Negotiation in managing social networks Essay

essay B

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

Supply concatenation and web analyses have been treated as two distinguishable watercourses in the literature on inter-organizational coaction. While supply ironss are defined as a set of consecutive, vertically organized minutess stand foring consecutive phases of value creative activity, web analysis, on other manus, provides legion tools to map the construction of inter-organizational relationships or “ ties ” based on the acknowledgment that web construction constrains and at the same clip is shaped by houses ‘ actions. Social web analysis is a subdivision of sociology which surveies the behaviour of a group of persons and linkages among them. Social webs, in supply concatenation context, trades with supplier-buyer interactions and the impact of relationships among assorted spouses on the concern. A societal web consists of a finite set or sets of actors/agents and the relation or dealingss defined on them ; where a relation is defined as the aggregation of ties of a specific sort among members of a group [ 1 ] . In web analysis the “ importance ” and “ power ” of an histrion is determined by centrality steps such as grade, intimacy and betweenness of its places. Here, power is the effect of the forms of dealingss between assorted histrions. The relation that connects a brace of histrions can be flow of stuff, flow of money, flow of information etc.

Hakansson et Al. ( 1992 ) gave a complete concern web theoretical account consisting of three interconnected webs: Activities, Resources and Actors ( ARA-model ) . Grandori et Al. ( 1995 ) defined Social webs on the footing of equity-based personal webs, industrial relationships and centralised agreements such as subcontracting. Harmonizing to Uzzi ( 1996 ) societal webs and their direction are important for the smooth operation of the supply concatenation. While, Hines ( 1994 ) defines the development of networking, get downing from the conventional win-lose relationship of competition, and stoping with the win-win relationship of coaction, Gulati ( 1998 ) , on other manus, found that a house on its ain inaugural identifies the demand for an confederation, identifies the best spouse available, and so chooses an appropriate contract to formalise the confederation. Further the writer suggests that the societal webs of anterior ties non merely influenced the creative activity of new ties but besides affected their design, their evolutionary way, and their ultimate success.

In societal web paradigm dialogues are voluntary agreements i.e. duologues and actions taken up by houses involved in exchange, sharing, operations or joint development of merchandises, engineerings, or services. They can happen as a consequence of a broad scope of motivations and ends, take a assortment of signifiers, and occur across perpendicular and horizontal boundaries. From a strategic point of view dialogue plays a really of import function in ordering the behaviour of houses and relates to societal networking by the houses. Introducing dialogue into the survey of the formation of societal webs by interested parties in concern allows an scrutiny of both the natural disposition and/or the incentives that lead houses into confederations and besides the chances and restraints which arise out of such dialogues that can act upon their behaviour. Such behavior includes the determination to come in a societal web, the pick of an appropriate spouse, the pick of construction for the web, and the dynamic development of the web as the relationships develop over clip.

Negotiation comes from the Latin look “ negotiare ” which means “ to transport on concern ” . It is a duologue intended to decide differences, to bring forth an understanding upon classs of action, to dicker for single or corporate advantage, or to craft results to fulfill assorted involvements [ 2 ] . Wall Jr. et Al. ( 1985 ) defines dialogue as a procedure in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and effort to hold on the exchange rate for them. While, Neale and Bazerman ( 1992 ) describes Negotiation as a decision-making procedure among mutualist parties who do non portion indistinguishable penchants but through dialogue make up one’s mind what each will give and take in their relationship. There are two opposite types or schools of dialogue [ 3 ] : Integrative and Distributive. Distributive bargaining [ 4 ] which assumes a fixed pie ( a set sum to be divided between the parties ) and focuses on how to acquire the biggest portion i.e. piece of the pie. It depicts a typical win-lose state of affairs. A distributive dialogue normally involves people who have ne’er had a old synergistic relationship, nor are they probably to make so once more in the close hereafter ; illustration: purchasing of a auto or a house. Integrative dialogue conceptually implies cooperation where every organic structure additions something. It seeks more than one colony options and therefore frequently described as the win-win scenario. Fisher and Ury ( 1983 ) gives the impression of Positional bargaining attack that involves in turn taking and so giving up a sequence of places which can finally bring forth footings of an acceptable understanding. This type of bargaining is common in international diplomatic negotiations. An alternate to traditional dialogue is the Principle dialogue or dialogue on virtue attack developed by Harvard Negotiation Project. The four basic elements of rule dialogue are ( a ) separate people from the job, ( B ) focal point on involvements instead than places, ( degree Celsius ) see a assortment of options, and ( vitamin D ) solutions to be based on nonsubjective standards.

