Category: Negotiation

Introduction

Negotiations are the quintessence of nursing, the main point of which is to resolve a given problem and achieve a compromise. This process can remind of a game, when partners seat on opposite sides of the table and play with different levels of skills. A qualified nurse is expected to negotiate based primarily on his or her emotional intelligence, experience, sensitivity, respect to patients and colleagues, as well as listening competence (Groves, 2014).

Essence

In order to successfully perform it, nurses should attentively recognize the opinions of the opponents and react accordingly. For example, when presenting a patient his or her diagnosis, it may be useful to make an eye contact or sit relatively closer. In case nurses are indifferent to the cause of ones resistance to changes or fail to ask proper questions, it may be difficult to resolve the issue.

Personally, I negotiated with the staff to implement a change program on patient care protocols and faced unwillingness of some team members to use them. When asked about the exact ways they wanted to do their job along with the challenges they associate with a new program, they reported a lack of resources and time constraints (Cheng, 2015).

Conclusion

The more detailed analysis of the problem revealed staff shortage and the need to adjust work-related timelines, and the conflict was resolved. In terms of my practicum project, I assume that I would need to negotiate with some nurses, especially those who have strong personal care styles and have difficulties with adopting new evidence-based interventions. To prevent change resistance, I plan to clearly present the benefits of fall reduction initiative, including cost- and time-effectiveness, the decrease in complications, and, accordingly, a more safe care environment and staff satisfaction.

References

Cheng, F. K. (2015). Mediation skills for conflict resolution in nursing education. Nurse Education in Practice, 15(4), 310-313.

Groves, W. (2014). Professional practice skills for nurses. Nursing Standard, 29(1), 51-59.

Outline

1. Introduction.
2. The nature of the negotiations in the world.
3. Prenegotiation planning and differences.
4. Strategy and tactics of distributive and integrative bargaining.
5. Communication, bias, managing difficulties and individual approaches
6. Applying leverage in negotiation.
7. Conclusion.
8. References.

Introduction

In a narrow sense, negotiations should be examined as one of the methods of alternative dispute settlements. However, in a general sense, it means communicative between parties for achievement of an objective on condition of equality of these parties. The aim of this paper is to reveal the nature of negotiations, their role in human relationships, and also certain strategies, tactics, and ethics.

The nature of the negotiations in the world

The significance of negotiations in the world can not be underestimated. According to Oxford dictionary, negotiations mean discussion aimed at reaching an agreement (Oxford Dictionaries Online, 2011). In other words it is a conflict resolution. In international context, this conflict is defined

as the existence of competing interests between parties in absence of interests that are shared, is an anomaly in international relations where the defining feature of the relationship between states is mutual dependence (Alfredson & Congu, n. d., p. 1).

Negotiations became one of the most wide spread tactics of international communication and dispute settlement between the countries in the post-war period. Very often, negotiations are intended to find a conflict solution that would meet the interests of all the parties. Negotiations may result in signing of a treaty.

Negotiations are practiced at organizational and individual levels. Each level determines certain organizational behavior, its own strategy, tactics and ethics. For example, a flower company wants to facilitate the delivery process of its plants to various city offices. To resolve a problem, the representatives of this company want to cooperate with a transport company that would meet their needs. The negotiation process, in this case, is based on searching mutual interests. However, a transport company pursues its own interests. The representatives of this company present their demands: a flower company is obliged to use their service for 5 years. During the negotiations, the companies arrange about the price of the service, the terms and other conditions of the treaty.

On individual level, one should follow the policy that would lead to the desirable result. To get what one wants is probably, the main aim of any negotiations. For this reason, there are useful instruments that may help to achieve an objective: necessary information and data about party, persuasive arguments, ability to come to an agreement with another party regardless of different initial positions, take advantage from weak points of the partys policy, etc.

Renegotiations planning and differences

Renegotiations planning is the first step to negotiations. Moreover, it is essential procedure, because it helps the parties to define their goals, outcomes and objectives. In addition, planning framework specifies the negotiation scenario. For example, Ghauri and Usunier (2003) investigated the negotiation behavior in the USA practice, and concluded that negotiation is

a linear process, a sequence of stages, that typically begins with prenegotiation, advances to the opening moves of the formal negotiation, continues through a probing middle phase, and culminates in an end game and a binding agreement (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003, p. 189).

Thus, any negotiations need a preplanning period. Before the parties come to the negotiating table, it is necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of the problem, and diagnose the situation in general. Primarily, a party should set certain objectives and goals which it wants to achieve in the end of the negotiations. Second, a party needs to collect certain data and information that would enforce its persuasive arguments. Also, it is essential to project favorable conditions for another party, elaborate tactics and methods of negotiation process, distribute the roles among the negotiators.

Patience is also required in the prenegotiation period (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003). Consequently, the more thorough and circumspect planning framework is, the more successful will be the process of negotiation itself. Of course, negotiation scenario is tightly connected with the behavioral strategy. If the prenegotiation period is over, a person is ready to conduct the negotiation. One knows what can be said, and what is not; it is effective to use the information about weak and strong points of a party, and put theory into the practice.

Strategy and tactics of distributive and integrative bargaining

There are two main strategies in negotiations, practiced by the parties. One of them is a distributive bargaining, or win-lose bargaining (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003, p. 3). This competitive strategy helps a party to distribute limited or fixed financial resources for its own benefit. Ghauri and Usunier believe that here, the objective of the parties is to maximize their own benefit, quite often at the expense of the other party (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003, p. 3). In this strategy, one party wins, and the other one loses or gets less money. The negotiation experience shows that this type of strategy is incompatible.

The essence of a win-lose bargaining may be expressed in the following statement: anything that isnt yours, is mine (Ghauri & Usunier, 2003, p. 112). This approach to negotiations is used by the parties in the case, when there is a conflict over an issue, and the outcome represents gains for one party and losses for another one. On this condition, the pie wont be divided in half. Usually, the negotiators who practice this approach neglect the importance of relationships in the future. Here, the parties may use bluffs, demands, threats, blame statements. This strategy is quite out-dated, and may be practiced in labor management situations.

In contrast to distributive strategy, integrative one seems to be more cooperative. This is a lose-lose bargaining, where people settle for terms worse for both parties (Thompson, 2008, p. 24). Both parties are concerned with the solution of the problem. Thus, the conflict is minimized, and by means of cooperation, the parties want to achieve win-win outcomes (Thompson, 2008, p. 92). Following this approach, the parties want to maximize joint gains. Some researchers revealed the essence of an integrative bargaining:

Because integrative approaches emphasize problem solving, cooperation, joint decisionmaking and mutual gains, integrative strategies call for participants to work jointly to create win-win solutions. They involve uncovering interests, generating options and searching for commonalities between parties (Alfredson & Congu, n. d., p.15).

Soft tactics is used here. For example, partners share the information openly, may use supportive statements for other party; both parties contribute to the problem-solving process. The experience proves that it is a more productive and effective strategy.

Communication, bias, managing difficulties and individual approaches

Communication plays a key role in negotiation. Some researchers state that Good communication can change attitudes, prevent or overcome deadlock and misunderstandings and help to improve relationships (Alfredson & Congu, n. d., p. 24). Probably, in integrative strategy, the value of communication is more notable. Communication helps to manage all the possible difficulties, and overcome bias of the parties. To improve negotiating effectiveness, parties may follow the following communication model.

First of all, Listen actively to both verbal and non verbal cues (Alfredson & Congu, n. d., p. 24). One should know the meanings of all the words and gestures or glances during the negotiation. Verbal and non-verbal means of communication should contribute to the mutual understanding, and not provoke confusion or negative impression. Second, it is necessary to ask the questions to learn more about a party. To show ones own interest is a positive feature that contribute to the process of negotiation. Third, it is essential to operate and describe veracious data about a company, its background experience, goods, etc.

Communication should have credibility. Forth, one should remember that inquiry is better than persuasion. All these tactics put communication in a favorable stream of negotiation process. Sometimes, it is necessary to collect all the data about a party, and apply an individual approach. It is possible, when one knows that the mentioned tactics will not be suitable for communication with particular people; the elaborated individual tactic is more effective in this case.

Applying advantage in negotiation

However, right advantage in negotiations is also essential. According to Oxford dictionary, advantage is the power to influence a person or situation (Oxford Dictionaries Online, 2011). One of the effective mans to influence other party is to provide strong and persuasive arguments. For example, a company may offer extremely low prices, or its goods are unique, in comparison with its rivals.

Some researchers believe that one of the powerful leverages is intellectual property (copyrights, inventions, trademarks, patents, trade secrets) or other proprietary information that makes your company stand above the rest (MEA, 2009, p. 5). In addition, the question What do you have for me? focuses the party on ones needs, and reminds about equality of the parties that create a favorable ground for the mutually beneficial agreement. Reputation is a powerful leverage, as well. If a party is respected for its experience or quality of its goods, it has many chances to influence the decision-making process of another party.

A company should have a positive window dressing: a powerful and persuasive image of equal rival that show itself through different signs: position on a market, customers attitude, positive impression, good performance in ratings, etc. Finally, companys prices should be competitive and flexible. Adequate prices may attract attention of another party.

Conclusion

Negotiation is an integrative part of diplomatic relationships between countries, companies or individuals. Being a means of conflict resolution, negotiations determine certain behavioral tactics, strategies, and stages. One should remember that each party is equal, and pursues its own goals; the result of the negotiations should meet partys interests. Successful preplanning period increases the chances of both parties to conduct beneficial negotiations.

Distributive and integrative strategies may bring either losses or gains fro the parties, and determine their future relationships. Nevertheless, communication seems to be the basic instrument for any negotiation that influences its result; each party should follow certain principles to make it effective and productive. Besides, advantage plays an essential role, as it gives opportunity to influence the decision-making process of the negotiations.

References

Alfredson, T., & Congu, A. (n. d.) Negotiation Theory and Practice. Web.

