Negotiations in Business - Essay Example

? NEGOTIATION By Insert Presented to Location Due INTRODUCTION Negotiation in business is an important aspect because of its significant contribution to the success of most businesses in the corporate world. According to Eunson (2012) in the study on the role of negotiation organization provides that negotiation is an absolute critical factor as far as success is concerned (Eunson 2012). He further asserts that negotiation is essential in effective functioning of the various departments of the organization (Eunson 2012). Ascribing from this it can be argued that poor negotiation in a business entity results into negative implication to the overall business performance. ROLE OF NEGOTIATION IN BUSINESS The role of negotiation in a business is notable in a situation where a business needs to make decisions regarding its future operations and survival. Businesses need consultants with exceptional negotiation skills in making key major business decisions. Effective negotiation is required in regard to business decisions concerning critical business activities notably financial matters (Gosselin 2007). Businesses need to make informed and sound deals with its business associates, vendors and the business stakeholders. This facilitates the business to sustain afloat as well as its financial lucrative. Therefore it can be argued that the key role of negotiation in any business is to the business becomes successful. PART 1 NEGOTIATING STYLES The negotiation style adopted by any business may be used to reflect whether the desired results, deadlock or breakthrough is achieved or not. Therefore ascribing from this it can be asserted that businesses need to check on the compatibility of the negotiating style to suit its business needs and requirement. According to Gosselin (2007) in the context of management theory, he asserts that there is no best negotiating style as business needs vary and its dynamic nature. Therefore there is no single approach that can be exclusively adopted singly by a business (Gosselin 2007). In the context of business negotiations the preferred negotiating style should be able to increase the profitability of the business. There are five negotiating styles whereby each result into its specific conflict models (Eunson 2012). Depending on the vulnerability and the implication of each, business negotiators adopt the preferred style which results into a more benefit-like to the business. The negotiating styles entail the following. Compete (I win- You lose) This is one of the common negotiating styles which focus on the full achievement of what is desired. The business negotiators are determined to solve the underlying conflict and emerge being the winners (Gosselin 2007). The negotiator ensures that there is gain in the short run. This is achieved mostly in compromising situations where all the means and tactics are used for a win to be achieved at any cost. The negotiators associated with this style are usually considered extreme and aggressive. When to use? This negotiating style is commonly used when businesses needs to achieve desired results quickly as soon as possible. This commonly arises when there is an extreme competition and a win is required at whatever cost (Ross 2010). This attributes the competitive nature and situation as a defense for the adoption of this style. For effective use of this style it is desire that negotiators have to be impartial to avoid deadlock. This negotiation style may be appropriate to use but the risk of a deadlock is also put into consideration. What's the danger? The dangers associate with this negotiating style is the overuse of competition by the competing negotiators. Both parties are prepared on how they will counter one another because of the ability to speculate on the tactics adopted by the other party. This high competitive negotiations adopting this style in most cases result into deadlock as no party would want to back down. Businesses therefore need to adopt a low compete profile consultants in case of the need to negotiate (Ross 2010). Imbalances in the level of competition usually impact negatively on the business relationship with the various stakeholders. This will facilitate the businesses in ensuring that they consolidate their market reputation and relations with the stakeholders. Another notably danger is that is that as businesses claim value in adopting this style there is a greater tendency of it adding no value. Self Defense The defense in regard to this negotiating style is that in any negotiation you don’t give in. The driving aspect in regard to this is that you have to demand concessions from your competitor. For the purpose of creating goodwill a negotiator should not consider any self deluders who want to gain at the expense of the other party (Ross 2010). A business negotiator should make firm decisions using strong and appropriate language. Accommodate (I lose- You Win) This negotiation style ascribes to the assertion that to be in the winning side one ought to give in what others want. This contradicts the principles of the competing style and they make things easy for the opposing party negotiators. When to use? This style in most cases is used when businesses mitigate their faults and try to mend the relationship. In other circumstances when the move tend to have no significant impact on the business (Lewicki 2011). When the negotiations tend to be overwhelming the business it is better to give in. Businesses would likely choose to loose in negotiations where the implications puts the business at risk. This style is best in cases where there is no need to break relationship and there is need for future cooperation’s. What's the danger? In cases of a high competing cases it amount to loss in a business if this style is adopted. This move may be considered a weakness by the negotiating party and take advantage of it. The sign of accommodation downgrades the position of a negotiating party granting an easy go to the other party (Lewicki 2011). Although it may be appropriate for the future of the business it may be devastating at the short run. It is important that a concession should not be apparent to the other negotiating party in case this style is used. Self Defense In the negotiators take advantage of the weaknesses of the other party in the negotiation table. It is usually expected that negotiators lure one another expecting a much more valuable return (Ross 2010). Thus it is important to evaluate critically what a deal or agreement comprises of. Competence in the negotiation table is also vital; this involves making valuable concessions that enhance the viability of the business and likely to be accepted by all the key stakeholders (Gosselin 2007). Therefore it can be argued that a higher value of return is important in ensuring that negotiations do not benefit one party while it harms another. Avoid (I lose - You Lose) This style is mainly used in order to avoid conflict and may be considered to be passive aggressive. This is usually a passive vengeance where parties engage in aggressiveness without being apparent (Gosselin 2007). This style is common in the reaction to address the high compete negotiators. When to use? This style is commonly used in circumstances where negotiations tend to be trivial to both parties. Also in times when the negotiations have no significant benefit to the parties this style become appropriate. Businesses use this style to avoid risk in a conflicting situation where negotiation tend to become pointless and too much emotion (Lewicki 2011). This is where avoid style become a preferred pragmatic alternative. This method also becomes an alternative in cases where a business is involved in uncalled for negotiations. What's the danger? The dangers associated with this style concerns the aspects of urgency. Negotiating parties should avoid as much as possible not to reveal their desperation or the urgency of the negotiations breakthrough (Lewicki 2011). This style may also result into unnecessary competitions attributed to the cut off communication and the avoidance perception of the other party. There is likelihood of mutual resentment building up and more conflicts are likely to build up. Self Defense Businesses should ensure that there are enough preparations for the negotiations. Escalating the issues on both sides is appropriate in cases where the parties involved tend to adopt avoid style. Proper understanding of the decision making process and responsibility is essential (Ross 2010). This enhances validation of reasons to avoid as well as weighing the appropriateness of escalating options. Compromise (I Lose / Win Some - You Lose / Win Some) This is a usual style that most negotiators anticipate. This involves weighing the rationale and Splitting the differences and meeting both parties’ demands. This may be considered fair in some perspective. When to use? This style is used in cases where both parties trust each other and that they need to solve the conflict without delay (Lewicki 2011). Both parties ought to win and lose at the same time and results into less strain on the relationship. Negotiators try to win the right things and lose the less valuable. What's the danger? The dangers involve are mainly associated with negligence on the preparedness. This incompetence result into forced compromising situations especially in cases where the outcome is important to the business. The adoption of this style can be perceived as a weakness in cases where weak rationale is used (Gosselin 2007). There is likely for the negotiator who has the greatest opening to benefit from the compromise. Self Defense It is advisable to use avoid style with a provision of an appropriate rationale. Goals and interests have to be taken into consideration for a well reasoned compromise (Ross 2010). It is important for businesses to ensure that they do not avoid easily before exploiting all the alternatives. Extreme positions should be adopted but harmonized into reality. Collaborate (I Win - You Win) This is a negotiation style where all the parties have their demands met at an equal consensus. The negotiators are usually rigid and ensure that their demands must be met as well as acknowledging the demands of the other parties. Emphasis is laid on finding innovative solutions. When to use? This style is common in cases of business to business negotiations. This is attributed to the importance of a collaborative relationship in a business environment (Ross 2010). Businesses result into this style because of the need to reduce risk and to stay in business. Collaboration essential as it takes into consideration all the interests of the negotiators. What's the danger? It is important to ensure that there is binding agreement among the negotiators. Competing businesses should ensure that transactional trading manner is adopted and that there should be equal sharing of information at the same level (Gosselin 2007). Time is required for the purpose of building a long term relationship between the negotiators. Self Defense The best way to defend the adoption of this style is to ensure that the interest of the business is in line with the desired results. If this style is not adequate, it is better to explore other viable styles. Collaboration style should ensure that value is realized taking into consideration the time invested and the desired implications (Lewicki 2011). PART 2 COMMUNICATION COMPETENCES How are the different types of cognitions related to negotiation? How are these findings important to the stages of information gathering and information using? How are they important to the way you perceive and assess the tangibles and intangibles? TYPES OF THE FIVE COGNITIONS Planning cognitions This is ability to anticipate, rehearse and monitor topics of conversation—anticipate the audience, plan what one is going to say in advance, etc. According to in the study on the importance of planning cognition he asserts that planning cognitions are essential in regard to the execution of functions and processes (Gelfand 2004). From these assertions of the planning cognition, the processes that it comprises can be utilized in the achievement of the desired goals and objectives in a business environment. These include formulation of ideas designs, policies and strategic for negotiations. This further enhances selection of the appropriate sequence of thoughts for suitable actions to be made. Individual behavioral intentions are controlled by the planning cognitions which is crucial in gaining from a negotiation process. This brings the distinction between the aspect of coping and original planning. In regard to what individuals plan to say coping planning cognitions plays a significant role contributing and shaping the behavior change of an individual (Gelfand 2004). Presence cognitions This is the awareness of how the other is reacting to a conversation—knowing when to recognize others negative reactions or resistance, change the subject, etc. In the context of negotiations this aspects is related and connected with the sustained communication. It is important in the negotiation process that the parties define their conflict on the basis of cognitive presence. This is important because of the reliability and the reality of the situation. Presence cognitions are important in shaping the direction of the negotiation process. This aspect of this concept plays a key role in avoiding the occurrence of