CONFLICT CYCLE IN RIM
- ANTICIPATION:
This is the first stage of conflict cycle .This step starts when management has an idea that the productivity and profitability of RIM is effected as both developers and certification departments have their own objectives and they want to achieve that rather than the goals of the organization.
- WAIT AND SEE:
Management waited before taking any action to get a lot of information related to both departments i.e. what each of them actually want and what is the main cause of conflict.
- GROWING:
Instead of any settlement, the conflict grew as the main objective of the developers was to acquire bonuses if they complete their tasks before specified time but they were informed late of the errors related to software .As a result of this, the tempo of their innovation work would be broken and they could not get bonuses.
On the other hand certification department’s main goal was to acquire competitive department bonuses by providing their task done. So, they sent the errors to other departments fro rectification late, just to prove that the certification department was more efficient in completing the work.
- IN THE OPEN:
The management took notice of the issue and decided to sort out the matter as it was affecting the performance of whole organization. So they decided to eliminate competitive bonuses. But at this stage, the main conflict emerged. Once the departmental bonus got eliminated, certification team started focusing on the organizational benefit. They were concerned about the efficiency bonus that would be granted in case of the production process being completed before the deadline. So the certification team wanted all departments to complete the rectification in time, so that the product cycle could be completed early. The developers were of the view that the software testing should be done in the beginning or an intermediate process should be introduced to check the compatibility of the software with the phone wherein members of the certification department would work in collaboration with the developers and check the software on the spot so that they can resolve any problems and later on might not be interrupted during the development process of new software. The certification team was of the view that the software testing cannot be made the first phase of the testing procedure because the phone functionality had to be checked first. The software then had to be modified according to that. Moreover, the second option of having a certification person work with the developers was not acceptable to them because they held the stand that they were already short of members and they would not be able to complete their certification process in time, even if a single member left.
So this was the main reason of the conflict.
- APPLICATION:
The management was concerned about the issue as it held their productivity at stake. The departments themselves wanted to resolve the issue, since their bonuses were at stake. Therefore, they decided to negotiate the issue in the presence of the management. The negotiation conveyed the following results with the mutual agreement of both the parties:
- To create database.
- Hiring project coordinators.
- Permanent transfer of a member of certification department by developers who could perform testing of software and permanent transfer of a developer to the certification department to rectify after assemblage errors.
- SETTLEMENT:
As a result of this mutually agreed upon decision, the antagonistic and unfriendly feeling among the departments were reduced, healthy working environment was established .So, in organization feeling of affection prevailed.
- REFLECTION:
Both departments learnt from the conflict. Instead of focusing on individual goals, they aligned their goals in one perspective i.e. to raise the productivity of organization and to get competitive advantage over others.
___________________________________________
DUAL CONCERN MODEL
From the perspective of the developers, it is a contending strategy where they are concerned about their own outcomes and objectives and not the interest of others. The certification team on the other hand is utilizing a problem solving strategy, wherein they want their goals to be met and the goals of the developers to be met because they believe that ultimate productivity and the efficiency bonus is dependent upon the well-functioning of each department.
How is the current situation characterized as a negotiation situation??
There are certain characteristics in this situation which classify the series of talks as negotiations. The characteristics are as follows:
-
There are two parties involved in the process. One is certification department and the other is the developers’ department of RIM.
-
Conflict of interest present between both the parties i.e. the interest of both the parties are divergent. The certification team wants the developers to provide them with fully tested software compatible with the phones so that the production process can be completed well ahead of time whereas the developers want the certification team to inform them of any errors in the software before the beginning of the of their new software development phase which is against the interests of the certification team since only after when the phone functionality has been tested would the software testing and modification take place.
- Negotiation is voluntary, both the parties want to negotiate because they think they can use some form of influence to get better deal. The certification team wants to negotiate so that they can influence the developers to provide fully tested software that are compatible with the phone model and in case any malfunction occurs at the end, the certification team expeditiously handles it by allocating some people especially for this purpose. The developers want to negotiate because they believe that they would be able to influence the certification team to perform the testing of software early so that they can deal with any malfunctions well before the new software development phase starts so as to avoid any interruptions in that phase.
-
Both the parties expect to give and take in the negotiation process. The developers as well as the certification team expect to modify their initial offer and give concessions to each other.
