The Best Practice Model - Essay Example

Best Practice Model: Interpersonal Communication Introduction Communication is not always easy; it is a tricky business similar to hitting a moving target (McCloskey 1992). Effective communication requires optimal combinations of the appropriate channel of communication and the context within which communication takes place. Effective communication is hindered by the differences between the people involved as well as the fragile means of communication. Interpersonal communication refers to the communication between participants who are usually known to each other and are more often dependant on each other. It is essentially the study of how people interact and establish relationships to understand how and the reasons why people communicate and behave within the social context. It includes conversation between two or more persons interacting within the society. It is therefore an interactive process between two people either face-to-face or through mediation contexts. when communication takes place in a particular context, the information is transferred either in direct or indirect channels (McCloskey, 1992). In the direct channels, the information, both verbal and non-verbal, is controlled by the sender, while the indirect channels are usually perceived by the receiver and hence not controlled by the sender. Indirect channels of communication include body language. The ‘Best Practice Model’ is one that is viewed as the more effective method of achieving a specific objective as compared to other models or techniques (Implied from the 411-7152EBL attached document). In this case, the ‘Best Practice Model’ refers the most effective and efficient way of passing information based on means that have been proven by many people over time. It is effective in that it accomplishes the desired objectives and is efficient in that minimal effort is used to achieve the objectives. ‘Best Practice Models’ are ideas that try to incorporate into a description what is deemed important to secure in efforts to do all that is possible in any given situation. Such models are usually prescribed as the recipes for success and achievements. However, the models are unable to accommodate all the variables in reality. Some of the ‘Best Practice Models’ are the Effective Meeting Model, the All-Purpose Interview Model, and the Negotiation Model. This essay will identify and describe the limitations of the ‘Negotiation Best Practice Model’ that are evident when the model is applied in the quest of understanding complex personal and social phenomena. The essay will analyse the limitations identified using the concepts and theories of interpersonal communication on which the ‘Negotiation Model’ rely to show how the ‘Best Practice Models’ are not always effective. The essay will show that greater adherence and/or further improvements are necessary to make the models more effective. The Negotiation Model The following is the breakdown of the Negotiation Model as adapted from findlaw.com (as presented in the 4151-7152EBL attachment document). The Negotiation Model process is made up of three phases: the Pre-Bargaining Phase, the Bargaining Phase, and the Closure Phase. Each phase has various activities that are carried out in the process of negotiation. The activities carried out in each phase are described below. Phase I: Pre-Bargaining Phase In this phase, the following are considered. Information. Before negotiations begin, information on the problem is required. Each of the parties involved identify the information that they require from the other party. Leverage Evaluation. It is important for one to evaluate the leverage that one has over the other party. At the same time, one identifies the leverage that the other party holds and by doing this, one is able to identify ways on how he or she can improve his or her leverage and/or reduce leverage of the other party. Analysis. In analysis, one analyses the underlying issues that necessitate the negotiations. Establishing rapport. At this stage, one connects with the opponent(s) to determine whether the negotiations are possible, and whether there is a need for a mediator to ensure that the negotiations will be successful. Goals and Expectations. At this stage, one identifies the goals that would be achieved from the negotiation as well as the outcomes that they expect. Type of Negotiation. The negotiation could be highly competitive, cooperative, face to face, mediated or in any other form and/or setting. One identifies the type of negotiation in order to be well prepared and to ensure favourable outcomes. Budget. Each and every negotiation has its particular costs. It is important to establish what the negotiation will cost as a preparation measure. Negotiation Plan. After establishing the above factors, the next step is coming up with a plan that takes into account all the above factors. The plan takes in consideration the leverage that one has, the goals and expectations, the type of negotiation anticipated as well as the cost of the negotiation. Phase II: Bargaining Phase Logistics. The first step in the bargaining phase is the determination of the logistical aspects such as where, when, and how the negotiations will take place. Determination of the logistics is especially important in negotiations that have many parties. Opening offers. The parties present the initial offers to each other. The best offer is usually presented last. This ensures that the negotiator makes the best out of the negotiation. Subsequent offers. Depending on the initial offers, further offers are ‘placed on the table’ by both sides. This is