Negotiation Philosophy and Standards

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

The type of negotiator
My general philosophy
A natural negotiator
I like to negotiate
Relevant issues
Standards and justifications
Whether or not to include conflict and contention within a negotiation
References

The type of negotiator

I am a principled negotiator who is focused on seeking integrative solutions to conflicts. I am not committed to certain positions in conflict and this enables me to give fair and impartial views regarding amicable solutions.

My general philosophy

My philosophy of negotiation is the separation of people from the problem. Thus, I perceive problems as independent issues that could be solved to help parties to resolve their differences. This helps in reaching solutions based on standards that are not influenced by personal views (Amgoud & Vesic, 2012).

A natural negotiator

I exhibit a high degree of a natural negotiator and I analyze issues based on wisdom rather than morality. Thus, I just not fulfill my duty of being a negotiator, but I ensure that I enable parties to reach long-term solutions. As a natural negotiator, I reserve my resources to be used where they could produce better results.

I like to negotiate

I like to negotiate a lot. Negotiation gives me a chance to explore issues in detail in order to understand their origin and factors that could make them affect parties negatively. Also, if I conflict with my friends and/or colleagues, then I try as much as I could to resolve the issue because I know that it could adversely affect my relationships with my friends and/or colleagues.

Relevant issues

It is important for negotiators to address relevant issues in conflicts so that amicable solutions could be found. First, it is important to address the main problem in conflict so that could understand why parties are conflicting. Second, it is essential for negotiators to consider the other contributing factors that could not be the main cause of conflict. Third, it is important to address the issue of personal motives so that a negotiator could comprehend the expected outcomes of all parties (Amgoud & Vesic, 2012).

Standards and justifications

Negotiators should comprehend the standards and/or justifications for using contention and conflict during negotiation. An understanding of the two components is important in arriving at excellent negotiation results. Conflict occurs in a negotiation when parties are encouraged to view the same end result using different paths. The advantage of the approach in negotiation is that parties could be helped to find their own solutions using different routes. The main disadvantage of the negotiation strategy is that it could be difficult to make parties think about different pathways of arriving at a common goal. On the other hand, contention in negotiation could be used to make parties think about personal intentions in a manner that no communication is expressed. The merit of the approach is that it could enable parties to re-evaluate their personal motives. However, the approach could result in violence during the negotiation process (Asmuß & Oshima, 2012).

Whether or not to include conflict and contention within a negotiation

It is important for a negotiator to analyze, investigate, evaluate, and make decisions in a rational manner as to whether or not to include contention and conflict in a negotiation process. A negotiator should analyze and investigate the issue presented by parties in an impartial way. Afterward, an evaluation should be conducted based on the findings of investigations (Coutinho, Cretan & Jardim‐Goncalves, 2012). Finally, the evaluations should be used to decide whether or not to include contention and conflict during a negotiation process. If the results of the investigation imply that the issue presented by parties is personal, then contention should be used. However, if the results of the investigation show that parties could have a common goal when they use different pathways, then conflict should be used in a negotiation process.

References

Amgoud, L., & Vesic, S. (2012). A formal analysis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation, 22(5), 957-978.

Asmuß, B., & Oshima, S. (2012). Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 67-86.

Coutinho, C., Cretan, A., & Jardim‐Goncalves, R. (2012). Sustainable interoperability framework for supporting negotiation processes. Enterprise Interoperability: I-ESA’12 Proceedings, 365-372.

Click Here To Order Now!