How do we explore getting more in the deal than what was originally discussed? Some may not feel making the deal should mean adding more to it than the original bargain There is a lot of, “what is in it for me?” And “what do we get out of this deal?” Negotiation deals have either integrative or distributive properties. What are the contrasts between these two styles and what are their comparisons? This paper will explore the styles and how they are able to help expand the deal. The distributive style of negotiation is where both parties discuss a fixed sum or end state. Usually, one of the sides loses and the other gains. “A gain by one side is made at the expense of the other. This is also known as a zero-sum negotiation” (Negotiating Outcomes, 2007). The integrative negotiation allows both parties to cooperate and achieve maximum outcomes from the agreement. It is done by allowing both sides to integrate their interests into the agreement. “Each side makes trade-offs to get the things it values most, giving up other, less critical factors” (Negotiating Outcomes, 2007). These two styles are the basics of negotiation. One is more helpful in expanding the deal. The term, “expanding the pie”, should be interpreted as building a larger agreement. “Remember, it is not about gaining power at the expense of other. Your having more power doesn’t mean less power for the other person. The pie is expanded” (Diamond, S., 2010). What is expanding the pie? It is
Being successful at negotiating requires one to consider the various styles: win-win, win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose, no deal and compromise negotiation. Each is unique in its outcome and business associates must consider their end goal of the negotiation and when each style of negotiation is
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.
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.
In chess you know the pieces but you can’t see into the other person’s mind. In negotiation you don’t necessarily know the ‘pieces’. You have to discover and develop your own pieces and find ways of uncovering your counterparts’.” The Essentials of Job Negotiations, (2011)
“The Landlady” Have you ever wondered what it is like to stay at a bed and breakfast? I would not suggest staying at one like Billy did in the story “The Landlady” by Roald Dahl. I this story, Billy comes across many “red flags” that try to warn him about the landlady and the bed and breakfast. A red flag is something that signals the reader that something bad or suspicious is going on in the story. Some of the red flags in the story include: when Billy notices that the animals are stuffed, when Billy sees the familiar names in the guest book, and when the landlady tells Billy about the super cheap price. .
Getting to YES, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In is an excellent book that discusses the best methods of negotiation. The book is divided into three sections that include defining the problem, the method to solve it, and possible scenarios that may arise when using these methods. Each section is broken down into a series of chapters that is simple to navigate and outlines each of the ideas in a way that is easy for any reader to comprehend. There are also several real life explanations for each issue that make the concepts easier to apply and understand. These ideas are reflective of a method developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project called “principled negotiation”. This method combines the two ideas of soft and hard negotiation
Every negotiation will involve people, and Fisher and Ury make it very clear that people are not perfect. While some may be good communicators, others may not be good listeners on the receiving end. We have our own interests and goals, in which we tend to see from our point of view. According to Fisher and Ury, the first step to a successful negotiation is to “separate the people from the problem.” The most common human problem that we face tends to be “perception, emotion and communication.” To prevent these problems from happening, the authors suggest that we “build a working relationship” and focus on the problem itself, not the
“Instead of approaching the problem in a competitive as distributive bargaining (claiming value only for one), the integrative negotiation the parties adopt an attitude aimed at solving the problem and seek a favorable outcome for both” (Business Blog Review, 2011).
Ury (1993, pp. 11 136) presents a breakthrough strategy that to overcome the tactics used by the difficult negotiator and reach a settlement on mutually acceptable terms. He argues that the key is to understand why the possibility of reaching an interest-based outcome. The five steps of breakthrough negotiation8 are 1) Don't React: Go to the Balcony, 2) Don't Argue: Step to Their Side, 3) Don't Reject: Reframe, 4) Don't Push: Build Them a Golden Bridge, and 5) Don't Escalate: Use Power to Educate.
Throughout the lecture and my prior knowledge, I identified that the influence tactics are obviously relevant to negotiation and they can be utilized in a variety of ways in negotiation. Looking back the activity, it enabled me to have a better understanding of these important techniques and skills as certain tactics my opponents and I may use were examined at the negotiating table.
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.
In life there is always some type of give and take amongst others. Some exchange may be beneficial and some can be regretful. This is all the same with negotiation, either is to negotiate a divorces decree, price of a new home, or a NFL or NBA contract deal. The world today is full of negotiating situation in and can be executed at any given time. There two common characteristic of a negotiation or bargaining situation. Negotiating parties have separate but conflicting interest.
Communication styles in negotiation are probably one of the most important skills or characteristics one will develop over a lifetime. From the point a human being begins to develop cognitive skills, the process of learning and understanding situations become more apparent. One will learn from a very young age the dynamics and characteristics of communication and its role in negotiation. To better understand the communication process, one must be able to recognize how they communicate, whether it is on an assertive, aggressive, passive, or passive-aggressive level of communication. The manner in which one conveys his/her message is critical, and the many methods in which they do it is
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.
According to Halpert et al.’s Path model, negotiation consists of different phases such as preparation, differentiation, exploration, and exchange. The preparation phase in our previous negotiation became an essential part that played a role of evaluation of both parties positions in our successful outcome.