Content Introduction / Definition Characteristics of Negotiation Situation What Makes a Good Negotiator?

Styles of Negotiation y y y y y The Compromising Style The Competitive Style The Collaborative Style The Accommodating Style The Avoidance Style

Page 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 12 13

The Negotiation Process y y y y y y Preparation Establishment of negotiator identities and the tone for the interaction Information exchange Distributive Closing the deal Maximizing the joint returns

Ways to Persuade Successful Negotiation Conclusion References

Page | 0

Introduction / Definition In every aspect of our life, we are actually conducting an action that is called negotiate or communicate with other people. People negotiate all the time, they negotiate to decide where to have dinner, which television show to watch, businessman negotiate to purchase materials or want to resolve something and both parties have something to gain from the interaction and exchange and etc. Negotiation happens for two reason; its to create something new that neither party could do on his or her own and to resolve a problem or dispute between the parties, because people can negotiate about so many different things, understanding the fundamental processes of negotiation is essential for anyone who works with other people. Negotiate or negotiation is the act of discussing an issue between two or more parties with competing interests with an aim of coming to an agreement. It is also a dynamic process of adjustment by which two parties or more, each with their own objective, confer together to reach a mutual agreement or a matter of common interest. When parties negotiate, they usually expect give and take. While they have interlocking goals that they cannot accomplish independently, they usually do not want or need exactly the same thing. This interdependence can be either win-lose or win-win in nature, and the type of negotiation that is appropriate will vary accordingly. Negotiation in other term helps human to develop a relationship with others which is called socializing. Humans learn through socializing, we observe others, collect those observations and store them away to use in the future. Negotiators must develop the social skills to promote social interaction as part of the early negotiating process and from this interaction; it will come insights useful in the actual negotiation discussion. Negotiation also use when someone wants to influence when the person have more to gain than the other party, finding a way that enables both parties to work together in the future. Negotiate in other way us also a process of dictating, that is telling someone to do something and this is only works for a short time or when there is an extreme emergency.

Characteristics of Negotiation Situation There are several characteristics during negotiation takes place. Among them are; There are two parties that is, two or more individuals, group or organization to start any negotiation. In the two or more parties, there exists some common interest, either in the subject matter of the negotiation or in the negotiating context, which puts or keeps the parties in contact. Though the parties have the same degree of interest, they initially start with different opinions and objectives which hinder the outcome in general. Although people can negotiate with themselves as when someone debates whether to spend their evening in the park with friends, going for jog or having tea time with family members, this negotiation type will called as an interpersonal or inter-group negotiation process. The second characteristic is; There is a conflict of interest between two or more parties that is, what one wants is not necessarily what the other one wants and the parties must, therefore, search for a way to resolve the conflict. For example in an organization in a school, there is a problem where the academi c achievement has decrease from the previous year; the school management wanted the problem to be resolve by the teacher whom are acted as the middle management in the school. From this situation, there is a conflict between the upper management and middle management of the school where the middle management have to work extra hard and put more effort to ensure that the academic achievement will increase in future. The third characteristic is; the parties negotiate because they think they can use some form of influence to get a better

Page | 1

deal that way than by simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them or let them have. Influence here mean, where one party has power over another party. For a simple example; a child can influence its parents to buy it an ice cream but it has little power to negotiate. When a child throws a tantrum it is negotiating with its emotions. Where one party may have nothing to gain from the agreed action buying an ice-cream for a child has little impact on the parent, the person who gains the most pleasure is the child. In fact the parent loses the money of the ice-cream. If one party loses and the other gains it is not negotiating that you are practising, but influencing. Negotiation is largely a voluntary process. It is a strategy pursued by choice; seldom are we required to negotiate.