aimed at coming to a common ground where parties in each side feel that their needs are best served. Tactics. Negotiations are highly reliant on negotiation tactics. The tactics employed by the parties play an important role in determining the outcome of the negotiations. As Gosselin (2007) points out, tactics are actions that the negotiator uses to pursue specific objective(s) or to serve a particular purpose. Concessions. At this stage, the negotiator has to have determined the extent to which he or she will yield in the negotiation(s). The extent to which a negotiator will concede will depend on the goals and expectation of the negotiator. A negotiator will not concede what will compromise the objectives of the negotiation. Resolution. The negotiators must come to a conclusion from the negotiation. The outcome may be either positive or negative to the parties. The negotiation may fail to achieve its earlier intended objectives. Phase III: Closure Phase Logistics. Logistics in the closure phase determine how and when the negotiation will come to an end. It may determine whether future negotiations will be necessary or whether the parties require a mediator to achieve the objectives and/or bypass the barriers encountered. Documentation. The negotiation outcomes may be documented as a record if necessary. This is necessary in the more official negotiations. Emotional Closure. Emotional closure ensures that the underlying interests and needs of the parties are addressed before the negotiating parties’ part. It is necessary to ensure that the negotiators take the responsibility to ensure that the agreement is sustained. Implementation. The measures or activities that are agreed upon in the negotiation are implemented marking the end of the negotiation process. It is important to follow up on the implemented agreement to ensure that the negotiation decisions are being implemented as agreed. It is important to note that all the steps may not necessarily be applied in all negotiations. Negotiation in Interpersonal Communication Negotiations are necessary when incompatibility of interest exists between parties who must seek a settlement through a concession exchange until an agreement is reached (Hargie & Dickson, 2004). It therefore relies on influencing the other party in order for people to achieve their objectives. The major functions of negotiations are to provide the parties with the opportunity to present their arguments, to support their cases and to state their preferences as well as appreciate the views and arguments of the other side (Hargie & Dickson, 2004). To review the Negotiation Model, the following interpersonal communication theories will be used. The theories are the social penetration theory, relational dialectics theory, and uncertainty reduction theory. Social Penetration Theory The social penetration theory was forwarded by Altman and Taylor in 1973. As Crisp and Turner (2010) inform, it offers an explanation on why and how friendships develop. They add that the theory focuses on the role of self-disclosure that involves a person giving their personal information to another person. According to the theory, at the early stages, the parties involved will only share minimal information from where they decide whether they are comfortable with each other, after which they provide more information about themselves. Husain and Kureshi (1998) reported that social penetration occurs through verbal, non-verbal, and situational levels of behaviour which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Negotiation Model requires that the parties know more about each other prior to starting the negotiation process. As Borchers (1999) asserted, disclosing personal information involves risk and vulnerability for the person sharing their personal information. This is because there is a sense of uncertainty in revealing information that may sooner or later be used in a negative way by the other party. Self-disclosure has several stages, namely orientation, exploratory affective, affective exchange, and the stable stages. According to Sprecher et al (2008), the orientation stage is the initial stage where people meet. It is characterised by sharing of little information and the people involved are still trying to determine whether they are compatible with each other. In the second stage, the people involved share more information about themselves. However, the information shared at this stage is not regarded as important by the person providing it. In the affective exchange stage, people share more information that is important to them. The information is of a more personal nature and the people involved will only reach this stage if they feel that they can trust the other person(s). In the stable stage, information of a personal nature is shared freely and the people involved have formed a relationship and understanding that allows them to predict the behaviour and reactions of each other. The strengths of this theory lie in the fact that it can be applied to face-to-face interpersonal communications as well as in determining the risks in interpersonal relationships. The major weakness of the theory is the fact that it does not take into account the factors that affect the level of self-disclosure, such as demographic and cultural features. Individual aspects such as beliefs, values, and experiences may also determine the extent to which a person is willing to share personal information. Limitations of the Negotiation Model in the Context of the Social Penetration Theory The Negotiation Model depends on the gathering of information about the opposite party prior to the beginning