Dimensional Negotiations

Arguably, negotiation is one of the most common methods of dispute resolution. The assumption that negotiation is a concept that is only useful in a conflict solving environment is a serious misconception. Apparently, negotiation is used in such environments as the political and the business fields. Notably, negotiation has been the most effective method of control sharing in the world of politics. Similarly, negotiation is applied in making of business contracts and setting of prices. Haggling is one of the most common types of negotiation in everyday business transactions. The aim of negotiation is mainly to establish a middle-ground with which either party is comfortable and contented. For a long time, people have always seen negotiation as a social theory that requires only skills and tactics during the round table meeting. However, modern day negotiators are using the revolutionary process of negotiation referred to as the 3-dimensional negotiation. This paper seeks to explain the elements of three dimensional negotiations as explained by Lax and Sebenius (2006).

According to lax and Sebenius (2006), negotiation is not effective if given the usual one dimension style. They argue that traditionally, negotiations entailed the use of tactics to either gain the advantage under the topic of conflict or have such benefit distributed among the concerned parties. The usual one dimensional approach to negotiations sought either a win-win result or a win-lose outcome. However, practically speaking, such outcomes could only create more conflict where the parties to the clash were more than two. Lax and Sebenius (2006) explain that one-dimensional approaches only stimulate more conflict and yield unsatisfactory deals. Much like a gambling game, one-dimensional techniques are not appropriate where the other party is the holder of all the cards. It is for this reason that the two scholars came up with the three dimensional approach.

The three dimensional system is a method of handling negotiations from three perspectives. According to the consultants, the three aspects of this approach are, The Tactics Dimension, The Deal Design Dimension and the Set up Dimension. In addition to these dimensions, Lax and Sebenius (2006) explained a final aspect referred to as the three dimensional audit. The three aspects of the strategy are designed in such a way that they cover the period before the negotiations, during the actual discussion and after the deal are sealed. The set up dimension takes place away from the negotiation grounds. The side concerns itself with the parties to conflict and the subject matter of the conflict. In evaluating this dimension, the planner or the negotiator focuses on the actual parties involved in the conflict as well as the potential participants.

In addressing the issue of the parties expected to attend the negotiation proceedings, the negotiator finds information on which to rely when planning the tactics. The set-up dimension is as well concerned with the subject matter of the negotiator. The negotiator seeks to establish ways in which the subject matter can be useful to them and how valuable they can be to the other party. The essence of this aspect then can be said to be the evaluation of the pie to be shared. Being a preliminary stage, the set-up section concerns itself with estimating the possible outcomes and expected maximum costs. Lax and Sebenius (2006) argue that, in every negotiation procedure, there are unavoidable costs. Either party should make a provision for such costs prior to the actual negotiation process. Among the essential preliminary steps are the arrangements to hold private consultations with the key parties to the actual negotiations. This may involve the process of identifying the correct sequence of events, as well as, the hierarchy to be observed. Lax and Sebenius (2006) summarized this aspect as the process that concerns itself with doing the correct things, and doing them right.

The second dimension - the deal design - concerns itself with the events that take place both at and away from the table of negotiation. The deal design should be in such a manner that it takes into consideration the interests of both parties. As such the negotiator is expected to unveil the intentions of the other party. This will enable them to be more realistic in laying down their strategies and listing their expectations. According to Lax and Sebenius (2006), the negotiator should plan in such a way that the negotiations move north east on a Cartesian plane. This is to suggest that one side of the plane represents the planner's interests while the other scale represents the interests and intentions of the other. In moving north east, Lax and Sebenius (2006) meant that both parties' interests are catered for. Additionally, the deal design should be in such a way that the deals made are long lasting and unalterable.

Tactics, which make up the last dimension, are the real, convincing techniques applied at the negotiating table in both creating and claiming a fair share of the pie. The tactics should be strong and capable of winning the interests of the negotiator. Lax and Sebenius (2006) argue that the negotiator ought to listen actively, study carefully and apply relevant questions in order to achieve a competitive bargaining power. In addition to the above three discussed dimensions, the negotiator should carry out an assessment referred to as the three dimensional audit. This assessment is designed to expose the potential problem relating to the actual deal. After revealing the problems, negotiator should come up with an effective strategy to deal with such hiccups.

Morgan is a writer who works with Uk Best Writing service, He has experience of more than ten years in acdemic writing. He provides students with Uk research papers, essays writing service UK and Uk essay service online.

Source: http://articles.submityourarticle.com/dimensional-negotiations-308261

jazz fest zurich classic selena lamichael james lamichael james derrick rose acl