If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Power in Negotiations. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Power in Negotiations paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Power in Negotiations, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Power in Negotiations paper at affordable prices!
Power is a notion that is difficult to define yet it affects everything we do in our everyday lives whether we realise it or not. The understanding and use of various resources and sanctions is present in all our activities and shapes the way we act and react. The knowledge and use of power is especially important in industrial relations and the more we understand about the way power can be used the more successful our industrial relations encounters are likely to be.
There are three main frameworks that can be used to analyse the employment relationship (Kirkbride, 185) but I believe that it would appear there are varying interests between management and employees and that conflict is an inevitable part of relationship. The way power can be used is demonstrated very clearly in times of industrial disputes when the various players in the employment relationship are negotiating aspects of employment. These different aspects of power and how they can affect negotiations were made very clear by the Metals Anatomy of a Union video, Final Offer video and both the group and individual negotiation exercises completed in class.
Power is a concept that is greatly misunderstood. As noted by Keeney & Kelly (18), no one person is powerful on their own, the power only becomes apparent when it is part of a relationship. Of course, once in this kind of social relationship, to possess power a person must have something that the other wants or needs (Martin, 1). Each conflict is different with different parties having power resources that fluctuate in effectiveness with varying circumstances. This was clearly seen in the activities we completed in class as well as during both videos. In the group negotiation exercise for instance, despite the fact that we were all given the same case study, we all had very different results. I believe that one group came to a resolution whereas the group I was in didn't even come close to resolving a couple of the larger issues. We needed the employees to keep the egg plant running and they needed wages from us and the management team and I expected that the workers couldn't afford to strike for very long. Surprisingly, the union held its ground and was determined to strike until we had improved conditions dramatically which meant that our power was seriously lessened. The issue was not resolved apart from a decision to take the case to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) which was not the most productive outcome. I wonder however, if in real life the workers would have been so eager to sacrifice their wages to strike so easily. As discussed in Keeney & Kelly (18), I went in to the negotiations believing that as management, our power was more legitimate and I think this may have influenced me negatively against the demands of the union. I felt like we were giving them so much and we were getting so little in return which was very frustrating. Each time we agreed to one of the demands it felt like they were asking for something else and the concessions we were making just weren't good enough for them. Even though we explained the financial repercussions that would occur if we bowed to all their demands they didn't lessen their expectations. I did feel that both sides were probably being very stubborn and that if we had more of an idea about the actual costs involved for activities such as striking the results may have been different. I think in the real world although it would have been a difficult negotiation, we could have come to some kind of agreement. Although in the end the workers and management probably had similar thoughts on where they would like to see the company end up, I think the way and speed at which the company would get to that point was very different.
The individual negotiation was far more productive than the group one. In my position as a waitress I felt that I had enough power through my fine dining experience and the family like relationship I shared with Stephanie (Julia) to achieve what I wanted. Having less people involved also made the situation feel far less confrontational and I think that Julia and I were able to discuss things more openly. Although I felt that I gained power from the family like feel to the relationship I think this was also a power resource for Julia because I felt that I didn't want to stretch the company financially or expect anything ridiculous because I wanted to maintain the good relationship. My main power resource was my skill level and the knowledge of both parties that I could easily find a job elsewhere. I think Julia's main power resource was the working environment which I was unlikely to find at another restaurant. I think in this situation we had relatively similar goals in mind, although there were a few points of conflict, and the power resources were fairly well balanced which is why we were able to resolve the issues though compromise and it didn't take long to finalise the contract.