-
This negotiation process involves the management of both tangibles and intangibles. The certification team has its tangible goals at stake (bonus for the entire department) whereas the developer team has its tangible (bonus for the development of novel and innovative software) and its intangible (reputation before the management) goals at stake.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
- ASSEMBLING THE ISSUES AND DEFINING THE BARGAINING MIX
- KNOWING YOUR LIMITS AND ALTERNATIVES
- SETTING TARGETS AND OPENINGS
- ANALYZING THE OTHER PARTY
STRATEGY TO BE USED
- PLANNING THE PRESENTATION OF ISSUES TO THE OTHER PARTY
- WHAT PROTOCOL NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE NEGOTIATION
NEGOTIATION LEVERAGE
Power is the ability to bring out the outcomes one desires. Power is a relational concept; it does not reside in the individual but rather in the relationship of the individual to the environment. Power is the potential of an individual to alter the attitudes and behaviors of others and influence is power in action. Both the parties had some power in terms of control over resources and in a sense, this leverage was balanced. The developers had the power in terms of control over time; they had the ability to meet deadlines. The certification team on the other hand had the ability to control a deadline. The certification team had the power in terms of critical resources i.e. the verification and testing of parts whereas the developers had control over the critical service of repair. Similarly both the parties had power in terms of control over providing interpersonal support. Both parties could provide verbal praise and encouragement to each other for good performance.
THE DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING COMPONENT OF THE CASE: The components of bargaining situation:
FUNDAMENTAL STRATEGY
The fundamental strategies being used by the developers are:
1. Initially there is a negative bargaining range. Therefore, the fundamental strategy in this case is to get the other party to change his or her resistance point to create a positive settlement range or to modify one’s own resistance point to create an overlap. The certification team is not willing to give minimally more than what the developers are demanding and vice versa. However, we see that later through negotiation, the parties change their resistance points. The developers recognize the underlying interest of the other party and modify their subsequent offer and their resistance point. When the parties negotiate, they get to know about each other’s underlying interests and needs. The developers recognize that the certification team does not want a delay in its process since it would affect their bonuses and that is why they are not willing to release an individual from their department to work with the developers. Therefore, they decide to send an individual from their department to the certification department permanently since they would not have to deal with after- assemblage malfunctions since then the certification team would have a technical person to deal with the faults on its own. The certification team also realizes that the basic interest of the developers is their innovation bonus, for which they do not want to be disturbed during the software development phase and that they want a person from the certification team so that he can certify the software at an initial stage before assemblage so that they can be free from this responsibility and their reputation before the management remain intact and elevated. Since both parties agreed to exchange individuals, that would solve problems for both of them without soaring costs of any department, they agree to this solution.
2. The second fundamental strategy utilized is to get the certification team to believe that this settlement is the best that is possible. The developers made the certification team realize that by exchanging personnel, none of them is bearing any additional costs with their productivity being enhanced. The person in the certification team who was responsible for superficial testing would now be replaced by a software technician who could test it analytically and deeply and rectify it without requiring it to send back to the developers; the activity of sending it back for rectification delayed the production process. The developers would satisfied too since they would have no obstacles during the innovation phase and this would help them develop better innovative and competitive software that would in turn benefit the company and its employees at large.
DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING IN THE CASE
The developers retorted to the use of distributive bargaining in the negotiation process with the certification department. They viewed it as a win loose situation, wherein either they could achieve their goals or the certification department could achieve their goals.
The initial offer of the developer’s department to the certification department was to transfer of a person to the developers’ department to perform the testing initially with costs being borne by the certification department in full. They put this demand forth so that they could be rendered free from the responsibility of software rectification once it had been completed by their department. The main target that they had in mind was that the certification department would take up the responsibility of the software testing and rectification after assemblage so that the developers could focus on new software development phase and secure the substantially large innovation bonus.
The developers had a belligerent and competitive attitude during the negotiation. Even though, the developers had as much a pressing need for the resolution of the problem as the certification department did but they wanted their demands to be accepted first and foremost. They were not concerned about the needs of all the departments. All what mattered to them was to acquire an outcome that would secure their innovation bonus. On the other hand the certification team had a moderate attitude. They were concerned with the needs of all the departments and they wanted to resolve the problem of the certification team at the same time so that the organizational productivity on the whole could be increased.
