Introduction
Negotiation is an instrumental area of study that mainly encompasses elements of human interactions and behaviors. Successful negotiation entails planning and preparation; under this, I adopted early preparation, which significantly improved my capabilities in the negotiation. While planning, I involved my team, with who I shared the same interests in the negotiation process. Therefore, their involvement was instrumental as it enabled successful resolutions. As part of my profession, my skills have improved my ability to maintain relationships. For instance, negotiation skills highly enhance how individuals react to real-life scenarios. Having learned numerous negotiation examples, I have learned the mechanism to institute an agreement between the negotiating parties.
Further, I have observed my mastery in adopting and implementing negotiation tactics to develop the solution. As part of the observation, I have regarded that the critical objective of negotiation is to harmonize a disagreement is to provide a neutral answer that will favor both parties. The negotiation skills learned in class upped my understanding of giving up a percentage of my interest for a uniform solution during negotiation.
My Strengths as a Negotiator
As a negotiator, I boast of adequate planning skills. Such skill has highly enabled my early preparation for negotiation while effectively identifying my key arguments. Secondly, I am a good communicator who can express my thoughts verbally fluently. This strength is vital because it enables me to articulate my viewpoint whenever I engage in negotiation effectively. Thirdly, I have good listening skills. The skill allows me to accurately grasp the counterparty’s perception while generating a sufficient and conclusive counterparty measure accordingly. Also, I can persuade others effectively. This is the most instrumental technique which has enabled me to win numerous negotiations. As a strength, I have positively influenced the counterparty to my agreement, thus sealing the conversation effectively. Finally, I have good judgment, as negotiator effectiveness in the solution attained mainly relies on the decision. I can gauge the situation and negotiation while giving out effectively. Good judgment enables my cooperativeness amidst the discussion as it enhances an accommodative view of the situation.
The Negotiation Analysis
I participated in the case of the Wine Master and the Home Base, in which I applied managerial negotiation skills. For instance, in this case, I was in the Wine Master team while our counterpart was in the Home Base Team. Before engagement in the negotiation, we effectively planned and set our respective Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) as part of our reservation price of $7.2 M (Lecture notes, WM2604). We provided information as adequate evidence that could strengthen my argument while setting personal reservation points. However, my focus mainly shifted to attaining the most desirable agreement with the counterparty. Such resulted in the setting of my reservation point closer to BATNA.
According to my previous class, I came across vital elements of negotiation, which included the importance of asking relevant questions, trying to glean the counterparty’s interest within the deal, and the counterparty’s BATNA, reservation points, and negotiable issues. I found out that Home Base’s BATNA was a reservation price of $8.4 Million (WM2604). The elements I learned in the class improved my grip on the negotiation. For instance, it effectively enhanced my negotiation skills and enabled the practical setting of reservation points to agreeable terms. Being in a multipart form of negotiation with numerous individuals from both parties, we initiated the conversation by discussing the situation broadly. We presented our opinions regarding the win-win scenario and probed my counterpart to understand their point of interest effectively.
According to Bradford development, there are numerous types of negotiations, including two parties and multiple parties (BradMBADebrief). For instance, Distributive negotiation entails two parties negotiating on a given issue. Notably, the case of the mayor and developer forms a distributive negotiation. It involves a lucrative business opportunity for developers who mainly relied upon the mayor’s approvals for their respective development work. Being insightful of the importance attributed to the time crunch and beneficial of the entire project to the whole city, I proposed my first offer to arrange $350,000 – $400,000 (BradMBADebrief). Upon my request, I found out that the counterparty was quick to accept the lower-end immodestly actions which largely raised a series of concerns from a personal point of view. I adopted the use of critical and most fundamental class-learned concepts to elucidate the negotiation and its outcome. Firstly, I identified the type of negotiation from a series of talks that I learned from the class exercise. For instance, fundamental elements of negotiation existed, which encompassed accommodative, distributive, or interpretive negotiation. Although the talks manifested vital concepts of distributive bargaining, it is highly qualified to be accommodative negotiation.