The forth characteristic of negotiation is the parties, at least for the moment, prefer to search for agreement rather than to fight openly, have one side capitulate, permanently break off contact, or take their dispute to a higher authority to resolve it. Another characteristic of negotiation is, when we negotiate, one will expect give and take. Negotiator will expect that both sides will modify or give in somewhat on their opening statements, requests, or demands. Although the parties may at first argue strenuously for what they want, each pushing the other side for concessions, usually both sides will modify their positions and each will move toward the other. As for the last characteristic of negotiation is; successful negotiation involves the management of intangibles as well as the resolving of tangibles such as the price or the terms of agreement. Intangible factors are the underlying psychological motivations that may directly or indirectly influence the parties during a negotiation. Some examples of intangibles are; the need to 'look good' to the people you represent; the desire to book more business than any other salesperson in your office, and the fear of setting precedent in the negotiations. What sort of negotiation do they get involved in, what are the aspects of negotiation that they feel they do well and what are the aspects they would like to improve?

What Makes a Good Negotiator? A variety of conditions can affect the success or failure of negotiations. In order to target an effective negotiation, one must have some characteristics of a good negotiator. If one does not good in negotiating in about anything, it will either cause miscommunication, dissatisfaction of the person whom one negotiate with or any other possible effect of failure in communication. To avoid these happen, one of the criteria for a good negotiator is to have a high observation skill. This is important for a negotiator where he/she must able to listen, observe and record activities of others, dealing with a number of individuals at once and able to pick up the nuances in the room and to note body language to whom he/she negotiate with. Another criterion is; one must able to Planning and Organising what is about to negotiate about. This criterion is essential that one must know t he ability to set out in detail what they expect from the negotiations and to know their own limits. Other than that, being able to move blockages is one of a good negotiator criterion. One must able to choose the appropriate tool or statement to move on from a block rather than speak out directly without considering others feeling. One must also able to notice when arguments are going round in circles and to identify barriers and to work systematically through these barriers. Next criterion of a good negotiator is being able to develop rapport and empathy where one has to be able to quickly establish and maintain rapport. Also, one need to know how to see the others points of view and

Page | 2

appreciate others feelings whilst holding onto their own view and desired outcome. Having the flexible attitude is also one of the criterions to become a good negotiator. The negotiator must be able to accept others viewpoints and arguments without giving in on all points. At the same time, he/she must have the ability to see the broader picture from every aspect before comes to a decision. The last criterion of being a good negotiator is to have the creativity. Creativity will lead the negotiator to think round or through a problem and to try something different to help solve the issue. Thus, if one has most of the criterion as mentioned, one will probably become a good negotiator in action.

Style of Negotiation There are different styles of negotiation. Style of negotiation is also a strategy. In some occasions the style reflects the attitude of the party and an experienced negotiator can guess the result from such a conduct of the party as becomes evident by the style. Negotiation style is reflected in communication skills, interpersonal behaviour of negotiators, language, voice tones, choices, listening power, non-verbal gestures and judgment. Generally there are five main styles of negotiation. The first style is compromising style. In this type of negotiation style, strategies which are typically used include the making of concessions, the sharing of information and the adoption of behaviours which are fair and reasonable. Compromising often involves splitting the difference, usually resulting in an end position of about half way between both party opening positions. In the absence of a good rationale or properly exchanged concessions, half way between the two positions seems "fair". What compromising ignores however is that the people that take the most extreme positions tend to get more of what is on offer. Thus a compromising negotiator typically explains the reasons for her/his concessions and proposals and attempts to reconcile the parties' conflicting interests; her/his proposals are measured against standards which both parties can agree, such as the legal merits of the case and fairness between the parties. The advantage of the compromising style of negotiation is that it tends to produce fewer breakdowns in bargaining with subsequent recourse to litigation, and to produce more favourable outcomes for both parties. This leaves both clients and negotiators in a position where they can 'do business' again. However, the compromising style is subject to certain difficulties in operation where the parties to the negotiation are unequal in wealth or power or where one party will not bargain for joint or mutual gain. The second negotiation style is competitive Style. Those who with competitive style have the competitive angle in negotiations: that is, no compromises, or the deal is off. This style only works if one has the most bargaining power to begin with. Coming from a position of weakness, this will lose friends, colleagues and business very quickly. Although sometimes an advantage to never take "no" for an answer, it limits one option and makes one less approachable. Thus the competitive negotiator makes concessions reluctantly because competitive practitioner may 'weaken his/her position' through position loss or image loss. One will tend to make high initial demands, few concessions and have a generally high level of aspiration for his/her client.

