Multicultural Negotiation Review

Introduction

The corresponding study would be an academic endeavour concerning the critical review of available literature pertaining to the processes of negotiation and conflict resolution which are practiced within various national cultures and assessment of the influence of such practices within a multicultural teamwork based undertaking. The entire study essay would be formulated on the basis of the responsibilities accorded to an HR Officer working currently within an IT outsourcing company with extensive corporate reputation to maintain.

Concepts

As per the opinion of Samantara and Sharma (2016), disputes and conflicts are divergent, in spite of their similarities, when management of human resource elements could be concerned involving employee relations. The primary catalyst of conflict, within an IT sector based working team structure, could be considered to be disagreements and disputes which often transform into conflicts. According to Ramsbotham (2016), conflict is primarily the harmful outcome of failure of competition as well as argument concerning the attempt to resolve any specific issue. The absence of any perception of common interest along with indecision regarding acceptance of arbitration could further contribute to the overall complications in this context. Mamatoğlu and Keskin (2019) have further observed that either refusal or incompetency of conflict resolution by managerial personnel regarding arbitration could be considered as the most significant impediment towards resolving existing contention within any working team structure.

Barsky (2016) has indicated the complications of such an effort concerning the selection and then, application of the most appropriate measure through which resolution of such conflict could be achieved. It is of vital significance to identify, as per the observations of Ackermann, Eden and Pyrko (2016), the cultural ethos which dominates the ethnic structure of the involved human resources for any organisational working team.

According to Gul and Klausner (2016), terms such as integrative bargaining, finalised offer arbitration and alternative non-litigious dispute resolution have become integral to the working vocabulary of any such conflict resolution process involving multicultural team work management responsibilities. However, as Lacity and Willcocks (2017) have pointed out, within the entire range of eclectic research conflict resolution studies, the identified major approaches are 6 in number and each of these subsume differential models and theories. According to McKibben (2017), three of such approaches have been spawned by different academic disciplines.

The research of Caputo et al (2019) has brought forward the fact that the psychological approach, mostly applicable at the micro-level, involves concentration of effort for dispute and conflict resolution through negotiation amongst the individuals, encompassing the intrapersonal, interpersonal and micro group behavioural perspectives. This approach emphasises on the variables which influence the causes, outcomes and dynamics of such conflicts. On the other hand, Bercovitch (2019) has determined that the Sociological Approach has mostly focused on the dynamics associated with the departments, groups, divisions and organisations regarding organisational conflict causes. To this effect, Gonçalves et al (2016) have specified requirement to understand the functioning and dysfunctions of social and group based conflicts. This would require societal level based conflict analysis.

The next approach involves employing Economic Analysis, as per the research of Lu, Li and Wang (2017), for the purpose of application of economic rationality based models to the process of decision formulation by individuals which could culminate in the formulation of complicated and multi-layered social behaviours. According to Greenwood and Ward (2019), the labour relationship based approach had originated from the Industrial Revolution based experiences which established the requirement of understanding and influencing the various practices of labour force management. However, Brett and Thompson (2016) have opined that such an approach extensively involves psychological and economics based elements since the research in this perspective has maintained the consistent and coherent assumptions regarding the nature and roles of leadership elements in conflict management through negotiation within organisational working architectures.

Dahiya and Dahiya (2018) have specified that researches in this context have been consistently focusing of determinants as well as the consequences of resolution of conflicts at work unit based professional engagements where a combination of differential techniques and mechanisms of negotiations could be required to be applied.

In this context, the fifth approach, Van Kleef and Côté (2018) have determined, consists of the bargaining processes involving interpersonal relations. Menkel-Meadow (2017) have enumerated the principles enshrined in the Game Theory model regarding bargaining methods as psychological approaches so as to assist the future application of such principles in a cross-pollinated model of combination of multiplicity of negotiation/bargaining disciplines which could be utilised to resolve conflicts in specific case based applications. Furthermore, Kochan and Lipsky (2018) have averred that the final approach of conflict resolution involves the application of Dispute Negotiation through Third Party Mediation. This approach, from a functional stand point, emphasises on the actions which could be implemented by the external stakeholders to any conflict situation for the purpose of resolving the situation through restoration of effective negotiation.

