Is Trust Necessary For Long Term Relationships?

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.

1. Bargaining is a mixed-motive game. Both parties want an agreement but have differing interests and preferences.

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.

“Successful negotiation is not about getting to ‘yes’; it’s about mastering ‘no’ and understanding the path to an agreement is” (Christopher Voss). During the negotiation process, there are a lot of moving parts and personalities. In addition, hurt feelings can all too often get in the way. The bottom line of any negotiation is to reach a settlement that will mutually benefit both parties. It’s a challenging situation by which compromise or agreement is reached while attempting to avoid arguments and disputes.

Compromise, without a doubt, plays one of the most important roles in moving a society forward. It allows people to put conflicts behind them and to focus on the future and what it offers them. As seen many times throughout history, problems and disputes can create barriers that prevent growth and development of society. However, when people work together and make negotiations, they are able to move onto more important things, rather than dwell on the past.

When two people take opposite sides on any particular issue in a dispute, they both often refuse to budge from their divergent viewpoints. Most likely outcome is a stalemate. If a solution is found then both will win. Negotiation interests largely relate to basic human needs. They are powerful influences in our decision making processes. Interests not only include those tangible desires which correspond to the specific problem at hand such as increasing sales or productivity. They also link to our more basic human emotions that are less obvious to the participants (Negotiations).

Consequently, negotiation is a process that can be approached in many ways. No matter what strategy we choose, success lies in how well we prepared. The key to negotiating a beneficial outcome is the negotiators’ ability to consider all the elements of the situation carefully and to identify and think through the options. At the same time, negotiators must be able to keep events in perspective and be as fair and honest as circumstance allows. Because a common ground or interest has brought the parties to the negotiating table, a negotiator can benefit by trying to capitalize on this common

It occurs in profit or non profit organizations, government sectors, dealing among nations and also in our personal situations such as salary package, house purchase, marriage, divorce and etc. The strategy to use can either be distributive or integrative depending on the situations and the outcomes that the party want out from the negotiation.

The second part of the method focuses on interests instead of positions. Interests refer to the result needed, while positions refer to that wanted. Again, this is a very intellectual concept to ideal conflict and negotiation. However, in a world where people always want more than enough, and where positions can be advantageous, this concept is seems to be unnecessary and even unfavourable. In the case of a ‘victim' in conflict, one can usually bargain more than they ‘need' for their damages. In the case of positions and power, an employee not acknowledging a CEO his/her power would not make a difference in the status of the two individuals and the potential outcome of the

Dialectics of Trust Shafer 1 Dialectics of Trust Trust is hardly given, and easily taken. This is something I’ve lived my life by, if someone is deserving of my trust, then easily taken or not, I should never be given cause to rescind it. I believe the Relationship Dialectics Theory aptly describes the reasons of who I attribute trust to, how each person differs in my hierarchy of trust, and even why I give out trust at all. The Why of Trust.

The first chapter talks about not bargaining over positions. Most people negotiate by staking out extreme positions in the beginning and then negotiating towards a middle ground compromise. This is a bad idea because right from the start both sides are committed to their position and will defend it to the end. This

Although, I am not that strong in leading a negotiation towards it’s ultimate goal. In order to increase the probability of a successful negotiation, for me as an individual, first I should identify the required steps and the order they should be taken in the course of a negotiation and try not to skip any step. The second item in my action plan is to improve my ability to construct trust-based negotiation. If trust is the basis of a negotiation, then both involved parties can think of a long relationship rather than one time transaction and it is what matters.

Only a limited amount of knowledge about the creation of interpersonal trust and emotive feelings is available due to the lack of research studies that have emphasized the correlational relationship. To gain a thorough understanding of the influence that interpersonal trust serves in the success of relationships, it is of high importance to conduct a study that will explain this relationship. The present study consisted of 494 individuals at a large Mid-Western University, whom were friends and associates of students enrolled in an introductory stats course. Subsequent to investigators’ completion of one survey, undergraduate students were instructed to complete five surveys relating to interpersonal trust. The Interpersonal Trust Scale was utilized to allow the investigators to formulate hypotheses and complete the appropriate analyses. According to the findings of the study, there is a partial significant relationship between interpersonal trust and the success of relationships. Though there was a significant relationship between relationship type and interpersonal trust, along with interpersonal trust and relationship status, the additional variables failed to show a significant relationship to interpersonal trust. The implication that can be drawn from the present study is that interpersonal trust influences the decisions that an individual may make regarding the development of relationships with other individuals.

Relationships between the variables “emotional needs satisfaction” and “trust” were examined using a Chi-Square Test of Independence ( = .05) and are shown in Table 3. Forty-eight significant relationships were indicated, of which 11 scored as highly significant (<.001). Four variable relationships with p values of <.001 within the top 5 satisfied emotional needs linked family commitment with faith (F16) regarding security; honesty and openness with dependability (D13) regarding fidelity, and faith (F3) regarding support and strength; and financial support with dependability

During negotiations, each party must determine what the position is that is farthest away from their original starting point, while still being favorable to their side (Colosi, 1983, Friedman, 1993, Post, 2009). Not only is each party responsible for presenting proposals reflecting their own position, but they are also responsible for presenting counterproposals based on both their position, and what the other party brings to the table. Through this exchange, it allows negotiators to get a better understanding of what each party is