Describe a Range of Negotiation Styles and Evaluate Their Effectiveness

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 Cloke and Goldsmith’s Resolving Conflicts at Work, strategy 1 gives us an overview of conflict today and the many factors that influence. The authors also explain the many ways nearly every conflict can be handled. Cloke tells us that differing human perceptions keep us stuck in conflict longer than is necessary and productive. Early family development sets the default settings for each person’s perception of the situations they will face for the rest of their lives. Cloke goes on to say that conflict is unavoidable especially because today’s media continually subjects Americans to conflict following a common injunction, “if it bleeds it leads.”

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.

As many of us has stated, how we handle conflict determines whether the outcome is a negative or a positive one. Majority of us also stated that if conflict is

Negotiation is a fundamental process used in resolving conflicts, making business deals, and in managing working relationships with others. Negotiations occur for two reasons: (1) to resolve a problem or dispute between parties, or (2) to create something new that neither party could do on its own.

We should be prepared. Also, we need to hold firm to our principles. Do not forget we have something the supplier wants; they need us as much as we need them. When something is important to us, stick to our guns. Suppliers will respect us for it. Moreover, we do not be intimidated. We do not automatically accept the contract terms a supplier suggests/offers us. Remember that it is their job to get the best possible outcome for their company. However, that is our job too. Furthermore, acknowledging the strengths in the supplier’s proposal or positive past performances before identifying weaknesses can make them more receptive to considering our point of view. Additionally, we have to Control the Negotiations. We have to leading the agenda, tabling the objectives, and control the pace of the meeting all help to assert our position in the negotiation process.

Negotiation is one important part of both the professional and personal life in our everyday situations. It is critical for people to resolve disputes, distribute limited resources, and/or create something new that neither party could achieve on his or her own. Negotiations can range from coordinating project timelines with clients to asking for a raise to discussing holiday plans with family members.

Kozicki (1993, pp. xiii - xiv) views negotiation is a simple procedure that basically a solution of two sides sitting down to reach a mutually satisfying agreement, and sees negotiation as being the art of reaching an agreement by

Conflict is “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals” (Hocker, 1991). There are two basic types of conflicts: substantive and emotional. According to Schermerhorn et.al., substantive conflict is a fundamental disagreement over ends or goals to be pursued and the means for their

Whether it is at work, church or in our private relationships, negotiations are a necessary tool for reaching an agreement. They are made by discussing each parties point of view with the aim being to reach an agreement that is mutually beneficial. For the most part, negotiation is the process by which those people involved successfully adopt or abandon their respective position through the use of positional bargaining. There are different types of approaches for the negotiation process - some hard and others soft in their manner of approach. The desired outcome of

From reaching an agreement with a large client to bargaining for a higher starting salary, the ability to negotiate effectively is a critical component of success in business. One fundamental aspect of a negotiation is if it will be approached as distributive bargaining or as an integrative negotiation. Distributive bargaining is a competitive, zero-sum negotiation in which there are a limited amount of resources available, while integrative negotiation takes place when “the parties’ goals are not seen as mutually exclusive and in which the focus is on making it possible for both sides to achieve their objectives” (Nelson and Quick 2009). For example, a dispute over land would necessitate

In today’s competitive scenario, achieving successful results through negotiations has become more important. But often negotiations face either complete failures or achieve far less than its actual potential. Also, such unsuccessful negotiations may perennially damage the reputation and relationships amongst the counterparties involved.

in and studied over the years, I’m struck by how frequently even experienced negotiators leave money on the table, deadlock, damage relationships, or allow conflict to spiral. (For more on the rich theoretical understanding of negotiations developed by researchers over the past fifty years, see the sidebar “Academics Take a Seat at the Negotiating Table.”) There are as many specific reasons for bad outcomes in negotiations as there are individuals and deals. Yet broad classes of errors recur. In this article, I’ll explore those mistakes, comparing good negotiating practice with bad. But

Negotiation is the process of two individuals or groups reaching joint agreement about differing needs or ideas. Oliver (1996) described negotiation as "negotiators jointly searching a multidimensional space and then agreeing to a single point in the space." Negotiation is a form of conflict resolution. When we negotiate, the first thing that needs to be established is whether we have two or more parties that have a common objective, but also differ in ideas when it comes to how they achieve the objective. The principle behind negotiating is to finding the middle ground that is suitable for both parties involved. Not all negotiation ends in satisfactory compromise, sometimes negotiations can take a long time to conclude

Negotiation is all about a strategy. The end result is usually to end a problem that someone is having, whether it is personally or