Category: Negotiation

Introduction

The success of negotiation totally depends upon the efforts of both sides. Generally, the approaches the applicant and the manager rely on are considered the basic factors, which determine the winner of the negotiation. Win-lose negotiation means both sides to be ready to understand and accept all pros and cons of the salary. In contrast, win-win negotiation provides beneficial terms for each part concerned.

In this respect, the role-play negotiation will help to define different effective tactics and strategies with regard to the goals pursued by the negotiators. A careful analysis of practices and observations will help define which tactics and approaches are the most effective ones.

Distributive and Integrative Negotiations

First of all, there is a need to point out that successful negotiations depend upon the strategies the sides rely on. They say that the so-called win-lose approach is mostly based on negative perspective. It means that in most cases any side will win. However, one the other hand, one is to keep in mind that a person who negotiates a lot has more chances to succeed.

For this reason, one can state that a person who is more skilled and experienced will be the winner of negotiations. Of course, there is a great difference between distributive negotiations and integrative ones. There are also mixed-motive negotiations, but the company doesn’t rely on them, unfortunately. So, the first two approaches are to be discussed.

When win-lose tactics take place, for the applicant it is better not to answer the question, or answer the question in a special manner, so there could be no harm for negotiation position of the applicant. On the other hand, there is also an opportunity to respond with another question, or just listen to the negotiator (Hiring Manager: So, what salary do you expect to get? – Applicant: I would like to listen to your offers).

This answer means listening and gives an opportunity to respond with another question. On the other hand, the negotiator thinks that he or she has some advantages over the applicant; or he/she understands that the applicant wants to analyze the given information in the first place.

Another approach, which is to be discussed, is win-win negotiation. One of the most well known tactics integrate negotiation depends on is the so-called forbearance. One can see that the applicant is searching for the issue the manager can agree with.

In this case, one can understand that delaying action or the so-called procrastination gives the applicant and the manager some more time to consider unresolved point differently. When analyzing the applicant’s interest in another question, one can admit that the applicant wants to obtain specific information. It is one of the win-win purposes.

Adjustment and Concessions Made and the Strategies and Tactics Used By Each Side

While analyzing the responses of all the team members, it has been stated that adjustment and concessions are primarily made while using the tactics of integrative negotiation. Specifically, the respondents apply to assumptions and judgments leading to an agreement and compromise.

This is explicitly seen from the first remark of Hiring Manager (“Mr. Applicant, what salary do you expect”), as well as the one expressed by Applicant (“Sir, what is the best salary you offer for the position of HR Officer?”).

Adjustment statements are also represented by each side of debate while making arrangement concerning when it is possible to start working (Hiring Manager: “Can you start by tomorrow?” – Applicant: “Yes I can start tomorrow”).

Regarding other responses presented by team members, features of adjustment are presented in the distributive negotiations, particularly on the part of the Applicant who accepts all the conditions offered by the Hiring Manager, even if not all of them are suitable.

Regarding the distributive bargaining represented by Team Members, the concession was made at the end of the dialogue that was accompanied by an ultimate alternative (Applicant: “If you agree to pay me $ 40000, I will accept your offer otherwise I leave”).

In such a manner, the initial target point made by the Hiring Manager was an effective strategy because the probability for the Applicant to move closer to a resistant point ($ 50000) was low.

There are many other tactics and strategies used by each side of the negotiation, which are specifically revealed in the distributive negotiations. Because distributive bargaining is often associated with competition, both the Hiring Manager and the Applicant compete with each other for better conditions.

Sources of Power and the Application of Power Influences Employed by Each Side

While being involved into negotiations, the opponents should have sources of power that are usually presented as “best alternative to a negotiated agreement”, or BATNA (Lewicki et al., 2010, p. 21). The stronger BATNA the opponents have the more chances to win the negotiations.

In this respect, the distributive bargaining represented by Team Members provides a bright example where each side takes advantage of different alternatives to gain more power in discussion. Hence, the applicant applies to general statements about qualifications and salaries, as well as company’s reputation.

In addition, the applicant makes the Hiring manager face a difficult choice – to accept his/her offer, or lose an experienced and qualified employee. In response, the Hiring Manages makes use of facts about their own company, as well as applicant’s situation (The Hiring Manager: “We know you present boss, Mr. Anderson.

He may actually discharge you. There is reconstruction in your company”). Judging from the given situation, “good distributive bargainer identify their realistic alternatives before starting discussions with the other part so they can properly gauge how firm to be in the negotiation” (Lewicki et al., 2010, p. 21).

In this respect, the Hiring Manager has less realistic alternative and, as a result, he/she has failed to stand for the initial target point.

Use of Central and Peripheral Route Influence Principles to Effect The Negotiation Outcome

Distributive Negotiation

While using the tactics of distributive negotiation, peripheral rout is used to convince the applicant to accept a lower salary. This strategy has been used in the discussions by the Team Members who exemplify managers of higher positions, but with low salary levels.

In such a ways, they display the situation and distract the applicant from this intention to increase the salary minimum. Using both central and peripheral routs of influence can maximize the value of deal and provide beneficial option for either of the parties.

Integrative Negotiation

Indirect approaches have also been used in the integrative bargaining when the Hiring Manager applies to neutral and inviting phrases to make sure the participants that the terms and salaries are beneficial.

A central route, therefore, is used to influence the applicant through direct addressing, as it has been presented in the integrative negotiation when the Hiring Manager has immediately proposed to start working the next day right after the job interview. Besides, the Manager has successfully used his/her power and authority to influence the Applicant’s decision.

The Ethicality of the Negotiation Tactics of Each Side

Achieving the highly beneficial terms is among the priorities of negotiation. However, the negotiation should take into consideration ethical and moral concerns while using specific arguments in favor and against. In this respect, the ethicality of the argumentation should also come to the forth; alternatively, improper responses can lead to a conflict, which can bring in no benefits of either of the opponents.

The probability of conflict emergence is higher while conducting distributive bargaining because it presupposes that one side of debate will lose and another one will gain much more beneficial terms.

Regarding the case under analysis, the distributive bargaining has certain inconsistencies in terms of argumentation, which turned out unethical on the part of the Applicant who failed to provide evidence of his/her qualification and experience. Instead, the candidate forwards an ultimatum without reasoning.

As per the integrative negotiation, ethical concerns are slightly revealed because both the Applicant and the Hiring Manager seem to agree on the identified terms. Nevertheless, exposing managers from other organizations who took on a salary cut to work at Z-firm could be considered unethical. In addition, this can increase pressure over the candidate and make him/her accept a salary cut.

Conclusion

Regarding the observations made, it should be concluded that both negotiation strategies have strengths and weaknesses. The study of role-play negotiations has revealed that better terms can be achieved if using persuasive argumentation (central route) and apply to convincing arguments that are not rely on empty promises but known facts and logically constructed justifications.

With this in mind, distributive bargaining seems to be more beneficial because it provide more privilege for either of the debating sides. Moreover, it also generates competition and desire of the opponents to prove their assumptions.

Reference

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2010). Negotiation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Negotiations are part of our daily activities. In commerce, effective negotiations are the pillars of all successful businesses (Dietmeyer & Kaplan, 2004). Companies who adopt effective negotiation strategies can be able to generate assessable business values for themselves and for their clients.

