CONFLICT IS INEVITABLE, BUTCOMBAT IS OPTIONAL. – MAX LUCADE• Conflict seems to be everywhere these days.• Conflicts betwee...
Causes of conflict                 Conflict resolution scenarios• Differing values can lead to    • Ignore the conflict  c...
NEGOTIATION•   Negotiating is the process of getting the best terms once the other side starts to    act on their interest...
GOOD NEGOTIATION•   Awareness of and ability to apply negotiation theory•   Development of an effective negotiation style•...
STAGES IN THE NEGOTIATIONPROCESS• Preparation• Relationship-Building• Information Exchange• Persuasion• Agreement
CULTURE AND THE NEGOTIATIONPROCESS• Interests and priorities• Strategies   • Confrontational strategy   • Motivation strat...
"TREES AND FORESTS FOR WHOM ANDFOR WHAT?"• Land-use competition between forestry, grazing, agriculture, and  minerals.•   ...
THE GREEN FUTURE SOCIETY AND    THE MARTINEZ SAWMILL•   Suppose that the Green Future Society strongly opposes all logging...
•   Suppose that the Green Future Society continues to insist that logging be stopped    within the next two years, and th...
CHOOSE YOUR NEGOTIATINGSTRATEGY1. Cooperative strategy. - This is also called the "soft bargaining" approach. It   minimiz...
• Finally, negotiating strength depends on credibility. You are  credible if the other side sees you as trustworthy, compe...
Conflict
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Conflict

122

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
122
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Conflict

