How to Negotiate - Essay Example

HOW TO NEGOTIATE By Student’s Name Code + Name of Course Institution City/State Professor Date How to Negotiate I agree with the statement about being proactive about strategic choices as an important step into obtaining what an individual wants than waiting for other people to prompt actions. The statement applies in using of negotiation skills to obtain the expected outcomes in agreements (Chaney & Jeanette 1995 p.6). In negotiations, having the right information is important. It is essential to ensure that the other party learns very little about ones preferences and weaknesses regarding what they want. The more one dwells on their strength in bargaining, the better it will be for the process. In negotiations, the first offer is considered as a powerful psychological support point. This is because it sets the range for bargaining. In this case, it is important that one refrain from disclosing any important information that surrounds the deal before having the right information (Lewicki, Alexander & Karen 1996 p. 9). One has to be keen on learning about the information from the other side including their interests, preferences, and options. In interactive processes of negotiation, one has to cooperate with the other party to gain maximum benefits. This is through integration of the interests of the two parties into a common agreement while at the same time competing to share the value. Being proactive about strategic choice is more likely to enable a negotiator to be good at claiming value after creating it (Weigand & Marcelo 2001, p.7). The situation is referred to as a win-win agreement. The situation resonates with the belief that negotiation relationships should provide benefits to both sides and not one sided or exploitative. However, a strategic choice in the negotiation process means that a successful negotiator usually creates trades –offs by initiating the process in order to acquire the things, which they really value while giving up on the less critical factors (Weigand & Marcelo 2001, p.7). In negotiations, one has to recognize a good deal without being influenced by the other party (Place Mentor 2013, n.pg). Such a deal is fair under different circumstances from the time the deal is made. The deal should offer for certain contingencies of agreement before arising of any problem. Such a kind of deal is possible in making agreements in business or other situations. To be sure that a deal is good and can generate a win-win situation, numerous questions must be asked before closing the deal. Negotiation style is critical in enabling a negotiation to be a ‘win-win'. The two parties should be positive upon finalizing the negotiation. This usually gives opportunities for future engagements. People need to develop good working relationships later on. For example, whether the agreement considers an individual’s long-range goals, the outcomes of the agreement versus an individual’s vision statement and whether the agreement lies within the limits and goals, which have been set for that negotiation (Forester 2006, p. 447). As a strategic choice, a person should determine whether they are intending to meet their commitment in an agreement. Basing on their information, one should try establishing if the other side is able to undertake the agreement in line with the expectations of both of them. The entire scenarios surrounding the deal should be reviewed (Forester 2006, p. 447). This is followed by an assessment of how this agreement could be transformed to develop a positive answer to the questions that arise out of the scenario. If an answer to these questions fails to resonate with the expectations in the agreement, one can make the necessary changes to enable positive outcomes (Forester 2006 p. 449). This is usually followed by closure of the deal unless there is more room for deliberations. When working with a different culture, a win-win solution usually takes more effort. In the course of a cross-cultural negotiation, one has to be thorough in their investigation about what is acceptable and unacceptable (Chaney & Jeanette 1995, p. 9). In negotiations, one has to foresee and consider the necessary issues and steps to enable them to attain a successful settlement. There are different psychological concerns regarding different phases of negotiations to enable one to be assertive in the negotiation process. These include preparation as the first phase of the process. Preparation is significantly crucial in the course of any negotiation process. When one prepares, there is a highly likelihood of success following. Preparation enables someone to determine about the most important details of the bargain (Gimpel 2007, p.12). Building a relationship for negotiation is an important step towards making a strategic choice in the negotiation process. In building a relationship, one tries getting to know the other party. This enables the understanding about what is relevant in that situation. The most important thing here is recognizing differences while focusing on similarities. This step is critical because the people involved in a negotiation might from two different genders, cultures, or generation. Thus, for the process to proceed there is a great need for laying a foundation through building a relationship, which would ensure that negotiation is successful (Gimpel, 2007 pg12). Information gathering is important before engaging in a negotiation. This is because it makes someone proactive by getting the required information and understanding the issues, which are involved. Here, the needs of the other party are understood. An individual can therefore weigh on the possible outcomes and in