Unlike in the past, negotiations have become very important to every business organization. This has been brought about by deals becoming more complex, more professional buyers joining the marketplace, competitive behaviors in the market, and increase in internal negotiations within companies (Dietmeyer & Kaplan, 2004).

Business experts classify negotiations into several types based on critical variables such as time, conflicts, and participants. In this regard, this paper seeks to compare and contrast integrative negotiation and distributive negotiation strategies.

Integrative negotiation is normally referred to as win more- win more model of negotiation (Pienaar & Naylor, 2001). Through this approach, participating parties aim at walking away with at least perceptions of having gained more than they could through different approaches. As compared to other models of negotiations, this model is the most preferred.

During the negotiation processes, disagreements are avoided because they are more costly than compromises. This implies that gains and losses are equalized to enhance repetitive and continuous relationships in the future. Another approach of negotiation is distributive negotiation model. This approach is normally referred to as win-lose model of negotiation (Pienaar & Naylor, 2001).

Unlike the previous model, each party involved in the negotiation process is after winning the deal. This implies that the winning parties are not concerned with the outcomes of the losing parties. More often, losing parties will seek control over the other parties’ finances, resources, or associations. Distributive negotiation models are applied mostly in negotiations with fixed resources to be shared.

As such, court cases, some property negotiations, and divorce issues are the best examples of distributive negotiations. As compared with integrative negotiation model, distributive negotiation model employs offensive tactics rather than defensive tactics.

For instance, in distributive model parties employ deception tactics by trying to make the competing parties give in more than they can concede (Pienaar & Naylor, 2001). According to business experts, integrative model is more effective than the distributive model. In general, integrative model can be described as cooperative approach, while distributive model can be described as competitive approach.

In my work environment, the integrative negotiation model will be more effective than the distributive model. Through this model, our organization can cooperate and focus with other organizations with the aim of increasing the gains for both parties. Equally, integrative model will enable our organization to avoid uncertain competitive bargains.

On the other hand, our organization can employ a distributive negotiation model when solving issues that cannot be solved through other available approaches. Similarly, our organization can utilize this approach when they want to get the most out of a single deal.

However, this approach should only be adopted when the relationship with the competing party is insignificant (Pienaar & Naylor, 2001). In conclusion, it is upon the business managers and their negotiation representatives to decide on the negotiation models.

During the decision-making processes, they should evaluate whether they can afford a distributive model or an integrative model. Similarly, they should evaluate the future dependencies and the relationships that would evolve out of the negotiations to decide on the models to be adopted (Pienaar & Naylor, 2001).

References

Dietmeyer, B. J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Strategic Negotiation: A Breakthrough 4-step Process for Effective Business Negotiation. Chicago: Dearborn Trade Publishing.

Pienaar, W. D., & Naylor, A. (2001). Negotiation: theories, strategies, and skills. Kenwyn: Juta.

Introduction

Negotiation is a wholesome skill that all managers must seek to nurture for a sustained business relationship. Negotiation, according to Winning negotiations that preserve relationships (2004, p. 5), is a vital management quality that ensures managers master good communication skills and critical thinking abilities to enable them to persuade and use the power within their capacity to negotiate effectively while going about their businesses.

Effective negotiation skills are instrumental in resolving circumstances under which individual treasures conflict with the treasures of another person. Win-Win negotiation skill is necessary for helping managers understand a situation and seek a solution acceptable to both factions (Sanibel 2014). In essence, a win-win negotiation strategy ensures that both the parties reach out to one another, find some compromise, and feel in the end that they have each won in their own separate ways. Management enlists various styles of negotiation, and this normally depends on the prevailing circumstances under which negotiation is necessary.

One thing though synonymous with a win-win negotiation is the fact that both the parties in a negotiation have to feel positive about the process and be content once it is over (The international negotiations handbook success through preparation, strategy, and planning 2007, p. 5). Without this acknowledgment, individuals may end up destroying good working relationships, thus slaying the business environment. In essence, contentedness is what makes a win-win negotiation strategy work. This is because it helps in governing the style and scope of the negotiation itself.

As McDevitt (2004, p. 3) notes, displays of emotions might be inappropriate during and after the negotiation process, and history reveals that they dent the rational basis of the process. Worse still, strong emotions may have a manipulative tag attached, thus tilting the process in favor of one party. Be it as it may, emotions can be necessary during this process, given that individuals’ emotional needs have to be taken into consideration (Sanibel 2014). This implies that if emotions are not put into consideration, then the truce reached can be less satisfactory, thus killing the win-win negotiation spirit. In sum, a win-win negotiation process has to enlist the interest of all the parties involved in a sustained business relationship.

The importance of win-win negotiation approaches

Decision-making, strategic planning, and good communication skills are some of the key aspects of a win-win negotiation stratagem. Studies in this field often view a win-win negotiation as a joint communique and a decision-making process. As Sanibel (2014) opines, this process could be demanding as it has to go through all the stages to make it a complete venture. The benefit of a win-win negotiation process is that it easily brings-forth an optimal way out to the parties involved in the entire process.

A win-win negotiation process is strategic to the wellbeing of a business since it ensures that the parties minimize conflicts while at the same time maximizing on the gains. Business executives often involve in negotiations to come into a compromise with both internal and external partners. Both managers and business partners, like Fisher, Ury, and Patton (2011, p. 65), note find it necessary to reach a compromise with their employees, vendors, business collaborates, and their customers.

Negotiations of this nature normally make it necessary for businesses to reach out to community members in their daily business interactions for the continued mutual support that each party expects. Moreover, by pursuing a win-win negotiation strategy, the business finds it necessary to strike deals with the regulatory organizations, thus making sure the business is not at loggerhead with the powers that might be (Winning negotiations that preserve relationships 2004, p. 5). This further ensures the smooth running of the business, giving the business a gross competitive advantage; this advantage in only tenable in the presence of an effective goal setting.

Goal setting

It is imperative that at the onset of a negotiation process, both the parties recruit a delegation to engage in groundwork. During this time, goals setting take center stage; both internal and external evaluation of the goals of each party takes place as well. While acknowledging that the objectives may be both short-term and long-term, McDevitt (2004, p. 4) observes that they have to be specific, broad, and cumulative of the organization’s position. Goal setting is a most essential stage in developing a win-win negotiation strategy.

Therefore, goal setting has to take place with adequate detached analysis necessary in a way that seeks to negate emotions that may sneak into the process. The involvement of technical experts and professional individuals such as legal counsel and business executives can be invaluable during this stage (The international negotiations handbook success through preparation, strategy, and planning 2007, p. 5). The parties tasked with the duty of fronting an organization’s win-win negotiation drive has to perform a thoughtful analysis that covers an accurate assessment of the organization’s strengths and weaknesses in light of the goals of the organization and the aspirations of the other party.

This primordial goal setting will permit the organization to focus its attention on issues that are critically pertinent to the organization, hence helping in avoiding time wastage and indulgence in irrelevant issues (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 2011, p. 65). Moreover, determining the goal of an organization in approaching the win-win negotiation has to take place well in prior. This goal setting, according to Winning negotiations that preserve relationships (2004, p. 45), is best executed by instituting an inter-party meeting where both the parties put-forth their ideas on the table.

The committee must encourage the ideas and treat each other’s concerns as necessary and healthful to the process (The international negotiations handbook success through preparation, strategy, and planning 2007, p. 5). As a rule, this often takes place in writing down the concerns in a large board where both the parties’ can view and verify the details entrenched in the win-win negotiation strategy simulation.