The offer of the developers to send a person from the certification department was countered by the offer of the certification department to ensure the rectification of the software within 7 days of the returning of the malfunctioned software, however they minimized the possibility of sending an employee to the developer department. The certification department however highlighted the possibility of extending the period of rectification to 3 more days. This however, was not acceptable to the developers and at that point the negotiation reached an impasse. This was the point where the management intervened and pressurized both the parties to resolve the conflict amicably so that the company’s productivity would not be affected and threatened to decrease the bonuses of both the departments in case they escalated the tension.
Both the parties again returned to the negotiation table. This time the certification team said that they would send an employee to the developers department but then the significant costs would have to be borne by the developers. The developers did not agree upon this either. The certification team explained to them that they were already short of employees and even a single employee deficient would significantly lead to a decline in their productivity.
The certification team, then put forth their final offer, i.e. they said that they would transfer an employee to the developers provided that the developers provide them with an employee on permanent basis too so as to make up for the loss of human resource. The open communication on part of the certification team had communicated well to the developers department that it was impossible and not feasible to transfer an employee without its replacement. Since the developers, were not short of employees but had a handsome amount, they agreed to this proposal of the certification team that established a mutually beneficial trade off. The developers achieved their goal of liberating them from the responsibility of after assemblage software rectification and the certification team saw the possibility of quick rectification of software when they would have a developer in their own department to repair it.
Both the parties established commitment to the final offer by increasing the prominence of demands. Both the parties assured each other of the commitment, handed over the written statement, read aloud the statements, circulated it to all the members and then got it signed by the management.
The deal was amicably closed and no differences were there to be split up between the two parties and no exploding offers. However, the sweetener added to the offer by the certification team was that they would put up an offer to the management for the hiring of a project coordinator to improve the communication between the parties. In return the developers proposed to set up a database for which the approval would be obtained from the management. Through it, they could update the status of the software developed in their department so that the certification team could easily check it.
BATNA
A factor that has the potential to affect the resistance points of the parties is BATNA i.e. best alternative to negotiated agreement. In this case none of the parties have a BATNA. They do realize that negotiating with each other and agreeing over a mutual solution is the only way to resolve the conflict and to increase individual department’s productivity. Both the parties know that the other party has no BATNA available, due to which none of them can exercise additional influence in terms of BATNA on the other party. None of the parties are in a position to leave the negotiation table. So they are in a pressing need to negotiate with each other for the achievement of their goals.
RESISTANCE POINT
DISCOVERING THE RESISTANCE POINT OF THE OTHER PARTY:
The developers basically wanted to obtain as much information about the other party as possible so as to have an idea about their resistance points. On the other hand, they themselves were concealing and manipulating information. They did not want the other party to know that they were willing to bear partial costs of the employee to be transferred to their department. However, since the certification team had an integrative stance, they wanted to have a free flow of communication. They revealed considerable information to the developers regarding their resistance points and their underlying interests and needs. Therefore, the developers on realizing the underlying interests of the other party and that they could not agree in any case to the transfer of an employee while bearing its significant costs, modified their resistance points and subsequent offers, since they needed a settlement as badly as the certification team.
INFLUENCING THE RESISTANCE POINT OF THE OTHER PARTY:
1. The developers knew that the certification department needed a settlement quickly and they themselves needed a settlement hastily too, therefore keeping both these factors in view, they set a moderate resistance point.
2. The developers knew that the value that both parties attach to the outcome of the negotiation is high; therefore this also led to a moderate resistance point for the developers.
TACTICAL TASKS
1. Assess outcome values and the costs of termination:
The developers tried to gather information about the certification team’s outcome values and resistance point. Since the certification team was using an integrative strategy, they were very clear and direct about the information they were providing along with its justifications. Since the party itself was providing accurate information, so the developers retorted to the route of direct assessment. In this case the certification team directly told the developers about their resistance point that they could not send an employee without its total costs being borne by the developers supporting it with explanation of the constraints it would impose on their ability to certify and release the product in time or well ahead of time, causing all the department to loose hands on the bonus.
