Negotiations_in_Conflict

This project will look at negotiation in conflict on a personal level. A family of eight children has recently lost their father unexpectedly. Their mother is mentally sound but her health has been slowly deteriorating. She is 75 years old and is now solely taking care of her 50 year old daughter that has a mental disability and suffers from epilepsy. After the death of her husband she quietly observed the children talking about the estate and the care of the special needs sibling. The mother realized there was a division among the children on how to deal with the estate and sibling. She decided it was time to talk to everyone about her desires as well as theirs. Three of the five able children have been actively involved in the estate planning process for the past ten years. Anything monetary will split six ways. The house is already in all the children’s names and completely paid for. One will be in charge of the financial responsibility for the special needs sibling; another has access to information regarding cash assets as well as power of attorney and the final of the three shares power of attorney and is named as the one to be guardian of the special needs sibling. The other two were left out of the process because one has a greedy dominating spouse and the other is greedy as well as selfish. The mother wants the guardian and the special needs child to live in the house rent free for the remaining life of the special needs daughter. None of the other children know that this is the wish of the mother. The mother has also specified certain heirlooms to specific children and has intentionally tried to keep the division even and special. The estate is somewhat valuable with a liquidation value of $1.5 million. A typology was created by conflict theorist Daniel Katz that distinguishes three main sources of conflict: economic, value, and power. Economic conflict can be described as each party wanting to get the most that they can. The emotions and behaviors of the parties in this source are directed towards maximizing their gains (Katz, D., 1965). In this scenario the economic conflict source would be complete liquidation of the state versus the mother’s wishes that the special needs daughter stays in the home with the desired guarding as well as some significantly valued objects being distributed or liquidated. Value conflict involves incompatibility in ideologies and ways of life (Katz, D., 1965). In this case value conflict source is following the wishes of the mother for the special needs child to remain in the house with the guardian as well as dispersing items of sentimental value rather than selling them. Power conflict occurs when each party wishes to maintain or maximize their amount of influence in the conflict and whenever one or both parties choose to take a power approach to the relationship (Katz, D., 1965). In this scenario if one of the siblings that already has some control over the estate chooses to either keep or better their position in opposition to another sibling’s objection without some attempted negotiation. To prevent possible conflict sources from escalating, the mother must prepare herself to communicate her estate wishes by practicing emotional intelligence to achieve conflict management. Emotional intelligence is defined as “the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships” (Goleman, 1998, 317 from Wilmot & Hocker ch 1). The mother does not need to share that some of the siblings have had prior knowledge to her planning so that she can avoid an unnecessary conflict. My first recommendation to reaching a conflict resolution would be to implement a collaborative system, which requires creative solutions and flexibility to reach a common goal. I would recommend a family round table meeting that includes a well defined and structured plan that will create positive communication that may lead to a successful resolution without third party intervention. Collaboration demands a high level of concern for one’s own goals, the goals of others, the successful solution of the problem, and the enhancement of the relationship. This conflict style involves a high level of concern for reaching goals (Wilmot & Hocker, ch. 5). Ground rules can be set for collaboration by having participants engage in effective listening, direct dialogue, express feelings openly, honestly, and respectively, and interaction regularly by all parties (Wilmot & Hocker, ch 2). Mapping conflict allows rules to be set for the communication process and can be helpful for maintaining effective and efficient communication. Some important rules to consider when mapping include obtaining system rules from conflict parties by listing specific and implied rules that set your own and others’ behavior in conflicts. Generate rules for both behavior that must and behavior that must not be performed. Make each rule simple and rigid as well as including rules for the obvious. Code each rule using the following questions; whose rule is it, what keeps the rule going, who enforces the rule, who can break the rule, and what function does the rule serve. Finally, discuss with participants how the rules help or harm the productive management of conflict (ch. 5). Practicing process goals will help you determine what communication process would work best and conducting the conflict accordingly. For example she can insist that everything be completely discussed before it is tabled and decided upon. She could also make sure fairness is achieved by giving each participant equal talk time before an issue is sent for resolution. Both of these communication strategies relate to the process of conflict interaction and will impact content, identity, and relational goals (ch. 3). Following these guides and using structure for control, minimal conflict should arise and solutions and goals should be accomplished. Even with the best planning in place, unexpected conflict may arise and alternative solutions may need to be implemented. Wilmot and Hocker define conflict as an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals. While