the process consider the action to undertake incase a settlement is not reached (Gimpel 2007, p.13). Information using is a significant step that can enable an individual to makes a case, which can strengthen their position by using the collected data. Here, one sells their stand to the other party. Evidently, the other party’s needs cannot be overlooked in case a favorable and quick settlement is desired (Gimpel, 2007 pg12). Different kinds of negotiations exist. These include distributive negotiation, which is often used when one needs to acquire what they want and leave immediately. It happens in a competitive manner whereby one aims at winning a bigger share of a resource that is fixed and limited. Distributive negotiation can easily happens when an individual’s ultimate goals are in direct and fundamental conflict with those of the other party (Ehlich & Johannes 1995, p. 12). In this type of negotiation, the relationship between two parties that are engaged is not important. The disadvantage with this negotiation is that, a moral dilemma is associated because of a likelihood that the two parties transacting would never meet. Thus, it is necessary to be proactive in distributive negotiations in order to make sound and strategic choices (Ehlich & Johannes 1995, p. 12). Ultimately, the negotiation process seeks to let two parties to come to common terms by agreeing on how to share between limited resources and to create a new deal. In this process, they will be able to resolve a dispute. It should also be remembered that in a negotiation exercise, it is not a guarantee that the negotiations can generate into a deal (Radwan 2006, n.pg). This means that the resource, which is being, negotiated could potentially be material, money, time, relationships, principle or a process. Making strategic choices would enable an individual to be assertive in a bid to reach an agreement through distributive negotiation (Entrepreneur 2013, n.pag). In negotiations, every party is usually given a certain range for making a bargain from which they can be able to negotiate. This follows that whoever makes the best strategic choice wins. The basic objective of these two parties is to obtaining an appropriate bargaining range that would suit them the most. Being the initiator of the deal can be a good step rather than waiting for the other party to prompt (Entrepreneur 2013, n.pag). In order to negotiate successfully, one has to act as if they have nothing to lose. The party, which appears to be having nothing to lose usually, wins. Getting much attachment to something makes someone to seem too needy or desperate. The result in such a negotiation is likely to be a loss. Even in a situation where one is likely to lose, one should act as if they have nothing to lose. This increases the likelihood of winning over the negotiation. The body language of the other party has to be interpreted in the course of negotiation to predict their move to assert an individual with the necessary step to take (Entrepreneur 2013, n.pag). Generally, one should try to conceal their emotion. Displaying of emotion is clearly inappropriate in negotiations. This is because emotions undermine the basis for rational thought and can bring a manipulative aspect to a negotiation process. For example, one can hide their happiness or satisfaction generated out of the agreement. This will ensure that the other party fails in getting a chance of gaining back some grounds, which the other party had lost. Instead, one needs to try appearing not satisfied as much as much ground has been gained. Through this, more ground could still be gained (Entrepreneur 2013, n.pag). In conclusion, being proactive about strategic choices as an important step into getting what an individual wants than waiting for other people. In negotiations, one has to foresee and consider the necessary issues and steps to enable them to attain a successful settlement. Being proactive about strategic choice is more likely to enable a negotiator to be good at both claiming value after creating it. Preparation enables individuals to get the most important details of the agreement in order to initiate action. If an agreement is not reached with the other party, one should consider the alternatives, which are available. There are usually better alternatives, which people can engage in. The alternatives could be from both parties in a bid to create opportunities for other engagements. Reference List Chaney, L & Jeanette, S 1995, Intercultural business communication, Prentice Hall Career and Technology. Ehlich, K & Johannes, W 1995, The discourse of business negotiation, Vol. 8. Walter de Gruyter. Entrepreneur 2013, How to Win a Business Negotiation, (Updated 12. March 2013), Available at: [Accessed 16 Sept. 2013] Forester, J 2006, ‘Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict: Moving from facilitating dialogue and moderating debate to mediating negotiations’, Journal of the American Planning Association vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 447-456. Gimpel, H 2007, Preferences in Negotiations, Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Lewicki, R, Alexander, H & Karen, O 1996, Think before you speak: The complete guide to strategic negotiation, J. Wiley. Lewicki, R, David, M & John, W 1999, Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases, Irwin/The McGraw-Hill Companies. Place mentor 2013, Twelve rules for win-win negotiating, Available at: [Accessed 11 Sept. 2013] Radwan, F 2006, How to win a negotiation, Updated 2011), Available at: [Accessed 16 Sept. 2013] Weigand, E & Marcelo, D 2001, Negotiation and power in dialogic interaction, Vol. 214. John Benjamins. Read More