A win-win strategy formulation

It is good to acknowledge the fact that the fundamental codes that guide negotiations exist and are applicable in a win-win business negotiation. Normally, the first offer is the most essentially part in a win-win negotiation since all other factors benchmark on it (Sanibel 2014). Parties must be aware that they only get what they put on the table. So, it is essential to be aggressive when making bold demands. Notably, demands have to be central to the ideals of an organization. Moreover, making these demands will require great communication skills capable of persuading the other party to see the sense of what is available to them.

Any negotiation process may lead to dissatisfaction; it would be premature to own up when this does not seem to work out (Burden 2003, p 478). Some offers might bring joy; others might spell doom. It is imperative to be focused, and probably push for a better share of the bargain. The position maintained by a party may sometimes threaten the bargain point of the other. Therefore, it is vital to swallow some pride, especially when the other side is also willing to compromise (The international negotiations handbook success through preparation, strategy, and planning 2007, p. 6). When seeking to exploit the weaknesses of the other party, compromise has to remain the essence of a win-win negotiation strategy.

Discovering the Leverage

If the organization is the only source of the availability of a product or service, this must give them an advantage over others (Burden 2003, p 479). As Sanibel (2014) notes, an organization should identify its market strengths and use it as an advantage to advance its win-win negotiation priorities. On the other hand, it is essential for an organization to be oblivious of its weaknesses in the process of negotiation. If anything, some elements of weaknesses could be disguised to look like strengths, though they must not be used to scare the other party out of the negotiation (Sanibel 2014).

Moreover, where the prevailing economic conditions seem to create a market in which the organization’s products or services are in great demand should be of great reference point. According to Winning negotiations that preserve relationships (2004, p. 47), this trend creates greater opportunities for an organization in tabling its demands for a win-win negotiation strategy. In addition, it is imperative at this stage to establish a robust win-win negotiation foundation.

This can be done by ensuring that the panelists of an organization demonstrate their knowledge and expertise in negotiating their case. Normally, this position may be provocative and even intimidate the other party, playing hardball in a tight win-win negotiation table can be a great challenge, so it is imperative to take an initiative to steer the process in the best way possible.

The negotiation win-win offer

A win-win negotiation offer has to be the thing an organization is in dire pursuit of during the process of the negotiation, it has to incorporate all the features of the bargain, and normally comprises the foundation for a contract that formalizes a bargain (Sanibel 2014). In the event that the parties make offers without first fixing all the specifics, parties may discover later that a compromise was not effective enough to sustain a negotiation. The basis of a negotiation, as Sanibel (2014) notes, has to include a statement of agreement, the description of the offer, terms and conditions, performance incentives, and reference documentations signed by both parties before closing the win-win negotiation deal.

Conclusion

Win-win negotiation process is like a two horse race that requires effective timing, critical thinking, great communication skills, as well as the ability to understand and consider the other party. It is vital for organizations involved in a win-win negotiation agreement to approach the exercise with an open mind to explore and exhaust the choices available. An effective win-win negotiation business strategy ensures continuity of business partnerships. Above all, it is a powerful tool that brings sustaining business opportunity to organizations. Finally, a win-win negotiation process is strategic to the coexistence of businesses since it ensures that the parties minimize conflicts while at the same time maximizing on the gains.

References

Burden, K 2003, “We’re in it to win it- negotiating successful outsourcing transactions Introduction”, Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 478-479.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B 2011, Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (3rd ed.), Penguin, New York.

McDevitt, B 2004, “Negotiating the syllabus: A Win-win Situation?”, ELT Journal, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 3-9.

Sanibel, M 2014, The art of negotiating: A practical guide to getting what you want, when you want it, at the price you want. Web.

The international negotiations handbook success through preparation, strategy, and planning 2007, Web.

Winning negotiations that preserve relationships 2004, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge.

Introduction

Culture refers to the “system of knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and experiences shared by a large group of people such as an ethnic community” (Luger, 2009, p. 12). In business, culture is important because it determines the way people think, communicate, make decisions, and solve problems. This paper will focus on the importance of culture in business in the context of South Korea. Specifically, it will discuss the elements of South Korea’s culture that a Canadian should consider when doing business with a Korean.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Power Distance Index (PDI)

This cultural dimension “measures the extent to which members of a society accept unequal distribution of power” (Luger, 2009, p. 47). Figure 1 in the appendix shows that Korea’s PDI is 60. By contrast, Canada’s PDI is 39. This means that South Korea is a relatively hierarchical society where people accept unequal distribution of power (Lee, 2012). However, in Canada people expect equal distribution of power due to their low PDI. Canadian companies use a horizontal organizational structure to facilitate sharing of power between the management and employees. Thus, a Canadian should consider the fact that in South Korea senior employees have more power than their juniors. Moreover, junior employees have to address their seniors using their titles rather than their first names (Lee, 2012). During negotiations, South Koreans deal only with senior managers. Thus, a Canadian company that intends to negotiate a contract with a South Korean firm should use senior members of its management such as the CEO to ensure success.

Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV)

This dimension measures the level of interdependence among members of a society. Figure 1 shows that South Korea’s IDV is 18, whereas that of Canada is 80. This means that South Korea is a collectivist society, whereas Canada is an individualist society (Ting & Ying, 2013). South Korea’s collectivist culture requires its citizens to live in harmony. Thus, people are not expected to engage in behaviors that lead to embarrassment in the community (Lee, 2012). Thus, a Canadian should avoid criticizing or arguing with his South Korean counterpart in public. Disagreements and negative feedback should be given in private using indirect communication to avoid embarrassment. A Canadian should be aware of the fact that negotiations in South Korea take a long time because Koreans have to consult all relevant stakeholders before making a final decision. Moreover, Canadians should prioritize the interests of the whole team rather than individual benefits in order to negotiate a business deal successfully in South Korea.

Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS)

Figure 1 indicates that South Korea’s MSA is 39, which means that it is a feminine society. By contrast, Canada’s MAS is 52. Thus, the country has a masculine culture. The implication of this cultural difference is that Canadians value competition and achievement, whereas Koreans prefer cooperation and modesty. Koreans focus on maintaining their loyalty by respecting their seniors and avoiding to challenge their supervisors. Thus, a Canadian should avoid direct competition and conflicts when doing business with a Korean (Lee, 2012). Specifically, Canadians should focus on cooperation and ensure that their Korean counterparts are satisfied with the outcome of negotiations.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)

UAI shows the “extent to which members of a society can tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity” (Luger, 2009, p. 52). According to figure 1, South Korea’s UAI is 85, whereas that of Canada is only 48. This shows that Canadians are more likely to accept uncertainty than Koreans (Luger, 2009). In particular, Koreans are likely to accept new ideas, innovation, and different ways of doing things. Given their high UAI, Koreans are always reluctant to do business with foreigners or individuals who are not well known to them. Foreign companies and business executives have to be introduced to Koreans through a third party in order to be given adequate attention. After the introduction, foreigners have to focus on building strong relationships by sharing pertinent business information through official documents such as proposals and brochures. In this respect, a Canadian should know that building personal relationships is the key to securing a business deal in South Korea. Therefore, he/ she should consider forming long-term relationships with Koreans to address any uncertainty that might lead to failure in business partnerships.