constructive conflict was used in the recommended solution above, the scenario may turn to destructive conflict if signs of defensiveness, stonewalling, withdrawal from communication, and feelings of contempt between the parties that lead to patterns of avoidance or attack occur. If this happens the participants may retaliate, become inflexible, create a competitive system, or use demeaning verbal and non-verbal communication (ch.1). Once the communication process has become destructive, negotiation can be used as a tool to reestablish communication lines to reach a resolution. Negotiation means to settle by discussion and mutual agreement and provides a process of problem solving when the conflict escalates in importance. It involves active engagement, can be either competitive or collaborative, and only has two possible outcomes; resolution or impasse. There are two major types of negotiation; competitive and collaborative Competitive negotiation assumes the conflict is a win or lose situation, controlled by self interest, and neither party tries joint problem solving. Collaborative negotiation assumes that the parties have both common and diverse interests. It also assumes that the negotiation process can result in a gain for both parties. Collaborative negotiations require considerable skill and are not easily used in every conflict. The negotiators strive to keep the negotiations from disintegrating into a win/lose approach. A less known approach to collaborative negotiation is called principled negotiation which emphasizes seven principles for successful negations. These seven elements of principled negotiation are; 1. Attend to the relationship by working together side by side. Attack the problem, not the people involved. 2. Attend to all elements of communication which include working to build positive, two-way communication, avoid telling others what to do and consider emotions involved. Show you are trustworthy by expressing appreciation, forming affiliations, respecting dependence and independence, acknowledging status, and fulfilling the role. 3. Focus on interests, not positions by disclosing your actual concerns and interests. Positions come from interests. 4. Generate many options include the genuine interests of the other by brainstorming and using creativity to avoid negotiations that are turning towards win-lose. 5. Find legitimate criteria by trying to recognize whether the outcome is fair, just, reasonable, and respects the interests of each party. 6. Analyze the “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement” (BATNA).Recognize that any agreement must be better for everyone involved than simply walking away. 7. Work with fair and realistic commitments by deciding whether you and the other party’s goals are reasonable, doable, face-saving, practical, and will enhance the working relationship. These elements strive to create the best possible communication process to achieve everyone’s best result (ch. 8). The last alternative solution I would recommend is third party intervention. Some conflicts are so difficult or the negotiation has reached an impasse that we need a third party to help reach a resolution. The goal of all intervention is to transform the conflict elements to allow effective management so that issues can be put to rest and people can move on. Intervention takes many forms. It can be informal or formal. Informal intervention is an everyday occurrence in which someone steps into a conflict with the intention of de-escalating the conflict. This is a very personal approach and can backfire, therefore not recommended. Formal interventions require a skilled person with specific education or training that does not have a vested interest in a specific outcome. The type of formal intervention used will be chosen according to the degree to which the conflicting parties determine the solutions to their conflicts. In some forms of third-party intervention like coaching and mediation, the liaison serves as a facilitator to help the parties understand how to make their own decisions. Other forms like judges and arbitrators enforce a conflict resolution upon the parties. For this scenario I would recommend a mediator. A mediator controls the communication process for mutual benefit but does not control the outcome (ch. 8). If this scenario escalated to this alternative it would be the best last option for all parties to stay involved and have control over the outcome. Mediation is escalated or non escalated situations may even benefit from a mediator at the beginning of the estate planning process so that conflict can be explained and expressed in positive and neutral manor. This would eliminate possible family relationship failure. Mediation provides an alternative to avoiding difficult but essential issues, enduring ongoing family discord, or initiating litigation. At the estate planning stage the effort to communicate the motivations behind planning choices is essential to prevent misunderstandings that can lead to bruised feelings or worse (Estate, 2009). Mediators may be better equipped to assist family members for effective communication and negotiation throughout the whole planning process to prevent, reduce, or resolve conflicts as well as working with parties to create resolutions tailored to their needs and priorities. In conclusion, by practicing effective communication skills and integrating different negations skills in conflict, resolution can be reached by including all parties involved. Maintaining control of the outcome, keeping emotions in check, practicing the principled negotiation elements, and including a third party mediator will help all involved succeed in the conflict negotiation process. References Estate planning, October 31, 2009. Retrieved on February 1, 2011 from http://www .dovetailresolutions.com/'cat=9 Katz, Daniel, (1965). Nationalism and strategies of international conflict resolution. pp. 356-390. New York. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Wilmot, W., Hocker, J.(2011). Interpersonal conflict —8th ed. New York, N.Y.. McGraw-Hill.