1.
What is
negotiation?
The definition
of negotiation can be defined as : the action or process of negotiating or being negotiated —often used in plural negotiations between the two
governments have failed to produce an agreement.
2.
What are the negotiation style? Explain!
The top 5 Negotiating Styles of Thomas and Kilmann.
1. Competing (I win – You lose)
This style of negotiation is best described as competitive and is one of the
most used styles in negotiating. Negotiators using this style are looking out
for their own needs, asking themselves ‘what do I need to get from this
discussion / process?’. They use a variety of tactics to get what they want and
their concern for the relationship is low.
This style is most effective when
results are needed quickly, or you are certain there is no room for
negotiation. Good examples of this style are buying a new car or a lawyer
representing their client or commodity based selling.
2. Accommodating (I Lose – You Win)
This style of negotiation is all about the relationship and is the polar
opposite of the Competing style. Accommodating negotiators believe that the only
way to ultimately get what they want is to give everything to the other party
and maybe in time they will do the same or stay. This style, is naturally, well
liked by the opposite party.
Examples of this style are when a
person knowingly injures another person and willingly offers to pay all medical
expenses hoping the injured party does not sue.
3.Compromising (I Lose / Win Some – You Lose/
Win Some)
The old adage ‘pick your battles’ applies here. This style values the
relationship and acknowledges that there is a loss but it is better to
compromise then completely lose. A compromising style results in both parties
getting more or less half of what they originally wanted. This style is common
when the negotiating parties have a high level of trust between each other and
are time poor. This style should not be confused with Collaborating (I win –
You win).
4. Collaborating (I Win – You Win)
Collaborative negotiators are innovators! They recognise that both parties have
needs that must be met and take the time to find creative solutions to this
common conundrum. In business, this style of negotiating is often seen as the
“Holy Grail”.
Most business to business negotiators
plan for this type of negotiation. Some organisations are well known for their
collaborative style of negotiating where some others are known for being
mercenaries in their approach.
It needs to be recognised that this
style of negotiating is somewhat wonderful ideological because in reality it is
high on resources and time.
An example of this style is Honda Motor Company which is known for being
completely focused on a collaborative approach to working with their suppliers
resulting in greater commitment and cooperation and well built cars!
5. Avoiding (I Lose – You Lose)
This style can be more difficult to spot as it can go under cover for a time;
it is a ‘passive aggressive style’. The user of this style is unassertive and
uncooperative. They do not immediately pursue their own concerns or the other
parties nor do they ever address the conflict. This style is usually a vengeful
style and whilst the adopters of this style won’t address the conflict they
will seek ways of retribution. This style is usually in response to a highly
competitive style. The avoider will shut down communication and contact and
will seemingly disappear off the radar. While this is in play, mutual
resentment builds and cracks to total breakdown of the relationship may occur.
An example of this style is two
co-workers who cannot agree on the delivery of a project and avoid
communicating with each other but happily talk to other co-workers about it!
Managing negotiations takes skill and
training. For more information on styles click on the topic ‘Negotiation
Skills’ which includes templates, models, do’s and don’t’s and more.
3.
Explain the negotiation process!
Negotiation process permeates the interactions
of almost everyone in groups and organizations.
The five steps of the
negotiation process are;
1.
Preparation and Planning
Before the start of negations, one
must be
aware of the conflict, the
history leading to the negotiation the people involved and their perception of
the conflict expectations from the negotiations etc.
2.
Definition of Ground Rules
Once the planning and strategy are
developed, one has to begin defining the ground rules and procedures with the
other party over the negotiation itself that will do the negotiation. Where
will it take place?
What time constraints, if any will
apply? To what issues will negotiations be limited? Will there be a specific
procedure to follow in an impasse is reached? During this phase, the parties
will also exchange their initial proposals or demands.
3.
Clarification and Justification
When initial positions have been
exchanged both the parties will explain amplify, clarify, bolster and justify
their original demands. This need not be confrontational.
