Use textbook Interpersonal Conflict ninth edition to respond to student posts. Giving detail, personal examples and ask questions.
Alexandria post
A conflict situation involving a competitive approach to negotiation would be when there is only one model left of a certain type of car, and there are two bidders who are willing to pay equally high amounts for it. In this situation, since there is only one car it seems that the only option is that one person wins and one loses.
A collaborative communication technique that could be used to transform this conflict would be bridging. "Bridging invents new options to meet the other side's needs" (Wilmot & Hocker, 2013,p266) Bridging can be implemented here by having the car salesperson offer a different (but similar) car to one of the bidders and agree to make the price lower for that different car, as well as throw in some freebies such as car services or accessories. This is bridging because it is coming up with a new way to meet one of the bidder's needs.
Collaborative negotiation correlates with conflict styles because they both heavily rely on the relationship between the two in conflict as well as the power each person in conflict holds. The goal of collaborative negotiation is to find an agreement that makes everybody happy. The agreement that is reached varies in each situation depending mostly on the conflict styles of those involved.
For example, if someone's conflict style is using the avoidance system, the collaborative negotiation that is reached would probably be one where one person got what they wanted, and the other is just happy that there is no longer a conflict. Either way, they are both content for the moment. (Wilmot & Hocker, 2013)
In the "Rainbow Development Water Problem" case on pages 274-275 (Wilmot & Hocker, 2013), we see three approaches to defining the problem. The "Water first" group is the competitive approach as they want to install new systems and increase construction in order to get the water to improve.
They fail to see any other side's point of view because they feel the only important matter in the situation is having clean water- so why should the new road and wells be an issue? This is competitive because the are only seeing one side, either the winners or losers. The "road has to go" group is the collaborative approach because they are open to finding a solution to the problem, but not the one that the board wants.
They are not happy with the destruction that happened on their property and would prefer to boil water than tear down more of their environment. This is collaborative because they see both sides of the argument, but want to negotiate more. The transformative approach is displayed by the "We simply have to live with it" group. The textbook categorizes transformative as one that is cooperative and has community concerns.
In the story this group is much more concerned with the hostility in the community. They are not a fan of the construction but they are also aware that something needs to be done. Rather than choosing a side they are just looking forward to the conflict being completed, making them the group that has the transformative approach.
Jermaine post
After reading the course material for this week's discussion, competitive negotiations rest on the assumption that what one person wins, the other person loses (Wilmot & Hocker, 2014). A good example of this is when my fourteen and sixteen year old boys argue about who is going to wash their mom's car for money. My fourteen year old claims that he does a better job because he takes his time and gets every little detail. In comparison, my fifteen year old son does ok but not as well.
The older son is willing to wash it for $10 while my younger son wants $15. Expanding the pie worked well in this situation because instead of letting one wash the car, I had them both do it. The oldest vacuumed and cleaned the inside while the younger washed the outside. They both oversaw the others work and it came out just as good as a private owned car wash company would do. Collaborative negotiation allows both parties to come out on top, no one has to lose in this situation.
After reading The Rainbow Development Water Problem, the first group and second group are competitive because they are only concerned with what they want. The third group is transformative because the road has already been built so they're looking forward to the solution of the water problem to continue. They are not taking sides or becoming too involved in the arguing either. There really isn't any group engaging in a strong collaboration in my opinion.
The seven elements of principled negotiation is a tool used to bring everyone together to solve a conflict. It focuses on fixing the problem while not pointing fingers or using positions. In addition, it creates an open dialogue using effective communication to generate new ideas and options. Lastly, it allows everyone to be on the same page when the meeting/conversation is over. No one will feel like they lost in the situation.
All three of the groups need to come together in an open forum with group three being the mediators since they have no ties to either side. They could ensure cooperativeness, subjectivity, respect for feelings and most important the community concerns are addressed (Wilmot & Hocker, 2014). Using the seven elements, group one and two could definitely reach a common goal of how they would settle this water problem moving forward.
Luther post
I was recently in a conflict situation with one of my good friends. I was discussing a trip I was planning to Las Vegas in November, in order to get away from the rain in Washington.
He wanted me to come visit him and his family and meet in New York City for the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. While going to the parade has been on my bucket list, it did not get me to a place with warm weather and was way out of the price range I was considering.
Finally, he offered cost cutting by offering hotel points that would allow me to stay for free. "Cost cutting minimizes the other's costs for going along with you" (Wilmot & Hocker, 2013, p. 266). Since the cost was no longer an issue, I was willing to trade-off my warmer weather for a chance to see him and his family. He traded his hotel points for a chance to see me and my family.
Collaborative negotiation has a strong correlation with conflict styles. Someone who avoids conflict may not tend to use collaborative negotiation. They may try to avoid the topic all together and never work towards resolution.
A dominating style may struggle to find resolution as well. Compromise is an effective style when it comes to using collaborative negotiation, since it leads to "some gains and some losses for each party" (Wilmot & Hocker, 2013, p. 161). If I had used an obliging style with my friend, I would probably still be upset about going somewhere cold and going outside of my price range.
The internal anger could have hindered my ability to have a good time. An integrating style is also effective with collaborative negotiation since it is "an invitation to the other's so the two of you can reach a joint resolution" (Wilmot & Hocker, 2013, p. 166).
The competitive approach to defining this problem is that someone is either going to win or lose. If the road stays, the "water first" group wins. If the road goes, the "road has to go" group wins. In either scenario, the "we simply have to live with it" group loses because one side is going to be unhappy.
The collaborative approach "assumes that the parties have both (1) diverse interests and (2) common interests and that the negotiation process can result in both parties' gaining something" (Wilmot & Hocker, 2013, p. 260). The "water first" group believes they have diverse interests regarding the road, but should be able to come together when it comes to resolving the water issue. The transformative approach would consider the concerns of everyone involved and result in a more collaborative approach.
The seven elements of principled negotiation is an approach to resolving conflict. The first element is "Attend to the relationship." This element requires people to put aside their issues and look at each other like human beings, not enemies in conflict. The second element is "Attend to all elements of communication." This element requires two sides to use effective communication.
The third element is "Focus on interests, not positions." In this scenario, two groups have taken a position against the other and the third group is stuck somewhere in between. They need to focus on their goals. The forth element is "Generate many options."
The scenario discussed is set up as either winning or losing and each party could benefit by looking at other options they have not considered. The fifth element is "Find legitimate criteria." This element requires alternating sides to find a solution that would have a similar amount of give and take on each side. The sixth element is "Analyze the "Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement"."
This element requires each side to look closely at what they are willing to give up in order to come to an agreement. The seventh and final element is "Work with fair and realistic commitments." This element requires each party to put themselves into the shoes of the other side to determine whether or not the agreement is reasonable (Wilmot & Hocker, 2013).