It is often suggested that this style leads practitioners into specific negotiation strategies, for example, never making the first offer, always attempting to conceal the client's true objectives always being the person who drafts

Page | 3

the final offer; and the use of exaggeration, threat and bluff to create high levels of tension and pressure on the opponent. If used effectively these tactics cause the opposition side to lose confidence in their case and reduce their expectations of what can be obtained for their client. It is therefore, an essentially manipulative approach, designed to intimidate the opposing side into accepting a negotiator's demands. The third negotiation style is collaborate or problem-solving style. A collaborative practitioners or problem-solver is the most imaginative thinkers who think about fair win/win sol utions and greater solutions that equal and fair decision. Win/Win" is about making sure both parties have their needs met, and as much mutual value as can be created is created. "Win/Win" negotiators usually evolve through the other profiles; they grow into a collaborative negotiation style. This means collaborative profile negotiators can more easily revert to one or two of the other styles when pushed or when the situation calls for it. Collaborative profile negotiators are adamant that their needs must be met - and they acknowledge that the other party has needs that must be met too. A collaborative style to a dispute over access might be based on the assumption that whilst teacher want access to their students for some of the time, neither would, in practice, want access for the whole of the time. On this basis, a negotiated settlement advantageous to all parties including the students itself. The fourth negotiation style is the avoidance style. This is most often referred to as "passive aggressive". One who habitually uses this style really dislikes conflict. Rather than talk directly with you about the issue, avoid styles may instead try to take revenge without you knowing about it. The avoid style can be a typical reaction to high compete negotiators. The best time to use this style is when the value of investing time to resolve the conflict outweighs the benefit; or if the issue under negotiation is trivial. Sometimes there is just not enough at stake to risk a difficult conflict situation. If there is a lot of emotion in a negotiation, it's pointless pushing through and hammering it out. Better to allow people to calm down first. At that point an avoid style is likely the most pragmatic alternative which suggest a timeout of 15 to 20 minutes. When you are dragged into a negotiation unprepared, avoidance is probably the most sensible strategy. Either avoid the meeting, or avoid discussing the issues upon which you need to prepare. The final negotiation style is accommodating style. Accommodating style is the opposite of competing. For accommodating style negotiators, the relationship is everything. Accommodating profiles think that the route to winning people over is to give them what they want. They don't just give products and services; they are generous with information too. Accommodators are usually very well liked by their colleagues and opposite party negotiators. An accommodating style is best to use when you have nothing else that would benefit the other side but is dangerous to use when negotiating against high compete styles. With high compete negotiators your generosity will be seen as a sign of weakness to be taken advantage of. Giving away value early in the negotiation can leave you with a poor hand to play in the rest of the negotiation. With very little to offer, and relying upon the other side's generosity, you are gambling. Giving away value too easily too early can signal to your negotiation counterpart that you've very deep pockets, and your gift is just a taste of bigger and better gifts to come. To some negotiators, an accommodating style appears to promote harmonious relationships. What these accommodating profiles miss is the myriad of other options that create strong enduring relationships. The faulty thinking that puts accommodates into negotiation damage control is thinking that because the goal is unimportant to you, it must have little value to the other side.