Long-term vs. Short-term Orientation (pragmatism)

Figure 1 indicates that South Korea’s pragmatism index is 100. This score means that the country has a long-term oriented culture. By contrast, Canada scores only 36 in this cultural dimension. This indicates that Canada is a normative society where people focus on establishing an absolute truth and respecting traditions (Luger, 2009). Moreover, Canadians focus on quick results such as achieving quarterly revenue targets. Since South Korea is a long-term oriented society, a Canadian should know that Koreans use a pragmatic approach to doing business. Koreans prefer to invest their own capital rather than borrowed funds in their businesses. Moreover, they prefer to maintain a consistent increase in revenue rather than achieving short-term profit objectives. Therefore, a Canadian should set long-term rather than short-term objectives when dealing with a Korean business partner. Moreover, he should focus on managing risks and ensuring stability to enhance the success of any business venture that involves a Korean.

Indulgence

According to figure 1, Korea scores 29 in this cultural dimension, whereas Canada scores 68. This means that South Korea is a restraint society where individuals’ actions are controlled by social norms. Koreans also value thrift and avoid engaging in expensive leisure activities. Canadians, on the other hand, prefer to enjoy life (Luger, 2009). Thus, a Canadian should be aware of the fact that Koreans are likely to consider leisure activities such as an expensive business party to be a waste of resources. Generally, a Canadian should exhibit modesty when doing business with Koreans to create a good rapport that eventually leads to successful business deals or partnerships (Lee, 2012).

High Context vs. Low Context Culture

In a high-context culture, individuals have to observe protocol when communicating with each other. Furthermore, communication begins from a general to a specific topic. By contrast, individuals use explicit statements to illustrate the meanings of their messages in low context cultures. Canada is one of the countries with a low context culture. Canadians look for literal meanings when communicating with each other to avoid misunderstandings. However, Korea is a high context society where people prefer to use indirect communication. Since Koreans strive to avoid conflicts and embarrassing situations, they often give ambiguous responses to express their divergent opinions (Lee, 2012). Thus, giving positive feedback even when a person is dissatisfied is commonplace in Korea. The actual meanings of the messages conveyed by Koreans are understood based on body language.

Therefore, Canadians must understand Koreans’ body language and tone in order to interpret their messages correctly. This will help in avoiding the misunderstandings that are likely to hurt business relationships. Canadians should also learn to convey messages to South Koreans in a polite manner. In this case, indirect communication should be used to discuss sensitive issues that might cause embarrassment or discomfort among Koreans. This includes avoiding being too aggressive when negotiating a business deal or resolving a dispute (Lee, 2012). Generally, a Canadian should look for the implied rather than the literal meanings of the messages or feedback obtained from Koreans to communicate effectively.

Business Etiquette in South Korea

Greeting

Greeting is an important part of introduction among South Koreans. However, the greeting style in South Korea is very different from that used in Canada. In particular, Canadians greet each other by shaking hands only. By contrast, Korean men greet each other by bowing and shaking hands. Moreover, the left hand has to be “placed below the right forearm when shaking hands to show respect” (Lee, 2012, pp. 184-190). A Canadian should learn and use this unique greeting style when doing business with Koreans. Since Korea is a high power distance country, showing business partners respect by using the right greeting style can significantly strengthen business relationships.

Giving Gifts

In Canada, business partners do not regularly give gifts. In addition, the gifts are often given after finalizing a negotiation to celebrate success rather than to obtain favors. Giving gifts during negotiations in Canada is discouraged because it is associated with corruption. However, foreign business partners are expected to provide gifts to establish strong relationships and get favors from their Korean counterparts (Lee, 2012). In this respect, a Canadian should consider giving Koreans the right gifts to succeed in business. Generally, Koreans prefer gifts that are inexpensive but have a good quality. In addition, senior managers should be given gifts with higher value than those given to junior employees to show respect.

Business Cards

Koreans have a unique way of exchanging business cards, which Canadians should learn in order to avoid showing disrespect to their partners. In South Korea, business cards are exchanged after the handshake. Foreigners are expected to provide cards that are written in both English and Korean. The card should be given using both hands and the side written in Korean should face up (Lee, 2012). Moreover, the card receiver has to thank the giver. Following these procedures can help Canadians to strengthen business relationships with their South Korean counterparts. Specifically, South Koreans will consider Canadians to be respectful people who they can trust in business.

Conclusion

South Korea has a unique culture that greatly influences the way they do business. The country has a high power distance and uncertainty avoidance index. Moreover, the country’s culture promotes collectivism. The country also has a high context culture that promotes the use of an indirect communication style to avoid hurting other people’s feelings. Clearly, South Korea’s culture is very different from that of Canada. Thus, Canadians should learn the country’s culture in order to succeed when doing business with South Koreans. This will prevent the cultural conflicts that are likely to prevent effective cooperation.

Appendix

References

Lee, C. (2012). Korean culture and its influence on business practice in South Korea. Journal of International Management Studies, 7(2), 184-190.

Luger, E. (2009). Hofsteede’s cultural dimensions. Norderstedt, German: GRIN Verlay.

Ting, S., & Ying, C. (2013). Culture dimensions comparision: A study of Malaysia and South Korea. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 2(1), 535-543.

Executive Summary

People normally engage in some form of negotiation in their daily lives. Successful negotiations are characterized by a situation in which both parties agree on the best solution. Effective negotiations require a cea rtain set of skills from the involved parties. However, professional negotiators have the relevant skills for participating in negotiations. It is noteworthy that the best negotiation is win-win.

It is characterized by everyone involved in achieving satisfactory outcomes. People should prepare in order to have effective participation in win-win negotiations. This research focuses on win-win negotiation, which is the most beneficial type of conciliation. Collaboration is the best strategy for engaging in win-win negotiations. This is because it encourages problem-solving through the application of integrative processes.

There are diverse techniques and skills that simplify win-win negotiations and contribute to the achievements of desirable benefits. Furthermore, win-win negotiations present many advantages compared to the limitations.

Tameer Micro-financial Bank and Telenor Pakistan successfully employed win-win negotiation to realize massive benefits for each of them. Tameer is a micro-financial institution in Pakistan, which needed to augment their customer base through mobile banking services. On the other hand, Telenor Pakistan is the second largest telecommunications firm providing mobile services to over 30 million people.

The regulator provided a new direction that required all mobile network operators to partner with financial institutions in order to offer mobile banking services to the millions of people who were not accessing the services. This directive facilitated the initial negotiations between the two firms.

The win-win negotiations enabled the firms to benefit from the opportunities provided by each other as well as develop the capacity to provide mobile money banking to millions of Pakistani’s. This research has established that win-win negotiations are the best form of concession because of the benefits it provides to the participants.

This study recommends that parties engaging in win-win negotiations should employ a collaborative strategy as well as strategic planning during win-win negotiations. It recommends that negotiating parties should trade concessions to enable them to focus on core issues.

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

The application of win-win negotiation was helpful in solving challenges facing micro – financial institutions in Pakistan. The banks lacked the capacity to deliver mobile banking services to their millions of potential clients. Tameer Microfinance Bank needed to identify ways of improving their service delivery structures in order to escalate the number of people with accounts in Pakistan.

Tameer was interested in putting in place a mobile banking platform to attract more clients and activate its growth. A directive by the regulator in Pakistan that mobile network operators (MNO) shall partner with financial institutions in order to provide mobile banking services became the breakthrough for Tameer.