deadlock or persistence of resistance during the negotiation process. This can also be used as a strategy to win over the other negotiating party if they fail to make proper use of the presence cognition. This involves the creation and support of presence cognition based on the critical arguments and stands with appropriate justifications inclusive of the rationale of the other parties in the negotiation table. This aspect facilitates collection of information and coming up with empirical findings for assessment. This enhances the creation of efficient and reliable instrument for the assessment of the nature and the critical discourse of the negotiation. Modeling cognitions This measures the respondent’s awareness of contextual variables that provide information about how to interact with the other party—i.e. “sizing up” the environment, paying attention to how other people are reacting and responding, etc. According to Riva (2006) he provides that modeling cognitions provides a measurement provision on how respondents comprehend and predict various aspects and situations (Gelfand 2004). There is tendency of this provision focusing and emphasizing on single cognitive processes. These processes include how the respondents learn and the time span, the level of interactions which include the visual search and the decision making processes. In addition to this is the prediction of the respondent behavioral change in order to perform a specific task or to achieve specific goal. In regard to modeling cognitions what is taken into consideration is majorly the level of simulation that enhances interactions between various individuals (Riva 2006). Other considerations include interaction with the immediate environment comprising of the humans mostly influenced by the psychological factors. It is notable that respondents dynamically respond to both social stimuli and the environmental stimuli. Reflection cognitions This measures the tendency for the respondent to reflect upon a communication performance, with the objective being to improve one’s self presentation (e.g. reflecting on what I said, my past performance, what I could have said, etc.). Reflection cognition plays a major role as far as motivation and self esteem is concerned (Riva 2006). This aspect involves the conceptualization of ones ability and the performance in a specific field. In the context of negotiation the reflection cognition facilitates in the selection of the appropriate negotiation style. This selection process is based on the performance in the previous conflicts where those which succeeded are adopted. Reflective cognition is important in the collection of information because it is goal oriented. Another reason is that it maximum utilization of self observations, evaluation and the reactions (Riva 2006). These outlines aspects are essential in ensuring that relevant and reliable information is noted which are instrumental in the negotiation process. Reflective cognition is significant in the assessment process because the conceptualized positive and negative responses have dramatic affects in the decision making process in the future (Gosselin 2007). This aspect brings in the notion of self-regulation which has a significant effect in coming up with a decision making rationale. Furthermore reflection cognition facilitates the analysis of respondent beliefs, evaluation of emotions and the assessment of any actions taken by any party in the negotiation process. Consequence cognitions This measures the respondent’s awareness of the consequences of a communication performance (e.g. thinking about how others might interpret what I have said, understanding the effects of my communication on others, etc.). During the negotiation process consequence cognition is important as far as expressions and the manner of argument is concerned (David 2010). Communication performance is very important because of its effect on the clarity and preciseness. Effective communication is essential for a successful negotiation process for the achievement of clarity and satisfaction for all the parties involved. Good communication performance enhances easy exploration of information regarding the stand and the positions of the parties involved. It enhances justification and explanations in the different points of view and perspectives which is the primary goal of any negotiating parties (David 2010). In regard to the collection of information it is important to note that consequence cognition facilitates information gathering as well as clarification of the parties’ intentions and their moves. This enhances exploration of the various alternatives and navigation of any underlying terms before entering into agreement in any negotiation (David 2010). Poor communication performance increases rigidity and unsatisfactory information for a reliable basis for concluding the negotiation process. Conclusion Negotiations in business have become an important aspect in the success or failure of these entities. Businesses need to adopt appropriate and suitable negotiation style to suit its requirements and needs. Depending on the circumstance and situation, goals and objectives of the organization the selection of negotiating style is done. Various cognitions should be taken into consideration in order to ensure that the undertaken negotiating process is becomes successful. These cognition are vital in the collection of the relevant information as well as the decision making process during the negotiations. Finally it is important that parties who want to gain from any negotiation should have excellent communication performance for clarity and ensuring that all the parties involved in the negotiation process are satisfied. References David R. Roskos-Ewoldsen, J. L.-E. (2010). Communication And Social Cognition: Theories And Methods. New York: Wiley and Sons. Eunson, B. (2012). Conflict Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Giuseppe Riva, P. (2006). From Communication to Presence: Cognition, Emotion and Culture Towards the Ultimate Communicative Experience. Boston: IOS Press. Gosselin, T. (2007). Practical Negotiating: Tools, Tactics & Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons. MICHELE J EDITOR GELFAND, J. M. (2004). The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture: Theoretical Advances and Cross-cultural Perspectives. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ross, G. H. (2010). Trump-Style Negotiation: Powerful Strategies and Tactics for Mastering Every Deal. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Roy J. Lewicki, A. H. (2011). Mastering Business Negotiation: A Working Guide to Making Deals and Resolving Conflict. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Read More