of the actual negotiation. It is important for a person to know more about the other party in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses that they can take advantage of and/or exploit. As Churchman (1995) suggested, preparation for a negotiation includes learning as much as possible about the opponents. Applying the ‘Best Approach’ Negotiation Model may be inappropriate in the negotiation process, because the parties may not be able to gather enough personal information about the opponent that is relevant to the negotiation process. As noted earlier, people will avoid giving personal information to others and they will not give information about themselves that may be used against them later, because negotiations involve identifying weaknesses in the opponent which is then used against them to achieve their objectives. People who intend to enter into a negotiation will hence retain their personal information as much as possible while at the same time look for all possible ways to acquire the personal information of their opponents. The theory argues that the self-disclosure goes through several stages in which the amount of personal information shared is increased. Moreover, negotiations are usually time bound and will frequently require a quick conclusion. This therefore limits the applicability of the negotiation model, because the negotiators may not have the time necessary for them to gather enough information about their opponents. Other than gathering information about the opponents, limitations may include the difficulty for the opponents to evaluate the leverage that they have or the leverage that the opponents may hold. Other difficulties include establishing rapport with the opponent, analysing the underlying issues, determining the expected type of negotiation (that is, whether confrontational, competitive, etc.) and determining the negotiation plan. Uncertainty Reduction Theory The Uncertainty Reduction Theory was proposed by Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese in their paper ‘Some Exploration in Initial Interaction and Beyond: Toward a Developmental Theory of Interpersonal Communication’ in 1975 to explore and explain how relationships are developed between perfect strangers. As Dainton and Zelley (2010) inform, the uncertainty reduction theory highlights that there is a lot of ambiguity within social life. According to Dainton and Zelley, the theory assumes that the paramount reason for communication is to minimise the uncertainties in the world. The second assumption of the theory is that uncertainty is experienced by all individuals regularly and that the experience of uncertainty is unpleasant. The third assumption of the uncertainty reduction theory is that the main method of reducing uncertainty is communication. Essentially, the theory argues that when faced with uncertainty, people will seek more information, inevitably through communication. This is because they would like to predict and be able to modify behaviour. According to the theory, strangers upon meeting go through several steps to learn more about each other and in the process reduce uncertainty by establishing what the other likes and dislikes. Littlejohn and Foss (2009) noted that the higher the level of uncertainty, the greater the distance between people. They added that the distance can be closed by reducing the uncertainty between the people through the use of verbal and non-verbal communication. The underlying assumption of the theory is that an individual will be able to identify the existence of uncertainty and will take the necessary steps to minimise it. Uncertainty can be reduced actively by looking or asking for information about the other person, passively through observations, and interactively through self-disclosure. The theory has been criticised on the basis that the initial concern of individuals is to maximise the relation outcome rather than to reduce uncertainty (West & Turner, 2007). Limitations of the Negotiation Model in the Context of the Uncertainty Reduction Theory As discussed earlier, for a negotiator to achieve maximum outcome from a negotiation, information about the opponent is vital. The theory points out that people have to go through steps to learn about each other to reduce uncertainty. Negotiations on the other hand are aimed at maximising the outcome for the individuals and people would hence seek to get the best out of the relationship rather than trying to reduce uncertainty. Furthermore, negotiation periods usually have a tight time schedule and it is therefore impossible for the opponents to learn or gather information about each other. It is important to reduce uncertainty before attempting to establish rapport with the opponent as well as in determining what to expect, the type of negotiation, and the negotiation plan. It would be impossible to have an effective emotional closure if the opponents have not taken steps to reduce uncertainty. Relational Dialectic Theory This theory was forwarded by Baxter (1988) and Rawlins (1988). The theory describes communication patterns in terms of endemic dialectical tensions that are present between relationship partners. The tensions arise due to contradicting emotional needs of the relationship patterns. The opposing values that create tensions in a relationship are paired as autonomy and connectedness, predictability and novelty, and transparency and privacy (Rawlins, 1998). Rawlins explains that in autonomy and connectedness, people strive for independence while at the same time they like attachment in a relationship. Conflict is generated when either the needs of the autonomy