The document describes a conflict that has arisen between two departments within the same government entity. The security officers are under instructions to close all offices at 5:00 PM and not release keys to non-security officers. However, other government officers need to work past 5:00 PM to complete tasks. As a result, the security officers have begun shutting down computers and evicting officers from their offices at 5:00 PM sharp. A management consultant has recommended negotiation between the parties to resolve the misunderstanding.

1. Q1. Of recent, a conflict has ensued between two departments within the same department
of a certain government entity. The issues are that:
- The security officers are under instructions to close all offices whenever it clocks 5:00PM
- The security officers should not release keys to department gates to non- security government
officers.
- The other government officers should implement their planned and allocated tasks in time,
- And should not carry government property including computers to their homes necessitating
working long hours.
- On a number of occasions, the security officers just go into departments once it reaches
5:00pm and begin shutting any computers found still active and evicting officers from their
offices and immediately closing thereafter.
a. One a management consultant, has recommended that there is need for negotiation
between the aggrieved parties to amicably restore mutual understanding. Discuss what is
meant by negotiation and conflicts under institutional management. (6 marks)
b. What are the principles underlying and power bases for successful negotiation? (10 marks)
c. Why do negotiations fails among conflicting parties? (4 marks)

2. a)
Negotiation is a process that involves activities needed to resolve different kinds of disputes by
conducting consultations between the involved parties to reach a consensus. 0R, Negotiation
can be defined as a dynamic process among interdependent and self-interested parties with
different backgrounds, which aims to reach an agreement that satisfies preferences and
constraints of the involved parties
Negotiations can happen at any time within the project management life cycle and it can be
either formal or non-formal. A formal negotiation involves issues regarding agreeing with
contracts while non-formal negotiations include discussions to resolve a conflict between team
members.
Some common characteristics can be identified during a negotiation, these include;
a) there are two or more parties (individuals, groups or organizations); (b) there is a conflict of
interest (goals, requirements, needs, desires, beliefs) between the parties; (c) parties negotiate
due to the belief that they are going to gain better outcomes instead of not negotiating; (d)
there is no formal perspective to provide a solution to the dispute of the parties;(e) a “give and
take” attitude between the parties is expected; (f) psychological factors usually influence
parties during a negotiation.
Conflict under institutional management, can be described as the state of disagreement or
misunderstanding, resulting from the actual or perceived dissent of needs, beliefs, resources
and relationship between the members of an organization. In an organization, whenever, two
or more persons interact, conflict occurs when opinions with respect to any task or decision are
in contradiction.
Simply, institutional conflict alludes to the result of human interaction, that starts when one
member of the organization discerns that their goals, values or attitude are incompatible, with
those of other members of the organization. The incompatibility in opinions can come into
being, within a member, between two members, or between groups of the organization.
Some of the common factors Influencing Conflict under institutional management include;
a) unclear responsibility, b) interpersonal relationship, c) scarcity of resources, d) conflict of
interest
Conflicts alleviate in institutions due to individual and inter-individual factors. Individual related
causes entails attitudes, beliefs, personality orientation and human-frailties. Inter-individual
conflicts arise when a manager breaches norm of the organization.

3. b)
The following are the principles underlying and power bases for successful negotiation.
The Principle of Reciprocity, this principle defines the human need and tendency to want to
give something back when something is received. People often tend to give back to others what
has been given to them. While some people think of Reciprocity in terms of exchanging money,
goods, or services, it really involves so much more. For example, when participating in a
conversation or discussion, by providing others with attention, information, concessions, and
respect, you are likely to receive the same from them in return. Therefore, in order to maximize
the Principle of Reciprocity in a negotiation, you should be the first to “give,” and be sure what
you give is personalized and unexpected.
Focusing on interests, not positions. Negotiation participants have to distinguish between
interests and positions of the other parties. Position is the formal state of a negotiator over an
issue, whereas interest underlies the position. Interest is the actual reason that one party has
his position. Negotiator has to identify the interests of the other parties in order to understand
their goals, expectations, needs and beliefs. Identification of interests gives a chance to the
parties to invent mutual beneficiary outcomes in the negotiation process.
The Principle of Scarcity, People in institutions want what they can’t have. That’s why
advertisements that promise “Limited Time Only” or “Limited Quantities Available” are often
effective. In a workplace negotiation situation, it’s important to describe the unique, or
otherwise unattainable advantages of any recommendation or offer you make. However, in
situations marked with uncertainty, people are more apt to take action when they know what
they stand to lose, rather than what they could possibly gain. Therefore, when negotiating, it’s
important to not only inform people the benefits they’ll gain, but also what they could lose if
they don’t move in the recommended direction.
Inventing options for mutual gain. Parties need to devote time to investigate all possible
options and then choose these options with mutual gain that keep all of them satisfied. They
have to participate in brainstorming sessions for generating new ideas that may come into
better agreements. To better achieve this purpose, a positive climate between parties is crucial,
according to Fisher et al., and therefore shared interests have to be promoted
The Principle of Authority, people in institutions typically follow the lead of those they perceive
as credible and knowledgeable experts. This makes sense, especially since the legitimate
authorities attain their positions by virtue of greater knowledge, skill, or expertise in their
respective field. Unfortunately, many experts mistakenly assume that others will naturally
recognize their expertise. However, this runs the risk of sabotaging their success. For maximum
impact, arranging to have a third party communicate one’s expertise is a milestone.