Tameer entered into win-win negotiations with Telenor Pakistan, which is the second largest MNO in the country as a way of complying with the new regulations. Tameer initiated the negotiations with the aim of acquiring the over 30 million clients belonging to Telenor Pakistan and the company’s agent network approximating to 180,000 together with its national advertising and marketplace leadership.

The companies agreed during the negotiation process to partner and form Easypaisabrand to offer money transfer service. Telenor Pakistan eventually bought 51 percent of shares in Tameer.

The positive outcomes of the negotiation between Tameer and Telenor Pakistan are that Tameer easily accessed a large customer base and reduced cost of doing business because of taking advantage of the 180,000 Telenor agents.

Conversely, Telenor Pakistan escalated its Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) as well as develop new revenue sources because of charges on the mobile money banking platform. The two institutions used a win-win negotiation approach to realize gains as well as enable millions of Pakistani’s to access banking services.

It is recommended that parties engaging in win-win negotiations should employ a collaborative strategy in order to settle the process when each side has won. The role of strategic planning in managing win-win negotiations is also recommended because it makes the process to run smoothly. It is also recommendable that negotiating parties should trade concessions in order to carry out the negotiation process by focusing on core issues.

It is recommended that the parties engaging in win-win negotiation should have effective communication skills, particularly while working with people from varying cultural backgrounds. This is because cross-cultural negotiations are complex and require a new set of skills.

Conclusions

Win-Win negotiation is helpful in enabling two opposing sides to reach an agreement in which everyone benefits. The process of conducting a win-win negotiation requires the participants to maintain focus. Professional negotiators are the most successful in the negotiation because they have the relevant skills and capacities. However, communication also plays a momentous role in negotiations.

This is particularly important in cases where negotiation involves participants from multicultural backgrounds. It is notable that win-win negotiation is the most beneficial strategy for solving outstanding problems. This paper has highlighted the win-win negotiation involving Tameer Microfinance Bank and Telenor Pakistan, which is a telecommunications firm.

The two companies entered into win-win negotiations after a directive that MNO’s should start offering mobile banking services. The negotiation was successful thus making the two firms to form a new platform for mobile money transfer. The greatest lesson learned between the two firms is that win-win negotiations ensure that everyone involved benefits.

Introduction

Negotiation skills are critical in business since they help business people attain the best deals. Negotiation in business is a process that requires prior planning to ensure achieve the best payoff for the business owners. This paper presents a negotiation plan for a firm that seeks to enter into a supply contract.

Pre-negotiation Objectives

Palmer (2006) observed that the main objective of negotiations in business contracting is to attain certainty. Certainty entails detailing and specifying the goods to be supplied under the stipulated contract. Moreover, the timelines for supply, the standards, and the effects of delays in supplying are discussed and agreed upon.

The second objective of negotiating contracts is seeking to attain the best deal. This entails clarification of issues that are brought up on the negotiation table. Each specific detail of the deal ought to be explored to avoid re-emergence of issues when the deal has already been brokered. Compromising is critical in the process since one of the main aims of negotiating is to ensure that each of the party gains (Palmer, 2006).

According to Palmer (2006), the other objective of contract negotiation is to enter into a long-term business deal. Establishment of business networks is critical in the contemporary business environment. Therefore, there is a need to establish trust with certain business parties through negotiation. This assures the company of quality and quantity of supplies from a given partner.

Negotiation objectives are often inclined towards the objectives of the organizations that are a party to the negotiation process. The aim of engaging in a negotiation is not necessary to get the highest payoff, but also to ensure that the broader business objectives of the company are catered for during the negotiation. This can be obtained even when a substantial number of specific objectives for the negotiation have not been fully attained (Kennedy, 2007).

Negotiation plan

Negotiation is often a complex process. Thus it is critical to ensure that prior plans are set to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the negotiation. The first stage in the negotiation of a business contract is the development of capabilities of the company to negotiate the contract. This forms the basis on which the readiness of the company to negotiate the contract is attained (Garrett, 2005).

This sub-process begins with strategizing on the contract. Development of a contract calendar is critical. It is important to unearth information on other contracts that the company has done if the company has not entered into a contract with the supposed partner before. Establishment of contract requirements comes after ascertaining the company as a worthy partner. The contract requirements are then drafted and communicated to the negotiation team. It is vital to ensure that the expected outcomes of the contract are communicated to the negotiating team. The negotiating team will also be equipped with information on business contracting and critical factors to peg on when negotiating. Assessment competencies are also important, and they come after the establishment of the negotiating. At this stage, best practices as far as contracts by the partner are concerned are observed and analyzed by the negotiating team. The negotiating team is dispatched to the negotiating table when it is ready. Here, the conditions and terms for negotiation are discussed and agreed upon. This is followed by a real exploration of the contract details and subsequent review of the pre-agreement reached before ascertaining the agreements (Garrett, 2005).

References

Garrett, G. A. (2005). Contract negotiations: Skills, tools, and best practices. Chicago, IL: CCH.

Kennedy, G. (2007). Strategic negotiation: An opportunity for change. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Pub. Co.

Palmer, A. (2006). Negotiation: objectives. Negotiation.Biz Magazine.

The book basically deals with the art of negotiation when dealing with employees by focusing on the method of principled negotiation which was developed during the Harvard Negotiation Project. This method of negotiation mostly focuses on the merits of negotiation rather than the process of haggling by looking at the mutual gains that will be derived by every member in the negotiation process. Principled negotiation is based on fairness and the practice of fair standards while performing negotiation exercises rather than employing falsehood and tricks to gain an advantage during the negotiation process (Fisher et al, 1991, p.10).

The first chapter of the book deals with the problems that usually arise when the standard strategies of positional bargaining are employed. Positional bargaining involves the parties of the negotiation process taking various positions during the bargaining process. According to the authors, positional bargaining impedes the negotiation process and often leads to the breakdown of talks especially when the other party to the negotiation makes it difficult to change the direction of the bargaining process. Positional bargaining creates situations that will make it difficult to reach agreement as every participant in the process strives to improve their chances of reaching a settlement (Fisher et al, 1991, p.6).

The main tactics and strategies that are used in positional bargaining include deception, trickery, stubbornness and making small concessions so that the negotiation can go on. Chapter one also highlights the fact that positional bargaining becomes a contest of will as each negotiator asserts their will on what they will do or what they will not do to complete the negotiations. According to the authors, positional bargaining often leads to feelings of anger and resentment as one side sees itself being forced to accept the will of the other side. This method of collective bargaining and negotiation causes a major strain on the relationships that exist between the various participants of the negotiation process. This method also presents a problem especially when there are many parties involved in the negotiation (Fisher et al, 1991, p.6).

The second chapter of this book deals with an analysis of the principled method of negotiation where the various people involved in the process are separated from the problem by focusing on their individual interests rather than on their positions. By separating the people from the problem, this method of negotiation stipulates that negotiators are human beings who are prone to various emotions and reactions depending on whether the negotiation is fruitful or disastrous. This means that the process of reaching an agreement might produce a psychological commitment from the individual given that there is a satisfactory outcome. The chapter also addresses the two kinds of interests that a negotiator has when approaching the principled negotiation process; substance and relationship (Fisher et al, 1991, p.19).