and independence infringe on the other, for example when the need for feeling connected conflicts with the need for being independent. On predictability and novelty, the theory reports that a relationship cannot exist in monotony, while at the same time stability is required for the relationship to be maintained. Lastly, information sharing between members of a relationship is necessary for further growth, whereas the members desiring privacy would feel encroached on by transparency. According to Miller (1995), the theory is based on contradiction, praxis, process, and totality. Miller (1995) supports Rawlins by pointing out that the theory is based on contradictions between opposition. According to Miller, the contradictions arise when the opposing values negate each other. In totality, Miller points out that the opposing values exist together in a relationship and that they cannot be separated from each other. The society is dynamic characterised by activities and changes and hence the theory must be evaluated with relation to the social processes (Miller, 2005). She points out that the dialectic tensions emerge through an active interaction and participation of the persons involved in the relationship and hence praxis which she describes as practical behaviour. The theory is effective in communication situations where behaviour in communication changes suddenly. The theory is important in understanding the communication rationale and patterns between individuals. Limitations of the Negotiation Model in the Context of the Relational Dialectic Theory The relational dialectic theory holds that in a communicative relationship, tensions will always arise. This is because there are continuous fluctuations in communication between individuals. It also holds that different needs of the people involved in a relationship will create tensions between them. As observed earlier, the Negotiation Model relies on the individuals coming to an agreement to resolve a particular problem. The tensions created by the different and dynamic needs of the participants would mean that the resolution stage in the bargaining phase of the Negotiation Model would be difficult to achieve, making the model less ‘best’. The tensions would affect the entire negotiation process hindering the development of a negotiation plan, offers, and concessions, in addition to imperilling resolution. Conclusion The ‘Best Practice Models’ are designed in such a manner that they are able to be applied to a wide variety of situations. The ‘Best Practice Models’ are offered as the solution to success in any given situation. Theoretically, the models take into account all the aspects that are encountered in particular situations. However, they do not always offer the best outcome, even if followed as designed. This is because the reality is comprised of many variables that the models do not and/or cannot take into account. The ‘Best Practice Models’ offer the better ways of doing things in most situations; however, they do not lead to the best possible solutions in all cases. Yet the models do offer a starting point from where modified models can be developed to deal with individual situations. Moreover, strict adherence to the ‘Best Practice Models’ may not provide the best solutions, because each particular situation is different, with different variables and expected outcomes, hence making the models inapplicable. It is therefore evident that building a customised model based on the ‘Best Practice Models’ to adapt to a particular situation is the best way to achieve the desired results rather than strictly adhering to them. References Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Baxter, L. A. (1988). A Dialectical Perspective of Communication Strategies in Relationship Development. In S. Duck. (Ed.) Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 257-273). New York: Wiley. Borchers, T. (1999). Interpersonal Communication. Retrieved May 26, 2010 from http://www.abacon.com/commstudies/interpersonal/indisclosure.html. Churchman, D. (1995). Negotiations: Process, Tactics, Theory (2nd ed.). Lanham, MA: University Press of America, Inc. Crisp, R. & Turner, R. (2010). Essential Social Psychology (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Dainton, M. & Zelley, E. (2010). Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life: A Practical Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Gosselin, T. (2007). Practical Negotiation: Tools, Tactics, and Techniques. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hargie, O. & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled Interpersonal Communication: Research, Theory and Practice (4th ed.). East Sussex: Routledge. Husain, A. & Kureshi, A. (1998). Dimensions of Interpersonal Attraction. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House. Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K. (2009). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, Inc. McCloskey, M. (1986). Tell it Often, Tell it Well. San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc. Miller, K. (2002). Communication Theories: Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Rawlins, W. (1988). A Dialectical Analysis of the Tensions, Functions and Strategic Challenges of Communication in Young Adult Friendships. In J. Anderson (Ed.). Communication Yearbook (157-189) Newbury, CA: Sage Publishing, Inc. Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A. & Harvey, J. (2007). Handbook of Relationship Initiation New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. West, R. & Turner, L. (2007). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Read More