CC BY
38
УДК 808.5
ПОДГОТОВКА И ПРОВЕДЕНИЕ ПЕРЕГОВОРОВ PREPARING AND ARRANGING NEGOTIATION
Богатырева М.М.
Южно-Российский институт управления - филиал
Российской академии народного хозяйства и государственной службы
Bogatyreva M.M.
South-Russia Institute of Management - branch of Russian Presidential
Academy of
National Economy and Public Administration
Аннотация: В данной статье рассмотрен конфликт. Представлен пошаговый процесс подготовки и проведения переговоров, который поможет избежать конфликта или разрешить уже существующий. На каждом этапе данного процесса описывается поведение, приемлемое в условиях официальных переговоров, которое должно помочь вам достигнуть своих целей и избежать возникновения конфликтных ситуаций.
Ключевые слова: конфликт, переговоры, пошаговая подготовка к переговорам, проведение переговоров.
Annotation: This article looks into a conflict and a seven-step process devised in preparing and arranging negotiations. Describing each step we determined some types of behavior acceptable to negotiators which should help them succeed and avoid conflict situations.
Key words: conflict, negotiations, seven-step process, preparing negotiations, arranging negotiations.
Conflict occurs in all human relationships. Handled badly, it harms individuals, relationships, organizations, communities, and nations. Handled well, it helps identify and solve problems and build stronger, deeper relationships. Throughout human history, cultures, governments, tribes, organizations, and families have developed mores and rules for handling conflict with the intention of limiting the harm conflict can do and securing the benefits of stable and productive relationships.
What is a conflict?
Let's try to define the term, «conflict». William Wilmot and Joyce Hocker give us a long version of this definition in their textbook Interpersonal Conflict: "an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals." A shorter definition of conflict might be that it is a "discomforting difference." The Wilmot and Hocker definition has most of the five elements that are always present in a conflict: (1) interdependence (meaning that the behavior of one party has an effect on the other), (2) difference, (3) opposition, (4) expression, and (5) emotion [1].
Why do we need to handle conflict better than we do? First, we want to avoid the harms that can come from conflict, and second, we want to reach the benefits that can come from it.
Some of what we have learned from our families, our culture, and our organizations works well, but some of our ideas about conflict and the ways we deal with it are misguided [2].
Preparing and Arranging to Negotiate
There is a seven-step process that we can use preparing and arranging negotiation. In order to use this process the two following basic conditions must be present: 1) You must be able to define the issue in terms of voluntary behavior from the present moment forward; 2) the other party must be willing
and able to negotiate. You also must be calm enough to do the intellectual work of negotiating [3].
Step 1 in the negotiation process is to define the conflict issue, that is, state the difference that's bothering you and identify why it's bothering you. Again, the issue must be stated in terms of the other party's voluntary behavior, not in terms of emotions, attitudes, or character, from the present moment forward. Neither emotions nor character are negotiable, although both may be reflected in behavior, which is negotiable. Make sure once you identify the behavior that changing it will fix the problem.
What if the issue really is a matter of feelings, character, or personality? Remember that these things must be reflected in behavior and try again to identify the objectionable actions. What if the issue relates to past behavior? In that case, ask yourself what you're after. Do you want an apology, a promise not to repeat the behavior, or some kind of compensation? You must bring the discussion into the present. If the issue can't be defined as voluntary behavior, then you can't negotiate. Your options are to accept the current situation, escalate the conflict, impose consequences, get an ally, or exit the relationship.
Step 2 of the negotiation process is to identify and evaluate your goals. Good questions to ask yourself include: Why do I want to resolve this conflict? What is a good resolution for me? How important is it to me that I reach this resolution? How do I want to be viewed by the other party? How does this situation affect the way I view myself? Note that the topic, relational, and identity goals interact with one another.
Step 3 requires you to decide whether or not you want to resolve the issue by negotiating. Consider the degree of interdependence you have with the other party, your leverage, the context of the potential negotiation, the nature of your relationship and the risks of introducing the issue. Once you've looked at all these factors, don't delay the decision. Remember that delaying is one of the most common forms of avoidance. And once you've made the decision, take full
responsibility for it. If the negotiation goes well, give yourself credit; if you decide not to negotiate, remind yourself that you chose not to take steps to correct the problem. You might think that certain conflicts aren't important enough to bother about, but you can use minor conflicts to practice this process.