Substance are the interests that the negotiator wants satisfied once an agreement has been reached and relationship are the connections that the negotiator has with the other side of the negotiation process. The authors also discuss the aspect of separating the relationship the negotiator has from the substantive interests that they have vested in the negotiation and it also talks about the invention of options that can be used to achieve a mutual gain during the bargaining process (Fisher et al, 1991, p.20).

In chapter three of the book, the authors introduce the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) which is a method of negotiation used when the other side of the negotiation process is much more powerful. The BATNA according to the authors is the standard against which any proposed agreement should be measured against during a negotiation. The BATNA is the only standard which can be able to protect an individual from accepting terms of agreement that might prove to be too unfavorable or from rejecting agreements that might be in the best interests of the negotiator. BATNA allows a negotiator to have some flexibility which will enable them to explore imaginative solutions to the problem under consideration. It enables the negotiator to compare the different proposal agreements so as to determine which option best satisfies their interests and needs (Fisher et al, 1991, p.100).

Chapter three also offers the bargainer under the principled negotiation technique tactics that can be used to tame the hard bargainer such as calculated delays where the negotiator tries to postpone the decision to a time they think is favorable, explicit negotiating tactics where the negotiator considers other options apart from those being offered by the other side, the use of firm choices where the negotiator lets the other party know of what they have to loose in the event they do not reach an agreement. Firm choices are usually important tactics especially when it comes to salary or compensation negotiations as they enable the employee to negotiate for a higher salary and benefits (Fisher et al, 1991, p.108).

Chapter four is a conclusion of the whole book where three points are proposed by the authors to summarize the book. These three points include “You knew it all the time, learn from doing and winning.” (Fisher et al, 1991, p.147). The first point according to the authors’ deals with various negotiation facts which a person involved in the negotiation process might be aware of. The authors explain this point by basically organizing common sense and experience in a way that can be able to provide a useful framework for thinking and acting during the negotiation process.

The second point deals with learning from doing where the authors propose that people involved in the bargaining process are able to learn from their actions during the process. This will equip them with the necessary tactics that they can use if another collective bargaining exercise emerges. The third point which deals with winning involves determining how to achieve a better process of dealing with negotiating differences during the negotiation process. So as to bargain better, the process must produce substantive results and outcomes as long as the method of principled negotiation has been incorporated in the negotiations (Fisher et al, 1991, p.148).

Chapter five deals with the ten questions that can be used by negotiators so as to gain a positive response during negotiations where questions one to three deal with the fairness and principled negotiation where Fisher et al (1991, p.149) pose the question of whether positional bargaining makes sense in the bargaining process, whether the other side in the process believes in a different standard of fairness and whether the negotiator should be fair even when the situation does not call for any fairness. Questions four to six involve how to deal with people during the negotiation process by determining whether the people in the negotiation process are the problem and if they are is it worth it for the negotiator to bargain with them.

Question six involves the negotiator changing their negotiation approach so that they can be able to take into account the various personality differences and emotional complexities that exist in people. Questions seven to nine deal with the tactics that the negotiator can be able to incorporate so as to win the bargaining process. Such tactics according to question seven include where the negotiating meeting will take place, who will make the first offer during the meeting and what will be the starting negotiation price. Question eight provides the negotiator with vital steps or phases that they can use to move from creating options to making commitments while question nine involves using these ideas to achieve an advantage without invoking any risk.

Question ten of chapter five deals with aspects of power during the negotiation process where the techniques used by the negotiator determine whether they will be able to make a difference during the process. Question ten also deals with whether the negotiator can be able to increase their negotiating power to achieve a positive outcome (Fisher et al, 1991, p.150). The book in general provides negotiators with tools and techniques that can be used to gain the necessary skills and techniques to achieve a positive result during the negotiation process. Getting to Yes reminds the participants in the negotiation process to be mindful of the tactics that are basically used in achieving a positive result during the negotiation process.

References

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B., (1991). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Negotiations are the part of the people’s everyday life because of the constant necessity to solve the issues in overcoming which several persons can be interested. From this point, negotiations are often the important element of the business process when it is necessary to discuss the controversial question with a partner and reach the outcome which can be discussed as satisfactory for both sides. The problem is in the fact the win-win outcomes are rather difficult to achieve while negotiating because of a range of factors which can influence the process of negotiations. Moreover, the parties are often interested in achieving their own goals without references to the interests of their counterparts. Thus, to create the win-win outcome of negotiations and avoid lose-lose or win-lose results is the difficult task for the parties. Peter Barron Stark and Jane Flaherty determine three main factors of the successful negotiations which can help to lead to the win-win outcomes. These factors which are based on paying attention to the interests and needs of both parties are important to be discussed with references to the problem of negotiating the issue of manufacturing uniforms for all Federal Conservation Land employees from several points.

There are few types of negotiations which can be developed in relation to the problem of manufacturing uniforms for all Federal Conservation Land employees. They are different according to the parties which participate in these negotiations. Thus, the administration or initiators of using the uniforms for Federal Conservation Land employees can negotiate with the representatives of the organisation on the issue of the necessity to manufacture uniforms for all Federal Conservation Land employees from the point of the effectiveness of the idea and its benefits, and from the point of the effects on the corporate culture. The best outcome of the negotiations in this situation will be the focus on the necessity to use uniforms as the way to accentuate the company as the organism and refer to the peculiarities of the corporate culture (Hearn, 2011). The next type of the negotiations on the issue can be developed among the representatives of the organisation and manufacturers. The issues discussed can include the problem of the appropriate price and quality, terms and aspects of completing the order.

The win-win outcomes of negotiations make the parties be satisfied with the results of the discussion. In spite of the fact the needs of the parties can be met incompletely because of the specific features of the question, the win-win outcome is the best way to solve the problem of the interests’ divergence successfully. To achieve the win-win outcome, it is necessary to concentrate on creating the cooperative atmosphere without transferring the negations to conflicts (Lum, 2010). The first method to create the win-win outcome for a negotiation on the issue of manufacturing uniforms for all Federal Conservation Land employees is based on Stark and Flaherty’s principle to avoid narrowing the problematic discussion or negations only to one issue or question (Stark & Flaherty, 2004).

Negotiating on the necessity to manufacture uniforms, it is important to pay attention to all the aspects of the problem with determining all the possible advantages of the process for the organisation from the point of employees’ interests and the administration’s tasks. Presenting all the possible advantages and expanded arguments according to the definite position, it is possible to create the expanded picture of the problem and find more points on which parties can agree. Moreover, when negotiations are developed on the problem of features of the service, it is important to determine not only the question of price but also of terms and quality in order to examine all the aspects of the issue.

According to Stark and Flaherty, one of the main problems of negotiators is the concentration only on their own interests and needs when it is significant to admit the fact that the interests of the parties are often different, and they try to meet their own expectations (Stark & Flaherty, 2004). Thus, to reach the win-win outcome in the negotiations to manufacture uniforms, it is necessary to listen attentively to the position of the counterpart in order to determine the points which can be meet successfully for both the parties. The next method is to remember about the implicit and explicit interests of counterparts. It is often impossible to address all the needs and wants of both sides, but it is possible to pay attention to the most significant ones or easy to reach effectively. The cooperation and attention to the counterpart’s position are useful in this situation. These methods are important when the organisations discuss the necessity of manufacturing the uniforms or have the opinion on the problem of quality, price, and expediency of the process.