Occasionally, in a societal web, persons houses or group representatives reach a deadlock and are unable to decide their differences through direct dialogue. In such instances third-party dialogue helps in making a solution. There are four basic third-party functions: ( a ) moderator – a impersonal 3rd party who facilitates dialogue utilizing persuasion and suggestion for options, ( B ) arbiter – a 3rd party, by virtuousness of its power and place in the web, has the authorization to order an understanding, ( degree Celsius ) make-peace – a sure 3rd party who provides an informal communicating nexus between the negotiant and the opposition, and ( vitamin D ) adviser – an impartial and skilled 3rd party who attempts to decide an issue through communicating and analysis.

While dialogue in supply concatenation direction has been studied extensively, its function in pull offing societal webs has barely been documented. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization ( CSIRO ) identified that Collaboration ensures a joint job work outing capableness of an organisation. But while naming the critical features of true supply web coaction it missed out on the function of dialogue. Besides the rules ( 16 in all ) given by Cochrane ( 2005 ) [ 5 ] does non entirely speak about the function of dialogue in pull offing societal webs. Surveies in the field of societal webs have adopted the house or the web as the unit of analysis. Research workers have tried to place the properties of houses that influence their disposition to come in confederations or their pick of spouse, or to place the features of confederations that may act upon the formal contracts used to organize a web. Surveies have besides highlighted the function of external environment such as industry concentration, degree of fight, dealing costs etc in the formation of societal webs. The focal point on dialogue as the unit of analysis is that it non merely takes into history the external environment and the houses ‘ internal kineticss but besides evaluates the alternate class of actions and reactions of other houses.

This paper provides new penetrations on of import factors such as dialogue that may act upon the behaviour and public presentation of houses in a societal web paradigm. Further, the paper tries to place assorted third-party negotiants in a societal web based on their place in the web and the power that they exercise on other web members.


  1. Bhardwaj S and Bhattacharya S ( 2007 ) , Role of Social Networks in Supply Chain: A Literature Review, The Icfai Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4, No.1.
  2. Fissher R and Ury W ( 1983 ) , Geting to Yes, Penguin, pp: 4.
  3. Grandori A and Soda G ( 1995 ) , Inter-Firm Networks: Ancestors, Mechanisms and Forms, Organization Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 184-214.
  4. Gulati R ( 1998 ) . Alliances and Networks, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 293-317.
  5. Hakansson H and Johanson J ( 1992 ) , A Model of Industrial Networks in G Easton ( Eds. ) Industrial Networks: A New View of Reality, London, Routledge.
  6. Hines P ( 1994 ) , Creating World Class Suppliers: Unlocking Mutual Competitive Advantage, Pitman.
  7. Lazzarini S G, Chaddad F R and Cook M L ( 2002 ) , Integrating Supply Chain and Network Analysiss: The Study of Netchains, Journal on Chain and Network Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp: 7-22.
  8. Luthans F ( 2002 ) . Organizational Behavior, McGraw Hill International Edition, 9th erectile dysfunction. pp: 418-421.
  9. Neal M A and Bazerman M H ( 1992 ) , Negociating Rationally: The Power and Impact of Negotiator ‘s Frame, Academy of Management Executive. pp: 42.
  10. Robins S P, Judge T A and Sanghi S ( 2009 ) , Organizational Behavior, Pearson Prentice Hall, 13th erectile dysfunction. pp: 541-560.
  11. Uzzi B ( 1996 ) , The Beginnings and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect, American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 674-698.
  12. Wall Jr. J A and Blum M W ( 1991 ) , Negotiations, Journal of Management, pp: 278-282.
  13. Walton R E and McKersie R B ( 1965 ) , A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System, McGraw Hill.
  1. Muellar R, Buergelt D, and Seidel- Lass L ( 2007 ) , Supply Chain and Social Network Analysis, Source:
  2. Negotiation, Beginning: hypertext transfer protocol: //
  3. Negotiation types, Beginning: hypertext transfer protocol: //
  4. We use the footings dialogue and bargaining interchangeably throughout this paper
  5. Cochrane ( 2005 ) , Source: thehumanfaceofsupplynetworks.aspx

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member