2. Manage the other party’s impression:
The developers made sure not to reveal their resistance points to the certification team while guiding them to form a preferred impression of them. For this they performed two actions discussed below:
1. SCREENING ACTIVITES:
a) The developers screened the position by saying and doing as little as possible, they preferred silence while the other part revealed information about them. Silence gave them time to concentrate on gathering information from the other part, which was useful in evaluating their resistance point and evaluating the best way to provide information to the other party about one’s own position.
2. DIRECT ACTION TO ALTER THE IMPRESSIONS OF THE OTHER PARTY:
To prove the validity of their own position, the developers made the certification team realize that if they were in the shoes of the developers and they were asked to complete the testing within a week of returning the malfunctions when they were busy in the development of new software, it would disrupt their functioning and would give stress to the employees due to the hard time constraint and the pressure of performing two jobs simultaneously.
3. MODIFY THE OTHER PARTY’S PERCEPTION:
A negotiator can alter the other party’s impression of his own objectives by making the outcomes appear less attractive or by making the cost of obtaining the outcomes appear higher. The developers told the certification team that even if they bore the costs of the new employee, the certification department might not necessarily be able to hire a person at the same wage rate and then he might not be as much functional and productive for them as would a replacement from the developers be, since it would make work easier for them.
HARDBALL TACTICS
Hardball tactics are designed to pressure targeted parties to do things they otherwise would not do. The only hardball tactic that the developers used in their negotiation with the certification department was intimidation. Intimidation takes place when you attempt to force the other party to agree by means of an emotional ploy, usually anger or fear. However the form of intimidation that the developers used was that they questioned the integrity of the certification team and displayed their lack of interest in the certification department’s intentions. Whenever the certification department exerted that they wanted expeditious handling of the defectives from the developers for the benefit of all departments, they would question their good intentions by quoting the previous incident where the certification department at times forwarded the defectives late to the respective departments to secure the departmental bonus. The main reason for using this tactic was to engage the other party in oodles of guilt so that they would be unable to focus on their substance of the negotiation. However the certification team, taking on an integrative strategy, discussed the tactic with the other party. They proposed a shift to a less aggressive method of negotiation and suggested more productive methods that allowed both parties to achieve.
__________________________________________________
THE INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING COMPONENT IN THE CASE
The conflict between the developers and certification teams was more inclined toward the integrative negotiation .The certification team had an integrative approach because they were not only focusing on their own interests but also on company’s interest and its overall goals and profits. In addition to this the third party mediation i.e. the management which also wanted to reach a common ground significant for both the parties
KEY STEPS IN THE INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION PROCESS
IDENTIFY AND DEFINE THE PROBLEM
Define the problem in a way that is mutually acceptable to both sides
The problem should not be stated in a way that is depicting ones own interests and priorities. It should be stated in a way that it is mutually acceptable to both the parties. The certification team stated the problem is a neutral way that the negligence of both the parties is leading to a delay in the production process which in turn does not reap any bonus for any of the departments and affects the productivity of the organization on the whole.
State the problem with an eye toward practicality and comprehension
There were several issues in our scenario and the parties decided that they will be approached as one large problem. The problem was that the new software phase of the developers was being interrupted which was also essential for the organizational performance in order to provide it a competitive edge and for the certification team to provide them with innovation bonus. On the other hand the delay in the product cycle was leading to a deferred launch of the products in the market again affecting the productivity and for the departments leading to no bonus. Both these problems were being addressed as a large problem that was to be eradicated to enhance the organizational prosperity and success.
State the problem as a goal and identify the obstacles to attaining this goal.
The parties defined the problem as a specific goal to be attained that is completing project on time and minimizing the cost of defects. When the goal is defined only then the party will see where the problem lies, why delays occur and what should be done to minimize the defect. The goal in our case was to reduce the product cycle time and to allocate sufficient time to the product innovation process. However, the hindrance to the achievement of this goal was that software was to be tested in the end by the certification team and then the developers also took considerable time to repair them because their main focus at that point of time would be software innovation.
Depersonalize the problem
The certification team had properly depersonalized the problem by stating “we have different viewpoints” about our conflict. The developers wanted to reduce their cost of hire by having an employee from certification department while certification team was of the view of minimizing the defects and swift rectification of defects. So certification team said that our main goal is timely project completion and reducing the cost of new hire as well as defects.
Separate the problem definition from the search for solution
The certification team stated that we have to do everything that is in the best interest of organization and results in increasing RIM profits and also result in minimizing the number of rejects.
UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM FULLY-IDENTIFY INTERSTS AND NEEDS
In our case the developers’ interest was to have an employee from the certification department on the other hand certification team doesn’t want to send an employee to developers. Then management then asked why developers want to have employee from certification team and why certification team don’t want to send one.
Then developer said they want to have an employee from certification who could do the testing when the product processing is done in their department rather then hiring a new employee of which they had to bear the cost.
While the certification team said that they cannot send an employee to developers because they then will run short of employee which will in turn lead to late project completion.
The certification team with the intervention of management came to recognize possible compatibilities in interests that permit them to invent new options that both will endorse which was done by exchanging an employee between the two departments that will satisfy developers need of employee and reducing their cost of new hire along with satisfying certification team by having an employee in exchange so that they don’t run short of employees.
GENERATE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
Inventing options
The certification team had used this technique of generating alternative solutions by redefining the problem. The certification team had used the following technique
Find a bridge solution
In this technique parties are able to invent new options that meet their respective needs. In our case as developers want to have an employee from certification team they will get one while certification team will run short of employees for testing so they will be getting an employee from developers. So exchanging employees will satisfy both parties needs.
EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The certification team offered developers with following solution
- Exchanging employees
- Hiring coordinator
- Reward enforcement
Narrowing Range of Solution Options
The management removed the reward enforcement solution because it was distracting the focus of departments from organization perspective to department’s perspective.
Evaluate Solutions
Exchanging employees will help in timely completion of project along with cost reduction. Last but not the least is the project coordinator which will maintain a proper communication between the departments.
Agree to Criteria in Advance of Evaluating Options:
Initially, criteria were different for both parties. Management had then told both the parties about the main criteria that were agreed upon by the parties were
- Increasing profit of organization
- Timely completion of project
- Reducing cost
The selection of these alternatives would be providing them with a better future.
Willing to Justify Personal Preference
The certification team viewed the success of organization as their primary goal with a justification that timely completion of projects will ultimately lead to increased profits for organization. On the other hand when developers were asked to defend their argument, they did not respond that overtly for that.
Be Alert to the Influence of Intangibles in Selecting Options
The certification team was readily aware of the fact that the increased profits for organization may make them feel that they might gain recognition.
Take time to cool off
The parties’ communication was broken down although everything was communicated related to the options and alternatives between the parties. At that time, management tried to fill up the communication gap.
Exploit Differences in Time Preference
The developers were focused on short term needs as they were only focusing on getting an employee from certification team for that particular project. But certification team wanted to completely remove the problem. So they decided to permanently exchange employee between their departments.
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Minimize Formality and Record Keeping Until Final Agreements Are Closed
The certification team did not pressurize the developers into finalizing the deal as soon as they had selected their alternatives. They wanted them to perceive a friendly image and thus did not act formally by demanding them to sign their compliance.
WHAT MAKES INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION DIFFERENT?
- Focusing on commonalities rather than differences
- Management and certification team both were trying to focus on commonalities of the parties that was to prevent the delay of the production completion since it would be in the best interests of the company and employees.
- Addressing needs and interest, not positions
- The certification team was dealing with needs and interests which were the bonuses which will be given on timely completion of the projects to all the departments working on that particular project. In addition to this, they were tackling the situation in a way that would be in best interest of RIM and employees.
- Meeting the needs of all involved parties
- The certification team was trying to work out the situation in a way that will be beneficial for both the parties. In trying to do so they had rejected the offer of developers that was of sending employees to the certification team because that would delay the entire certification process and hence lead to late project completion clutching the bonuses of all departments.
- Exchanging information and ideas
- The information was exchanged between the parties with the help of email and face to face communication under the supervision of the management. First both the parties interacted with each other and tried to resolve the conflict at its best on their own. Later on the management intervened during impasse to facilitate them in achieving their goal which was in best interests of both the parties.
- Inventing options for mutual gain
- In this scenario, the certification team proposed to exchange employees between their department and developers which will result in cost reduction of both the departments which was in contrast to the proposal given by developers who wanted certification team to send the employee to their department that will reduce their cost which was at expense of the certification team. So certification team worked on mutual gain.