4. The Principle of Consistency People feel compelled to be consistent with their prior behaviors,
opinions, actions, or statements. When someone makes a commitment actively, it’s even more
likely that they’ll follow through with that commitment. When negotiating, one can activate the
Consistency Principle by recognizing a prior commitment and linking it to their current request.
That’s to say, taking a step further by getting the commitment in writing, because people tend
to live up to what they write. The more public the commitment, the stronger the pull to a
related request.
Separating the people of the problem. Primarily, it is essential for the negotiators to
concentrate on the real aspects of negotiation. They have to separate objective problem from
emotions (egoism, anger, empathy). It is vital for the involved parties not to sentimentalize
otherwise the real aspect of negotiation transferred into interpersonal conflict. So, parties must
be concentrating on the real negotiating issues.
The Principle of Social Proof, People often rely heavily on others for cues on how to think, feel,
and act. Hence, the “proof” of what is correct isn’t grounded in facts or statistics, but in the
social environment. This tendency to look to and follow the lead of similar others is strongest in
situations with uncertainty. To use Social Proof effectively in a negotiation situation, rather
than trying to demonstrate it yourself, it’s important first to present testimonials from others
that are similar to your fellow negotiator. The more similar the testimonial providers are, the
stronger your case will be perceived.
Insisting on the use of objective criteria. Finally, parties have to decide about the objective
criteria according to them each possible solution is going to be evaluated. These criteria must
be relied on standards of reciprocity, fairness, efficiency or scientific merit.

5. c)
The following are the possible reasons why negotiations fail among conflicting parties
Failure to build a relationship, another common factor in failed negotiations is lack of a close
and harmonious relationship It is crucial to establish some sort of common ground early, so that
the negotiating parties can build a solid relationship. In business, as in life, it is always
preferable to build friendships and promote mutual interest than to allow you inherent self-
interest to hold sway in your dealings with others. Great rapport helps to cultivate
understanding and flexibility, and creates a more favorable environment of mutual interest that
makes it easier to resolve outstanding issues.
Lack of a framework of understanding, many negotiations fail due to a failure to clearly
communicate and understand issues of material importance. Too often, this occurs when there
is no established framework and a checklist to manage key issues, goals, and objectives.
Lack of trust and respect, as one might expect, it is difficult to negotiate in an environment
where trust and respect are in short supply. When it comes to negotiations, that lack of trust
and respect all too often leads to stalemate and abandonment of the discussions. The problem
is that trust and respect are essential for fostering productive engagement. When they are
absent, both parties are always on their guard, fearful of hidden intentions and misrepresented
claims.
No longer a good deal or not as good as represented, on a repetitive basis, negotiations simply
fail because the deal is not as good as it first appeared, or economic and other conditions
change in ways that make the deal less attractive. While doing your homework can help in
many other areas, it is also important to recognize that sometimes the factors that derail a deal
are always out of one’s control.
Confrontational personalities, egoistic and confrontational negotiators kill many deals. They
create a combative environment that makes it difficult to reach a compromise or concession.
When a negotiator is focused only on strength and ego, it creates a poisonous ‘win at all costs’
atmosphere.
Fear, there are many ways fear can assert itself in bargaining, the most common is fear of
failure and fear of the unknown. If one is uneasy, the contract they are negotiating won't work
out well and they could sabotage the deal rather than addressing and perhaps calming those
fears. Negotiators often fear the new, uncertain or different world ahead and, again, avoid a
deal that would be worthwhile

6. References
Akdere, M., 2003, “The Action Research Paradigm: An Alternative Approach in Negotiation”,
Systemic Practice and Action Research, 16 (5), 339-354.
Atkinson, R., 1999, “Project Management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria”, International Journal of Project
Management, 17 (6), 337-342.
Association for Project Management, 2002, Project Management Pathways, Association for
Project Management.
Bierschenk, T., 1988, “Development Projects an Arenas of Negotiation for Strategic Groups: A
case-study from Bénin”, Sociologia Ruralis, 28 (2-3), 140-160.
Bourne, L., and D.H.T. Walker, 2008, “Project Relationship Management and the Stakeholder
CircleTM”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1 (1), 125-130.
Pinto, J. K., 1998, power and Politics in Project Management, Project Management institute
Headquarters.
Project Management Institute, 2008, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK® GUIDE) (4th ed.), Project Management Institute.
Rahim, M.A., 2002, “Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict”, International Journal
of Conflict Management, 13 (3), 206-235.
Spiess, W., and F. Felding, 2008, Conflict Prevention in Project Management: Strategies,
Methods, Checklists and Case Studies, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Sycara, K., and T. Dai, 2010, “Agent Reasoning in Negotiation” in D.M. Kilgour, and C. Eden
(eds.), Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation: Advances in Group Decision and
Negotiation, Springer Netherlands.
Turel, O., and Y. Yuan, 2010, “Online Dispute Resolution Services: Justice, Concepts and
Challenges” in D.M. Kilgour, and C. Eden (eds.), Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation:
Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer Netherlands.