Negotiations occur constantly on micro and macro scales, both in the office and in everyday life. As in-house counsel, you are sure to encounter numerous types of negotiations as part of your daily tasks, such as salary negotiations, contract negotiations with outside counsel, settlement negotiations during litigation, union negotiations, purchase order negotiations, and more.
Shared interests goals or objectives. Satisfactory zone of possible agreement. Mutual trust comes from experience, either within the negotiation process or from previous contact. If it does not already exist, it must be built.
Surprises can take many forms: In this sense, trust is a kind of conclusion about the credibility of the other side. As a negotiator, your goal is to have more influence on the other side than they have on you.
Your goals and objectives must be seen to gain merit while the goals and objectives of the other side lose merit. This means your presentation of "facts" and other evidence must be convincing. A positive relationship with the other negotiator is essential if you are to have this kind of influence.
This sounds difficult, especially in view of the fact that negotiation has the potential for conflict. However, experienced negotiators emphasize that it is both possible and required. A positive relationship makes possible the development of common ground; in principled negotiation the common ground can include similar goals and objectives.
Instead of negotiating against each other, the negotiators form a team and negotiate "against" the problem. They now have shared interests.
As a negotiator, you must know what your zone is.
This may appear to apply more to positional than to principled bargaining because a ZOPA is the least favorable agreement you would accept, and the most favorable one you believe the other negotiator would accept.
However, with a bigger pie, the ZOPA shifts for both in the positive direction. As part of the preparations prior to beginning negotiations, each negotiator must decide at what point it is best to cease negotiating and to be satisfied. With a BATNA a negotiator never feels cornered or under pressure to yield to pressure from the other side-- the predetermined goal has defined the point at which negotiations are no longer profitable and may be ended.
Negotiators rarely have the authority to make final decisions. They are sent as representatives of those who do have that authority, who are the "closers. They are protected from the possibility that in a weak moment they will accept an impossibly poor agreement.
In addition, if principled negotiation has not been possible, there may be times when the negotiator has no easy reply to a hard bargaining opponent. It may be useful to end a session with the need to go back and discuss options with your "closer.
As with Consensus Team Decision Making, there is a process for principled negotiations. Each of these steps is discussed in detail below: Principled Negotiation Requirements People: Separate the people from the problem Interests: Focus on interests, not positions Options: It will unfailingly have negative outcomes in both decision making and bargaining.
Experienced leaders and experienced negotiators separate the people from the problem. Some of the ways Fisher and Ury suggest are: Bargaining, even principled bargaining, may involve strong comments about the substantive issues.
It is only human nature that these, on occasion, are taken as personal attacks, generating emotions that block communication. A good relationship can be a vaccine against communication blockages.
But the relationship needs to be built early in the game, just as a vaccine works best before exposure to the disease.More susceptible to a competitive opponent’s deceptive tactics; Less focus on arguments of other party, leading to less-than-optimal outcomes When negotiating in the context of an important relationship, relationship issues could dramatically change the approach to negotiation strategy and tactics Relationship between Negotiators.
Motives of deceptive tactics Power motive: To increase the negotiator’s power in the bargaining environment A person’s motivational orientation: Individualistic negotiators are more likely to use misrepresentation as a strategy 3.
May 03, · Understanding tactics and how to deal with them, coupled with more detailed and focused planning of negotiations will give negotiators better outcomes for both sides. This gives the negotiator the confidence to do what is necessary to alter the process so it will work, rather than focusing on the behaviour of the other side.5/5(4).
The Importance of Avoiding Deceptive Tactics to Build an Honest Relationship Between Negotiators and Stakeholders ( words, 4 pages) Negotiators are frequently ethically challenged throughout thenegotiating process. Negotiation Skills in Business Communication: Dishonesty and Negotiation Ethics.
In all types of negotiations and across all phases of the process, people can sometimes misrepresent or fail to tell the truth. Individual negotiators lie with the hope of improving their own outcomes. Negotiators who begin with a tough stance and make few early concessions, and later make larger concessions, elicit more concessions from the other party than negotiators who begin with generous concessions and then become tough and unyielding.