Page | 4

In recaps of the negotiation style, one must bear in mind that before started a negotiation, try to stop and ask yourself what are your preferred style of negotiation and which negotiation style best describes your identity and your personal goal before starting a negotiation. However, one must not apply only one negotiation style but it depends on the list of your goal of negotiation and to who are you negotiate with. Even in single goal of negotiation, one can apply maybe two to three or maybe all of the negotiation styles. Finally, think carefully about which point in the negotiation you need to switch to so that if the other side applying the same ways of negotiation style, at least you have all be prepared to pause the negotiation and have the words ready to revert to another style.

The Negotiation Process It is preferable for those who intended to start a negotiation to plan well the strategies and process of the negotiation. This is because; an unplanned negotiation tends to spend hours on the factual issues, the legal issues, the economic issues, and the political issues etc. They spend no more than ten to fifteen minutes on their negotiation strategy. Between their opening offer and the conclusion of their encounter, most individuals will ended the interaction as wholly unstructured. If they only understood how structured negotiating transactions are, they would know what to do during each stage of the process. Thus, there will be few suggested strategies and process before entering a planned negotiation. There are six distinct stages of the negotiation process: (1) preparation; (2) establishment of negotiator identities and the tone for the interaction; (3) information exchange; (4) exchange of items to be divided; (5) closing the deal; and (6) maximizing the joint returns. We will discuss the purpose of each stage and the most effective ways to accomplish the objectives underlying each. The initially process of negotiation begins with preparation. There is no substitute for thorough preparation when individuals have to negotiate. Information is power, and the person who is better prepared will exude an inner confidence that is likely to undermine the confidence of her/his less prepared adversary. People must know the relevant facts, economic issues, and, where applicable, any legal or political issues etc. The best way to obtain such information is to go do some self research maybe through online, reading etc. When negotiator has gathered all of the relevant information, they have to ask themselves three critical questions. First, what happens to their side if no agreement is reached? Negotiators must always remember that bad deals are worse than no deals when their no settlement alternatives would be preferable to what they have agreed upon. Most negotiators ask this initial question to determine their bottom lines, but they fail to ask the second part of this question. What happens to the opposing party if he fails to reach an agreement with you? It is imperative for negotiator to place themselves in the shoes of the other side and estimate what would probably happen to it if they d id not achieve an agreement with this side. People who only know their own bottom lines generally behave as if their opponents have no pressure to settle, and they concede all of the negotiating power to their adversaries. If the opposing sides no settlement alternatives are worse than this party, that side has more pressure to settle, and this side possesses more negotiating power. Once a negotiator has determined his/her own and opponents bottom lines, he/she has to establish her own aspiration. There is a direct correlation between negotiator goals and negotiating outcomes. People, who want better deals, get better deals. It is thus important for individuals preparing for negotiating encounters to establish firm, but realistic, goals they can use to guide them during their interactions

