Defining Negotiation (II)

Session Two: What is Negotiation? When negotiation is not effective, there are other options. We are all negotiators. Negotiation takes place over a period of time and moves through a series of steps. Successful negotiation also opens the way for more negotiation. Defining Negotiation (III)

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Negotiation methods can be judged by three criteria: Conclusion should include an agreement The process and result should be efficient The relationship between the negotiators should not be damaged and may improve Defining Negotiation

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Integrative/Distributive Parties are looking for different things as they approach the negotiation Integrative negotiations are commonly referred to as “win-win” Distributive negotiations are referred to as “win-lose” Types of Negotiation (I)

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Inductive/Deductive/Mixed The inductive method involves starting on small details and working upward Deductive negotiations start with an agreed- upon strategy and then work out the details Mixed negotiations are a blend of inductive and deductive methods Types of Negotiation (II)

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Soft/Hard/Principled Soft and hard bargaining involves negotiating a position rather than interests. Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton recommend principled negotiation, which relies on interests rather than positions. Types of Negotiation (III)

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Alternative Dispute Resolution Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a popular alternative to negotiation. ADR allows the negotiating parties to take advantage of a formal dispute resolution process using mediators or facilitation. Negotiating partners must both be satisfied with the outcome. Types of Negotiation (IV)

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Non-Negotiable Positions vs. Options As a negotiator, you must not go to the table with non-negotiable positions. If you elect to draw the line, you must know your limits and the room you have to negotiate. Just because someone says no to your request does not mean you have asked the only question that is available. Types of Negotiation (V)

Session Two: What is Negotiation? A good negotiator is prepared to use several possible approaches and formulas. They often ask questions more than they provide answers. They can assess a situation, including the expertise of the parties involved, and adapt their approach to suit the occasion. Types of Negotiation (VI)

Session Two: What is Negotiation? At the beginning of a negotiation, it is important to establish an approach that will be agreed upon between the parties. It is equally important to recognize when the formula is getting in the way of making progress because it is too rigid and needs to be tailored to the situation. Types of Negotiation (VII)

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Argue based on principle instead of positions Arguing chips away at relationships The softer side Principled negotiation works Focus on the problem, not the people Negotiators are people first Positional Bargaining

Session Two: What is Negotiation? Soft negotiators want to create a conflict-free environment and make concessions readily in order to reach agreement. Hard negotiators approach a situation as a battle of wills. Principled negotiation is based upon a commitment to mutual gain, so the benefit to both parties is clear. Principled Negotiating

Session Two: What is Negotiation? There are three basic negotiating styles: Co-operative style Aggressive style No pattern Principled Negotiating (II)

CONFLICT RESOLUTION 24/06/201418SEECEL PROJECT

Session One: What conflict is and how it can escalate. The types of conflict and the stages of conflict. Five most common conflict resolution styles and when to use them. Flow through non-verbal and verbal communication skills. Develop effective techniques for intervention strategies. Become more confident of your ability to manage conflicts to enhance productivity and performance. what conflict

Session Two: Defining Conflict A disagreement is a change to a relationship that disrupts the normal routine. Conflict is more serious, and is a consequence of the disagreement. Conflict includes a threat to someone’s needs, concerns, or interests. Problem solving strategies are essential for conflict management. What is Conflict?

Session Two: Defining Conflict Assumptions Conflict is avoidable. Conflict produces inappropriate reactions by the people involved. Conflict creates polarization within the organization. We should avoid conflict. What is Conflict?

Positives Helps people see other options or points of view Clears the air Encourages creativity Leads to better decision- making Negatives Broken relationships Work disruption Can be expensive Can create barriers not there before May cause people to leave work they enjoy May lead to bad decisions Session Two: Defining Conflict Positives and Negatives

Session Two: Conflict resolution styles Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank, expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be made fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations.

Session Two: Conflict resolution styles Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.

Session Two: Conflict resolution styles Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser him- or herself also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming.

Session Two: Conflict resolution styles Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person's own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this "favor" you gave.

Session Two: Conflict resolution styles Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However in many situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to take.