FRAMING IN NEGOTIATION
Frames define a person, event, or process and separate if from complex world around it. Reality is same but everyone view /perceive it differently. In the certification and developers’ team conflict, both negotiating parties used more than one frame consciously or unconsciously.
Certification Team Perspective
The certification team has its own set of priorities and they have formed frames which suited best to their needs, interest and ideas. They were not only considering the organizational development but also focusing on their relations with the other department and were concerned about the other departments’ needs as well.
Frames Used
The certification team tried to cope up with issue by using more then one frame which includes:
- Outcome frame
- Aspiration frame
- Process frame
- Gain Frame
The certification team was interested in the on time completion of projects. Their goal was also the completion of cell phone model before time in order to acquire efficiency bonus.
The certification team was interested in satisfying a broader set of needs and interest so that these interests can lead to joint outcome i.e. the achievement of organizational efficiency and effectiveness. They were not interested in achieving a specific result rather was focusing on satisfying a broader set of needs. They were not only focused about their own needs but also tried to know what the developers’ team was demanding so that they can come to a point which can best satisfy both parties demand.
The certification team also had a strong process frame as they were highly concerned about how the conflict will be resolved. They wanted to maintain good relations with the other departments as their tasks were interdependent upon each other. They evaluated the options from the developers from a gain frame, hence, implies that they evaluated each option from the perspective of it being a mutually beneficial one.
Developers’ Perspective:
The developers’ were of the view that the certification team was not working in the best interests of the organization as it was more concerned with its own outcomes (bonuses). The developers’ department was concerned with its own outcomes a well as the organizations’ outcomes at large.
Frames Used
Employees tried to cope up with issue by using more than one frame which includes:
- Outcome Frame
- Substantive Frame
- Characterization Frame
- Loss frame
The developers’ team was also interested in the generation of innovative software primarily to secure innovation bonus. They were also using substantive frame because their focus was to establish their rapport and credibility and status as capable and efficient technologists and software developers and to secure the company management’s and the customer’s recognition of their work and their contribution to the company’s profit as the most valuable and indispensable department or success.
Another frame used by the developing department was Characterization frame. The perspective of the developers was that the Certification department had been selfish to the other departments earlier and that they were not acting in the best interests of the company. Their goal was only to acquire as many competitive bonuses as possible. They were not interested in the completion of the entire process before time because the bonus acquired in that way would have to be distributed among a large number of departments. This caused the developers’ department to be defensive. The developers were using a loss frame. They evaluated each option in terms of loss. However as the negotiated proceeded and there was a free flow of communication from the side of the certification team, the frame of the developers changed. They began to characterize the other party as led negative and the final offer from the certification team was viewed from a gain frame.
WHAT WAS COMMUNICATED DURING NEGOTIATION
Offer and counter offers:
The developer’s department wanted a person from certification department to perform the testing initially with costs being borne by the certification department in full
The certification team said that they would send an employee to the developers department but then the significant costs would have to be borne by the developers. The certification team explained to them that they were already short of employees and even a single employee deficient would significantly lead to a decline in their productivity.
Information about alternatives:
Both the parties know that the other party has no BATNA available, due to which none of them can exercise additional influence in terms of BATNA on the other party.
Information about outcomes:
How negotiators evaluated their outcome. Both the negotiators knew in advance that how the other party felt and evaluated their perceived outcomes. The actual outcomes, too, led to equal satisfaction for both the parties
Social accounts:
The certification team made use of social accounts to explain things to the other party. The certification team used explanations of exonerating circumstances: they said that although their initial offer might seem negative to the developers but it derives from a positive base and that positive base is that it would in turn lead to a bonus not only for their department but also all other departments including the developers.
HOW PEOPLE COMMUNICATED IN NEGOTIATION:
Use of language:
In negotiation, language operates at two levels:
- The logical level (for proposals or offers)
- The pragmatic level (semantics, syntax and style).
Employees were using the logical and pragmatic level of language for offers, counter offers, concessions etc throughout the negotiation process. Employees were intended to compel the management to accept their demands.
Selection of communication channel:
The certification department and the developers department used different communication channels like face-to-face interaction; telephonic communication and e-mails. But the main negotiation sessions took place face-to-face, since it was the most effective medium of communication with highest social presence.