Page | 5

with the other side. When multiple items are to be exchanged, it is imperative for people to create goals for each item. If they only have objectives for some, but not all, of the items to be exchanged, they will readily g ive up the items for which they have no firm aspirations. When negotiations get into the interaction with the other side, both must remember to focus on their objectives, not their bottom lines. People who concentrate in their bottom lines tend to relax once those minimal objectives are achieved. Astute opponents will read their nonverbal signs of relief and not be too forthcoming after that point. Skilled negotiators always keep their eyes on their aspirations and do not relax until they approach those targets. This induces others to think they have to offer better deals to get them to accept the terms being proposed. The final touchstone negotiators must establish is where plan to begin the interaction. Some people naively suggest that negotiations begin with reasonable opening offers to create a win-win negotiation atmosphere that will be reciprocated by their opponents. This is a lovely thought, but not empirically supportable. Because of a phenomenon known as anchoring, when negotiations begin with generous opening offers, adversaries begin to think they will do much better than they initially anticipated, and they raise their expectation level to take advantage of the situation. On the other hand, when people receive less generous opening offers, they begin to think they will not do as well as they hoped, and they lower their expectations. Negotiators should thus try to establish the highest demand or lowest offer they can rationally defend. By beginning further away from where they hope to end up, they begin to undermine the confidence of their opponents. On the other hand, if they began with offers more generous to the other side, they would embolden that party and cause it to expect more generous final results. Negotiation should also be aware of the impact of gain-loss framing. Persons offered a certain gain and the possibility of a greater gain or no gain tends to be risk averse. They prefer the sure gain to the possibility of nothing. On the other hand, individuals facing a certain loss and the possibility of a greater loss or no loss tend to be risk takers in an effort to avoid any loss. Once negotiators have established their bottom lines, their aspiration levels, and their opening offers, they should take time to choreograph their impending interaction. The more they plan their impending interaction, the more they are likely to achieve their objectives. Negotiators who fail to plan adequately are likely to give in to their more prepared adversaries. The second process of negotiation is establishment of negotiator identities and tone for interaction. Once people have thoroughly prepared for their bargaining encounters, they begin to interact with their counterparts. When people commence negotiating encounters, they are generally anxious, because they have no way of knowing whether their efforts will be successful. If they begin the substantive discussions in this frame of mind, their anxiety may adversely affect their relationship with the other side and undermine the actual discussions. To diminish this possibility, it is helpful for people beginning bargaining interactions to take the time to establish some rapport and create positive environments. Proficient negotiators use this Preliminary Stage to exchange small talk and get to know each other. They may discuss sports, politics, weather, mutual acquaintances, or other seemingly innocuous topics. It is helpful to look for areas of joint interest, because familiarity makes persons more likable. This part of the process may only take a few minutes, or it may go on for hours or even days when international negotiations are involved and persons from different cultures are endeavouring to establish both rapport and trust. Another reason for a thoughtful Preliminary Stage concerns the impact of negotiator mood on bargaining encounters. People who begin interactions in positive moods behave more cooperatively, are more likely to generate mutual accords, and to achieve efficient agreements, while individuals who begin in negative moods behave more competitively, reach more bargaining impasses, and attain less efficient terms. It thus helps

Page | 6

for negotiators to work together to generate positive bargaining environments that should contribute to their joint success. The final portion of the Preliminary Stage is used to establish mutually beneficial negotiating atmospheres. Cooperative/problem-solving negotiators tend to cooperate with others, while competitive/adversarial negotiators tend to compete with others. Difficulties are likely to arise when cooperative/problem-solvers interact with competitive/adversarial opponents. If the cooperative people are too open and trusting, they will give an advantage to their less open and more manipulative adversaries. To avoid such exploitation, the naturally cooperative negotiators must behave more strategically as in to be less open and less trusting until they are certain their openness is being reciprocated. When they encounter competitive opponents who are not as open, the cooperative persons must be less open with their critical information to avoid a one-way information flow favouring their manipulative adversaries. Some negotiators try to keep others off balance by being insulting or aggressive. People who dont like to negotiate with such individuals should use attitudinal bargaining to establish some ground rules for the interaction. They should not hesitate to politely indicate that they do not wish to deal with someone who is behaving in such an unacceptable fashion. In many cases, the aggressive or rude adversary will recognize that this approach is not working and modify his behaviour. On some occasions, the offending party may simply be a person who always insults others. The third process of negotiation is information exchange. As the small talk declines and the parties begin to think about the substantive issues to be negotiated, they move from the Preliminary Stage into the Information Exchange. Each side focuses on the other as they try to determine what terms should be addressed. The best way to obtain information from others is to ask questions. Individuals who issue declarative sentences give up information, they do not obtain it. People who wish to get new information know how important it is to get the other side talking. The more they speak, the more information they disclose. The best way to accomplish this objective is through the use of broad, open-ended questions that cant be answered by short responses. Most negotiators think their opponents know more about their particular situations than they actually know. As a result, when they respond to expansive inquiries, they inadvertently disclose details they think the other side already knows. Negotiator should only begin to narrow their questions once they think they have a good picture of the other sides circumstances and they are trying to confirm what they think they have been told. During the Information Exchange, questioners must listen carefully for verbal leaks that inferentially disclose important information. For example, someone may initially indicate that they have to have Item 1, they would really like to get Item 2, and they want Item 3. Item 1 is critical, because they have to have it. Item 2 is important that they really wish to obtain it but it is not essential. Item 3 is only desirable. They would trade it for an important or critical term. What if someone indicates that they are not inclined to go above or below X or they dont wish to move? These leaks would suggest that they would actually do so if the listener gives them time to do so. This is like the negotiator who gets near the end of an interaction and says she doesnt have much more room or isnt inclined to move further and both of which indicate her actual willingness to make additional concessions. Important information is voluntarily disclosed, it tends to be devalued by opponents who assume it is self -serving. Negotiators who want opponents to value their information should make them work to obtain it by divulging these items slowly in response to adversary questions. The more the questioners have to work to obtain this information, the more they value what they hear. When the areas of preferred questions does not disclose, negotiator can get the other participant caught up in the area they are addressing, where the other party may forget to restate the original question. Second, if they are asked a two or three part question, they can focus on the part