Ghauri, P. N., & Usunier J.-C. (2003). International Business Negotiations. Kidlington, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

MEA. (2009). Determining Your Negotiation Leverage in Teaming Agreements: a Five Step Formula. McLean, VA: Ecomplex.

Oxford Dictionaries Online. Web.

Thompson, L. L. (2008). The Truth about Negotiations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.

Having examined the situation thoroughly and analyzed the position of Rose at FML and my own position at NEL, I concluded that Rose has the following types of power over me:

• legitimate power  authority to demand obedience (Cellich, 2012. p. 81). Since she is a manager at FML, she is legally enabled to take decisions that may have a serious impact on my company such as canceling the contract between companies. At the same time, I am only a customer service specialist, and I am not in such a position towards her, as well as my company is in no position to cancel the contract. The only kind of decision I can possibly make is to choose the best way of assuaging Roses worries and handling her complaint.
• coercive power  the ability to impact the behavior of others through the threat of punishment. Rose threatens to switch suppliers, which she has enough authority to do: as it is clear from the text, it is she, who decides what brand to select when the time comes to buy new equipment for FML. Such an action could be presented as a punishment for my company, as it would lead to revenue losses. Conversely, I cannot make any actual decisions regarding FML, which gives Rose a position superior to mine (SIM University, 2016. SU3-11).

Such a conclusion means that Rose is in a higher position than me. However, it is known that no single type of power can ensure the prevalence of a negotiator. The only thing that can guarantee a beneficial outcome is an effective strategy. Having identified the types of power that Rose has over me helps me to build a basis for an effective strategy of negotiation. Such a strategy would give me an advantage over her in the negotiation process and secure the outcome that would satisfy both companies.

To make Rose more willing to participate in an integrative negotiation process with me, I have worked out two possible ways of dealing with her that are both beneficial and effective:

1. Separate the person from the problem. It means that I have to identify the substantial issues in the problem, such as the malfunctioning equipment, sales loss and possible damage to the reputation of both companies, and separate them from people problems such as possible communication problems in our conversation, Roses anger and upset about sales loss and her concern about her professional reputation. Dealing with substantial problems and people problems separately can be really helpful in solving this conflict (Dessler & Phillips, 2007. p. 457). During the conversation, I will demonstrate my ability to solve conflicts in a confident manner, as well as my awareness of the fact that our companies, in fact, have coinciding interests. I can refer to her rich experience in problem-solving (which was mentioned in the text) as a guarantee that, in combination with NELs loyalty to its customers, the two of us are able to solve the problem. Such tactics may bring her on my side and make her willing to negotiate (Hames, 2011. p. 87-88).
2. Present her a full evaluation of the problem, with a clear description of the interests and concerns of all sides, including the fact that my company is not planning to pay to FML. Even though Rose will probably react negatively to the notification that NEL refuses to pay compensation, it would be better to tell her the whole truth, so that she can bear all the significant details in mind and think about the right solution along with me. This approach may widen her outlook and make us more likely to find an acceptable solution.

To plan the negotiation process and work out an appropriate solution, I have identified the interests of the parties.

At first glance, it seems that the primary interest of FML in this situation is receiving $200,000 from NEL as compensation for its losses of revenue. However, the company has deeper interests that are much more serious. First of all, FML needs to be sure that such a collapse would not happen again, i.e. that the equipment will work stably, and revenue losses would be prevented. It is also important that, despite Roses threats to change a supplier, it is known that FML is one of NELs top customers. Therefore:

1. FML has most likely been NELs customer for a long time (since it managed to become a top customer);
2. NEL has already fulfilled numerous orders for FML and, until recently, there were no major complaints;
3. FML is probably treated specially as a top customer (receives special propositions, discounts, is notified of best options, etc.).

It means that switching suppliers is probably less convenient to FML that reaching an agreement with NEL.

The interests of Rose overlap significantly with those of her company since she is a loyal manager, who has been working at FML for a long time. Nevertheless, she definitely has her personal interests as well. First, she has the reputation of an efficient employee. It means that she is most likely enraged with this situation and feels that she should have prevented it. This fact should be taken into consideration while building negotiation tactics. Second, she is known as a manager, who is incredibly good at problem-solving. Therefore, her superiors expect her to handle this problem as soon as possible and to the benefit of the company. It can be a good pressure point: if solving this problem is important to her, then I can hint that insisting on the necessity of compensation is not going to solve the problem.

NEL is interested in handling this conflict without paying out money to FML. More importantly, NEL is interested in keeping FML in its list of customers since the loss of this client would lead to serious revenue losses that can exceed $200,000. NEL is also interested in preserving its reputation: if FML refuses to continue their partnership, the news will most likely leak out, and other customers may cancel their contracts or stop partnering with NEL. Worse, FML can sue NEL, which, in the case of any judicial outcome, will damage NELs reputation. Despite these facts, I cannot agree with Rose that NEL should pay to FML for the following reasons.

First, I am in no position to influence my companys decisions. Second and more important, admitting to having provided FML with malfunctioning equipment will damage NELs reputation as well. These considerations can be presented to Rose to make her more understanding of the specificities of the problem.

Having estimated the interests of the parties, I developed a strategy based on the four main steps of an integrative negotiation process:

1. Defining the problem in an accurate way: the equipment is malfunctioning, and this fact is unsatisfying for both companies (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2011. p. 66-69). The problem puts the companies long-term partnership at risk. Not knowing the reason for the breakdowns of the equipment is an obstacle to the goal, which is a reasonable agreement between the two companies.
2. Comprehending the problem and bringing up the interests (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2011. p. 69-71). The problem lies in the complication in the companies relationship. The substantive interest of each company is continuing to serve its customers without obstacles. The process interests of both companies declare that the dispute is settled through mutual agreement rather than legal action. The companies are interested in preserving their relationship.
3. Work out alternative solutions (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2011. p. 72-78). Rose and I can divide problems into several issues so that FML gains more in one issue and NEL in another (Maude, 2014. p. 92). For instance, one issue is that NEL is not willing to pay, and another one is that FML wants their equipment to function well.
4. Evaluate the possible solutions and make a choice (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2011. p. 79-82). We should exclude the options that are unacceptable for one of the sides (for example, paying compensation) and choose the one that is most satisfying for both companies. A good possible solution is to retain independent experts to identify the reason for the malfunctioning of the equipment. In case if the reason turns out to be the new ingredients of overexploitation of the equipment (FMLs fault), the problem is solved. If the fault is NELs, the latter can provide FML with new equipment and compensate the losses with a discount for the next purchase or provide more sophisticated and expensive models of equipment than the initial ones as a compensation. Such a solution takes into consideration the interests of NEL, FML and Rose and proposes a compromise that can satisfy all these interests.

References

Cellich, C. (2012). Practical solutions to global business negotiations. New York City, New York: Business Expert Press. Web.

Dessler, G., & Phillips, J. (2007). Managing now. Wadsworth, California: Cengage Learning. Web.

Hames, D.S. (2011). Negotiation: Closing deals, settling disputes, and making team decisions. London, UK: SAGE Publications. Web.

Lewicki, R., Barry, D., & Saunders, D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (6th ed.). New York City, New York: McGraw-Hill. Web.

Maude, B. (2014). International business negotiation: Principles and practice. New York City, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Web.

SIM University (2016). BUS356 Business Negotiation study guide (5CU). Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Web.

Introduction

Contracts enable the parties that are willing to cooperate to agree on and set a list of rules that will guide their collaboration. Written contracts may consist of different sections, including the preamble, definitions of terms, the words of agreement, and the duties that each side promises to fulfill. More than that, contracts may include a range of sections that specify the way of how a contract will be managed and assurances proving that the facts critical for contract execution are true.

Negotiation contracts help the parties to reach a compromise on contract terms and, therefore, prepare to engage in business relationships. Concerning their importance, contracts can be regarded as the tools that help the parties to ensure the effectiveness of further collaboration. Contracts are indispensable since they protect parties that are willing to build fruitful business relationships and facilitate decision-making in case of conflicts and further disagreements on particular aspects of collaboration.

Specific Circumstances

The scenario created for this assignment refers to the collaboration between the event planning agency and two individuals that are going to marry in November of 2020. The individuals, George Brown and Changchang Zhao would like the Fete Group to plan their wedding day, including the ceremony and the following celebration with relatives. The Fete Group is an event planning business that serves its clients in Rochester, New York. The Fete Group is a youthful company that is willing to expand and needs promotion and interesting projects to stand out among other event planning businesses in the state. The clients mentioned above have a variety of specific needs since they are going to have an interracial marriage and wish their families traditions to be observed and respected during the planned celebration.

The basic problem is that not all specialists in the area have enough experience with couples that wish to combine the traditions of different races to please their guests. Moreover, it can be challenging for agencies to find high-quality traditional dresses for the bride and her bridesmaids and meet other expectations of the couple. Despite that, the agencys representatives have agreed to help with the ceremony but also mentioned extra costs and difficulties related to planning the American-Chinese celebration. Having analyzed the couples preferences, the agency concluded that the required services would cost at least $4,800.

George Brown owns an online dating site that is used by thousands of people in the State of New York. He also operates a popular blog in which he shares his thoughts on intercultural relationships and the culture of Asia. Apart from paying for the agencys services, he considers advertising the agency on his website in gratitude for the Fete Groups assistance with the project. He also considers creating a series of blog posts devoted to the wedding and those who have helped to organize it.

In return for that, George asks the company to give them a discount. Having learned about the grooms readiness to advertise the Fete Group, the company agrees to offer its prospective customers a discount to avoid losing a helpful opportunity. This offer acts as an additional motivator for the Fete Group, and the company expresses the readiness to do its best to organize the celebration. On that note, the parties agree to discuss their needs and expectations in a profound manner and prepare for drafting a contract.

Importance of Addressing Others Needs

Prior to drafting and discussing contracts, parties that are willing to collaborate are expected to clearly formulate their own needs and be ready to give consideration to each others expectations and requirements. Customer satisfaction is often cited as the first priority of modern businesses (Stevenson, 2018). Businesses ability to address their clients basic and sophisticated needs can be regarded as a prerequisite to achieving success and building a good reputation among prospective customers.