Custom writing service can write essays on Power in Negotiations
The players in the dispute in the Metals Anatomy of a Union used similar power resources to those used in the group negotiations. Workers at the metal company Wamac were working for very low wages and were owed large sums of money in back pay. The workers at the plant were mainly migrant workers who were probably struggling for money and the management capitalised on this and gained power through the use of fear. However, once the premises was unionised, the power balance shifted greatly. Having someone that understood the law and their rights made the workers more confident and they made the decision to allow the union to conduct enterprise bargaining for them. Bargaining as one collective group with the support of the union gave the workers much more power because it wasn't so easy for the company to use fear as a resource and the company couldn't afford to have problems with all the workers. This was also very important for the union because it was at a time where membership was declining and if it continued the union would begin to lose its power resources. Management tried to stop the union coming in but the union relied on its legislative powers through the commission and gained the right to entry. Once management realised that its power was limited, it agreed to bargain in good faith and made a wage increase offer to the workers. After a round of negotiations, management decided to take a caucus and when the next round began they agreed to the altered wage increase but not the bonus structure. Unhappy with the decision, the union and the workers decide to use their collective power and take industrial action in the form of a strike as well as other measures. After assessing the situation, management realised that the workers were in a position of relative power because management could not afford the industrial action and the resultant loss in productivity. To prevent these costly losses, management agreed to the increase and the back pay because they had no more power resources to put into play. In this case, the power that the workers had through the ability to strike was greater than the power of management although in many cases, workers cannot afford to strike for a period long enough to ensure the balance of power remains in their favour.
Similarly, in the Final Offer video, conflict arose during renegotiation of agreements. In this case however, there were more parties involved and the relationships were far more complicated. Again, the workers want more than management are willing to give and despite union pressure, negotiations have reached a deadlock. In this case however, the union was not only in a power struggle with management, but was also experiencing problems from within. The Canadian branch of the union was in a power struggle with the head US branch of the union and this made it difficult for the union to push for the reforms that the workers wanted. General Motors (GM) was aware of this pressure and figured that if they were patient enough the Canadian union will fall under the pressure and they would sign the agreement that the workers are against. Management was offering the workers a profit sharing deal but this was not satisfactory to the workers due to a lack of trust. The head of the Canadian union decided to apply pressure on management in the form of a strike. Both the management and union remained steadfast in their positions, each believing they had enough power for the other side to give in. At this point, GM was relying on the US branch of the union to revoke the ban due to their fear of closures which would minimise the power that the Canadian workers had and force the signing of their proposal. As the strike deadline approached, wildcat strikes were starting to occur across Canada which was disastrous for the union because their power is based on them remaining as a collective force, rather than splintering in to various factions. Eventually, GM folded under the pressure from the collective strike and although the Canadian workers didn't get exactly what they wanted it was a vast improvement on the original offer. It was interesting to see in this case how the internal politics and divisions of the union impacted on the results of the negotiations. Their power really is one of collectiveness and as the union fought internally their power seemed to diminish. It was only in the end when the union stuck together that they managed to come out on top of GM.
There are many different factors and circumstances that can affect power and it is for this reason that it is difficult to measure and predict power. To ensure that we are successful in the future when it comes to negotiations and maximising our power resources we must understand what factors can impact power and the best way to use the elements to our advantage. Having a thorough understanding of each situation is vital so that each decision made can eventuate in to what is best for the people involved. Negotiations will never be straightforward and neither will the workplace, but the greater the understanding of power and the situation, the more productive it will be for everyone involved. Conflict is inevitable in all workplaces despite management and workers heading in a similar direction, and for this reason power is something that everyone should understand.
Keenoy, T. and Kelly, D. 18, " Power and the employment relationship an analytical framework", The Employment Relationship in Australia, nd Edition, Harcourt Brace, Sydney.
Kirkbride, P.S. 185, "The concept of power A lacuna in industrial relations theory", Journal of Industrial Relations, 7 (), pp 65 8.
Martin, R. 1, "Introduction", Bargaining Power, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Final Offer Video, RMIT Library.
Metals Anatomy of a Trade Union, Class Viewing.
Please note that this sample paper on Power in Negotiations is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Power in Negotiations, we are here to assist you. Your essay on Power in Negotiations will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