It is possible to lead the negations to the effective win-win outcome while paying attention to the main principles presented by Peter Barron Stark and Jane Flaherty because they depend on meeting the needs and interests of both parties without transferring the situation to the conflict.

References

Hearn, E. E. (2011). Federal acquisition and contract management. Los Altos, CA: Hearn Associates.

Lum, G. (2010).The negotiation fieldbook: Simple strategies to help you negotiate everything. USA: McGraw-Hill.

Stark, P. B. & Flaherty, J. (2004). How to negotiate. Training and Development, 58(6), 52-54.

The art of negotiation plays an important role in communication. Negotiation approaches vary from culture to culture. It is important to understand the cultural backgrounds of the people that we negotiate with to follow the right approach that is agreeable to them. This paper will look at the five negotiation approaches used by the Chinese and their effectiveness when applied in a US setting.

The Chinese normally insist on general terms that are to guide the negotiation process before it begins. This helps them to control the location where the negotiation is going to be held if they are the hosts. They usually make the other side to show their level of interest in a proposition first before they reveal their own interest. They do this to analyze the weaknesses of the other party and how they can exploit them. Chinese businessmen usually look at ways they can benefit from a business transaction at the expense of the other party (Miles, 2003, p.454). These approaches are likely to catch an American businessman doing business with the Chinese by surprise. The Chinese businessman is likely to have a psychological edge over the American businessman. The Chinese businessman is likely to come up with conditions that favor his position during negotiations.

The Chinese know how to act with authority, whether it is real or imagined. They use strong-arm tactics to push their position through to gain an advantage over the other parties they are doing business with. They know how to apply psychological force to make the other parties yield to their position for their own benefit. This makes them use all types of tactics to strengthen their bargaining power. They compel the other parties to reveal their interests first in a transaction to be agreed upon, and then afterward, they delay revealing their own interests. They use time as a tool of coercion to make the party yield and concede to their demands (Miles, 2003, p. 455). This approach can be very effective for the Chinese in the US, where the element of time in business negotiations is highly treasured. Many American businesspeople look for ways to close business transactions within a short time.

During negotiations, Chinese business firms use many people who do not have clearly defined roles and levels of authority. Some of these people deflect attention from the people with the real authority who pretend to be aloof during the negotiations. They bring in unrelated issues to the negotiating table, which are not of interest to the other party. This approach is used to exasperate the other party as the Chinese take time to strengthen their own bargaining position. Sometimes they use go-betweens who push their agenda more vigorously to make the other side concede without a fight. This approach can work in the US because the other side of the transaction is likely to get distracted by these deceptions. They are very good at masking their true intentions, which makes the other party think that they are weak (Miles, 2003, p. 456). They use hard bargaining tactics that work for them on many occasions.

They use shame to instill guilt in the other party for past or present mistakes. The use of shame as a tactic is meant to weaken the bargaining position of the other party so that they can take advantage. They can make the other party feel shameful so that they later use it as a trick to make forceful demands. They do not shift from their own positions and use unorthodox methods to stay put. When they feel that they have less control over the process, they change negotiators and the locations to ensure that they bring in new negotiators who are more forceful. They will pretend that they are angry to blackmail the other parties to agree to their demands (Miles, 2003, p. 456). This approach may not necessarily work in the US because American businessmen do not like negotiations, which are emotional and manipulative. An American businessman is likely to call off negotiations that are very coercive.

They normally insist in their negotiations that friendship is the same as an obligation. This makes them coerce the other parties to submit to their demands. They also like going back to renegotiate previous agreements whenever it suits their interests. They are likely to tell the other party that the competitor next door offered better terms to them on a deal being discussed. This is meant to make the party they are negotiating with desperate. They know how to lessen or lift expectations of the other party, depending on whether the process is working in their favor or not. They like going back to issues that had already been settled in previous discussions (Miles, 2003, p. 457). This approach may be ineffective in the US because Americans prefer transacting business with transparent and honest people. A US business person will not appreciate being told that the person he is about to do business with proposed the same transaction to his biggest competitor.

References

Miles, M. (2003). Negotiating with the Chinese. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39 (4), 453-472.

Introduction

Negotiation entails a dialogue that involves two or more parties, which have a common goal or interest. In this case, the common goal or interest that bound the buyer (me) and the seller (Sam) was the need. While Sam wanted to dispose of his Lexus GS 400, 2005 car, I wanted to buy it through an exchange with my BMW 540i 2002 and additional payment. Since negotiation exists in different forms and styles, our style of negotiation involved distributive style. Distributive style transpired since Sam and I were involved in a negotiation that centered on a certain range of payment between $1,500 and $500. The style employed was accommodating since no one wanted to hurt the other in the process of negotiation. Facial expressions and tonal variations were some of the factors that facilitated our accommodating style of principled negotiation. Hence, it is within this background that the essay examines the process of negotiation involving the purchase of Sam’s car.

Process Analysis

Goals, Planning, and Preparation

The intention that commenced our interaction and an ultimate negotiation with Sam was the need to buy a car, through an exchange with my BMW 540i. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders assert that negotiations require parties that have a common interest, which binds them together (23). Since Sam wanted to dispose of his Lexus GS 400, which was clean and in good condition, and I wanted to sell my car, a common interest bound us together. As a result, I decided to instigate the negotiation with the main objective or goal of disposing of my car to him with an additional payment. The goal behind my intention to negotiate with Sam was to purchase his car and trade it with my car after giving him an additional payment of around $500. Therefore, according to my plan of action, I expected to receive Sam’s Lexus GS 400 after making a submission of my BMW 540i and an additional payment of about $500 to Sam.

After identification of the common interest between Sam and me, I contacted him and informed him of my intention to exchange my BMW 540i with his Lexus GS 400 and offer an additional payment. Consequently, after contacting Sam, he agreed and chose a place where we would meet and negotiate. With the negotiating skills acquired in class, I understood the significance of employing distributive negotiation that incorporates win-lose outcomes. Additionally, I knew that for a successful negotiation between Sam and me to occur, I had to apply an accommodating style of negotiation that is principled and does not result in disagreements and dissatisfaction with both parties. According to Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders, effective type of negotiation that involves new parties is distributive as it limits the range within which they price their products (578). As a result, I prepared myself well for a successful negotiation with Sam and the achievement of set goals and objectives.

Although I knew that my BMW 540i was a bit old as opposed to Sam’s Lexus GS 400, I equipped myself with the confidence required so that he would not infer any weakness in my vehicle. Confidence and knowledge of the car were among the factors that I employed in an attempt to ensure that the negotiation process would be successful. Confidence and knowledge of the subject involved in the negotiation are very crucial factors as they facilitate the passage of correct information to the other parties involved. In addition, the factors help the negotiators highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the subject of negotiation. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders explain that negotiators require confidence and knowledge of the negotiation subject so that they can present their demands and interests successfully (546). Therefore, with the knowledge of my BMW 540i and confidence, I was prepared to meet Sam and successfully persuade him to trade my BMW 540i with an additional payment of about $500 in exchange with his Lexus GS 400.