Page | 7

they like and ignore the other parts. Third, they can over or under answer a question. In response to a specific inquiry, they can provide a general answer, and in response to an expansive question, they can provide a narrow reply. Fourth, they can misinterpret the inquiry and answer their reframed question. For example, if asked about Item 1, they can indicate that they understand that the other side is concerned about Item 2 and then address Item 2. They can finally rule the question out of bounds and refuse to answer it. This is appropriate when someone asks about confidential information they have no right to obtain. The person asked such a question should not hesitate to suggest that he/she will not discuss such a confidential area and ask the other side what else they would like to talk about. During the Information Exchange, participants should try to discover what items each side prefers to obtain. A common error made by less proficient negotiators is to assume a fixed pie to be divided by the parties. In most cases, especially multiple item exchanges, the parties value the items differently. One side may desire some terms not particularly valued by the other side, and vice versa. These items should be given to the party that wants to get them. Even when both sides may want the same items, their preferences may differ. As a re sult, Side A may really need Items 1, 2, and 3, while Side B may have to get Items 4, 5, and 6. If Side B gives Side A the former terms and Side A gives Side B the latter terms, both can gain simultaneously. There will then be some items that both sides value equally. These are the distributive terms the parties will fight over. In the end, some will go to Side A and some will go to Side B. By looking for ways to expand the pie and simultaneously enhancing the returns to both sides, negotiators improve their own situations. Next process is distributive process. In this process; It is important for people to have firm goals and set bottom lines before they enter the Distributive Stage. They should have planned concession patterns they think will lead them to the results they desire. By beginning with an offer just inside the settlement range, the other side may consider the offer fair and accept the terms being offered. In most other situations, it is usually beneficial to get the other side to make the first offer. If one or both parties have miscalculated the value of the deal to be negotiated, the side going first will disclose the mistake. The other side may be more generous than this side anticipated, and it can now take advantage of that situation. Once one side makes an initial offer, the other can start far enough away from that point to place its goal in the middle of the initial positions. Parties tend to move from their opening positions toward the centre. By getting the other party to make the initial offer, this side can start with an offer that places its objective near the midpoint of their positions. Patience and silence are two powerful tools. Many negotiators are talkative people who give away information and make unreciprocated concessions. When an opening offer is made, some negotiators look disappointed and say nothing. The negotiator begins to feel uncomfortable, and makes another offer. The same tactic can be used following a concession by the other side. Most persons abhor silence, and if it continues for a minute or two they speak to fill the silent void. To counteract this weapon, negotiators should try to make offers and concessions in a succinct manner, followed by silence. If the other side does not respond, the negotiator should say nothing. If the silent pause becomes excessive, the negotiator can ask the other side if it is planning a response. Through such attitudinal negotiating, the negotiator can force the other party to participate and avoid bidding against itself through consecutive position changes. During the Distributive Stage, the participants should go behind the stated positions and look for the interests underlying those positions. When emotional disputes are involved, the participants often demand extreme terms to satisfy their desire for revenge. What they really want is recognition from the other side for the plight they have suffered. An easy way to disarm such a party is through the use of an apology. If this side indicates how sorry it is that the other side has suffered a loss or indicates how sorry it is that the other side feels