Despite the critique of traditional wedding rituals, such as white dresses, many brides associate them with positive emotions for the entire family (Froschauer & Durrheim, 2019). For event planners, being aware of such trends in prospective clients attitudes toward weddings is of critical importance. It is because service providers will not be able to meet their clients needs to a full extent without understanding the meaning that they attach to the planned events.

Being able to address others needs is also of great importance since it enables the collaborating parties to gain new experiences that will be helpful in the future. As an event planning business, the Fete Group needs to recognize and address the couples specific needs in order to gain experience dealing with difficult and unusual projects, such as intercultural weddings. The understanding of multicultural communication belongs to the critical skills and competencies that wedding planners should demonstrate (Huang, Hou, & Hong, 2017). Due to the specifics of their work, individual specialists and businesses in the event planning industry should be ready to adapt to different circumstances and clients.

Being the party that is expected to provide high-quality services, the Fete Group still has a variety of needs that the prospective customers are supposed to fulfill. To begin with, after signing a contract with George Brown, the team responsible for event planning will have to find and order everything necessary for the ceremony. Apart from choosing and purchasing relatively affordable items, including felt lanterns and other decoration supplies, the team will need to help the couple with making quite expensive purchases. Among them is a qipao dress for the bride, outfits for her bridesmaids, a wedding tuxedo, and so on.

Because of the characteristics of the planned ceremony and the large number of guests that the couple is going to invite, the companys team will need to complete more tasks than it usually does. For instance, the specialists will need to hire two teams of chefs to have both Chinese and European foods prepared for guests. In a similar manner, extra efforts will be required to provide decorations in two different styles and implement entertainment ideas that will please all guests.

The Fete Group has two basic needs in the given scenario. To start from, given that celebration organization is going to be quite a difficult and time-consuming task, the company should avoid promising a discount that will be too large. At the same time, offering no discount at all can make the prospective clients interested in collaborating with a different agency, and the Fete Group will lose this valuable opportunity for promotion.

To continue, it is in the Fete Groups best interests to proceed with the couples unconventional project in order to improve the portfolio and differentiate themselves from other local businesses that never organize multicultural weddings. Also, as a relatively new company, the Fete Group actually needs to be advertised, and the company wants the blog posts about its services to be seen by as many people as possible. Therefore, the agency would like George Brown to write at least five posts about their collaboration and keep them at the top of his blog for two months.

George Brown and his bride also hope to engage in mutually advantageous cooperation with the agency to satisfy a range of needs. To begin with, the bride and the groom are too busy with their jobs and studies to organize the celebration themselves, which is the reason why they need a qualified full-service wedding planner. Apart from that, Changchangs relatives insist on observing Chinese traditions since a wedding with traditional American or European aesthetics would, as they believe, disconnect the young woman from her native culture.

At the same time, Georges parents and guests would also like to experience something familiar when it comes to decoration, food, and entertainment, which is why a fully Chinese wedding cannot be regarded as a viable option. With that in mind, the couple needs a true professional to combine the attributes of the two cultures in an elegant and respectful way. A specialist or a team to work with the couple should understand the basics of intercultural communication and demonstrate management skills and a good aesthetic taste to create an atmosphere appealing to all guests.

Aside from the need for high-quality event planning services and full-time assistance with all wedding organization tasks, the couple would like to cut the expenses as much as possible. The bride and grooms budget is not very tight, but they understand that the implementation of their ideas will not cost as much as typical wedding celebrations. The prospective customers know that event planning agencies that are not new in the market have higher costs of services, and such packages of services would be too expensive for them.

After comparing different agencies price lists, they have concluded that the Fete Group would be the best option in terms of the price-quality relationship, but it would still be perfect for them to get a discount. The couple would not be able to spend more than $4,300 on wedding planning services, whereas the price for organizing this type of wedding mentioned by the Fete Group is at least $4,800. Therefore, George Brown is interested in getting at least a 10% discount in exchange for his advertising services.

Preconditions

As for the basic prerequisites for developing contracts and engaging in business relationships, they include the legal capacity of all parties. To be capable of making legally valid agreements, all parties should be of lawful age and have the mental capacity to make high-impact decisions and analyze different situations (Contract, 2018). Mental capacity involves the absence of both chronics (mental health disorders) and temporary (intoxication) barriers to proper decision-making. Legal adulthood and no impairments to mental capacity will be among the basic prerequisites for making a contract in the case of the Fete Group and George Brown.

Apart from confirming the parties legal capacity, it is critical to make sure that the parties make decisions on their own. An important prerequisite that must be followed to make a valid contract is the presence of free consent to take on some duties and responsibilities (Contract, 2018). In other words, it is of utmost importance that the Fete Group and George make crossing offers to each other by choice and are not urged to do it by threats or force.

The degree to which the parties are sincere when it comes to their intentions, the resources that they possess, and the ability to deliver on all promises made is another precondition that must be considered. To proceed with the development of a valid contract, it is pivotal to make sure that neither of the parties tries to commit acts of fraud or pursues any illegal goals (Contract, 2018). As for the subject matter, the futures contract is to be centered on the provision of professional wedding planning services at a discount and services related to advertising an event planning agency. Neither of the offers has to deal with illegal activities, which makes it possible to come to a valid agreement in the future.

Additionally, to confirm the ability to fulfill the mentioned promises without fraud, the parties may be required to provide some documentation to each other. The agency may need to prove that the couple is going to work with a certified employee that holds a degree in hospitality management and has some experience and positive reviews from customers (Whitney, 2016). In return, George Brown will have to confirm that he is the only owner of the dating and blog websites mentioned by him and that both resources work properly. To inform the agencys decision-making concerning the size of the discount, he will also need to provide visitor flow reports containing accurate and up-to-date information about both of his online resources.

Contract

The negotiation contract is to be jointly built by the Fete Group and George Brown and specify the obligations that both parties are ready to accept. It will be essential to specify the terms of cooperation in a mutual services agreement. The details and sections that could be included in the document are presented below.

Parties

• Name: The Fete Group

  • Address: 5 Abbott St., Rochester, NY
  • Contact: Jane Doe
  • E-mail/phone number: [email protected], +1585555
• Name: George Brown

  • Address: 7 New York St., Rochester, NY
  • E-mail/phone number: [email protected], +1585666

Agreement

According to the present mutual services agreement, the Fete Group will offer George Brown its all-inclusive wedding package at an exclusive price of $4,080 instead of the regular price ($4,800). Changes to the price are not to be followed by any alterations regarding the scope and quality of services, as well as the schedule of meetings with the couple/vendors. In his turn, George Brown agrees to create five posts with photos (at least 300 words each) and publish them in his blog (georgebrownsblog.com) within two weeks of receipt of the wedding planning services.

Each post prepared by George Brown will be his own work devoted to the celebration organized by the Fete Group and contain at least two explicit positive mentions of the agency. Each post will include only accurate and non-confidential information pertaining to the Fete Group, its employees, and its activities. Each post will be available on the main page of the resource for eight weeks after the posting date. George Brown will place a banner advertisement selected and approved by the Fete Group at the top of the main page of his dating service website (nydating.com) within a week after the day of the wedding ceremony. The web banner will be removed no earlier than two weeks after the date of placement.

Relationship

The Fete Group agrees to provide the services listed in the agreement to George Brown at the stated price, and George Brown agrees to provide the specified advertising services to the Fete Group. Neither of the parties will be authorized to act on behalf of the other party or enforce additional obligations not specified in this and subsequent agreements with the other party.

Agreement Period

The present agreement will commence after the signing of the Wedding Planner Contract between the parties. The agreement will be in force for ten weeks after the date of George Browns wedding ceremony and will not renew automatically.

Obligations and Duties

During the term, both parties agree to perform all obligations stated in the agreement, provide all services with skill and in a timely manner and demonstrate compliance with all relevant laws.

George Brown will provide advertising services to the other party subject to conditions specified in the agreement and ensure that he has the equipment to perform all obligations under the agreement.

The Fete Group will provide full-time wedding planning services (the all-inclusive package) to the other party at the specified price and make sure that it has the necessary equipment, personnel, and facilities to provide all obligations.

Payment

The price for the Fete Groups all-inclusive service package ($4,080) is the final negotiated price that is not subject to change. After signing the wedding planner contract, the client will make a payment under terms that will be mutually agreed upon by the parties. No payments will be provided for George Browns web advertising services specified in the present agreement.

Confidentiality

When gaining access to the other partys confidential information, both parties agree to treat it with confidence and avoid disclosing details about the other party without its explicit consent. Also, the parties promise not to use information about the other party for purposes that are not specified in this agreement.

Dispute Resolution

The parties take on the obligation to make efforts to resolve any conflict arising between them. The Fete Group, if dissatisfied with George Browns performance, will be able to refer to the present agreement that specifies his actions after receiving services. George Brown will be able to refer to the agreement if asked to pay extra after making the full payment to the Fete Group ($4,080). If dissatisfied with the scope or quality of the provided services, George Brown will refer to the wedding planner contract with the agency.

Governing Law and Jurisdiction

The Fete Group and George Brown agree that the present agreement shall be governed by New York law.

Conclusion

To sum up, agreements between people can take a variety of forms, ranging from informal verbal discussions of cooperation to well-structured documents that specify the terms and conditions of business between at least two parties. By presenting the duties of both sides and specifying actions that should follow conflicts, such documents are aimed at preventing adverse consequences for the collaborating parties and minimizing opportunities for fraud in different businesses.

In the scenario involving the agency and its prospective client, a negotiation contract would help to transform a verbal agreement between the parties into a written document that would have power in case of conflicts. Therefore, it will enable the parties to collaborate and gain benefits with the minimized risks of adverse consequences and the partners poor performance.

References

Contract. (2018). In Funk & Wagnalls new world encyclopedia. Web.

Froschauer, U., & Durrheim, K. (2019). Its the brides day: The paradox of womens emancipation. Feminism & Psychology, 29(1), 5875.

