A Description Of Your Conflict Style Results How You Feel

A Description Of Your Conflict Style Resultshow You Feel This Informat

A description of your conflict style results, how you feel this information can be useful to you as you negotiate with others. When your style is appropriate and inappropriate. What bargaining tactics you prefer.

1 page explain when negotiation is appropriate. Explain the following: when you should negotiate (including a specific example), when you should not negotiate (including a specific example), when mutual adjustment occurs and what part it plays in negotiations.

Paper For Above instruction

Negotiation is a fundamental aspect of interpersonal and organizational interactions, serving as a strategic process to resolve disputes, reach agreements, and facilitate collaboration. Understanding one's conflict style and knowing when to negotiate can significantly enhance the effectiveness of such interactions. This paper explores appropriate circumstances for negotiation, examples of when negotiation is suitable or inappropriate, and the role of mutual adjustment within the negotiation process.

Firstly, negotiation is appropriate when both parties have shared interests or overlapping goals that can be aligned through discussion. For example, in a workplace, an employee and manager might negotiate a flexible work schedule to accommodate personal commitments while ensuring productivity. Such situations benefit from negotiation because they lead to solutions acceptable to both sides, fostering a collaborative environment. Negotiation is also appropriate when there are multiple solutions, and input from both parties can lead to optimal outcomes, especially when resources are limited or demands are competing.

Conversely, negotiation should be avoided when fundamental rights, legal boundaries, or ethical considerations are at stake. For instance, if an employer attempts to pressure an employee into actions that violate employment laws or moral standards—such as hiding safety violations—negotiation would be inappropriate. In these scenarios, engaging in legal processes or ethical deliberation is essential rather than negotiation, which might encourage compromise that violates core principles.

Mutual adjustment plays a crucial role in ongoing negotiations. It involves both parties making concessions or modifying their positions to reach a consensus. This process is particularly vital when issues are complex, and rigid stances hinder progress. For example, in diplomatic negotiations between countries, mutual adjustment enables parties to modify their demands incrementally, facilitating progress toward a mutually acceptable agreement. It emphasizes flexibility, active listening, and understanding, thereby fostering trust and cooperation.

My conflict style influences how I approach negotiation. If my style is accommodating, I tend to prioritize harmony and may yield to the other party’s desires in hopes of maintaining good relations. In contrast, if I lean toward assertiveness or competing strategies, I might focus on safeguarding my interests, sometimes at the expense of collaboration. Recognizing when my style is appropriate or inappropriate helps me adapt to different negotiation contexts, maximizing positive outcomes.

In terms of bargaining tactics, I prefer collaborative approaches such as integrative bargaining, where both parties work to expand the pie rather than compete over fixed resources. This tactic promotes trust and mutual gain, especially when relationships are long-term or ongoing. Conversely, I avoid aggressive or competitive tactics that can damage relationships or escalate conflicts unnecessarily.

In conclusion, negotiation is most effective when used to resolve issues with shared interests, where flexibility and mutual adjustment are possible. It should be avoided when fundamental rights are at risk or legal boundaries are violated. Recognizing one's conflict style and understanding the dynamics of mutual adjustment can help negotiators adapt their tactics accordingly, leading to more successful and sustainable agreements.

References

• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2015). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Thompson, L. (2015). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Pearson.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin.
• Raiffa, H. (2002). Negotiation Analysis. Harvard University Press.
• Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People. Bantam Books.
• Kolb, D. M. (2007). Negotiation: Basic Principles, Skills, and Practices. Pearson.
• Mnookin, R., Peppet, S., & Tulumello, A. (2000). Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value. Harvard University Press.
• Carnevale, P. J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation in Social Conflict. Open University Press.
• Thompson, L. (2010). The Truth About Negotiations. Pearson Education.