The accommodative negotiation was a fundamental instance in which both parties had to lower their reservations points to attain a workable conclusion to the benefit of both parties. The negotiation was justified as accommodative negotiation as it was associated with a unique component of payoff structure that applied to both parties (Lewicki et al., 2015). Secondly, the negotiation comprised of an effective opening stance that I did to evoke the interest of the counterparty. Thirdly, it had an effective goal pursuit from both parties, which was well manifested when I set the price and the counterparty quickly selected the lower end to achieve its goals. Lastly, the negotiation was composed of a silent attitude from the counterparty that was seen entirely across the scenario; the attitude was, however, followed by an immediate response to agree on a lower value, an implication of a positive negotiation process.
The process I adopted to institute the accommodative negotiation mainly comprised the following positions. Going first, followed by opening offers, then opening stance, initial concession, and lastly, patterns of concession making. The class lessons revealed the importance of going first with high aspiration; this was mainly associated with protecting the personal BATNA, a tool to achieve better outcomes. Comparatively, the components mentioned above of the negotiations were instrumental in attaining a desirable outcome.
A fundamental question should be posed to ascertain the opening offer despite the agreement. Observably, the formulation of the first exaggerated offer is advantageous as it mounds the minds of the counterparty by setting anchors in their minds. Indeed, the Bradford case was educative as it offered me an opportunity to grasp insight into the counterparty’s priorities. Furthermore, I observed that setting the first high offer was instrumental as it was a key to instituting the Meta signal, whose implication was a position of strength and an indication that reasonable settlement was far away from attainment. The Meta signal would have implanted a reasonable doubt on the counterparty’s mind, thus forcing them to reevaluate their BATNA and the reservation point. The first high aspiration would negatively influence impacts. It could imply a lack of interest in the negotiation, jeopardizing my commitment to the long-term negotiation agreement as a partner. Ideally, I failed to effectively set my aspiration high given the risks associated with extreme offers despite good articulation largely associated with my supporting arguments on the extreme offer.
Additionally, I was faced with the decision of opening stance during the outset. The class was educative as it reiterated the importance of thinking about the type of message and the attitude that an opening stance will deliver to the counterparty’s mind. Individuals often opt to match distributive tactics resulting from counterparty with their distributive strategies. As such, for effective negation occurrence, it is imperative and in the interest of both parties to deliver a consistent message.
When I was proceeding with the negotiation, which involved my team negotiations, I adopted a vital technique for breaking the impasse. I took a break as a way of breaking the impasse. The break facilitated subsequent informed decisions from my team. Further, I asked the parties if they could agree to set the negotiation and address other issues. While setting aside the negotiation, I ascertained the parties’ perceptions to understand their viewpoint, and finally, I asked the parties what they could do next.
Entirely across the negotiation, I observed fundamental strengths as a negotiator. Firstly, I had a very strong and positive opening stance. Being subjected to the silent counterparty, I decided to maximize my expertise as a negotiator through the effective use of communication skills. Such attracted the attention of the audience positively. Secondly, I utilized interpersonal skills to read through the counterparty’s mind, followed by their outward observations about the negotiation. To achieve this, I decided to use the collaborative attribute of the negations actions, which resulted in an accommodative view. Such directly stimulated an agreement which was followed by a unanimous response.
However, it is worth noting that being subjected to a more silent audience who was also a counterparty, I received a challenge in observing the internal intentions of the counterparty. Also, I failed to actively observe any possible indicators that could reveal their intended reservation points. As a negotiator, undemanding the mind of the counterparty was instrumental. Therefore, failing to fully consider the reservation point of the counterparty resulted in my setting on the lower one, which I later learned was comparatively far behind their anticipated offer.
Evolving Analysis
The issue was related to multilateral negotiations involving two six-party teams (Harbour). According to the cooperation model, I liked the case, which included six-party talks on several issues and a coalition of the newly formed Harbor Consortium. According to the case, the consortium has identified the most suitable site for the construction of the port. However, it was not possible to proceed with the construction of the deep-water port due to problems with the license. The negotiating partner was a federal licensing agency represented by a team of six parties. According to the Federal Licensing Agency, they argued that they could only offer a license if Harbor Co secured the support of at least four other parties from the environmental coalition.
I was able to play the role of a harbor in which I effectively coordinated and led the measure of success as an interpretive result as a sign of a deal. The target result was achieved by separating responsibilities and focusing on the most difficult interpretative issues to be discussed. Knowing how to manage negotiations before they started was very helpful as it allowed me to prepare for the negotiations. I effectively stuck to the article, reiterated our negotiation process and the purpose of negotiating, and collectively defined our roles.
