Finding Common Ground And Interests

Gina Blair and Daniel Trent cooperate and collaborate to achieve a common objective throughout their negotiation. A cooperative negotiation style is demonstrated as they combine their points of view regarding their clients concerns with outcomes to effectively solve the issues raised. The main focus of the negotiation is to reach an agreement rather than a continuous dispute. Accordingly, the conflicting objectives were resolved by compromises and solutions but forward by both Gina and Daniel. The negotiation style used between Gina and Daniel is described as principled negotiation where both parties jointly attack the problems arising to achieve a compromise.

At the same time, I also realized that the negotiation partners are not always having the conflict interests during the negotiation. In this case, for some of the issues, we actually have the same goals. So baring this in mind, in the future negotiation case, I would first seek the common goals for both of us first to create a win-win situation.

This paper presents my reflections on the Negotiations: Strategy and practice coursework in the MBA program at Said Business School, University of Oxford. My paper will present various reflections on different themes of negotiation simulation undertaken by me during the course. This course has allowed investigating and reflecting on key drivers of negotiation techniques for me. I have learned that transparency and coalition are the core tenet of negotiation for me. For the purpose of this reflective exercise, I will conduct a comparative analysis of the process, dynamics and outcomes based on the themes such as negotiation styles, bargaining zones, power, emotion, coalitions, value claiming vs value creation etc. for the below-mentioned simulations:

Negotiation is a fundamental form of dispute resolution involving two or more parties (Michelle, M.2003). Negotiations can also take place in order to avoid any future disputes. It can be either an interpersonal or inter-group process. Negotiations can occur at international or corporate level and also at a personal level. Negotiations often involve give and take acknowledging that there is interdependence between the disputants to some extent to achieve the goal. This means that negotiations only arise when the goals cannot be achieved independently (Lewicki and Saunders et al., 1997). Interdependence means the both parties can influence the outcome for the other party and vice versa. The negotiations can be win-lose or win-win in nature.

There is an intersection between career and political executives in the Federal government. As discussed in Chapter 2, career and noncareer senior executives are subject to the same executive core qualifications (ECQs) and performance criteria, even though some of them serve at the pleasure of the President. However, their respective spans of control and expectations associated with performance differ.

The negotiation between Joe and Leigh had elements of distributive bargaining, but their relationship and the outcome of the negotiation were important to both parties, thus, this negotiation also had collaborative bargaining characteristics (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2010). When using this strategy, the objective is to maximize your outcome on the substantive issues while enhancing the quality of the relationship with the other party (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2011). In a job offer negotiation between two familiar parties, it is important to find a mutually satisfying solution to also enhance business performance.

The negotiators in these situations should mainly on the integrative bargaining. It means that negotiator should arrange a face to face meeting for both the parties by motivating them to practice integrative barging so that they can use the conflict strategy management to innovate positive solutions rather than dysfunctional conflicts. The negotiator should focus mainly on problem solving, compromising, smoothing and finding solutions. Motivating both the parties for a face-to-face meet is done so that, they can identify the problem and resolve it by an open discussion. Each team should give up something so that they can come to an agreement. The negotiator should use smoothing technique by reducing the conflicts while stressing common interests between both the teams. By compromising and smoothing both the parties should know about their common interests and goals and should create a shared goal. Once the negotiator make them realize that they need each other for achieving their goals, integrative positions solutions will be obtained instead of dysfunctional

Taking Sides Clashing Views in Management written by Marc and Vera Street diverse into some deep, debatable topics. Upon reading each issue, it is clear that there is no right or wrong answer. Several times I found myself torn on both sides; this is – I was both for and against certain issues. I have always tried to make decisions as informed as possible but realized that judgments are still personal and what we believe in.

In nowadays, people have become more and more engage in political discussion. One of the topics that people mostly discuss about is that should the goal of politics is pursuit of an ideal, or find common ground and reach consensus? In my opinion, the goal of politics should find common ground and reach consensus. Though pursuing an ideal is attempting, it is often unrealistic. On the other hand, finding common ground and reaching consensus the way to reach a solution.

Flexibility of your beliefs, alignments, and interest are the only ways to be truly authentic. No one at any given moment should be ascribed a definition. The human spirt is simply too intertwined with others and with the world to limit itself. Reasonably so, language the medium that facilitates these interpersonal connections is also dynamic. Language, as well as people, can freely change depending on the present situation. The ever flowing ways of language allows the user’s identity to effortlessly proceed. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguist states that “identities are how we represent who we are to ourselves and others and how we interpret who others are” (Joseph 2006). More importantly, to not establish a sole identity allows the other interlocutor more freedom to use desired speech styles thus discover an aspect of their own identity.

At this point in time, the group is not yet even development. It almost seems as if all the individual organizations are storming because they want to make sure that each one of their opinions is heard, and they have control of the situation. No one wants to give up their own power or control. They have started off correctly as it is stated in the case that HR representatives from each organization have been selected to pick individuals from each organization that they feel will have the best impact and will be proficient leaders. The individuals chosen need to understand the stages of group

Whether it is at work, church or in our private relationships, negotiations are a necessary tool for reaching an agreement. They are made by discussing each parties point of view with the aim being to reach an agreement that is mutually beneficial. For the most part, negotiation is the process by which those people involved successfully adopt or abandon their respective position through the use of positional bargaining. There are different types of approaches for the negotiation process - some hard and others soft in their manner of approach. The desired outcome of

As implied, change in an organization can sometimes be inevitable. For some personnel in an organization, change can lead to a positive or negative perspective. It is suggested that “successful change requires an ability to frame issues, politically, confronting conflict, building coalitions and establishing arenas for negotiating differences into workable pacts” (Bolman & Deal, 2013). There is always a mission for every organization, the courthouse also has it 's mission, and it is as follows: The Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, will serve the community and enhance public trust and confidence in the administration of justice through:

A ruthless, aggressive and cold blooded negotiation style is the framework approach most people have when it comes to negotiation,[6] a theoretical example of that is Adversarial Approach Style Negotiation.[6] But in reality, as mentioned by experts and researchers such as Fisher and Ury [3] it doesn’t have to be that way. As the world moves to more sophisticated platforms of communication, negotiation follows the trend and Problem-Solving Approach(citation) is in a way, the “antidote" of Adversarial Approach Style Negotiation. Getting to YES[3] suggest an Interest-Based Model for the use of Problem-Solving Approach. Interest-Based Model focus on separating the person (positional) from the problems (resolution) and then concentrate on the resolution. This way allowing for both parties in a distributive way to get the results they both want.

Ury introduces he concept of Joint Problem Solving and suggests that as negotiators instead of attacking each other, we should attack the problem jointly. We should focus on the interests of both the groups and preserve our relationship with them. He recommends being soft on people and hard on the problems. The author has identified the five barriers to negotiation and has