NEGOTIATION

What were you trying to achieve?

What were the needs of the other side?

 

 

 

The critical, issue in organisational

 

behavior is safety in the work place.

The management should provide their employees safety performance: safety compliance behaviors (e.g. following rules) and participation in activities that enhance the safety of the work environment (e.g. attending safety meetings). Because organizational behavior is affected by safety climate, or how much value employees perceive is placed on safety in the work place (e.g. as reflecting in management policies and leader behaviors). This work is significant as it challenges the existing emphasis on blaming individuals for accidents and instead recognizes the effect that the wider work context and management structure can have on employee safety.

 

The company is currently in need of an appropriate location for the office.

 

To be able to make the work place safe… the organization is in need of finances

 

Companies should have clear, strong, fair, and consistent written policies against violence and harassment, along with effective grievance procedures, efficient security programs, a reasonably supportive work environment, open channels of communication, and training  in resolving conflicts through team building and  negotiation skills. Plans should be in place that specify how threats are reported and to whom, as well as a protocol for investigating them.

Negotiation Topic: Creating a safe workplace

 

 

The Negotiation Process/ Physical Environment

 

The management should provide good offices, clarify issues, find areas of agreement, or otherwise aid the parties in hammering out an agreement. Important as mediators are in helping parties resolve conflicts ranging from labor-management disputes over wages to international disputes over territorial boundaries.

Timing

The negotiation begins after the employees have identified the issues they want to raise during a meeting with the management.

Attitudes and Behavior of each negotiator or team

A study moved from emphasis of the individual to the social. Investigates communication processes in negotiations between two people (:1995). This research advances existing work on negotiation by taking into account the sequencing and timing of negotiation strategies. Effective negotiators are able to blend co-operative and competitive strategies, and use different strategies depending on the stage of negotiation and the motivations of the other negotiator. Negotiation outcomes are also affected by dyad composition. Negotiators who are more similar in cultural background and social motives are more likely to maximize joint gain than dissimilar negotiators. Research can be used for training negotiators to be more effective, such as by coaching them to strategically intervene at critical points in the negotiation or by establishing similarity at the outset of negotiations.

Continuing the emphasis on social aspects, challenge the adage that `like attracts like’ in their work on the effect of demographic differences (e.g. age, gender, race and functional background) on employee attitudes and behavior. They show that the idea that they like, and are most influenced by, those who are similar to us does not fully explain the complex effects of demographic differences (:2001). For example, applying their ideas to temporary workers, the most negative effects of work status dissimilarity on employee attitudes and behavior occurred for permanent workers in temporary-worker dominated groups. Consistent with more sophisticated models of social interaction, such as social identity theory, it seems that working with lower status temporary workers erodes the prestige that permanent workers have, and this effect is worse for those in groups dominated by temporary workers. Research such as this assumes greater importance in the light of the increasingly diverse composition of many work places, and the growth in non-permanent forms of employment status.

Perception of Power of bases of each negotiator and why either side respected the power bases, together with a brief outcome of the negotiation

The measures of bargaining strength that were developed to assess the power of political parties in a parliamentary system using coalition voting. The measure of bargaining power that is not specific to any particular institutional arrangements but rather, in fact, quite general. After distinguishing it from another well-known measure of power. One cost is that bargaining power, as used here, may not translate into actual power in a specific conflict once players know and take account of each others’ preferences (2001). For example, an “opposition” coalition may form to counter the ostensibly most powerful actor-based on its prerogatives, as given by the formal rules-if this actor poses a threat to the interests of the coalition members. Such a coalition may not only stymie this actor but, more surprising, may be able to achieve this result without communication or coordination among its members. power than the others because its preferred outcome would prevail in the event of no settlement. According to the logic of the paradox, this fact put this player in a vulnerable position: if the other players acted strategically, it would suffer its worst outcome. Recognizing this problem, though, the powerful player apparently deceived the others into thinking its preference ranking was different from what it was by making a false announcement. Thereby the chair was able to escape the paradox and induce its next-best outcome by “tacit deception,” which did not reveal its misrepresentation. Still, bargaining power based on institutional arrangements-independent of the preferences of the members of the institutions-is important, even if there are ways of subverting institutions. The management agreed to provide a safe and healthy working environment for the safety of the employees. They will be drafting a plan and program for the said project.

 

 

 

 

 

Effective interpersonal and organizational communication as well as the group dynamics of the teams that make up the workforce of the company enables the firm to be one of the successful distributors and trading partners both in the international and in the local business community. In government, business, and other occupational arenas, professionals often need to communicate assertively and effectively outside the social boundaries of their own organization or organizational unit (such as outside their own department, division, or project group). Unfortunately, professionals might discover that engaging in cross-boundary communication can be a baffling and stressful experience that does not always result in a desirable outcome. Although many practitioners need to draw on an array of social and rhetorical strategies to succeed in cross-boundary communication and to avoid or overcome its associative risks, sacrifices, and problems, relatively little is known about how to interact and negotiate across organizational boundaries.

What should both management and employees do to be able to reach out to one another?  Communication is the process on which the initiation and maintenance of an organizational change depends. Successful strategies are those that elicit cooperative interaction among people as individuals, work group members, and community stakeholders. Such strategies promote collaborative and united change efforts throughout all levels of the organization.(:1995) There should be weekly or monthly consultancy meeting between the management and the employees. Not that every single decision should be consulted to the employees but the suggestion is before making a big decision especially if the decision will have a radical change to the organization it must be consulted to the employees first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com