Negotiations:hypothetical analysis - Essay Example

Several principles from the book “Getting to Yes - Negotiating an agreement without giving in” by Fisher and Ury can be applied in the story presented. Separate the people from the problem As a negotiator, one must understand how the two sides think. Aside from the two sides of the problem, a negotiator also has his own set of perceptions and impressions of both sides. It is therefore useful for a negotiator to think in terms of three basic categories: perception, emotion, and communication.

In this case, it is obvious that Ms. Beadling perceives me (the volunteer) as the one who stole the goods. She seems to be convinced that I am already guilty without having to hear my side of the story. On the other hand, I perceive Ms. Beadling as someone who is demanding, disrespectful, and rude. These are the perceptions of both sides that the negotiator must take into account. The negotiator needs to put his shoes on our shoes in order for him to see and feel where we are coming from. To accomplish his task, he should first understand the power of our points of view before he can give a judgment on the situation.

His role would be to discuss to Ms. Beadling and me the perception we have of each other without necessarily blaming any side. After understanding both our perceptions, he must recognize and understand our emotions too. As he can observe, the emotions during the first confrontation was very strong. It is essential that the negotiator allow Ms. Beadling and me to let off the steam of our emotions. It is only when these emotions are allowed to be released can we both talk rationally. The negotiator must talk to both of us about how we feel and acknowledge that our emotions are legitimate given the situation.

He must be able to understand why we are feeling that way. Only after our emotions are mellowed can we be able to communicate properly with each other. Focus on interests, not positions The negotiator must figure out what is Ms. Beadling’s and my interests are, and he must find new ways to satisfy both of us with new positions where we will be both pleased. In this case, Ms. Beadling’s interest is to have the goods returned. In my case, my interest, first and foremost is to determine whether there are really lost goods and if there are, to find out who stole them.

The negotiator must let Ms. Beadling know my interests and vice versa. A negotiator must not get personal during the negotiations but he must not sacrifice his own interests too. Invent options for mutual gain The negotiator must come up with options which are mutually beneficial for both Ms. Beadling and I. We must both be consulted to come up with ideas that will solve the problem but he must emphasize the “no criticism” rule while the options are being presented. The negotiator has to look for common grounds and interests for both of us.

I think the first option for us is to agree first whether there are really missing goods. As it is Ms. Beadling claims there are missing goods but I have to know this for sure. Maybe if Ms. Beadling does not want to give me the password of the file, the negotiator can suggest that we both look at the file together (without her giving me the password) to see if there are indeed missing goods. This is important because we cannot start the negotiation unless this fact is verified by me. This option will be mutually beneficial to both of us.

Negotiation jujitsu If the other side has a hard bargaining style and sticks to positional bargaining, or if he gets personal with the negotiator, the negotiator must continue trying to negotiate and hopes that he becomes successful. If all else fails, he can use the negotiation jujitsu by calling in a mediator who is a disinterested party who will talk to both sides. In our case, the negotiator can call in the head of the local community leader of the food bank. The community leader after listening to both our sides will then prepare a solution which he thinks will satisfy both our