Page | 8

the way it does, it has gone a long way toward settlement. This may diminish the emotional tension and allow the parties to focus on ways to solve their conflict. Throughout the Distributive Stage, negotiators must always know their current no settlement alternatives. It does not matter what their options were before; it only matters what they are now. As they approach their bottom lines, they should also appreciate the fact that they actually possess more bargaining power at this point, since the difference between a poor deal and no deal becomes less significant. As they approach their own bottom line, they should realize that the other side must be doing quite well. Closing the deal is the process happens before end a negotiation. The Closing Stage is the time for calm and deliberate action. Both sides want to solidify the deal, and the party that is more anxious tends to close more of the remaining gap. During this part of the interaction, participants should be careful not to make unreciprocated concessions. They should try, however, to induce their opponents to do so by making it seem that the only way to conclude the deal is for the other party to move toward them. By exuding an inner patience that disconcerts a less patient opponent, this side may generate consecutive position changes by the other party.

The final process is cooperative process. Once many parties conclude the closing Stage and reach a tentative agreement. Individuals who do so often make a critical mistake. They fail to be certain that they have maximized the joint return achievable by the parties. During the Information Exchange and the Distributive and Closing Stages, the parties have over and under stated the value of items for strategic purposes. As a result, different terms may have ended up on the wrong side of the bargaining table. The Cooperative Stage is the time to rectify these inefficiencies. When a tentative agreement has been achieved, the parties should acknowledge their accord and suggest resort to cooperative bargaining. They want to see if they can expand the pie and simultaneously improve their respective situations. One or both participants can suggest possible trades they think will improve their join t returns. They have to look for the items that may have ended up on the wrong side of the table and exchange them for terms the opposing side values more. To maximize the effectiveness of cooperative negotiating, negotiators must follow two basic rules. First, if someone wants certain items, they must inform the other side of their desires in this regard. If they are so coy that they fail to apprise their opponent of their wish to obtain these terms, the other party may never appreciate their interest in this regard. Second, if the other side has requested items this side does not particularly value, before the negotiators conclude their interaction, this side should ask the other party what it would trade for the terms in question. The negotiators want to be sure they have not left party satisfaction on the bargaining table by failing to maximize their joint returns.

Ways to persuade a successful negotiation In any negotiation situation, persuading is always happen. Persuading can improve the degree of the negotiation results. Persuasion is also something that everyone will do. There is no ingredient on how to persuade effectively but it comes naturally and spontaneously from that particular negotiator itself. Also, it depends on which principals of persuasion that person is in. There are six principal of persuasion in negotiation.