Huang, H. C., Hou, C. I., & Hong, Y. S. (2017). Analysis of importance of the professional abilities required by personnel in wedding planner services. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 9(4), 157170.

Stevenson, W. J. (2018). Operations management (13th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Whitney, P. A. (2016). Multiple case study of event management curricula and industry professionals expectations of new graduates (Doctoral dissertation). Web.

Introduction

Negotiations are an effective way of making a good bargain or at least reaching a compromise among stakeholders. They take place not only in global politics and economics but also in everyday life when, for example, a person negotiates future wages at a job interview or resolves a conflict with a spouse. However, negotiations do not always end with the desired outcome. Sometimes, they may be unsuccessful because the object of the talks is something undebatable, but in other cases, negotiations fail because participators make mistakes during the discussion.

The aim of this essay is to explore the errors that hinder stakeholders from reaching an agreement throughout the debates. Then, the recent talks between the U.S. and North Korea will be analyzed to identify the mistakes made by the parties, which led to an unsuccessful outcome. The failure to prepare adequately and empathize became the major reason for the negotiation failure.

Reasons for Negotiation Failure

Negotiations are often a challenging task to deal with and, therefore, require specific skills and an understanding of the way people interact with each other and make decisions. The difficulty of relationships between negotiators is that they always have confronting interests, but, at the same time, they need to cooperate with the opposite parties to identify a mutually agreeable solution and avoid costly impasse (Thompson, 2019, p. 28). Therefore, the ability of stakeholders to protect their interests while listening and understanding their opponents motives has a great influence on the outcome of any negotiation. This section will review how the failure to prepare for the talks, to empathize, manage emotions, and build relationships takes a toll on negotiations.

Inadequate Preparation

Although negotiations may require some skill of improvisation from participators, an unplanned debate is unlikely to end with success. Yiu, Cheung, and Lok (2015) consider the lack of planning to be the major reason for a failed negotiation. The researchers argue that thorough preparation for negotiation helps to prioritize goals and needs adequately and reduce the possibility of unintended reactions (Yiu et al., 2015).

The reasons for insufficient preparedness are ambiguous interests, confined options, disregard of opponents, and external factors (Yiu et al., 2015, p. 172). Having ambiguous interests means that negotiators lack a clear understanding of the objectives they need to attain during the talks (Yiu et al., 2015). Knowing the intentions and values of the other party is also important for a favorable outcome (Yiu et al., 2015). Hence, if negotiators fail to clearly define their goals and those of their opponents before the oncoming debate, the negotiation can hardly be successful.

Vague objectives are not the only thing that hinders thorough planning. Another factor that causes inadequate preparation is confined options, meaning that negotiators limit the number of available alternatives (Yiu et al., 2015). When negotiators choice is restricted, they are forced to concentrate on one thing and miss other opportunities that could be more favorable for them (Yiu et al., 2015). Disregard of opponents occurs when one party neglects the features of another one (Yiu et al., 2015). In this case, negotiators will be unable to predict the interests and intentions of the opposing party, and the talks will fail (Yiu et al., 2015).

External factors influencing the process of preparation include precedents, opinions of specialists, and norms existing in a particular industry (Yiu et al., 2015). To be well-prepared for debates, stakeholders should be aware of the common procedure of negotiating in their field; otherwise, the talks will result in a failure (Yiu et al., 2015). Thus, the success of negotiations is defined at the preparatory stage.

Failure to Empathize

Even if negotiators are thoroughly prepared for the debate, they still may fail if they make mistakes during the talks. One of the possible errors is a failure to empathize. Nick Coburn-Palo (2015), who has been the UN consulting diplomat trainer, argues that negotiators often believe that there is the right solution that everyone should consider rationally. However, when stakeholders think so, they get into the trap referred to as the danger of one story (Coburn-Palo, 2015).

It means that there is not actually the right solution that will satisfy everyone. Each of the parties has different values and interests, and things that are important for one party may be of no significance to another one. According to Coburn-Palo (2015), to avoid this mistake, negotiators should understand the actual interests of their opponents rather than guess at the possible goals of the opposing parties or impose their own vision on them. Thus, if stakeholders care only about themselves while negotiating and do not take into consideration the values of the other party, the success of the talks will be at risk.

A failure to empathize is related not only to the understanding of the goals of opponents. It is also concerned with external constraints that influence negotiators ability to agree to a particular deal (Coburn-Palo, 2015). Participants of negotiation often represent a group of stakeholders. When they agree to some terms during the talks, they will have to explain their decision to their counterparts who did not take part in the debate (Coburn-Palo, 2015).

If negotiators do not take into account the external constraints that exert pressure on the opposing party, they are unlikely to come to an agreement. Furthermore, negotiations tend to fail if one party treats the other one with disrespect and makes it appear a loser in the eyes of others (Coburn-Palo, 2015). It happens when one negotiating party takes advantage of the weaknesses of the other party to win some benefits for itself (Stevenson, 2018). Thus, the ability of negotiators to put themselves in another partys shoes is crucial for the success of the talks.

Failure to Manage Emotions

Another factor that can contribute to either the success or failure of negotiation is emotions. Coburn-Palo (2015) mentions the 70/30 rule, meaning that the success of the talks is defined by 70 percent of emotional intelligence (EQ) and only 30 percent of IQ. It implies that presenting well-grounded reasons for an agreement is important during the talks, but managing emotions has far greater significance for a favorable outcome of a negotiation.

One of the common emotions that people have to deal with while interacting with opponents is anger. According to Hunsaker (2017), anger can either benefit or harm negotiators, depending on a variety of circumstances. This emotion can lead to opponents concessions only if angry negotiators possess high power, so their position allows them to behave in such a way (Hunsaker, 2017). However, when low-power people are angry, they fail to think clearly and cannot perceive their values correctly (Hunsaker, 2017). Therefore, they have difficulty in focusing on the tasks at hand and cannot offer comprehensive solutions to the opposing party (Hunsaker, 2017).

Sometimes, they afford to say vulgar words to their opponents, and even if they eventually come to an agreement, they are less satisfied with it than their not angry counterparts (Hunsaker, 2017). Angry low-power negotiators also receive fewer concessions and risk severing relations with their opponents (Hunsaker, 2017). Coburn-Palo (2015) adds that anger should be an instrument of influence in the talks; therefore, it should be used in batches, only when necessary. Thus, if negotiators fail to control their anger, it may ruin the relationships between parties.

However, anger is not the only emotion that can spoil negotiation outcomes. Coburn-Palo (2015) says that, sometimes, the members of a negotiating party that reach their desirable terms start to express their excitement before the talks are finished. It is called Dupers delight, and it may harm the relationships between parties because opponents are likely to feel that they have lost in some way (Coburn-Palo, 2015). Hence, celebrating a victory in front of the opposing party is inappropriate in the negotiation culture.

Failure to Build Relationships

The final mistake that negotiators can make is concerned with a failure to build relationships with opponents, and it is more global than the errors mentioned above because it goes beyond one specific debate. There is a myth that each negotiation is a separate deal (Stevenson, 2018). However, most negotiations do not take place just once; rather, they happen in a series, and stakeholders are likely to meet each other repeatedly (Coburn-Palo, 2015). It implies that if people fail to establish good relationships with the opposing party during one negotiation, they risk not only getting unfavorable results of the current talks but also depriving themselves of potential partners in the future.

There are specific characteristics that distinguish a reliable stakeholder from an untrustworthy one. According to Coburn-Palo (2015), people are prone to establish strong business relationships with those who can get over difficulties if something goes wrong with an agreement and those who are able to laugh at themselves. He also argues that humor at the negotiation is a thing that can dissipate the tension and improve relationships between parties if it is used in a proper way (Coburn-Palo, 2015).

However, if it appears to be inappropriate or offensive for some members of the opposing party, it may put an end to the talks and spoil the relations (Coburn-Palo, 2015). For this reason, it is safer to laugh at oneself because, in this case, one will not offend anyone and will show that one is self-confident enough not to give up in the face of hardships (Coburn-Palo, 2015). Thus, negotiations may fail if stakeholders do not prove themselves to be reliable and insult their counterparts.

An Example of a Failed Negotiation

An example of the talks that failed due to some of the identified mistakes is the recent negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea. The heads of the mentioned states, President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, met in Hanoi in 2019 to settle the question of the denuclearization of North Korea. North Korea was ready to stop conducting its ballistic missile testing and send the remains of American soldiers back to the U.S. In return, it expected the U.S. to lift economic sanctions against North Korea. However, the U.S. wanted complete denuclearization of the opponents country. After two days of negotiating, the two parties reached no agreement.

It seems that this negotiation failed at the very beginning. The North Korean leader failed to predict the behavior and interests of the U.S. party while preparing for the talks (Daminov, 2019). The media often blame Trump for being an incompetent negotiator, so Kim Jong-un might have thought that it would be easy to get concessions in terms of relief from sanctions for partial disarmament (Daminov, 2019). However, the U.S. party was not content with the terms offered by their North Korean counterparts, so they left the negotiation room.

Trump made a mistake that was described above as a failure to empathize. The president failed to learn the actual interests and external constraints of his opponent. Trump, being a prosperous businessman and caring much about the economic situation in the country, was likely to assume that Kim Jong-un was concerned about the same things in North Korea (Metz, 2019). Before going to the Hanoi Summit, Trump wrote on his Twitter, Chairman Kim realizes, perhaps better than anyone else, that without nuclear weapons, his country could fast become one of the great economic powers anywhere in the World (Metz, 2019, para. 3).

Therefore, Trump was convinced that Kim Jong-un would readily agree to give up its nuclear facilities. However, since the political regime in North Korea is not a democracy but a totalitarian dictatorship, the leader of the country cares about maintaining the cult of his personality, not about the economic prosperity of the nation (Metz, 2019). Thus, the discrepancy between Trumps perception of Kim Jong-un and the real values of the North Korean leader became another reason for negotiation failure.