The use of questions:
Both the parties during the negotiation used a variety of manageable and unmanageable questions. The developers used manageable questions to gather information about the other party. They made use of leading questions, pointing towards and answer (Don’t you think that exchange of employees between the two departments would solace us both? Don’t you think that by exchanging employees, both us would get what we want); window questions, aid in looking into the other person’s mind (What makes you assume the position you are holding?); directive questions, focusing on specific points (Why can not you transfer an employee to our department?). They also used unmanageable questions. For instance a kind of reflective trick question that they used to reflect the other into agreeing with their point of view was: Here is how we see the situation: you can not send a person to us because you are short of people and we also need a person from your side to work with us. What are we giving you the person you want and you give us the person we want. This won’t decrease your labor count. Don’t you agree?
The certification team also used a few manageable questions. Since they held a cooperative stance, they used gauging questions to ascertain how the other party was feeling (How do you feel about our proposal?) and cool questions to lower emotionality (What can we do for you if you agree to complete the rectification of the defective software within seven days??
COGNITIVE BIASES IN NEGOTIATION
Irrational escalation of commitment:
Initially when the negotiation started between both of the departments there was escalation of commitment observed from both side .this was due to lack of communication between them and they didn’t bother to gather information regarding needs, interest of the counter party. Employees perceived it according to their own perspective which led to rigid irrational commitments. They lost sight of the fact that productivity of each department is imperative for the success of the other department and the organization on the whole
Mythical fixed-pie belief:
At times negotiators believe that negotiations involve a fixed pie. There is no possibility for integrative settlements and mutually beneficial trade offs do not exist. The developers in this case were the ones holding the mythical fixed- pie beliefs. They believed that once developed they were not responsible for the software testing and that after-assemblage software rectification was a thing imposed on them for which they were not actually liable and their major work was the innovative software development. They believed that if they helped the certification team with the software rectification, that would put a halt to their innovation bonuses whereas actually, that could have made them eligible for the efficiency bonus and also established their rapport and efficiency before the management.
Framing biases
In decision theory terms, a frame is a perspective that people use when they gather information and solve problem. Frames can lead people to seek, avoid or be neutral about risk in decision making and negotiation solutions. The way that a negotiation is framed make people respond differently when they are negotiating to gain something rather than to lose something.
In this situation the developer’s team was not ready to bear the costs of the new member from the certification team, although, they were the ones who needed it. While on the other hand the certification person work with the developers was not acceptable to the certification team because they held the stand that they were already short of members and they would not be able to complete their certification process in time, even if a single member left but they also wanted the certification team to be more cooperative and prompt and swift in rectifying the erroneous software. Both the parties were framing the information from the perspective of loss.
Availability of information:
Negotiators must also be concerned with the potential bias caused by the availability of information. In negotiation, the availability bias operates when information that is presented in vivid, colorful or attendance getting ways becomes easier to recall and critical in evaluating events, people and options. Since earlier the certification department intentionally sent back the defectives to the respective departments for correction late to acquire the competitive bonus, the incident was a major factor challenging their commitment and loyalty to the organization. The incident was fresh in the minds of the developers, even after it had been resolved and this caused them to characterize the other party negatively and caused them to pursue a distributive strategy.
Self-serving biases:
People often explain another person behavior by making attribution, either to the person or to the situation. In explaining another person’s behavior is to over estimate the casual role of personal or internal factors and underestimate the casual role of situation or external factors. In this case the certification team is attributing the cause of their testing delay to the developers whereas developers are attributing the cause of their innovation delay to the certification team.
Ignoring others’ cognitions:
Negotiators often just don’t bother to ask about the other party’s perceptions and thoughts, which leaves them to work with incomplete information, and thus produces faulty results. The developers in our case were the ones ignoring the needs and the interests of the other party.
Managing misperceptions and cognitive biases in negotiation
Misperception and cognitive biases arises automatically and out of conscious awareness as negotiators gather and process information.
Reframing: Negotiators may apply several different frames to the same negotiation. When different negotiators apply different or mismatched frames, they will find the bargaining process ambiguous and frustrating. In such situations, it may become necessary to reframe the negotiation systematically, to assist the other party in reframing the negotiation or to establish a common frame. Both of the departments aligned their goals with the organization goals that were to introduce competitive products in the market at a rapid pace. When both departments decided to work together, this enabled costs to be balanced for both the departments without having them to bear any additional costs and the product to be made without any error on time.