Rather it is an opportunity for
educating and informing each other on the issues why they are important and how
each arrived at their initial demands.
This is the point where one party
might want to provide the other party with any documentation that helps support
its position.
4.
Bargaining and Problem Solving
The essence of the negotiation process
is the actual give and take in trying to hash out an agreement, a
proper bargain. It is
here where concessions will undoubtedly need to be made by both parties.
5.
Closure and Implementation
The final step in the negotiation
process is formalization the agreement that has been worked out and developing
and procedures that are necessary for implementation and monitoring.
For major negotiations – this will
require hammering out the specifics in a formal contract.
Negotiation
Process has five stages. In all steps of a negotiation process, the involved
parties bargain at a systematic way to decide how to allocate scarce resources
and maintain each other’s interest.
4.
What are the characteristic of
negotiation?
a) There are a minimum of two parties
present in any negotiation.
b)
Both
the parties have pre-determined goals which they wish to achieve.
c)
There
is a clash of pre-determined goals, that is, some of the pre-determined goals
are not shared by both the parties.
d)
There
is an expectation of outcome by both the parties in any negotiation.
e)
Both the parties believe the outcome of the
negotiation to be satisfactory.
f)
Both
parties are willing to compromise, that is, modify their position.
g)
The
incompatibility of goals may make the modification of positions difficult.
5.
Explain
the positive and negative affect in negotiation!
The positive affects in negotiation :Even before the negotiation process
starts, people in a positive mood have more confidence and higher tendencies to
plan to use a cooperative strategy. During the negotiation, negotiators who are
in a positive mood tend to enjoy the interaction more, show less contentious
behavior, use less aggressive tactics and more cooperative strategies. This in
turn increases the likelihood that parties will reach their instrumental goals
and enhance the ability to find integrative gains. Indeed, compared with
negotiators with negative or natural affectivity, negotiators with positive
affectivity reached more agreements and tended to honor those agreements more.
Those favorable outcomes are due to better decision making processes, such as
flexible thinking, creative problem solving, respect for others' perspectives,
willingness to take risks and higher confidence. Post negotiation positive
affect has beneficial consequences as well. It increases satisfaction with
achieved outcome and influences one's desire for future interactions. The PA
aroused by reaching an agreement facilitates the dyadic relationship, which
result in affective commitment that sets the stage for subsequent interactions.
PA also has
its drawbacks: it distorts perception of self performance, such that
performance is judged to be relatively better than it actually is. Thus,
studies involving self reports on achieved outcomes might be biased.
Negative Affect in Negotiation
Negative
affect has detrimental effects on various stages in the negotiation process.
Although various negative emotions affect negotiation outcomes, by far the most
researched is anger. Angry negotiators plan to use more competitive strategies
and to cooperate less, even before the negotiation starts. These competitive
strategies are related to reduced joint outcomes. During negotiations, anger
disrupts the process by reducing the level of trust, clouding parties'
judgment, narrowing parties' focus of attention and changing their central goal
from reaching agreement to retaliating against the other side. Angry
negotiators pay less attention to opponent's interests and are less accurate in
judging their interests, thus achieve lower joint gains. Moreover, because
anger makes negotiators more self-centered in their preferences, it increases
the likelihood that they will reject profitable offers. Anger does not help in
achieving negotiation goals either: it reduces joint gains and does not help to
boost personal gains, as angry negotiators do not succeed in claiming more for
themselves. Moreover, negative emotions lead to acceptance of settlements that
are not in the positive utility function but rather have a negative utility.
However, expression of negative emotions during negotiation can sometimes be
beneficial: legitimately expressed anger can be an effective way to show one's
commitment, sincerity and needs. Moreover, although NA reduces gains in
integrative tasks, it is a better strategy than PA in distributive tasks (such
as zero-sum). In his work on negative affect arousal and white noise, Seidner
found support for the existence of a negative affect arousal mechanism through
observations regarding the devaluation of speakers from other ethnic origins."
Negotiation may be negatively affected, in turn, by submerged hostility toward
an ethnic or gender group.
