The Art of Negotiation and Productive Discussions
Most people dislike being in confrontations. These circumstances, meanwhile, are unavoidable in both romantic and professional lives. The kind of conflicts we spend more time on will directly affect how well we handle these disputes.
Doctor of organisational psychology Karen Jehn splits disputes into two categories. The first kind of conflict is referred to as "relationship conflict" since it strains relationships and occasionally has harmful effects like antagonism and rage.
"Task conflict" is a second kind. Relationships or personalities are safe at this point. We talk about thoughts only, not actual data.
They are researching these two categories of conflicts in the corporate world. They find that task conflict improves performance but interpersonal conflict lowers performance when comparing groups with low and high performance. Hence, disagreement is not always a bad thing; in fact, it can be a useful tool for raising productivity.
Tension between people is increased by task conflict, however this does not equate to discord or the other way around. The researchers draw the following conclusion as a result: "The absence of conflict indicates indifference, not harmony."
The process of negotiating can quickly devolve into a confrontation. At this point, maintaining task conflict and preventing relationship conflict require negotiation skills. They are doing study in this particular environment to gauge the negotiation style's degree of success.
They create and monitor two negotiation groups, average and expert, based on this research. The findings of the observations indicate that there are essentially four distinctions between the two groups.
Common Points: Poor negotiators see the discussion and negotiation process like a combat zone. Before the conversation, these negotiators are unable to anticipate any areas of agreement.
Experts choose a dancing step in advance of the planning stage. They would rather spend one-third of their time figuring out what they have in common with their rivals.
Number of Justifications: Another distinction is that specialists tend to make very few arguments. They are concerned with showcasing two compelling arguments and organising them so as to avoid letting the important points get lost in the shuffle. Since "A weak justification often dilutes a strong one."
It is simpler to disprove weak arguments, and this is a trap that mediocre negotiators fall into. They defy the adage "Less is more" by applying common sense to every argument. As so, they are unable to make the most of their brief time to support their positions.
Expert negotiators use an aggressive stance that is neither overly defensive nor demeaning of the opposing party's perspective, leading to defense-attack spirals. Instead, they pose inquiries like, "So you don't see any truth in this suggestion?" with curiosity and objectivity.
The mistake made by mediocre people is to underestimate the opinions of their opponents, which forces the opposite side to defend themselves.
As a result, an unpleasant circumstance that we refer to as "relationship conflict" truly occurs. This indicates that neither side gains anything from the disagreement.