For example, whether the agreement considers an individual’s long-range goals, the outcomes of the agreement versus an individual’s vision statement and whether the agreement lies within the limits and goals, which have been set for that negotiation (Forester 2006, p. 447). As a strategic choice, a person should determine whether they are intending to meet their commitment in an agreement. Basing on their information, one should try establishing if the other side is able to undertake the agreement in line with the expectations of both of them.

The entire scenarios surrounding the deal should be reviewed (Forester 2006, p. 447). This is followed by an assessment of how this agreement could be transformed to develop a positive answer to the questions that arise out of the scenario. If an answer to these questions fails to resonate with the expectations in the agreement, one can make the necessary changes to enable positive outcomes (Forester 2006 p. 449). This is usually followed by closure of the deal unless there is more room for deliberations.

When working with a different culture, a win-win solution usually takes more effort. In the course of a cross-cultural negotiation, one has to be thorough in their investigation about what is acceptable and unacceptable (Chaney & Jeanette 1995, p. 9). In negotiations, one has to foresee and consider the necessary issues and steps to enable them to attain a successful settlement. There are different psychological concerns regarding different phases of negotiations to enable one to be assertive in the negotiation process.

These include preparation as the first phase of the process. Preparation is significantly crucial in the course of any negotiation process. When one prepares, there is a highly likelihood of success following. Preparation enables someone to determine about the most important details of the bargain (Gimpel 2007, p.12). Building a relationship for negotiation is an important step towards making a strategic choice in the negotiation process. In building a relationship, one tries getting to know the other party.

This enables the understanding about what is relevant in that situation. The most important thing here is recognizing differences while focusing on similarities. This step is critical because the people involved in a negotiation might from two different genders, cultures, or generation. Thus, for the process to proceed there is a great need for laying a foundation through building a relationship, which would ensure that negotiation is successful (Gimpel, 2007 pg12). Information gathering is important before engaging in a negotiation.

This is because it makes someone proactive by getting the required information and understanding the issues, which are involved. Here, the needs of the other party are understood. An individual can therefore weigh on the possible outcomes and in the process consider the action to undertake incase a settlement is not reached (Gimpel 2007, p.13). Information using is a significant step that can enable an individual to makes a case, which can strengthen their position by using the collected data.

Here, one sells their stand to the other party. Evidently, the other party’s needs cannot be overlooked in case a favorable and quick settlement is desired (Gimpel, 2007 pg12). Different kinds of negotiations exist. These include distributive negotiation, which is often used when one needs to acquire what they want and leave immediately. It happens in a competitive manner whereby one aims at winning a bigger share of a resource that is fixed and limited. Distributive negotiation can easily happens when an individual’s ultimate goals are in direct and fundamental conflict with those of the other party (Ehlich & Johannes 1995, p. 12). In this type of negotiation, the relationship between two parties that are engaged is not important.

The disadvantage with this negotiation is that, a moral dilemma is associated because of a likelihood that the two parties transacting would never meet.

Read More