It may also be assumed that the two parties failed to build relationships needed for negotiating successfully. Although Trump seems to consider his relationship with Kim Jong-un to be strong, the fact that they fail to come to an agreement proves the contrary. Perhaps, it is the fault of a long-lasting conflict between the U.S. and North Korea, and it is not easy to mend the relations that have been troubled for decades.

Recommended Practices of Negotiations

To avoid negotiation failures, stakeholders should be aware of the effective practices of conducting talks. First of all, a negotiating party should clearly define its best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) (Thompson, 2019). The BATNA is a course of action that negotiators will perform if the debates will end with no deal (Thompson, 2019). Defining the BATNA is important because it provides stakeholders with a plan B in case of unsuccessful negotiations (Thompson, 2019).

It also sets the limits that determine what terms are acceptable for negotiators and what offerings will make them leave the bargaining table (Thompson, 2019). BATNA gives negotiators more power since they can hint at their alternative during the talks and show the opposing party that they have the opportunity to quit debating if no agreement is reached (Thompson, 2019). Therefore, defining the BATNA should be an important step during the preparatory stage of the negotiations.

As for the case of the failed talks between the U.S. and North Korea, it seems that both parties had their BATNAs. Trump was not ready to accept a deal in which North Korea would not get rid of its nuclear facilities. It seems that the best alternative for the U.S. was to hold a summit once again in the future if the agreement was not reached. North Korea seems to have had the same BATNA, but the condition under which it would turn to its best alternative was Trumps refusal to lift the sanctions. Perhaps, both parties should have elaborated more powerful BATNAs to encourage the opposing side to come to a certain agreement rather than leave the bargaining table with no deal.

Another useful negotiation practice is identifying the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA). The ZOPA is a nominal area in which the limits defined in negotiating parties BATNAs overlap (Thompson, 2019). It means that within the ZOPA, an agreement can be reached, but outside of this area, the parties cannot find common grounds and make a deal (Thompson, 2019). Identifying the ZOPA is essential for successful negotiations because it may help to understand whether it makes sense to start talks at all (Thompson, 2019).

Furthermore, if negotiators are aware of the area where they can come to an agreement, the parties are likely to adjust their goals to those of their counterparts. In fact, it is a good practice to make concessions to each other because negotiations that benefit only one of the parties may have detrimental effects in the long run (Stevenson, 2018). Thus, identifying the ZOPA has great significance, and it requires knowing the interests and objectives of the opposing party.

It seems that the U.S. and North Korea failed to understand the goals and values of each other clearly. Therefore, their interests turned out to be outside of the ZOPA, and the agreement could not be reached. To avoid negotiation failure, the parties should have found out what was significant for their opponents and what were limits they had set for themselves before starting the talks. The U.S. could have understood how important it was for Kim Jong-un to keep North Korean nuclear weapons to maintain his authority as the country leader. Upon understanding this, Trump could have asked for gradually renouncing nuclear weapons in exchange for lifting sanctions step-by-step.

One more good practice for a successful negotiation is differentiating between positions and interests and convey both of them to the opposing party. The difference between positions and interests is that the former means a stated demand, and the latter is a need that underlies the requirement (Thompson, 2019). According to Thompson (2019), negotiators who state their position and do not explain their interests are more likely to fail at reaching an agreement than those who make their claims reasonable for the opponents. Since the U.S. and North Korea did not make a deal during the negotiations, it may be assumed that they did not explain their requirements. Consequently, the opposing party could not gain insight into the underlying interests and make possible concessions.

Conclusion

To sum up, negotiations are often unsuccessful because stakeholders fail to adequately prepare for the debate, empathize with the opponents, manage their emotions during talks, and establish a partnership with the opposing party. The failed negotiation between the U.S. and North Korea was discussed, and it was found out that the major reason for the failure was a lack of understanding of each others interests. To reach an agreement, the parties should have made their BATNAs more powerful, identified the ZOPA, and explain the underlying reasons for their claims to the opponents.

References

Coburn-Palo, N. (2015). Why negotiations fail [Video file].

Daminov, I. (2019). North Koreas negotiating strategy after Hanoi.

Hunsaker, D. A. (2017). Anger in negotiations: A review of causes, effects, and unanswered questions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 10(3), 220-241.

Metz, S. (2019). The Hanoi summit failed because the U.S. doesnt understand how Kim sees the world.

Stevenson, W. J. (2018). Operations management (13th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Thompson, L. (2019). Win-win negotiation in a global economy. In N. Pfeffermann (Ed.), New Leadership in Strategy and Communication (pp. 27-36). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Yiu, T. W., Cheung, S. O., & Lok, C. L. (2015). A fuzzy fault tree framework of construction dispute negotiation failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(2), 171-183.

Interview Questions

1. How long have you been in this business and what market area do you cover?
2. What are the challenges that you face which can be solved through a joint operation with our business?
3. What are your expectations going into the contract with our business?
4. How do you feel the profits from this joint operation should be shared between the two businesses and what is the justification for the same?
5. Are you willing to lower your expectations and reduce the share amount that your business is entitled to?
6. Are you willing to increase the amount that you will invest in the joint venture?
7. What challenges do you envisage in this joint partnership?
8. How best do you think such challenges can be overcome to achieve the intended level of success?
9. What steps should be taken when it becomes necessary to end the joint venture?

Summary

The interview conducted was between two companies that needed to enter into a joint venture. The lead negotiator for Company A was its Vice President in charge of international expansion. Company A is a large multinational corporation that is keen on making an entry into the local market in the United States. Company B is a local firm that is keen on expanding its operation locally. Company A sent a negotiator to help reach an agreement with Company B to facilitate rapid expansion in the local market. In this negotiation, several factors had to be considered to ensure that the two firms could operate jointly in the American market.

The first challenge that emerged from the interview was that the two firms had different brands. After lengthy deliberation, it was agreed that the brand of the local firm will be retained because it was already popular. Another challenge that required a complex negotiation was the contribution that each firm would make and the ownership of the new company that would be formed thereafter. Although Company A will invest more resources than Company B, both firms will have equitable shares of the new firm in the United States. The management of Company A was willing to lower their expectation.

The negotiator also agreed that the profit made from the new business will be shared equally until such a time that the two entities will revise the current agreement. However, Company B will be more involved in operations within the United States because it already has a functioning system and structure in the country. It also has a better understanding of the local market because it has been operating in the country for a long period. Company A, through the negotiator, agreed that it will be willing to increase its investment into the joint venture when necessary.

The negotiation team agreed that numerous challenges may emerge and the best way to overcome them is to define the role of different stakeholders. It was agreed that specific individuals within the two firms would be assigned specific responsibilities to ensure that operational activities are undertaken successfully. The negotiating team also agreed on reporting channels that had to be used to ensure that the top management units of the two companies are fully aware of the activities and responsible for the progress. The negotiation process was a success because both parties felt that the agreement was a win-win situation for the companies involved.

Finally, the two parties had to agree on how to dissolve the joint venture in case it became necessary to do so. The parties involved presented three possible ways of dissolving the venture. The first possibility was for Company A to buy out Company B and reward its shareholders. In that case, shareholders of Company B will cease to own shares of the new firm. The second option was for Company B to be absorbed as part of Company A. Shares of Company A will be restructured to ensure that shareholders of Company B own its shares in a proportion equivalent in value to what they owned in Company B. The third option was for Company B to buy out company A. In this scenario, Company A will be compensated for the full value of the shares that they own in the joint venture. After the payment, Company B will assume full ownership of the new company.

Critical Analysis of Negotiation Theory Applied to Real Business Negotiations

The art of negotiation is critical in ensuring that a firm achieves success in the market. According to Lapidus (2020), negotiation theory has gained relevance as a tool that one needs to be a successful manager. Its principles are critical when one is engaging suppliers, customers, regulators, government officials, employees, and any other stakeholder. Harvard Law School (2020) reports that Negotiation theory finds that a cooperative approach is the surest path to understanding the other party and discovering new sources of value. The goal of finding success in a negotiation is to find common interests. Parties involved in a negotiation should not have rigid positions that they expect other parties to respect. Instead, they should be flexible and committed to finding common ground that will be beneficial to all parties involved.

In the interview that was conducted based on the questions below and the report above, two companies needed to have a joint venture to expand their market share and increase their profitability. The negotiator reported that going into the negotiating table, the two parties had conflicting interests but common goals. Both wanted to have a large share of the new enterprise without being forced to pay more for the venture. Such conflicts of interest are common when two firms enter into a negotiating table. It requires unique skills and commitment to ensure that such conflicts do not negate the ability to reach an agreement.

The negotiator explained that they focused on common values and interests. This was in line with one of the most critical principles of negotiation, which states that one should focus on interests instead of positions (Lapidus, 2020). The parties involved in the negotiation focused on how the joint venture would enable them to expand their market share and overcome stiff competition in the market. Focusing on the common interest also helped the parties to avoid taking hardline positions.

Another major principle of negotiation is the need to avoid a competitive mindset. When a negotiator has a competitive mindset, their goal will be to have a win-loss outcome (Bromwich & Harrison, 2019). In such a case, it may not be possible to reach an agreement if none of the parties involved is willing to lose. When a party realizes that they were cheated when signing the deal, they can deliberately sabotage the operations of the new venture. They will lack the motivation to work towards ensuring that the venture is a success. It explains why Company A and Company B agreed to make concessions just to ensure that everyone was satisfied.

Effective communication is another major element of successful negotiation progress. Caputo (2019) explains that parties involved in a negotiation should remain transparent and avoid the temptation of concealing their true intentions. They should ensure that the other party is aware of the goals that need to be realized and how both parties would benefit. When Company A approached Company B, both parties laid out the challenges they currently face and how the joint venture would help them overcome them. Effective communication is critical in creating trust among the parties involved in such an undertaking.

The commitment of both parties is another essential element in a negotiation process. Parties involved in a negotiation should demonstrate their commitment to undertaking specific roles needed to ensure that the process is a success (Ghauri, Ott, & Rammal, 2020). In the report provided above, the two companies committed to taking specific responsibilities. Both companies agreed to make a financial investment in the new business. However, Company A committed to making a greater financial investment of 60% compared with Company B, which needed to invest 40%. On the other hand, Company B was expected to have a higher number of employees working on the joint venture because it had a better understanding of the local market.

