The negotiation process permeates the interactions of almost everyone in groups and organizations.
In today’s loosely structured organizations, where members work with colleagues over whom they have no direct authority and with whom they may not even share a common boss, negotiation skills become critical.
For this reason, it is essential to know the entire negotiation process and what it implies, in order to be able to succeed in the business world.
Exactly what is negotiation?
Negotiation is a method by which people resolve differences. It is a process whereby a compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding arguments and disputes.
It is a dialogue between two or more people or parties aimed at achieving a beneficial result.
This beneficial outcome can be for all parties involved, or just for one or some of them.
In another way, negotiation is a process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services and try to agree on the exchange rate for them.
Objective of the negotiation
Its main objective is to solve points of difference, obtain advantages for an individual or group, or elaborate results to satisfy various interests; Often it is accomplished by presenting a position and making small concessions to reach an agreement.
The degree to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is an important factor in determining whether the negotiations are successful. Negotiation is not a zero sum game; If there is no compromise, the negotiations have failed.
When negotiations are at an impasse, it is essential that both parties acknowledge the difficulties and agree to work towards a solution at a later date.
The negotiation process is a key factor
Negotiation is an open process for two parties to find an acceptable solution to a complicated conflict.
There are some specific conditions where negotiation will achieve the best results;
- When the conflict consists of two or more parties or groups.
- There is a significant conflict of interest between both parties.
- All parties feel that the negotiation will lead to a better outcome.
- All parties want to work together, instead of having a dysfunctional conflict situation.
Negotiation Items
There are many different ways to categorize the essentials of trading.
A vision of negotiation involves 3 basic elements:
- Process,
- behavior and
- Substance.
The process refers to how the parties negotiate.
The context of the negotiations, the parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which they take place. Behavior refers to the relationships between these parts, the communication between them, and the styles they adopt.
The substance refers to what the parties negotiate; the agenda, the issues (positions and, more usefully, interests), the options and the agreements reached at the end.
Another vision of negotiation comprises 4 elements:
- Strategy,
- Process,
- tools and
- Tactic.
The strategy comprises the higher-level goals, which typically include the relationship and the bottom line.
The processes and tools include the steps that will be followed and the roles that are taken both in the preparation and in the negotiation with the other parties.
Tactics include more detailed statements and actions and responses to the statements and actions of others.
Some add to this persuasion and influence, stating that these have become integral to the success of modern trading and should therefore not be omitted.
But according to members of the Harvard Negotiation Project he developed 7 elements of negotiation.
- Interests.
- Legitimacy.
- Relations
- Alternatives
- Options
- commitments
- Communication.
Contemporary Negotiation Skills
There are now recognized alternative approaches to traditionally recognized distributed and positional trading and hard versus soft strategies in trading.
Many experts suggest an integrative approach that takes an “expand the pie” perspective that uses problem-solving techniques to find win-win outcomes.
Based on a collaborative strategy, the integrative strategy, the integrative approach requires the effective negotiator to use skills such as ‘
- Set higher goals,
- Separating the people from the problem,
- Focusing on interests, not positions,
- Inventing options for mutual benefit, and
- Using objective criteria.
Recent practice guidelines for effective trading have grouped the techniques into degrees of risk to the user as follows:
High Risk Trading Techniques
Unexpected Loss of Temper:
Exploding in anger can break a deadlock and get the point across, but it can also be seen as immature or manipulative and can lead opponents to harden their position.
High balling:
This is used to gain trust by appearing to give in to the opponent’s position, but when revoked by a higher authority, trust-based concessions are obtained.
Boulwarism (“take it or leave it”):
Named for a former GE vice president who would make a single offer in labor negotiations, this is a highly aggressive strategy that can also produce anger and frustration among opponents.
Waiting until the last moment:
After using tactics and learning that a deadline is approaching, a reasonable but favorable offer is made, leaving the opponent with little choice but to accept.
In addition to these low and high risk strategies, there are also a number of other trading techniques, such as a two person team using “good cop – bad cop” (one is tough, followed by one who is kind), and various tactical psychological, such as insisting that meetings be held in your own homer, scheduling meetings at inconvenient times or interrupt meetings with phone calls or side meetings.
There are even guidelines as to whether, when and how to use alcohol in negotiations.
As the president of Saber Enterprise points out, when the Japanese come to trade, you’re supposed to go out to dinner and have various toasted drinks with sake.
Due to globalization and the consequent increase in negotiations between parties from different countries, Research on the dynamics and strategies of cross-cultural negotiations is emerging.
Types of negotiators
Researchers involved in The Harvard Negotiation Project have identified three basic types of negotiators.
These types of negotiators are;
- smooth negotiators,
- tough negotiators, and
- Principled negotiators.
soft negotiators
- These people see negotiation as too close to competition, so they choose a soft negotiation style.
- The offers they make are not in their best interest, they give in to the demands of others, they avoid confrontation, and they maintain good relations with their fellow negotiators.
- Their perception of others is friendship, and their goal is agreement. They don’t separate the people from the problem, but they are gentle on both.
- They avoid contests of wills and will insist on agreement, offering solutions and easily trusting others and changing their opinions.
hard negotiators
- These people use adversarial strategies to influence, using phrases like “this is my final offer” and “take it or leave it.”
- They threaten, mistrust others, insist on their position and exert pressure to negotiate.
- They see others as adversaries and their ultimate goal is victory. Furthermore, they will look for a single answer and insist that you accept it.
- They don’t separate the people from the problem (as with soft negotiators), but they are hard on both the people involved and the problem.
Principled Negotiators
- People who negotiate in this way seek integrative solutions and do so by avoiding commitment to specific positions.
- They focus on the problem rather than the intentions, motives, and needs of the people involved.
- They separate people from the problem, explore interests, avoid bottom lines, and achieve results based on standards (which are independent of personal will).
- They base their choices on objective criteria rather than power, pressure, self-interest, or an arbitrary decision process. These criteria can be drawn from moral standards, principles of equity, professional standards, tradition, etc.
Researchers at the Harvard Negotiation Project recommend that negotiators explore a number of alternatives to the problems they face in order to arrive at the best overall conclusion/solution, but this is often not the case.
The role of personality traits in negotiation
Can you predict an opponent’s negotiation tactics if you know anything about his personality?
It is tempting to answer Yes to this question.
For example, you can assume that high risk takers would be more aggressive negotiators who make fewer concessions. Surprisingly, the evidence does not support this intuition.
General evaluations of the personality-bargaining relationship find that personality traits do not have a significant direct effect on the negotiation process or the results of the negotiation. This conclusion is important.
It suggests that you should focus on the issues and situational factors in each negotiation episode and not on the personality of your opponent.
Gender differences in negotiation
Do men and women negotiate differently? Does gender affect negotiation outcomes?
The answer to the first question seems to be No.
The answer to the second is a qualified yes. A popular stereotype held by many is that women are more cooperative and agreeable in negotiations than men. Even so, the evidence does not support this belief.
However, it has been found that men negotiate better results than womenalthough the difference is quite small. It has been postulated that this difference could be due to the fact that men and women place divergent values on the results.
“A few hundred dollars more in salary or in the business office may be less important to women than building and maintaining an interpersonal relationship.”
The belief that women are “nicer” than men in negotiations is likely due to the gender confusion and lack of power women often have in most large organizations. Research indicates that low-power managers, regardless of gender, they try to placate their opponents and use gently persuasive tactics instead of direct confrontation and threats.
In situations where women and men have similar power bases, there should not be significant differences in their bargaining styles.
Women managers show less confidence in anticipating the…
