Negotiation Is Not An Easy Process

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.

This paper presents my reflections on the Negotiations: Strategy and practice coursework in the MBA program at Said Business School, University of Oxford. My paper will present various reflections on different themes of negotiation simulation undertaken by me during the course. This course has allowed investigating and reflecting on key drivers of negotiation techniques for me. I have learned that transparency and coalition are the core tenet of negotiation for me. For the purpose of this reflective exercise, I will conduct a comparative analysis of the process, dynamics and outcomes based on the themes such as negotiation styles, bargaining zones, power, emotion, coalitions, value claiming vs value creation etc. for the below-mentioned simulations:

The four steps to the integrative negotiation process are to indentify and define the problem, understand the problem and bring interests and needs to the surface, generate alternative solutions to the problem, and evaluate those alternatives and select among them. The process is designed to first create value, then to claim the value associated. Defining the problem is a difficult part of the

Being successful at negotiating requires one to consider the various styles: win-win, win-lose, lose-win, lose-lose, no deal and compromise negotiation. Each is unique in its outcome and business associates must consider their end goal of the negotiation and when each style of negotiation is

Cahn and Abigail (2014) define negotiation as “a particular type of conflict management—one characterized by an exchange of proposals and counter proposals as a means of reaching a satisfactory settlement” (p. 229). Negotiation is a fact of life. Subsequently, we spend a substantial amount of time negotiating for something every day. The fact of the matter is that life is full of conflict situations. Whether in our personal or professional lives and whether or not we are aware of it, we are often engaged in conflict situations that require tapping into our conflict negotiation skills. From deciding what movie to see, where to eat, to asking one’s boss for a raise, we are all engaged in some type of negotiation. These real-life

Each author arouses very different expectations for the reader by using three distinct metaphors to explain negotiation. Fells uses DNA as a metaphor to explain negotiation, Reardon uses a roller coaster, and Moore uses a relationship. Each metaphor provides a unique interpretation of negotiation that should make the concept easier for a reader to understand. To further explain the metaphors, I have described my initial reaction to each metaphor and described what each has added to my understanding of what negotiation is. To further explain what my interpretation of negotiation is, I have provided an explanation of my own metaphor for negotiation as a tree.

Negotiation and decision making offers a powerful perspective, a specialized language and a set of tools that can be used to address the most stubborn problems in everyday life and work. Effective negotiation and decision making is essential in a buyer and seller relationship as well as our personal lives. In an organization, colleagues may find themselves applying negotiation tactics daily. The rationale behind negotiation and decision making is critical in our lives and especially in organizational survival.

An overriding framework of value creation, exploration of opportunities, interests and common goals was identified by both parties from the onset of the negotiation. Both groups where able to find common ground through setting out all issues processes and procedures of the negotiation, the understanding of each other’s issues opens the possibilities of collaboration and a win-win (Falcao, 2010). Within all negotiations there is a point where both parties present their positions and provide the expectations they hope to receive from the negotiation. Collaboration provides the opportunity for both parties to frame the requirements and limits expressed previously in the negotiation and work collaboratively to provide solutions that would be mutually beneficial for both parties (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Within collaboration both parties require the foresight and key behaviours to ensure a successful outcome, both parties are required to be open minded on the possibilities of value creation and goals to ensure parties are not committed to one single answer (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Negotiators are required to be mindful that goals can be achieved through multiple routes and exploration is required to achieve valued propositions for all parties, this may include parties making concessions on original positions to ensure a positive outcome. With the making of concessions parties are also required to be mindful of the goals the organisation or person are

art of negotiating is the process “whereby two persons or groups strive to reach agreement on

Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties intended to reach a beneficial outcome over one or more issues where a conflict exists with respect to at least one of these issues. This beneficial outcome can be for all of the parties involved, or just for one or some of them.

In the novel, Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury articulate that “[A]ny method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria: It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties.”1 In academia the concept that Fisher and Ury describe is known as integrative negotiation – “a win-win process, based on pursuing interests, that focus upon an ongoing relationship between negotiating parties.”2 Although this concept appears simplistic, its efficient outcome is rarely achieved. Far too often negotiators fall quarry to distributing resources, instead of using creativity to “expand the pie”. However, the ability to negotiate, like any skill, can be improved.

Negotiation is a traditional concept which refers to the process of reaching particular decisions through organised and participatory dialogue between two or more parties. The essence is that the parties must come together and agree to address a particular issue or situation. Negotiation only becomes successful if particular and important issues are first put into place in order to enhance the process. Indeed, in most cases, the negotiation process is a preserve of particular people considering its intricate nature. So important amongst the strategies in the negotiation process is the aspect of emotional understanding. It is normally imperative that each of the negotiating parties understands the feelings and emotions of the other parties so that such issues as tempers never rise to dangerous levels ADDIN EN.CITE Dess201180(Dess, 2011)80806Dess, G. G6thStrategic management: text and cases2011New YorkMcGraw-Hill/Irwin( HYPERLINK l "_ENREF_1" o "Dess, 2011 #80" Dess, 2011). Most situations call for the peace of mind and in case emotions go high, it only helps to complicate situations.

Rubin and Brown (1975), defined negotiation as a “process in which individuals work together to formulate agreements about the issues in dispute.” In the process of negotiation it is assumed that all the parties are willing to communicate and to generate offers, counter-offer, or both. Agreement occurs if and only if the offers

Conflicts happen in personal and professional situations every day. The individuals involved in disagreements or decision making normally aim to achieve the best possible resolution. A method to resolve issues is through negotiation. Negotiation is a communication process where the parties involved can interact with each other in an attempt to arrive at a resolution to the conflict that is mutually accepted. In fact negotiation is the most common approach used to make decisions and manage disputes (Moore, N.D). Believe it or not, everybody is a negotiator. Unknowingly most people act as negotiators in their everyday interactions with friends, family and co-workers (negotiations.com, 2014). When people are placed in a professional environment as a negotiator they have to be knowledgeable of the different negotiation methods and strategies so they can be successful. There are several negotiation methods that can be adapted to a particular situation based on the desired resolution. This paper shall try critically analysis why the bilateral negotiation method is the most preferred method for conflict resolution and business transactions by examining its two formats of negotiation: distributive (bargaining) and integrative (collaborative).

Negotiation, according to Tubbs and Moss (2006) is a “set of methods for resolving conflicts between and among people”. They also quote Walker and Harris (1995) who define negotiation as “the process of resolving differences through mutually acceptable trade-offs”.