References

Bromwich, R., & Harrison, T. (2019). Negotiation and conflict resolution in criminal practice: A handbook. Canadian Scholars.

Caputo, A. (2019). Strategic corporate negotiations: A framework for win-win agreements. Palgrave Macmillan.

Ghauri, N., Ott, F., & Rammal, G. (2020). International business negotiations: Theory and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Harvard Law School. (2020). What is Negotiation Theory? Web.

Lapidus, A. (2020). Second language cultural negotiation and visual literacy: Comics in class. Lexington Books.

Any negotiating process, regardless of its participants, context, or goals, involves an interaction between the negotiators, which is manifested through communication. The statement there can be no negotiation without communication is particularly true due to the essential role of the communicational process in negotiations. Indeed, negotiating involves exchanging opinions, interests, ideas, positions, and other elements of parties reasoning to negotiate, which can only be expressed through the different means of communication. In essence, communication, similarly to negotiation, is also an exchange between several parties, which involves sending and receiving information in a verbal or non-verbal form. Therefore, the two notions, communication and negotiation, are inherently connected.

As any other type of a communicative process, negotiation might be characterized by several variables, as well as impacted by barriers that determine the overall success of the negotiation process and the effective participation of a negotiator in it. When getting-to-yes in a negotiation, the parties pursue the substance of the negotiation and the relationship that might be impacted by negotiation. As the example with ugly orange negotiation demonstrates, the parties ability to communicate their interests effectively rather than concentrating on positions or relationships is the cornerstone of negotiation success.

To communicate effectively, one should produce and decode such variables as verbal and non-verbal communication. Verbally people interact using effective questioning and active listening te4chniques that significantly contribute to achieving mutual understanding. Also, such non-verbal and body language constituents as the facial expression of emotions, posture, appearance, sounds, and others, when appropriately analyzed, provide for obtaining a complete set of information necessary to negotiate effectively. On the other hand, the lack of skills in listening, questioning, or analyzing and expressing body language and non-verbal signals might be significant barriers to successful communication. Also, such biases as stereotyping, projecting, or selective perception can negatively affect the process of achieving an agreement. Therefore, for a negotiator to be effective, the enlisted skills should be developed, as well as the ability to reflect on them.

Ethical conduct is not a necessary requirement for effective negotiation. Despite the significant role of truthfulness and openness of the parties in the achievement of agreement, the process often involves dishonesty for the purpose of pursuing interests. Indeed, when bargaining, the parties are interested in achieving an agreement on the most favorable terms. When negotiation is perceived as a contest, where one should win, and another one should lose, the parties strive for misleading one another in the pursuit of winning, which is where dishonest conduct takes place. Negotiators communicate around the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) and might consider the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) to succeed in negotiations. However, BATNA and ZOPA are aligned with the core interests of the parties, which lead the overall direction of the bargaining.

When determining ethical conduct and setting the framework for avoiding an unethical one, a negotiator must prioritize interests over positions. Indeed, in the process of negotiation, one might be deceptive about the position, the level of authority, or power that would be beneficial for the bargaining outcome. For example, when negotiating budget questions, one might not disclose or even mislead the opponent on the budget constraints to preserve a firms finances when it is possible. However, when it comes to negotiating interests, dishonesty might be harmful to the successful negotiation. When deceiving the other party on the interests, one engages in unethical conduct that undermines the opportunities for mutual gain. Moreover, the scope of truthfulness in negotiations depends on the area of bargaining and the context, which, as in the case of the legal context, might be directly regulated by law.

When defining such a broad term as negotiation, one should state that it is a process of communication between several parties aimed at achieving an agreement over a mutually relevant issue. In most cases, negotiations evolve around a conflict where the opponents have different interests; however, to achieve agreement, the parties need to exchange a certain amount of information to arrive at a solution. Apart from negotiations, there exist several other conflict or dispute resolution processes, which appear within the alternative dispute resolution continuum (ADR). One might distinguish five forms of conflict resolution, including direct negotiation, conciliation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation, which possess a certain degree of parties control over the outcome and process formality and predictability.

Within the continuum, litigation is characterized by the highest degree of process predictability and the lowest level of parties control over the outcome, since it is up to external parties how the dispute will be resolved. The opponents do not directly interact in the process of litigation. On the contrary, negotiation, which is located on the opposite end of the continuum, involves direct interaction between the parties, where their control over the outcome is high, however, the process predictability is very low. In other words, the opponents resolve the dispute by means of their interpersonal communication using the skills they have. In-between these two contrary ADRs, arbitration is less formal than litigation, but it also is characterized by a high level of predictability of outcome and does not involve direct interaction between the parties. Mediation, on the other hand, is located in the middle of the continuum and allows for the participation of a mediator along with the direct communication between the parties in the conflict. Conciliation does not provide space for direct interaction but prioritizes the conciliators communication of the interest of both parties. Thus, negotiation is the form of conflict resolution that gives space to a wide range of alternative solutions based on the direct communication between the opponents.

As a process of negotiating to pursue ones interests in opposition to the counterpart, bargaining, might differ in the form. Integrative bargaining is a strategy of negotiation that involves finding a solution that is alternative to the winning of either party but integrates the interests of both sides and allows for obtaining a win-win outcome. From the perspective of integrative bargaining, the negotiators incorporate their efforts to solve the problem within the scope of their interests but with the priority of a wise and rational solution. The goal of such a negotiating strategy is to obtain a win-win solution by working collaboratively on finding a decision alternative to the winning of only one side. The parties are transparent and honest about their interests and are willing to arrive at a mutual gain. The opponents insist on objectivity in decision-making; they brainstorm the criteria and the solutions. Integrative negotiators do not use pressure or influence of power to drive the negotiations; they rather apply reasoning and collaboration.

Positioning bargaining is a type of bargaining that is in contrast to the integrative one. Such negotiation participants act as rivals, whose positions are placed over the interest in a mutually beneficial solution. The goal of positioning bargaining is for one party to win the dispute based on pursuing a dominant position and using misleading and dishonest conduct. Each party insists on its position without giving space to finding alternative solutions. The negotiators compete over the leading position; they use pressure, the influence of power, and demand opponents compliance. Given the differences between the two contrasting negotiating strategies, people need to select one mode of negotiating, since the choice of communicational methods and tactics will determine the overall outcomes of the negotiations.

Ten most important characteristics of an effective negotiator are presented in the order of their priority, where number one is the most important, and number ten is the least important of ten.

1. Ability to place interests over positions
2. Creativity
3. Flexibility
4. Patience
5. Effective active listening
6. Proactive questioning
7. Ability to read and use non-verbal behavior
8. Ability to control emotions
9. Ability to separate people from problems
10. Managing bias and stereotyping

The order of these characteristics is justified by the priority of negotiators focus on interests when engaging in principled negotiation. Position-taking leads to ineffective decisions which should be avoided in effective negotiations. Creativity, flexibility, and patience are the essential traits that one needs to obtain and develop to be approachable in communication with opponents, as well as facilitate the mutual gain in the course of bargaining.

After these basic characteristics, the skills of listening, questioning, and recognizing body language are presented as those contributing to the process of negotiations with a particular person. Finally, the ability to control emotions, separate problems and people, and the ability to eliminate bias from the negotiation will be helpful in achieving agreement without disrupting relationships with the other party. Currently, I am working on my listening, questioning, and non-verbal skills to enhance the effectiveness of my communication skills for achieving agreement. Reading materials on the topic and observing successful negotiators use these skills helps me build the scope of practical elements. Also, the practice of using active listening and asking good questions helps me develop in this area.

Non-verbal behavior is essential in communication, especially in negotiations where the exchange of information between the parties is decisive for the outcomes of the negotiated problem. Non-verbal behavior includes body language, such as posture, the movements of had, eyes, hands, legs, as well as the sounds a person attributes to the reaction. All these elements contain a substantial amount of important information, which, sometimes to even more extent than words, shows the intentions and the character of the opponent. Body-language and other non-verbal behaviors are the signs of how the person perceives the information and where the communication is going. In negotiations, it is important to be observant of such signs to incorporate them with the words articulated by the opponent to adjust the negotiation efforts in the right direction.

When recognizing and using non-verbal signals during negotiations, one might observe and analyze such expression as a smile or the positioning of eyebrows. For example, if a person smiles, but there are now wrinkles in the corners of the eyes, it might signalize that the smile is forced. This might be decoded as a sign of discomfort or disagreement with the opponents statements. Also, if the persons brows are lifted, it might signalize tension, which also sends a message to the other party as per the direction of the negotiations. To the same extent, the posture and the placement of arms and legs tell much about the intentions of the negotiators. For example, crossed arms or legs crossed with the outer side of thigh showing to the opponent might signalize that the person is not open to a transparent discussion. Knowing these elements, one can use them in enhancing their verbal expressions and influencing the negotiations in that way or respond to the expression of non-verbal behaviors in opponents to lead the communication in the necessary direction.

When confronted by a more powerful opponent in negotiations, one should be well-prepared to make enough effort to achieve the desired outcome of the bargaining. Collecting information on the sources of that power, as well as the interests of the opponents in the negotiation might be a helpful tool in managing the pressure from the more authoritative party. Importantly, powerful negotiators perceive their position as dominant and might be weak in seeing the potential contribution of their opponents. Therefore, a less powerful negotiator should be creative in presenting a benefit or a mutual gain from an offer. Moreover, it is crucial to understand clearly the goals and interests of both parties and be able to communicate around them, thus paying tribute to the advantages of both communicators.

Undoubtedly, active listening and effective questioning are the important strategies in negotiating with a powerful opponent because these are the areas where the space for collaboration or flexibility might be detected. Asking the right questions might allow for identifying weak spots in the opponents position and offer a beneficial solution, which will lead to a successful result of negotiations. Lastly, being confident and flexible during the communication process might be very helpful in delivering necessary messages to the opponents and ensure their involvement in meaningful bargaining.