Outline of the Strategy

The employed outline of the strategy encompassed the distributive type of negotiation, accommodating style, and soft negotiation process. Through the application of the strategy, I would be in a position to persuade Sam and make him exchange his Lexus GS 400 with my BMW 540i and an additional payment of around $500, and thus, achieve my objective. Although I understood the challenges that centered on negotiations, I knew that with good persuasion and negotiation skills acquired during the lectures, the achievement of my goal, which entailed an exchange of my BMW 540i with Sam’s Lexus GS 400 together with an additional payment of about $500, was achievable. Successful negotiations result in outcomes that satisfy the parties involved (Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders 78). The employment of a good negotiation outline and strategy, my goal would be easy to achieve, while ensuring that Sam and I walked away satisfied with the outcomes.

To achieve the intended goal and trade Sam’s Lexus GS 400 at a fair price after an exchange with my BMW 540i, I had to set an outline that incorporated an opening offer and my intended target. Moreover, I equipped myself with the skills concerning the best alternative to a negotiation agreement (BATNA) that would be practical in instances of unachieved agreement in a negotiation process. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders state that BATNA is very effective in scenarios where negotiators fail to reach an agreement concerning the prices of products that they intend to sell or purchase (56). In essence, the main aim of the opening offer was to set the pace of the negotiation and inform the other party, Sam, of my price range. The opening offer also facilitated the course of the negotiation since the other party, Sam, made his decision to continue or terminate the negotiation after the knowledge of my opening offer.

Negotiation Process

After a consensus with Sam concerning the day of our meeting and negotiation, and my successful preparation for the day, we met with him after work. Our meeting point was on the northern side of the city, which is adjacent to his workstation. Since Sam knew the terms of our negotiation, it was easy to initiate the process. Fundamentally, for the parties to negotiate well, they need to have correct information concerning the subject of negotiation prior to the process (Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders 28). During our meeting, I informed Sam of my initial intention to trade my BMW 540i with his Lexus GS 400 and offer an additional payment of $500. On his side, Sam argued that he expected an exchange of his Lexus GS 400 and an additional payment of $1,500 because his car was in good condition. According to Sam, my BMW 540i required painting and thorough cleaning on the floor because it had Dog’s hair.

Sam also highlighted that his car was very clean and had new tires, and thus, it was worth more than my car, together with an additional $500. Another argument that Sam raised was the amount he presumed that he would spend when changing engine oil and cleaning of the Dog’s hair that was on the floor of my BMW 540i. Sam also argued that a summation of the cost that he would likely incur in changing the engine oil, cleaning, and painting the car would be around $150. According to Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders, the negotiation process entails arguments that concern the quality of the product and its presumed price (17). However, I informed Sam that my car is economical because the rate of fuel consumption is very low, and thus, it would save him a lot on fuel consumption. In addition, I argued that I would spend some amount of money replacing the radio in his Lexus that went on and off frequently. After negotiating for some time, we came to a consensus with Sam, who agreed to trade his Lexus GS 400 with my BMW 540i and an additional payment of $750. The agreement was satisfactory, and each of the parties walked away, happy, and satisfied.

Analysis of the Process, Tactics Employed, and Use of Power

From the negotiation process, it is evident that I followed my plan of action and successfully convinced Sam to trade his Lexus GS 400 with my BMW 540i together and an additional payment of $750. While my initial offer of $500 was not accepted, it was instrumental in setting the course of our negotiation, which culminated in an agreement to pay $750. Substantially, my initial opening offer of $500 worked as it enabled us to settle at a much closer figure that exceeded my target by around $250. According to Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders, a successful negotiation process concludes when both parties come to a common agreement, which is satisfactory (38). My goal of trading my car with Sam’s Lexus GS 400 succeeded since we came to a consensus and agreed to trade our cars. Although Sam was a bit challenging and hard to convince, the skills acquired during the lectures facilitated by negotiation and occasioned positive and successful outcomes.

The tactics employed in the process of negotiation comprised a distributive type of negotiation, accommodating style, and a principled negotiation process. Distributive style of negotiation was instrumental in fixing the range within which the involved parties in the negotiation would focus on while accommodating style facilitated an understanding and fair treatment of the parties. Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders elucidate that accommodating individuals ensure that they do not hurt others during and after the negotiation process but achieve their objectives satisfactorily (130). The principled negotiation process was practical as it enabled a fair consensus that satisfied the parties involved in the process. The use of power was evident in several instances of the negotiation process. Involved parties demonstrated the power of knowledge and expertise on the subjects of negotiation, as each pointed out the strengths and weaknesses of the subjects. Additionally, the confidence of the negotiators demonstrated power in character. While the floor of my BMW 540i was not clean, I demonstrated some level of confidence and explained the positive side of the vehicle to Sam.

Conclusion

Negotiation is a process that entails two or more parties bound together by a common interest. Essentially, negotiations require prior knowledge of the subjects and terms of negotiations. My experience with Sam during the trading of my BMW 540i and his Lexus GS 400 proved the significance of factors like confidence and knowledge on the subject of negotiation. Throughout the process, Sam majored in the strengths of his vehicle and the weaknesses of my BMW 540i in an attempt to diminish the value of my car. Conversely, since I had negotiation skills, I countered his arguments by pointing out some weaknesses in his Lexus and highlighting the strengths in my BMW 540i. In the absence of the negotiation skills, Sam would trade his Lexus GS 400 with my BMW 540i at a higher payment than the $750, which later became our accord. Ultimately, the process culminated in a consensus that Sam would trade the car with my BMW 540i at an additional payment of $750, an element that was satisfactory to Sam and me, and thus, a successful negotiation process.

Reflective Analysis

Some of the important lessons learned from the experience comprise the persistence of individuals during a negotiation process. Moreover, I learned that it is significant to respect the values, beliefs, and perspectives of other parties during negotiation so that the process becomes successful. Self-confidence, assertiveness, and good knowledge of the subject of negotiation are instrumental in a negotiation process, while the absence of these factors can lead to failure or unsuccessful negotiation. Factors like assertiveness, self-confidence, and knowledge of the negotiation subject are some of the factors that I observed and realized that they are momentous during my experience in the negotiation process. Proficient application of these factors played an integral role in convincing Sam to yield to my suggestions and trade my car with his car at a minimal price. Therefore, I learned various issues that concern the external environment and the practical part of the negotiation.

Some of my strengths include the knowledge that I had about my BMW 540i. The knowledge that I had about the vehicle was a useful strength since it facilitated my negotiation with Sam, who had argued that the car was not clean and worth the amount that I proposed. The strength that I helped me to counter the argument raised by Sam is the economic aspect of my car. Owing to the skills acquired during the lectures, I was able to employ the strengths that the vehicle had and use them overrule the arguments raised by the other party; hence, a successful negotiation. On the contrary, my reluctance to change the car seats and wash the floor regularly proved to be a weakness. As a result, Sam was quick to point out and identify since the floor had traces of Dog’s hair. The weakness became a major center of the argument that Sam centered on during the negotiation process.

The concepts of negotiations, such as the types, styles, and methods, were significant in the achievement of my goals in the negotiation process. My ability to persuade Sam to trade his Lexus GS 400 with my BMW 540i and offer an additional $750 was achievable since I had acquired negotiation skills from the lectures. Moreover, the confidence demonstrated throughout the process of negotiation was an outcome of the skills that I learned. Among the main factors that a negotiator requires for successful persuasion is confidence since it assures the other parties of the knowledge concerning the subject of negotiation. By employing a distributive type of negotiation, accommodating style, and using principled negotiation process, I was able to convince Sam and achieve my desired objective.

Works Cited

Lewicki, Roy, Bruce Barry, and David Saunders. Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010, Print.