3. MARCO TEORICO
3.3. EVALUACIÓN DEL DESEMPEÑO PROFESIONAL DOCENTE
3.3.6. Estándares del desempeño docente
Negotiation means to confer with another for the purpose of arranging some matters by mutual agreement; to discuss a matter with a view to settlement or compromise. In life there is no shortage of disputes, as they happen at all level: between husband and wife, between neighbours, between employees and their employers, between developers and environmentalists, between groups within a country and between nations themselves.
There are at least three main styles of negotiation which are commonly utilized, each style in its turn giving rise to the use of appropriate strategies. These strategies are not necessarily unique to specific styles, and are capable of being used interchangeable but clearly distinguishable, each having distinct objectives; ‘competitive’, ‘co-operative’ and
‘problem-solving’. The negotiation could be carried out by another or by own representation.
3.1.1 Competitive Style of Negotiation
The courtroom litigation or adversarial model exemplifies this style resulting in the equation: total winning for one party minus the total loss for the other party equal to zero. What one party gains another must lose in a situation where resources are essentially limited and must be divided between parties. It is assumed that the parties must be in conflict and since they are presumed to be bargaining for the same scare items, negotiators assume that any solution is predicated upon division of the goods. Thus the competitive negotiator makes compromise reluctantly because it may ‘weaken his position’ through position loss or image loss.
He tends therefore to make high initial demands, few compromises and have a generally high level of aim for him or his client.
However competitive strategies have a number of limitations. They may force parties into defensive positions, thus hinder the development of new or creative solutions. The competitive style can also lead to serious disadvantages for the competitive negotiator and his client, if the other side responds equally to this strategy, would fail to implement any decision or feel resentful towards the opposing negotiator in future negotiations. Other dangers of this approach include the possibility that in repeated encounters it will be increasingly unsuccessful, making increasing number of cases of ending up in trial.
3.1.2 The Co-Operative Style Of Negotiation
While the competitive negotiator seeks to force the opposing party to a favorable settlement, by impressing on his opponent that the opponent’s case is not as strong as he had previously thought, the co-operative style encourages a negotiator to make compromise, to built trust in the other party and in turn encourage that party to also make compromise. In each negotiation, compromise is made in anticipation that the opponent will make the same and end up with a solution through compromise.
Strategies involved would be to make compromises, sharing of information and adopting behaviour which is fair and reasonable.
Therefore a negotiator normally explain the reasons for his compromise and proposals; attempts to reconcile the parties’ conflicting interest,
101
DIPLOMACY IN PRECOLONIAL AFRICA
which in turn being measured against standards which both parties could agree on e.g. legal merits of the case and fairness between parties.
The advantages of the co-operative style of negotiation are as follows:
i. it tends to produce fewer breakdowns in bargaining and recourse to litigation
ii. it produces more favourable outcomes for both parties.
iii. it leaves a friendly environment where parties can once again do
business again.
Co-operative style is however subject to certain difficulties in operation where the parties to the negotiation are unequal in status or power or where one party will not bargain for joint or mutual gain.
3.1.3 The Problem-Solving (or Integrative) Style of Negotiation
A style also called ‘Principle negotiation’, a problem solving approach that can be used in any negotiation situation. It is not a compromise based approach but seeks to maximize the parties’ potential for problem solving, in order to increase the joint benefit and expand the quality of resources.For example in the commercial dispute an action of breach of contract may involve not just monetary compensation for the cost of obtaining substitute goods but also issues relating to loss of future business and business reputation. Through negotiation they would both discover different needs and objectives, one party could increase its option in a negotiation without necessarily reducing those of the other side. This is in contrast to the zero-sum model where gain for one party must necessarily be a loss for the other. Another example over commercial disputes is where one party wishes to make deferred payment over time, because of lack of funds, while the other party may be willing to accept staggered payment, for tax reasons.
As part of the means for settling International commercial deputes, settlement through negotiation offers a number of potential benefits to the parties involved. It may avoid the delays, economic cost and uncertainty associated with trial and the ‘winner takes all’ nature of the legal system.
Furthermore, negotiation reduces the pressure on the court system and
thus benefiting those parties whose cases do require litigation. Under the international trade transactions where parties reside in different countries with different legal systems and trust and reputation are very important elements, problem-solving offers the best solutions for business continuity.
3.1.4 Mediation
This is when disputing parties appoint a skilled third party – the mediator – to assist them in finding a mutually acceptable solution to their differences. Mediation is now recognized as an alternative to adjudication and a much cheaper method for achieving a lasting resolution of all kinds of inter-personal, commercial, industrial and community disputes.
Most people who have had experience of litigious persons know that very often in the inception of the dispute the matter might be very easily settled if some mutual friend could bring them together and talk the matter over. Certain officers may be appointed or designated mediators to whom parties to a dispute may have recourse for settlement. They may be persons who from their wisdom and experience of the world command the confidence of the persons who are likely to litigate. In most contemporary industrialized Asian countries, mediation continues to be the predominant means of dispute resolution. For example, in Japan, Taiwan and China, mediation is regarded as the best process, and is often directly supervised by state appointed officials or the courts.
In recent years in the industrially developed Western nations of Europe, North America and Australasia, an alternative and truly facilitative, consensual and non-judgmental mediation process has emerged which is based upon the principle of agreement and self-determination of the parties. This new model of Mediation is now widely recognised by many individual and corporations as not only cheaper alternatives to litigation but also as providing a less risky and more effective means for achieving a truly final resolution of their disputes. The principal characteristics of mediation are that it is accessible, voluntary, confidential and facilitative.
103
DIPLOMACY IN PRECOLONIAL AFRICA