In personal communication during negotiations, people have an opportunity to express their emotions and feelings, which, depending on the context of bargaining, might have a negative or positive effect. In essence, bargaining might trigger both positive and negative emotions; and on the opposite, positive emotions may lead to positive outcomes of negotiations, and negative emotions might adversely impact the possibility to achieve agreement. Negative emotions, particularly their unmanaged expressions, such as anger, impatience, anxiety, boredom, or passiveness, show the opponent the unwillingness to cooperate and contribute to the negotiations breach. Moreover, the tendency of people to mirror the emotions of others and react to them in a similar manner might lead to the escalation of conflict rather than its resolution in the course of negotiations.

The positive aspect of feeling involves positive outcomes for negotiations. Good mood and elevated spirits create space for affirmative attitudes, willingness to cooperate, and the ability to understand the counterparty. Beyond strategies and goals, negotiators are individuals whose personal traits play a significant role in bargaining outcomes. Therefore, it is essential to manage personality expressions, emotions, and feelings in the process of negotiations to eliminate the threat of failing the opportunity to make a deal and to influence the negotiation process.

Discussion of the Problem

The story of Tiffany & Cos negotiation and takeover began back in October 2019. The companies officially signed the takeover agreement on November 24, which was supposed to be completed within ten months. However, they did not meet the deadline because the negotiations were complex and exhausting (LVMH makes good on vow, countersues, 2020). The reason is that negotiations were initially unproductive due to the interference of the governments of France and the United States. Moreover, after the parties had agreed on a price, both companies decided to change it, but they did not see the agreements as a means of reaching consensus. Thus, this led to a missing understanding and the filing of litigation.

It was difficult for the companies to find shared solutions, and the compromise did not happen soon. After a few months, they agreed on 16.2 billion dollars, which was the largest transaction in the luxury market. However, among the doubtful aspects of the negotiations was the ambiguous position of the LVMH directors. They did not immediately assess all the risks and, after the coronavirus outbreak, reflected on the validity of their decision, convening a special meeting. The concern tried to cite several reasons to invalidate the agreement in its current form, especially driven by the widening trade conflict with the United States. The French Foreign Ministry even asked LVMH to postpone the acquisition of Tiffany because of U.S. threats to impose additional taxes on European goods. Bernard Arnault feared that his company would overpay for Tiffany, whose numbers plummeted after the pandemic LVMH is vowing, filing a countersuit, 2020). The company should have considered the opponent opinion, but it did not, so negotiations stalled, and LVMH decided to reconsider buying the brand completely.

The jewelry company responded to such statements with a lawsuit, demanding that the original agreements be fulfilled on time. Tiffany & Co. felt that LVMH was seizing every opportunity to delay and evade its obligations, including complaints and pandemic protests. LVMH agreed not to treat these points as a valid reason to challenge the deal in the original arrangements. Thus, a rude violation of the original deal and negotiation process took the company to court. Nevertheless, despite such difficulties and mutual accusations, when they returned to using the right tactics and began to hear each other, companies managed to reach a consensus without litigation, and in 2021 an agreement was reached.

The French concern agreed to the condition of reducing the original amount by about $425 million at $131.5 per share (the parties had previously agreed on $135). Other key terms and clauses of the contract remained consistent. In addition, the companies finally established the necessary level of trust and announced their willingness to settle the upcoming lawsuits (LVMH makes good on vow, counterterms, 2020). Thus, the deal cost $15.8 billion, although originally estimated at $16.2 billion, and was the largest in the history of mergers and acquisitions in the luxury segment.

Bernard Arnaults son was appointed as the head of the acquired company. Besides Alexandre, Louis Vuitton managers will join Tiffanys new management team after the purchase of LVMH. As analysts expect, Tiffany committed to attracting younger buyers and Asian clients after the acquisition, so there will be radical reshuffles within the company. LVMH intends to completely overhaul Tiffanys operations, from optimizing its stores to refreshing the brands strategy in online sales, gradually repositioning the brand. Thus, LVMH chose the tactics of targeting new people to create interest in the renewed company. The French giants purchase of Tiffany should strengthen its position in the U.S. However, the U.S. jewelry brand will probably require more investment to revitalize its business.

Parties to the Negotiation

One of the parties to the agreement was LVMH. This is a French corporation, a well-known manufacturer of luxury goods under the brands Louis Vuitton, Givenchy, Guerlain, Chaumet, Moet & Chandon, Hennessy. The business is owned by Bernard Arnault, the President of the Group, and his family (47.4%), institutional investors (44.2%), and individuals (5.1%) (The timeline behind luxurys biggest deal to date, 2021). From 1988 to 2000, brands such as Givenchy, Kenzo, Guerlain, Celine, Marc Jacobs, Sephora, and Tag Heuer became part of LVMH. Later they were joined by Fendi, Hublot, and Bulgari.

Today the Arnault conglomerate has 75 brands operating in different segments, from elite alcohol, clothing and leather goods, perfumes, cosmetics, and precious watches to luxury hotels and tourism. The reason is that significant corporations are easier to win new markets and audiences. Now LVMH will expand Tiffanys offerings to modern people (The timeline behind luxurys biggest deal to date, 2021). The audience of the legendary American label will be joined by the HENRY (high earning not rich yet) segment, customers with high profits but not yet rich. The French conglomerate will be able to expand its range of leather goods and home decor thanks to the expertise that Tiffany & Co. has in these two segments.

The other side was the American brand Tiffany is many times older than LVMH. In the middle of the 19th century Tiffany became the sole owner of the corporation and shortened its name to Tiffany & Co. By that time, it was already the leader in the American silverware market and later gained international recognition. In 1886 Tiffany launched a diamond ring that became an iconic accessory for brides all over the world (The timeline behind luxurys biggest deal to date, 2021). The jewelry itself and even the brands packing box, made in the patented color  blue shade of alder egg  later became a symbol of elegance and desirability.

Today, the organization employs 14,000 people, including 5,000 jewelers. Its retail network has three hundred stores worldwide, and annual revenues reach $4.4 billion, selling jewelry with a wide range of prices, from silver earrings at $165 to a diamond necklace for $165,000. However, lately, the business of Tiffany has almost stopped growing (The timeline behind luxurys biggest deal to date, 2021). Meanwhile, Tiffanys public company was under pressure from the need to secure decent short-term results. It was this factor that was the main one in the decision to sell. While for LVMH, the central role was a desire to further expand its global dominance in the luxury industry.

Tactics Used and their Results

Considering that the companies negotiations lasted several rounds, different techniques were applied, leading to various results. Initially, the corporations set common ground and probe causes, which allowed an agreement to buy Tiffany & Co. for $16.2 billion  or $135 per share. In other words, given that the agreement was signed, the first negotiations were a success. That tactic was good because businesses managed to find common ground and agree on problematic issues (Rojot, 2016). However, due to the impact of outside circumstances, the results of the negotiations were at risk of failure. I would have immediately advised the parties to start the second round of negotiations, but they did so later. It should be remarked that the factors were initially unknown to either of the companies; accordingly, new obstacles arose that required the continuation of the agreements. As a result of the influence of the pandemic and political interference, the interest of the parties changed. Therefore, I think that the parties should have investigated the impact of the pandemic using active discussion of arguments and clarifying meanings. That tactic will be good because it would allow them to explore problems and find solutions to them, given the situation in the world.

Instead, companies have chosen the wrong tactics, LVMH tried to drag out the purchase process, while Tiffany & Co sued for default. Accordingly, the process dragged on and lasted more than a year, again applying new negotiations to settle the disputes. Through the technique of active hearing and clarification of meaning, the companies representatives were able to discuss the issues and negotiate favorable terms for both representatives. After discussing pressing issues and positions, the delegates established trust and voted for a compromise price of $15.8 billion. Thus, there was a renegotiation of the agreement to use new negotiation methods. The main role belongs to the BATNA technique because the parties used it to reach an alternative cost (Rojot, 2016). Accordingly, this tactic was a good one, as it let the groups compromise and, without litigation, set a price of $ 131.5 per share for Tiffany compared to $ 135. I believe the parties could also use the ability to think clearly and quickly under pressure and uncertainty. They should have facilitated the prediction of outcomes and consequences.

Challenges and Improvements

The companies had challenges with the negotiation process and the tactics used. In particular, they do not facilitate predicting expected outcomes and consequences. These tactics could have been a great solution because of the pandemic and other external factors, but the organizations neglected it, which caused difficulties. I would also recommend that another tactic of planning a different solution be effectively implied in such a case. However, the companies did not do this because they stood their ground and were unwilling to listen to opposing views. Lack of trust can also be considered the main obstacle that caused the lawsuit. The most significant mistake was LVMHs premature, ill-conceived, and public announcement of its unilateral termination (Rogot, 2016). It could have been avoided if confidence-building tactics had been operated from the beginning. This would have helped the parties establish a willingness to listen to their partner and look for other ways that satisfied both companies.

Moreover, Bernard Arnault focused on his interests and tried to execute the agreement at a lower price, disregarding the original demands. It resulted in him getting his way and entering into a new agreement, but he suffered a loss in doing so. As a result, he paid only 2.6 percent less than he had planned last year. This discount saved LVMH $440 million, less than 1% of the French conglomerates revenue (The timeline behind luxurys biggest deal to date, 2021). This could have been withdrawn if the French concern had closed the deal more quickly and obtained control over Tiffany. They should have used the tactic of negotiating in parallel instead of focusing on personal interests.

The complex negotiation process shows the direct consequences of not using effective tactics that resulted in a delayed deal and loss of capital. Companies should have established credibility, validated the facts, and clearly stated the terms of the agreement from the beginning. The ability to listen to the opponent and communicate for mutual benefit should be valued more highly, and then any negotiation will be productive.

References

LVMH makes good on vow, countersues Tiffany & Co. Over $16.2 billion deal. (2020). The Fashion Law. Web.

