The negotiation occurs because there are conflicts that you want to resolve.
1. Introduction
Usually when we think of trading, we think in terms of buying and selling. Most of us recognize that diplomats, businessmen, executives, and labor representatives also negotiate daily at their jobs. What we don't recognize is that all of us negotiate every day in all areas of our lives.
2) Concept
The term negotiation is often used to refer to various situations. Talking about negotiation is usually synonymous with solving problems in a dialogue and peaceful way. The negotiation occurs because there are conflicts that you want to resolve.
Negotiation links two or more interdependent actors who face differences and who, instead of avoiding the problem or reaching a confrontation, are committed to the joint search for an agreement, a solution, a settlement.
This negotiation result can take four main forms:
- Simple compromise: it is the minimum solution. No one obtains the total satisfaction of their objectives. Mutual concessions: Solution superior to compromise. Search for balance in most points in the negotiation. Requires creativity on the part of negotiators. Counterpart awards: New negotiable elements are created, expanding the initial object of the negotiation. Creation of new alternatives: The old problem is transformed into a more suitable one to offer a solution.
3) Criteria
Any trading method must be judged according to three criteria:
- It must lead to a sensible agreement, if the agreement is possible. It must be efficient. It must improve or at least not deteriorate the relationship between the parties.
A sensible agreement is one that satisfies the legitimate interests of both parties to the extent possible, that resolves conflicts of interest fairly, that is durable, and that takes into account the interests of the community.
4) Types
a) Trading based on positions
The common thing is that people negotiate based on positions. Each side takes a position, argues in its favor, and makes concessions to reach a compromise, where they may or may not agree.
For example, the classic bargaining where the way to negotiate is to take and then abandon a series of positions.
- Disadvantages Produces insane agreements: because it does not meet the basic criteria in an efficient and friendly way. Negotiators tend to lock themselves into their positions, the more they clarify their position and the more they defend it against attack, the more they commit to it. The more attention is paid to positions, the less attention is devoted to satisfying the interests and concerns of the parties. The agreement becomes more difficult and the result can be less satisfactory than it could have been.It is inefficient: since the more extreme the initial positions and the smaller the concessions, the more time and effort will be needed to discover if a agreement is possible or not. Tactics such as delays, breach threats, etc., which increase the time and costs of the deal, are common.as well as the risk that this is not achieved. It jeopardizes a relationship: since it becomes a clash of wills or a battle, as each party tries to force the other to change their position. It often stresses the relationship and sometimes destroys it. The greater the number of people involved in a negotiation, the more serious the drawbacks of position-based negotiation. It leads to forming coalitions. StylesLeads to form coalitions.Leads to form coalitions.
There are two styles in Trading for Positions:
- the one applying the "hard" line and the one applying the "soft" line.
The tough perceive each event as a duel of personalities, where the party that takes the most extreme positions and maintains them for the longest time is the one who wins. The relationship becomes tense and that tension often leads to breakup because the one who gives in is resentful.
The soft one emphasizes more on the agreement than on the victory, it places importance on maintaining and building the relationship. You tend to avoid confrontation. The norm is to concede and be trusted
