The paper "Individual Negotiation Reflective Portfolio" is a perfect example of an assignment on social science. Part 1 My teams’ three negotiation simulations between weeks 7 and 11 can be termed as fairly successful owing to members’ dedicated participation, contribution, cooperation and mutual respect in spite of many challenges. During the initial negotiation simulation, members of the group assumed positions largely defensive for the organization. The members unfortunately assumed positions that were basically too radical to come up with meaningful results and opposing ideas were basically weak. Indeed every member of the group was focused on criticizing the other side.
For instance, the first meeting was filled with sentiment against the Chinese government concerning its perceived bad treatment of mine workers. Basically, the team was steeped towards positional bargaining. However, in the successive negotiation simulations, members of the group were eventually able to get round to viable practices of conducting negotiations. As a group, we moved forward when we adopted a mutually satisfying interest-based negotiation strategy. After researching the best method to run negotiations, we used a four-pronged approach for the second and third simulated negotiations.
This involved separating ourselves as negotiators from the problem, focusing on interests rather than positions, working together to invent options gainful to both parties, and using objective criteria in judging proposed solutions (Alfredson & Cungu, 2008). We noticed that a decision made in our organizations' favor would depend on how easy we made the other side feel when making it. The decision of the other side was usually made easy by making them choose the best option they thought would safeguard shared interests. The things that transpired during the negotiation simulations are to be expected between sides that have fundamental differences in ideology and differences in interests.
This made me realize the impasse that normally occurs due to members of opposed negotiating teams subjectively defending positions for which they bargain. The negotiation atmosphere can easily turn out to be stressful especially if the sides trying to find a solution stubbornly hold on to their positions. Therefore, members of the group chose to avoid positional bargaining where those negotiating may stick to a position at the expense of underlying issues (Alfredson & Cungu, 2008).
Failure of position based haggling and success of mutual considerations indicate the overwhelming need for the latter in serious negotiations. I think that the change of strategy within the group worked towards the efficiency of the whole process. This is since I could feel the stagnation the debate was headed for in the first simulated negotiation. Therefore I was relieved when members decided to adopt the better alternative. The first approach would only escalate the differences and ultimately leave us without any lessons learned.
Worse still, it could make us think negotiations end up in deadlocks. The experience I gained during the negotiation simulations is doubtlessly going to be invaluable to my future work. My work will involve negotiation scenarios. Since I have had a taste of what is required, I won’ t commit obvious mistakes. I now know that a negotiation is a give and take thing whereby the interest of both parties matter. The knowledge gained here will make me an asset given the current cross-cultural interactions which are riddled with conflicting interests between mutually dependent parties.
My services will be handy for finding solutions no matter the side I will be representing.