In this context, Saner (2019) have observed that extensive numbers of previous approaches had concentrated on the measures of arbitration, mediation, and consultation processes through which the integration of third party based intervention, on a broadened front, could become a possibility. From the perspective of Jeong (2018), the combined influence of such diversified conflict resolution and negotiation methods has been portended to be that of a beneficial one. However, contradictory perceptions have been forwarded by Ayub et al (2017) in the manner of observations which, attest to the fact that, such differential approaches and the impact of these, on the general discourses of conflict resolution, within the work structures of different teams based responsibility engagement, also have resulted in the serious neglect of various premises and assumptions which are fundamental to the original efforts and paradigms of progression towards the necessity of development of an effective and credible as well as sustainable method of conflict resolution.

Application of conflict resolution processes as the HRMO

From a personal perspective, leading work teams within the IT sector based responsibility scenario has been an enlivening experience since, multiplicity of conflicts have been observed and have had to be managed concerning the existing optional possibility regarding arriving at a consensus based outcome which could become acceptable to all of the respective team members and conflict resolution stakeholders. Concerning my personal account, the team which I was entrusted to provide leadership and guidance, had a multicultural structure.

To this effect, it became necessary for me to review the extant of empirical research literature involving conflict management and negotiation in a comprehensive and coherent manner. From my personal experiential perspective, the development of comprehension regarding the efficacy of differential cultural conflict resolution techniques bordered on the obtainment of greater visibility of such processes of negotiation, especially, the alternative dispute resolution technique.

Concerning the team structure which I had to manage and the levels of conflict which I came to experience at the interpersonal and intrapersonal levels as a leader, I considered the situational interdependence based abstracts regarding the Game Theory. Such endeavours outlined the probable courses of action with the available alternatives, the possible outcomes of conflict resolution based negotiation and the rational behavioural choices which could be preferred by various parties involving within the overall conflict conditionalities.

This realisation of mine brought me to the research of Heger and Jung (2017) so as to experience the three additional approaches of conflict resolution which have been generated through evaluation of case study specific problem area based methods application. From a personal perspective, I have come to realise that issues pertaining to administration and determination of employee relationships are significant from the perspective of resolution of organisational and individual levels of conflicts.

However, as I have come to realise from my official designation of an HR officer at the previously mentioned IT organisation, it is incumbent on the deftness of understanding of the causes and dynamics of the arising or existing conflict to properly delineate the most effective measure of negotiation through bargaining or third party mediatory intervention through which the crisis/conflict could ultimately be resolved.

From the research perspectives of Rojot (2016), the overall nature of the conflict is vital to be understood at the initiating point of resolving such an issue through determination of the various components of functionality and factors which could contribute to the development of such conflicts at both the interpersonal level as well as the intrapersonal levels within the working architecture of any business organisation. In this context, according to Harinck and Druckman (2017), the enlistment of such factors could be recognised as eight in number. These are the complications associated with allocation of proper operational resources, management of administrative processes, intense competition between different individuals or groups of different individuals for the purpose of obtainment of promotions and greater enhanced work status, differential perspectives involving prioritisation of objectives and imperatives within the team work structure, ulterior motives based agenda, clashes of personalities, natural occurrences such as miscommunications between various individuals and within the various segments of the hierarchical structures and, finally, the clashes between differential ethnic or cultural lineage based behavioural and psychological perspectives.

Thus, according to Weinstein (2018), the requirement of negotiation and conflict resolution pertains to development of a combination of differential approaches. As a leadership element within a definite team structure, I have arrived at the conclusion that management of conflict at the micro level with adequate measure of negotiation would be the most effective method which could be applied within the context which existed in the hypothetical IT organisation. The reason of this could be outlined, the method involves significant and consistent development of the negotiation paradigm and also could be considered to be intuitively appealing in terms of transmuting capabilities from one factor to the other. Thus, Fells and Sheer (2019) have also determined that such a method of differential approach combination could be considered to be an appropriate basis on which the comparison and synthesis of the outcomes from such approaches of negotiation could be performed so as to develop further approaches which could have greater potential of resolving complicated conflicts within business organisations.