Rojot, J. (2016). Negotiation: From theory to practice. Springer.

Tiffany & Co. v. LVMH: The timeline behind luxurys biggest deal to date. (2021). The Fashion Law. Web.

Negotiation refers to the process where two or more parties with different goals and needs discuss an issue to arrive at a compromise or a mutually acceptable solution. In the business world, negotiation skills are critical in both formal transactions and day to day information interactions. Chebet, Rotich and Kurgat (2015) explained that the term ‘negotiate’ is derived from the Latin infinitive ‘negotiaari’ that means ‘to trade or do business’; this verb itself was derived from another word, ‘negare’, which translates to ‘do deny’ and a noun, otium, that means ‘leisure’. In essence, the earliest businessmen would deny leisure until that deal was closed. Negotiating skills play a vital role when it comes to transactions, service delivery, terms and conditions, legal contracts, etcetera. Lewicki, Saunders, Minton, Roy and Lewicki (2011) wrote that excellent negotiations are amongst the significant drivers of business success as they help to build better relationships, deliver long-lasting, quality solutions and avoid future issues and conflicts.

In an online article published, Shonk (2019) exclaimed that people understand the importance of negotiation in business particularly when it comes to negotiating their starting salary and benefit. But, negotiating in business goes beyond personal benefit, the best negotiators in business acknowledge that there are bigger concerns. It is important to keep in mind that the nature of negotiation is two-way: give and take. An effective negotiator aims to generate a courteous and constructive interaction that will result into a win-win situation for all parties involved. When negotiating, the approach should show goodwill regardless of the difference in interests of the parties involve. The end result of a good negotiation is satisfaction from each of the parties. Mutual respect and trust are formed between the parties afterwards and thia increases the likelihood of doing business with each other again.

Negotiation by nature involves the ability to be persuading or influencing of other people. Chebet, Rotich and Kurgat (2015) added that many scholars define negotiation differently but in essence, negotiation is about getting what is wanted; it is a process that leads to an end.

In relation to this, the negotiating process involves balancing matters between the parties involved so that the negotiator not only gets what he or she wants but at the same time gets what he or she wants in the best possible way (Chebet, Rotich and Kurgat, 2015). Negotiation is more focused on the process rather than the end and because of this, organizations must pay more attention on how to get to the outcome they want whilst still not losing their sights on the goals.

It is important to keep remember that negotiation especially in business is every-changing. This generates the sense that something is always happening and there is not just method or plan to go about it (Chebet, Rotich and Kurgat, 2015). In reality, there are different elements that impact the negotiation process and these elements may range from people to the power structure. Other common factors include; the personalities involved, the setting, and the information. The concept of time also plays a big role in determining the success of negotiation in many business scenarios because different business personalities can be very critical on deadlines. In the context of making negotiations in business on an international scale, factors like professional and cultural expectations may play major roles in the effectiveness of negotiation. In a highly-globalized business world such as today, embracing cultural diversity is one of the most important drivers of successful negotiation. Shonks (2019) discussed that there are a number of problems that could arise from cultural barriers in the context of these kinds of negotiations and they include: severe misunderstandings arising from language and cultural barriers, conflicts generated by different concepts of time, accidental violation of one anothers cultural norms, etcetera. The challenge for an effective negotiator is to be able to overcome these cultural barriers in order to achieve a desired outcome.

In relation to the principles of effective negotiation, Silverman (2017) outlines seven elements: ‘knowing what you are trying to accomplish’, ‘developing a game plan even prior to the start of the negotiation’, ‘studying and understanding the other party’, ‘working towards a win-win’, ‘avoiding negotiating with oneself’, ‘reacting strongly to an untrustworthy party at the negotiating table’ and ‘remembering that it takes two to negotiate or re-negotiate a deal’. These generally encompass the whole negotiating cycle including the personalities involved. Michael (2009) added that in negotiating, preparation is vital. Knowing about the party on the other side of negotiating table in order to maximise one’s strength and the other party’s weakness. It is important to do your due diligence and research about the other party, learn about their history and tendencies. According to Michael (2009) if permissible, talk to business associates who have dealt with the party before, many negotiators develop patterns and specific styles that could be used as an advantage. Tjan (2009) refers to this as the ‘background homework’. Prior to the start of negotiation, it is critical to understand the interests and positions of the other side relative to one’s interest and position. Negotiation is a manifestation of business communication, which is why it is always two-way. Aside from knowing the interest and position of the other party, listening is also a critical skill of its own in negotiating. Harroch (2016) discussed that it is important to listen and understand the issues and point of view of the other party. The effective negotiators tend to be the one who genuinely listen to the other side and as a result come up with the appropriate responses.

Negotiation can be applied even in simple day to day activities. In the real world, negotiating is not only practiced in business but in different aspects including politics. In an article, Pon Staff (2019) cited the talks with North Korea as a real life example of negotiation. Starting in 2011, The United States of America negotiated for many months with the leader of North Korea, the drawn-out talks started in the leadership of Kim Jong-II and after he died they resumed under the new era of his son, Kim Jong-un. Fox (2013) concluded that life is a series of negotiation. On an individual application, employees negotiate their salaries and benefits with their employers all the time. Ceniza- Levine (2011) explained that both employees and employers are trying to get the best from one another. The employee wants to get the most competitive salary package possible, while employers are looking for the best way to maximize the company goals while being cost-effective. And as a result, before both parties arrive at a final salary package, they undergo a series of negotiation. But regardless, whether the (negotiation) skill is applied to business or any other disciplines, one thing is for sure, negotiation is part of everyone’s everyday lives. Its importance is unparalleled which is why people should strive to become effective negotiators.

References

1. Bakar, N.A. and Peszynski, K. 2010. Factors Influencing Negotiation in the Sourcing Process between Partners in E-Procurement: A Focus on Actors. PACIS 2010 Proceedings. 115.
2. Ceniza-Levine, C. 2011. 3 Real-Life Successful Salary Negotiations. Forbes. Viewed: July 1, 2019 < https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2011/11/22/3-real-life-successful-salary-negotiations/#423209603fc1>
3. Chebet, W.T., Rotich, J.K. and Kurgat, A. 2015. Negotiation Skills: Keys to Business Success in the 21st Century? European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management Sciences Vol. 3 No. 3
4. Fox, E. 2013. The Most Important Negotiation in Your Life. Harvard Business Review. Viewed July 1, 2019 < https://hbr.org/2013/09/the-most-important-negotiation>
5. Harroch, R. 2016. 15 Tactics For Successful Business Negotiations. Forbes. Viewed: July 1, 2019 from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/allbusiness/2016/09/16/15-tactics-for-successful-business-negotiations/#bd6e08325281
6. Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M., Minton, J.W., Roy, J. and Lewicki, N., 2011. Essentials of negotiation. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
7. Michael, G. 2009. The Art of Negotiating, Entrepreneur Asia and Pacific. Viewed: July 1, 2019 from: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/203168
8. Pon Staff. 2019. 10 Top Negotiation Examples. Harvard Law School. Viewed: July 1, 2019 < https://www.pon.harvard.edu/uncategorized/famous-negotiators-feature-in-top-negotiations-of-2012/>
9. Shonk, K. The Importance of Negotiation in Business and Your Career, Harvard Law School, viewed: July 1, 2019 < https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/the-importance-of-negotiation-in-business/>
10. Shonk, K. Dealing with Cultural Barriers in Business Negotiations: How to overcome cultural barriers to communication, Harvard Law School. Viewed July 1, 2019 < https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/dealing-with-cultural-barriers-in-business-negotiations/>
11. Silverman, S. 2017. 7 Principles of Effective Negotiation. The Business Journal. Viewed: July 1, 2019
12. Tjan, A. 2009. Four Rules for Effective Negotiations, Harvard Business Review. Viewed: July 1, 2019 < https://hbr.org/2009/07/four-rules-for-effective-negot>

Participating in a negotiation can be a Herculean task – IF you don’t know exactly what you are expected to do. Before participating in a negotiation, you have to ascertain that all the key factors required in this activity exist. As a negotiator, you should also know how to drive a hard bargain. For successful and effective negotiations to occur between two or more parties, these key factors must be present.

Willing and effective negotiators

A negotiation cannot succeed without willing and effective participants. All significant individuals playing a primary role in the activity must be eager and truly interested in the negotiation. When the negotiators are not focused and are just going through the motions half-heartedly, most likely, the collaboration would also be haphazardly accomplished.

Freedom of expression (language comprehension)

There must be freedom of expression in which all the parties can understand each other clearly – meaning they speak the same language. Language barrier can be a humongous problem to overcome. In cases where the language is different, there must be a method devised to communicate clearly. This will enable groups to comprehend what each one is saying.

This is one of the major reasons why some countries do not always cooperate with one other because of the language barrier.

Appropriate venue

The ambiance of any event will definitely affect the process being conducted. This has been proven by various research studies undertaken by numerous organizations from all fields of endeavor. Certain studies conducted in the academe had proven that the venue is a significant part of learning.

Complete knowledge of what the negotiation is all about.

Participate in a negotiation – ONLY – if you have complete knowledge of what it is all about. If you don’t, and you are tasked to join the table, you have to do your own research and learn the details of what you are expected to negotiate. You can benchmark to determine the norms in that particular area.

Doing a thorough research and gleaning all the vital information can grant you more leverage and power. With knowledge comes power, and this power will allow you to gain more concessions from the other party/parties

Specified short term and long term objectives

Setting objectives for your negotiations will serve as the blueprint for your success. What is your primary goal and what are your sub-goals? The ultimate goal and the alternative goals should be clearly defined. Up to what extent are you allowed to negotiate?

Alternative choices of actions

Alternative choices/goals must be prepared so that they can be utilized whenever necessary. We call these contingency plans.

Correct attitude

This is one of the key traits that negotiators must possess. When negotiators have a positive frame of mind, this will attract good vibes and will result in genuine cooperation between the negotiating parties. Remember, one of your targets is to maintain good relationship with the other party despite differences of opinions.