An unavoidable fact of business life is the art or act of negotiations. Businesses in public, -private, and non-profit domine participate in this endeavor. Many negotiations, primarily internal, are high-stress and high-demand activities. This activity can start before the designated negotiator is even aware. According to negotiation (2020), negotiation occurs between two or more independent parties who have a perceived conflict between their needs and desires yet believe a negotiated outcome is superior to what they could achieve unilaterally (p. 76). The definition indicates that the cooperation required between the primary entities for the activity to have any chance of success.
A significant portion of the population views negotiations as an adversarial endeavor in which the winner walks away with everything. In contrast, the other walks away with nothing in a zero-sum game. There is some accuracy to this mindset. However, generally, both parties tend to walk away satisfied. The ability to participate in a process that allows one to measure worth to the company, peers, and themselves proved the overarching feeling of satisfaction to the negotiator.
Generally, negotiations fall into two distinct categories. The first negotiation strategy is distributive negotiation. The zero-sum theory indicates the winner takes all marks in this negotiation style. The working assumption is that the winner gets everything, and the loser gets nothing. According to Park et al. (2019), It works under a zero-sum condition and suggests that any gains of one party are made at the expenditure of the other and vice versa (P. 2). The bottom line of this style is to win as or gain as much as possible. One characteristic of the distributive negotiation process is the attempt to negotiate over such things as automobiles and furniture.
The second is integrative negotiation. This style of negotiation is the most equitable form of negotiation. According to Benetti et al. (2021), integrative negotiation strategy, parties explore options to increase the size of the joint gain before focusing on the division of payoffs (p. 788). This style allows both parties to leave the negotiation table with an equitable agreement because the environment during the negotiation process was one of mutual agreement and not an adversarial procedure, creating the groundwork for long-term collaboration.
Every negotiator has a strategy they try to implement during the negotiation before entering the process. For many negotiations, silence is a tool effectuated by one side to induce uncertainty, thus making the other negotiator uncomfortable and forcing an adverse reaction. Curhan et al. (2022), silence is defined as periods during which neither party is speaking for a noticeable duration of time (p.80). The periods of silence can vary and are subject to immediate evaluation of their effectiveness. This tool is a standard practice among professionals in the field. In distributive negotiations with a zero-sum nature, they must be utilized to win in an adversarial environment.
Internal negotiation is a process that businesses of all sizes and fields enter with the employees at one point or another. In many instances, the type of negotiations’ is entered into the duration, effectiveness, relationship, and overall experience may be affected. Distributive negotiations exhibit an adversarial tactic whose overall goal is to win it all or lose it all (zero-sum), which leaves little room for relationship building for later negotiations. Integrative negotiation is the opposite of Distributive negotiations in which it attempts to reach a mutually agreed upon agreement with both sides getting a level of satisfaction. Internal negotiation does not need to reach a level of formal combat communication is critical for a successful relationship-building endeavor.