Page | 9

The first principle to persuade a successful negotiation is principle of liking. People are easily influenced by what they like. However, one factor really stand out is similarity. The way they bring down the influence barrier is to let the other party see that you like that particular person. This is more important than he/she like you. As an effective negotiator, one should spend time in trying to discover similarities between relevant parties and bring them out. Identified the interest that both parties that have in common. The second principle is principle of authority. People are easily influenced by what they deemed as legitimate authorities. One is socially influenced to associate credibility with authority. It works amazingly if the person you are trying to influence recognized your background, expertise and credentials in the particular area. People feel secure in following the opinion of an expert. The problem with some poor negotiator is that, they often brag about themselves. It turns people off. In order to be more persuasive, being an expert is not sufficient. You must also be able to communicate that you are trusted source of information. One way to demonstrate your trustworthiness is by admitting your own weaknesses. If you are unclear on particular areas, be ready to admit it. This will helps to lower the influence barrier. This is a strategy of many strong negotiators use when it comes to their weakest spot. It will be effective if you are in a lower position. You should tell the other party even they have already know. Do not pretend the position which you are not. Through this, it will show you are being truthful. The third principle is scarcity. Scarce means want to make people want something more. When people know that they cannot have something, rare and scarce, it will drag them to want it more than ever. If something or opportunity that become less accessible in time, it will then become more desirable for that particular person. The lack of availability and scarcity confer value on things. Before any negotiation happen to be start, try to think of the most unique things that you wanted to offer. The other party will not able to get your information or transaction if they do not move into your direction which means to dig more and ask more from you. People are generally more motivated by the idea of losing something than gaining the very same thing. Sometime, the negotiator itself can be more persuasive if they are able to presents what stand to be lost than emphasizing what stand to be gained. In negotiation, you can point out the advantages that will be lost if the proposal is not accepted. Thus, people will feel the need to know what they will stand to lose. The forth principle is consistency. It is important for a person to appear consistent and rationale when it comes to negotiation. They want to be consistent with what they said and how the way they acted in previous. Through this, one can promote a good image to the other party to agree and cooperate in long term negotiation because of the standards that you as the negotiator articulated in your prior statement. Anticipate what type of standards the other party will adhere to and make your argument based on their standard. You can get them committed to a set of rules by using written commitments. The chances for them straying off will decrease tremendously. The right way to do this is by do the research on both parties, take extra action such as spend more times with them, figure out what they are most committed with, most value and most want to attain. Let them determine what is important to them and go in such a way that is reactive to what they had pointed out. The fifth principle is reciprocity. People return what other had given to them. It can be of any form. If you set out to help someone, you will be more likely to help someone, and you will be more likely to receive help from someone in return. They will feel obligation to repay you. In negotiation, one can increase the chance the other party will be collaborative by being collaborative first. If one set out to be competitive and uncooperative during

Page | 10

negotiation, one will most likely to receive the same treatment from the other party. By giving concession and sharing information first, it will encourage the other party to do the same. The last principle is social proof. When it comes to decision making, people tends to look on what the other have done. To decide what is important for you in a given situation, one will look to other similar individuals that have the same situation. In times of uncertainty, people tend to follow the lead of others. In negotiation, the situation can be ambiguous and the issue being discussed can be very complex. When in such a situation, both parties will look for the experts to guide their negotiation. If you reach impasse in your negotiation, point out on how similar negotiations have been conducted and how they are being resolved. Provide evidence that the others like them to have made this choice and how they have been benefited from their decision. When people have witnessed what other had done before, they will be more will to make the same decision.

Conclusion In conclusion, negotiations play an important role in our everyday life. As a matter of fact, this skill applies in almost every aspect of our life. Negotiation is a process, not an event. There are predictable phases in negotiation as has been discussed earlier and along the process, there are certain styles that can be use to conduct the negotiation. Depending on the negotiation, one may use two, three or more styles and at the same time bearded in mind of using some useful element and principle to become a good negotiator so that the negotiation will be effective as intended. If all those element of negotiation skill is well understood, then the person will probably can be a successful negotiator. When negotiator skill is mastered, they will find that negotiat ing is fun.

Page | 11

References Ellis. R. 2009. Communication Skill. Intellect Ltd. USA Chaturvedi, P D. 2006. Business Communication, concept, cases, application. Pearson Education. Barker, A. 2006. Improve Your Communication Skills (Second Edition). Kogen Page Publication. UK Building Negotiation Skills by Dr. Elijah Ezandu. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from

http://www.slideshare.net/ezendu/building-negotiation-skills Five Negotiation Styles for Managing Conflict by Jessica Furgerson. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.ehow.com/list_6569615_five-negotiation-styles-managing-conflict.html

Page | 12