The Conventional Perception of Bilateral Negotiation

Negotiations are typically depicted as involving one entity sitting across а bargaining table from а second. One side presents its demands or proposals tо the other, and а discussion or debate follows. Counter proposals and compromises are offered. When the offers are eventually accepted on both sides of the table, the dispute is settled and an agreement is signed.

Within this model, all the interesting and relevant actions are presumed to occur back and forth between the two sides. The model also assumes that both sides are monolithic, even if represented by bargaining teams.

At one world conference where Japanese delegation had 93 delegates and, when asked why, it turned out that they could not agree on who was going. So six different ministries went and sent back six different sets of telegrams to Tokyo.

At another conference, during each of the three weeks a different minister headed the West German delegation. They could not agree on which ministry was in charge. The net result was that the delegation had no impact whatsoever on the final outcome of the conference.

Unfortunately the conventional model of negotiation obscures much of the richness and complexity of the bargaining process. In actual practice, bargaining teams seldom are monolithic. Team members often have conflicting goals, strategies, objectives, tactics, perceptions, assumptions, and values. In order to have an effective negotiation, some sort of consensus must be developed.

1. How are the negotiations typically depicted?

2. What does the model of bilateral negotiation assume?

3. Will you give examples showing disadvantages of bilateral negotiation?

4. What can you say about unanimity of bargaining teams at the bargaining process?

5.What do you think of the conventional model of negotiation?

Дата добавления: 2015-07-20