From a leadership perspective, I have also realised that various implicit factors could contribute to the pace of resolution of existing conflicts within organisations. These have been individual personality factors, the measures of stake which institutional individuals might have on either fomenting or resolving the conflicts, the extent of emotional involvement which could demarcate the dedication of the leadership elements within a team structure, the sense of urgency at the higher echelons of the business organisation under consideration regarding the implications of continuation of the conflict, the precedence of previous conflict resolution endeavours and the overall culture of conflict resolution which could have existed previously within such institutions of concern.

In this context, personal experience outlined the point where disagreement within the team had been transformed from contention to conflict as the heightening of discomfort at the interpersonal level with extensive measures of negative emotions becoming evident at this point. Decisions formulation had become a point of contention since no shared course of actual action could be decided upon. The conflict had been managed through the application of the intervention method from the higher management echelon where the emphasis had been on imposition of the developed solution after effective mediation had been undertaken by the existing human resource manager. This had been in marked difference from the collectivist cultural ethos of conflict management where the accommodation/tolerance of implicit and latent conflict is encouraged for the purpose of avoidance of direct dispute and explicit conflict. The three core elements which assisted in the development of properly imposition the developed solution have been the individual desires, emotions and motivations which had contributed to the diverging perceptions of work and clash of interests at the first place which had spawned the larger conflict later.

The organisational cultural context had been enumerated through the negotiation and conflict resolution process. From personal understanding, I could outline that five different components of conflict resolution had been applied in this discourse. The initial consideration had been to momentarily withdraw from the conflict to avoid the issue gaining further traction within the entire work process. However, this was not deemed to be effective in the long term since this suppression of the dispute could not ensure that such a conflict would not be reigniting in future. Next, the element of appeasement of both the conflicting sections has been envisaged. However, this was deemed to be a contravention of the organisations cultural ethos since the IT organisation did not subscribe to the Asian model of negotiation management cultures. The existing management culture emphasised on the Greek cultural format of conflict resolution under which the responsibility measures are to be separated completely from the organisational and employee relationships. This consideration also had ruled out the possibilities of any compromised settlement since the conflict had to be purposefully and definitively resolved through tangible outcomes. Thus, ultimately, the instruments of negotiation and application of force, through in a selective measure, was deemed to be of greater efficacy concerning the situation at hand. Competition and collaboration were vital to be maintained and thus, negotiation became the most favoured instrument though application of interventionist force was also utilised since the conflict was an internal one and demonstration of the basis of authority was deemed to be necessary.

In this context, the utilisation of the Harvard negotiation model was observed and utilised accordingly. This involved a four phased process in which the initial phase involved the separation of the involved personnel as per their emotional and material necessities from the overall situation. Next, the focus of negotiation and application of selective force was considered to be inclusive of the individual interests and devoid of influences emanating from post designations. Next, the negotiations team was entrusted with the responsibility to invent options which could culminate in mutual gain for both the conflicting sides. Finally, emphasis was placed on development of objective criteria on the basis of which the negotiated settlement of the conflict could become a possibility.

The negotiations group had utilised the tenets of Thomas Kilmann (TK) model to formulate effective guidance for this purpose. Out of all of the methods highlighted within the, utilisation of the core principles of Assertiveness and Collaboration were provided priority. The primary significance was attached with concentration of focus on the responsibility imperatives of the team under consideration so that coveted outcomes could be achieved through fulfilment of policy agenda. Towards this direction, the element of Collaboration involved expansion of differential ranges of possible actions through exploration of the root causes of the issue. This process involved identification of underlying concerns. The objective was to arrive at a compromise which could assuage the concerns of all of the involved stakeholders. Furthermore, some format of Linear Negotiation also were utilised in the forms of Persuasion and active Concession provisioning with the objective of fomenting a sustainable agreement between the conflicting individuals. The leadership element of conflict management and negotiation, in this context, emphasised on the evaluation of power distance in existence regarding the organisational conditionalities. Out of the achieved outcomes, I could deduce that the organisational culture actively supported the low power distance based Horizontal Collectivist structure under which egalitarianism could be encouraged at the intrapersonal working levels.