Step 4 in the process is to arrange a meeting with the other party in order to negotiate. Keep in mind that you've done the preparation for negotiation, but the other party hasn't yet. To just launch into a discussion about the issue can take the other person by surprise and cause resentment. In carrying out step 4, approach the other party directly and privately, preferably in person or over the phone. Label the conflict as a problem and state the issue exactly as you defined it in step 1. Tell the other party that you'd like to find a solution to the problem that will satisfy both of you. If the other party counters by raising other issues, agree to talk about these after the initial problem has been solved. Step 4 is a commitment, but remember that you can't make progress if you avoid the problem; you have to step up and start negotiations.
It's very typical to require more than one meeting and more than one discussion to get an ongoing behavior change and make it stick. You've got to fine-tune things.
Step 5 is to conduct the meeting that you arranged in step 4. Come to the meeting prepared to explain your point of view and to offer suggestions for solving the problem, but don't be overly committed to your own solutions. Also come with the mindset that you will listen to the other party's views (some of the estimates say we run as high as 75 to 80 percent of our communicating activity involved in listening, but we're still not doing very well), feelings, and suggestions [4]. If you asked for the meeting, you should take the lead; begin by thanking the other person for his or her time and willingness to listen. Restate the issue and the purpose of the meeting— to find a solution that works for both parties. Then, ask the other person how he or she wants to proceed. What if the
other person attempts to hijack the agenda by raising other issues? As you did in step 4, agree to discuss those issues, but do not put them in front of yours.
As the meeting proceeds, don't allow discussions of feelings or explanations to become repetitive. Stay focused on interests and goals and move forward by pushing in that direction. Of course, it's also important to get suggestions on the table; steer the conversation toward something you can agree on, again, based on objective criteria.
In step 6, you make a contract, an agreement between the two parties about what each will do to solve the conflict. The contract must be clear, and it must address voluntary behavior from the present forward because it will hold each party responsible for following through on the agreed-upon terms. It must also be an unequivocal agreement. In your negotiations, verbalize the agreement, then check to make sure that the other party has the same understanding. In reaching an agreement, the other party may offer a statement that does not relate to clear, voluntary behavior; in other words, he or she says, "I'll try." In this case, push through to identify concrete behaviors that stand behind "trying" [5]. What if you just can't find a win-win resolution? If that happens, acknowledge it and consider a compromise.
What if you can't find any acceptable solution, not even a compromise? The most of the time, you can find a win-win resolution, but not always. If that's the case, you may decide to escalate the conflict or end the relationship.
Step 7 in this process can be more difficult than the first six steps combined. This step involves following through on the contract. Obviously, you must do what you agreed to do and stick with it. You also need to pay attention to whether or not the other party complies with the agreement. Without positive feedback, the other party will almost invariably revert to the old behavior [6]. If the other party is not following the agreement, you should arrange another meeting and see if you can adjust the original solution to make it work. If the other party fails to follow through repeatedly, you may decide to escalate the
conflict, give up, or exit the relationship. If you're making progress with each meeting, stay with the program, but if you're spinning your wheels, you may have to make a more difficult decision.
In some cases, unforeseeable difficulties may arise after you've reached an agreement. If that happens, go back to step 4; explain the problem and ask for another meeting.
This seven-step process of negotiation is not a recipe to follow that always results in an agreement. Because every conflict and every person is unique, there is no guarantee that going through this process will result in a good resolution every time. You can't control the other party in a conflict, but you can influence outcomes, and you have a chance at reaching better outcomes through this process.
Список литературы:
1. Котова Н.С. Актуальные проблемы творческой интерпретации философских концепций диалога в современной отечественной лингвистике // Известия высших учебных заведений. Северо-Кавказский регион. Серия: общественные науки.2003. № 11. с 106-109.
2. Котова Н.С. Диалог как средство социокультурного взаимодействия людей // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. 2005. № 4. с. 92-93.
3. Никулина З. В. Конфликтология. Учебн. пособие: Ростов н/Д, СКАГС, 2011. С. 134.
4. Павлова Л. Г. Современная языковая ситуация и речевая культура государственного служащего // Государственное и муниципальное управление. Ученые записки СКАГС. 2009. № 1. С. 40-42.
5. Гончарова О.Ю., Сидоренко И.Н. Нравственность чиновника -важный ресурс повышения эффективности экономики // Государственное и муниципальное управление. Ученые записки СКАГС. 2012. №2. С. 16-18.
6. Зинченко Г.П. Государственный служащий 20 лет спустя // Государственное и муниципальное управление. Ученые записки СКАГС. 2013. №1. С 11.