ETHICAL CONCERNS IN THE CASE
The developers were the team which was using the unethical aspect of communication. The two types of deceptive tactic or marginally ethical tactics that they used were:
- Traditional competitive bargaining:
They did not disclose their walk away to the other party. They did not disclose their resistance points till the end. They presented the situation before the certification team in a competitive way. They were interested in their interests only and were demanding the transfer of personnel from the certification team to their department, even though they knew this would disrupt the functioning of not only the certification department but influence the entire production cycle.
The second deceptive tactic that they used was emotional manipulation through intimidation. This tactic has been discussed already above in detail. They tried to emotionally manipulate the other party by raising concerns about their trustworthiness and good faith. The developers were motivated to use these tactics because they considered that by doing so and by intimidating the other party, they would be able to achieve a more favorable outcome for themselves. The consequence of using the tactic was that the developers were able to get what they wanted to achieve. Their tactic worked. As a result of their tactic, the certification team actually took actions that were in the best interests of the other departments as well as the developers. They made sincere efforts to reach mutually beneficial tradeoffs, so as to silence the concerns raised by the other party about them.
REASONING AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR BEING UNETHICAL
The justification that the certification team gave to themselves for the use of the tactic was that it was unavoidable at that time. It was the need of the situation. They raised these concerns about the developers’ team to have a clear idea about their intentions. Moreover, the tactic was harmless. It had no deleterious effects on either of the parties. Rather by the clarifications provided by the certification team in response, disclosed their true intentions. They clearly responded that they had no concern with the departmental bonus now, since it was no long in vogue in the organization. The only purpose of this negotiation for them was to expedite and accelerate the work on the malfunction parts so as to increase productivity and to allow the acquisition of efficiency bonus by all the departments, including the developers’ department too. It was these discussions between the two parties that ultimately paved the way for a further cooperative negotiation session.
__________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
-
Discussing conflict makes organizational members more aware and able to cope with problems.
The certification team and the developers at RIM discussed the conflict at the departmental level; they were able to know about each others problems and constraints. The developers came to know that the certification team could not send its employee to their department because it would delay the whole process and an alternative had to be suggested for that. The certification team came to know that the developers were frustrated at being informed late about the software errors which distorted their software development process. So, the certification team became more committed to the completion of entire process and would return the faulty parts to the respective departments in time.
- Conflict promises organizational change and adaptation.
Procedures, assignments, budget allocations and other practices are challenged. Conflict draws attention to those issues that may interfere and frustrate employees.
The conflict between the two departments was proving harmful for the company’s profits as it was effecting the on time completion of projects. So, the management decided to resolve the conflict. Certain changes were made to remove the problem such as hiring of a project coordinator, creation of a database and transfer of employees between both the departments.
- Conflict strengthens relationships and heightens morale.
Employees realize that their relationships are strong enough to withstand the test of conflict; they need not avoid frustrations and problems. This conflict gave both the departments the opportunity to interact and resolve their problems mutually because both the parties were committed to the larger goal of the organization. This helped them build positive relationships when they agreed to work together to resolve the problem and arrive at some solution. It also heightened the morale of the employees because they were able to solve a problem mutually which would benefit both the parties and help them achieve their goals.
- Conflict promotes awareness of self and others
Through conflict people learn what makes them angry, frustrated and also what is important to them. Both the parties in conflict realize that their department’s reputation as well as the organization’s image is important to them. Through this conflict, both parties were able to better understand each others’ problems and frustrations and what was to be done to remove them because they ultimately had to work for the organizations’ benefit.
- Conflict encourages psychological development
Persons become more accurate and realistic in their self-appraisals. Through conflict persons takes others’ perspectives and become less egocentric. Both the parties in the conflict i.e, the certification team and the developer’s team learned to see the situation from the others’ perspective when they entered into negotiation. They became less egocentric and were ready to give concessions to the other party in order to resolve the dispute and to act in the benefit of both the parties. They agreed to exchange their employees and became more committed to solve each others’ problems in order to improve the situation.
__________________________________________________________
REFERENCES
- www.rim.com
- wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiation
- books.google.com.pk
Conflict Management: A Practical Guide to Developing Negotiation Strategies by Barbara A. Budjac Corvette