Conclusion

The observed theoretical constructs, in the process of the literature review, have been significant regarding relating the components of such theories/models of differential conflict resolution and negotiation processes to the actual experiences gathered by the hypothetical HR official within a multicultural team setting. The emphasis has been on determining the extent to which differential responsibility management within corporate team structures could be influenced through comparative techniques and procedures of conflict resolution which are practiced at various diverging national cultures.

Reference List

Samantara, R. and Sharma, N., 2016. Organisational conflict literature: A Review. Parikalpana: KIIT Journal of Management, 12(2), pp.158-179.

Ramsbotham, O., 2016. When conflict resolution fails: an alternative to negotiation and dialogue: engaging radical disagreement in intractable conflicts. John Wiley & Sons.

Mamatoğlu, N. and Keskin, S., 2019. Effective Conflict Resolution and Negotiation Skills Scale. Journal of Faculty of Letters/Edebiyat Fakultesi Dergisi, 36(1).

Barsky, A., 2016. Conflict resolution for the helping professions: Negotiation, mediation, advocacy, facilitation, and restorative justice. Oxford University Press.

Ackermann, F., Eden, C. and Pyrko, I., 2016. Accelerated multi-organization conflict resolution. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(5), pp.901-922.

Gul, S. and Klausner, M., 2016. Organisational Conflict and Its Management. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Contemporary Conflict Resolution (pp. 34-55). IGI Global.

Lacity, M. and Willcocks, L., 2017. Conflict resolution in business services outsourcing relationships. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 26(2), pp.80-100.

McKibben, L., 2017. Conflict management: importance and implications. British Journal of Nursing, 26(2), pp.100-103.

Caputo, A., Marzi, G., Maley, J. and Silic, M., 2019. Ten years of conflict management research 2007-2017. International Journal of Conflict Management.

Bercovitch, J., 2019. Social conflicts and third parties: Strategies of conflict resolution. Routledge.

Gonçalves, G., Reis, M., Sousa, C., Santos, J., Orgambídez-Ramos, A. and Scott, P., 2016. Cultural intelligence and conflict management styles. International Journal of Organizational Analysis.

Lu, W., Li, Z. and Wang, S., 2017. The role of justice for cooperation and contract’s moderating effect in construction dispute negotiation. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.

Heger, L.L. and Jung, D.F., 2017. Negotiating with rebels: The effect of rebel service provision on conflict negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(6), pp.1203-1229.

Greenwood, G.A. and Ward, C., 2019. Delivering Organizational Change in Partnership With Trade Unions: Interest-Based Negotiation (IBN) Strategies. In Evidence-Based Initiatives for Organizational Change and Development (pp. 387-397). IGI Global.

Brett, J. and Thompson, L., 2016. Negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, pp.68-79.

Dahiya, H. and Dahiya, M., 2018. Managing Conflicts: Conflict Management in Organisations and Projects. Public Affairs And Governance, 6(1), pp.117-133.

Van Kleef, G.A. and Côté, S., 2018. Emotional dynamics in conflict and negotiation: Individual, dyadic, and group processes. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, pp.437-464.

Menkel-Meadow, C., 2017. Dispute processing and conflict resolution: theory, practice and policy. Routledge.

Kochan, T.A. and Lipsky, D.B. eds., 2018. Negotiations and change: From the workplace to society. Cornell University Press.

Saner, R., 2019. Business diplomacy and international strategic alliances. European Journal of International Management, 13(5), pp.588-595.

Rojot, J., 2016. Negotiation: from theory to practice. Springer.

Harinck, F. and Druckman, D., 2017. Do negotiation interventions matter? Resolving conflicting interests and values. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(1), pp.29-55.

Jeong, H.W. ed., 2018. Conflict resolution: dynamics, process and structure. Routledge.

Ayub, N., AlQurashi, S.M., Al-Yafi, W.A. and Jehn, K., 2017. Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance and conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management.

Weinstein, L., 2018. The 7 Principles of Conflict Resolution: How to resolve disputes, defuse difficult situations and reach agreement. Pearson UK.

Fells, R. and Sheer, N., 2019. Effective negotiation: From research to results. Cambridge University Press.

Bahrol, K.M., Md Yusoff, R., Md Amin, N.D., Abdul Hamid, M. and Ismail, F., 2019. Model of conflict management.