  1. 1. CONFLICT IS INEVITABLE, BUTCOMBAT IS OPTIONAL. – MAX LUCADE• Conflict seems to be everywhere these days.• Conflicts between nations that can lead to wars.• Conflict between people which can lead to one fatally harming another.• Conflict between team members at work.
  2. 2. Causes of conflict Conflict resolution scenarios• Differing values can lead to • Ignore the conflict conflicts • Smooth over the conflict.• Making assumptions can lead to conflicts • Use your authority to settle the conflict• Differing expectations can lead to conflict • Negotiate a resolution to the conflict• Differences in the way you were brought up can result • Use collaboration to resolve in conflict the conflict.• Knowledge and ability to deal with conflict can result in conflict
  3. 3. NEGOTIATION• Negotiating is the process of getting the best terms once the other side starts to act on their interest.On Negotiating by Mark H. McCormack• To confer or discuss with another with a view toward reaching agreement where some interests may be shared and some may be opposed.• And interactive communication process that may be used whenever one person wants something from another and seeks their cooperation in obtaining it.
  4. 4. GOOD NEGOTIATION• Awareness of and ability to apply negotiation theory• Development of an effective negotiation style• Understanding of the negotiation process• Improvement of critical communication skills
  5. 5. STAGES IN THE NEGOTIATIONPROCESS• Preparation• Relationship-Building• Information Exchange• Persuasion• Agreement
  6. 6. CULTURE AND THE NEGOTIATIONPROCESS• Interests and priorities• Strategies • Confrontational strategy • Motivation strategy • Influence strategy: BATNA as a power base • Information strategy
  7. 7. "TREES AND FORESTS FOR WHOM ANDFOR WHAT?"• Land-use competition between forestry, grazing, agriculture, and minerals.• Disagreements over the size, location, and composition of a permanent forest estate.• Conflicts between de jure (legal) and de facto (traditional) tenure in forested regions.• Competition between commercial and subsistence interests in forested regions.• Outdated laws on lands and forests, and conflicts among these laws.• Overlapping concessions on public forest lands.• Impractical laws and regulations for trees and forests on private lands.
  8. 8. THE GREEN FUTURE SOCIETY AND THE MARTINEZ SAWMILL• Suppose that the Green Future Society strongly opposes all logging in South Region on claims that logging causes environmental damage. Green Future insists that your strategic plan must include the goal of stopping all logging in South Region within the next two years. The two logging operations in South Region are the Martinez Sawmill and the Bella Vista Plywood Company. They provide 200 paid jobs and a contribution to South Regions income. Neither company is interested in stopping its operations. All three groups - Green Future, Martinez, and Bella Vista - are important interest groups. What are your approaches to negotiate this conflict?• Negotiation will not be possible if any of the parties aims to destroy another as its primary purpose (i.e., "winning at any cost"). Green Future may use militant demands that anger the companies and your forestry agency. Nevertheless, the situation is open to negotiation if Green Future wants to maintain continuing relationships with your agency, or if it needs something from the forest products industries. In this case, you must convince Green Future that it has no good alternative other than to negotiate an agreement that will satisfy Martinez, Bella Vista, and your agency.• You cannot negotiate with people who do not allow their views to be questioned. For example, Juan Pedro Martinez may insist that each company has the "right" to harvest timber in the way it knows best. For Martinez, this is an article of faith that is not open to debate. His dogma dominates his reason. You have to redirect Martinez away from issues that for him are not negotiable towards others that offer hope for common ground. If you can get him to say "yes" to other points (such as on the need for background studies), then perhaps later he will be more willing to consider the central issue.• Negotiation is impossible if one group feels powerless in relation to others. Suppose, for example, that Green Future believes that forest industries always "win" with your forestry agency, and that environmental NGOs always "lose." If this is its perception (whether accurate or not). Green Future has no reason to negotiate through your agency. Instead, it will choose a more radical means to try to get what it wants. To prevent this from happening, you have no choice other than to cede important procedural points to Green Future, and to tolerate its hostilities and resentment. But even as you take exceptional measures to build a working relationship and show fairness, you have to decide how far you will go before your relationship with Green Future becomes too expensive. What is your best alternative to not negotiating with them? What will you gain and lose by walking away?
  9. 9. • Suppose that the Green Future Society continues to insist that logging be stopped within the next two years, and that this position has wide popular and political support. But what will Green Future gain and lose if its demand is modified to five years, during which time all logging in South Region will be required to adopt low - impact harvesting methods? If this compromise fails, is your agency willing to tolerate the continued opposition of Green Future in the coming years? As a different option, would Martinez and Bella Vista accept environmental impact assessment for logging, and will this be their best alternative compared with the alternative of closing down? These illustrate the types of questions that should define the negotiation.
  10. 10. CHOOSE YOUR NEGOTIATINGSTRATEGY1. Cooperative strategy. - This is also called the "soft bargaining" approach. It minimizes the degree of conflict by generating trust and kindness. You are looking for common ground and joint interests, and you want everyone to benefit. You compromise, and you expect other people to do the same. The approach is at its best when other individuals similarly cooperate. But it does not work when others regard your "soft" approach as a weakness that they can exploit.2. Competitive strategy. - This is "hard bargaining" in which you give nothing and demand everything. You apply pressure to get your way. This approach is important when you absolutely must win, even if other persons will lose. The approach works well when you face weak or confused negotiators. It is less appropriate when a long-term relationship has to be maintained, or when your opponents are well prepared.3. Analytical strategy. - In this approach, negotiation is a problem-solving exercise to create options that benefit everyone. This is sometimes called "interest -based bargaining," or "principled negotiation." You try to: (1) separate the people from the problem; (2) focus on interests, not positions; (3) generate options for mutual gain; and (4) use objective criteria to make decisions.
  11. 11. • Finally, negotiating strength depends on credibility. You are credible if the other side sees you as trustworthy, competent, and dynamic:• 1. Trustworthy - Credibility is achieved by making and keeping commitments. A trustworthy agency is known for its integrity. It always fulfills its promises, and it always carries out its threats.• 2. Competent. - A good negotiator prepares extremely well, and argues from a base of reliable facts and analysis. He or she speaks effectively, portrays confidence, and presents an attractive image. The agency (or person) with a history of negotiation failures - or no history at all - is not credible.• 3. Dynamic.-The people who are credible deeply care about their issues. They fight hard for their position because they sincerely believe in it. Their passion signals the other side that they face an opponent who does not easily compromise.
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×