Judging by the negotiating status, I was well prepared and ready for any countermeasures, if any. However, effective role-playing put us in a better position as the harbor action was put in place. We were able to alleviate vital aspects such as stock splitting, which was part of a distribution problem that could take comparatively longer to resolve. In addition, heated negotiations resulted in a desirable agreement that was comparatively higher than our originally expected BATNA and reservation points. Moreover, we realized there was room for improvement, especially in relation to the shared value created to make it easier for Harbor Co. to start operations.
In the case presented, there were signs of concern on each side about a divergence that would make ZOPA very covert. According to the illustration presented, there was a ZOPA case that was hard to resist when considering the interests of the negotiating team. In addition, there were fundamental possibilities that would represent interrogative results. While the federal licensing agency kept its reserve points, I mobilized other teams to step up their support for our team. The negotiations were meant to create ZOPA; however, the exact position of ZOPA was not clear at first. However, the extreme initial proposals for the port builders imply the beginning of more significant movements and negotiations between contractors. In addition, small movements may indicate that the part is serious about making this deal. Perhaps the best ZOPA will provide efficiency combined with negotiation, making it easier to close the deal. In the example below, the most desirable ZOPA instance is implied, which also means the bargaining range in case of a potential agreement. An example of a ZOPA is shown below in the Figure 1. The person agrees to buy the product for 4500; they have ZOPA as an agreed amount within the desired range as shown in the chart below.
In my case, the Harbor case manipulations were purported to presume the ideological difference.
The well-represented negotiation cycle adherence often results in the desired outcome. As shown in the diagram below, the outcome of well-set negotiation is establishing profitable relationships to foster trust amongst the negotiating parties.
Qualities and Techniques I Admire
I aspire to have open-minded qualities as a negotiator. Such would enable my grip on crucial information regarding numerous aspects under negotiation. Secondly, I desire to have strong expertise in negotiation, which would improve my skills and ability to clearly understand personal opinions and reasons for negotiations. Finally, I admire well-thought-out techniques that would prevent me from jumping to conclusions unnecessarily. All this will lead to the fact that I can become a highly qualified and competent specialist.
Negotiator I aspire to Become and Steps
As a negotiator, I would aspire to be an instrumentalist in initiating successful negation and building successful relationships out of the negotiation. Figure 2 above shows that building a successful relationship based on trust is a key negotiation objective. Further, I would anticipate being a successful professional and problem solver in negotiations. To achieve this, I would adequately improve my cognitive skills through research on critical tools of negotiations. Secondly, I will engage myself in endless negotiations to gain expertise. Finally, I will open a negotiation platform from which I will be able to mainstream a series of negotiations at a fee to improve my profession as a negotiator.
What I found Surprising
Across the course duration, I found out that individual rational opinions were surprising. For instance, I was shocked to see how individuals could preserve their argument to win. Through the course, I found out that self-minded thoughts were destructive in the process of negotiation. It is important in the process to remain objective and independent of external factors individual. As a result, the course changed my thinking on individuals’ perceptions and interactions with others.
Conclusion
Finally, the course was quite instrumental as it allowed me to evaluate my understanding of the academic setting effectively. According to the analysis stipulated in the Pareto frontier, it was objective for us to move towards an integrative and later shift to distributive. Such will result in collective value, which would state long-term relationships on trust bias. The course was educative and improved my understanding of the future benefit of agreement and negotiation, especially in striking global-related deals. As a function of trust, I will retain and maintain the same in my endeavor to improve my negotiation skills to benefit the global scale.
Reference
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2015). Negotiation 7th Ed.
Appendix
Type of negotiations: managerial negotiation.
Negotiation one; Bradford Development case negotiation, the parties involved were the mayor’s representative and the Town Developers.
The case outcome was an agreement on the stipulated Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement that was set at $ 300,000.
Negotiation Two; public-private partnership city construction case, the parties involved were Lambert and the government representative, which was a counterparty.
The outcome: definitive agreement and signage of the Public-Private Partnerships city construction program between the government and the city constructors. And institution of positive business relationships and trust.