Name:

Institution:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

Effects of goals on the choice of negotiation strategy

The parties that are engaged in a negotiation always set specific targets that they intend to achieve during their negotiation period. These are targets therefore guide the parties in designing their plans hence constitutes the goals of the negotiation. Different parties involved in the negotiation process adopt various strategies to achieve their desired targets. However, it is worth noting that the set goals affect the choice of strategies to be adopted by the concerned parties. These effects may either be direct or indirect. According to the dual concern model, the negotiating parties may adopt one or both the five negotiating strategies including compromise, yielding, inaction, problem solving or contending depending on their preset goals and objectives. Lewicki et al argue that the goals of the negotiation process are interlinked and therefore define the issue of negotiation (90). They reiterate that the goals of one party are always in contradiction to the party’s goals hence the source of conflict. For instance, while negotiating for an item in the market the buyer would seek to achieve his/her goal of acquiring the item in question at the lowest price possible while the seller seeks to sell the item at the highest price possible to make profit. Consequently, the two parties finds themselves in contradicting situations as a result of the goals they seek to achieve in the negotiation. From such situations, it is important to appreciate the importance of pre-negotiation before the real process (Spangle & Isenhart, 2003, 399). The negotiating parties however have to reach a compromise without which the negotiation process would not be necessary (Lewicki et al, 2010, 90). On the other hand, the preset goals may also indirectly affect the negotiating strategies adopted by the concerned parties. For instance, concerned parties may seek to achieve short-term goals if they are not interested in their relationship after the outcome. In such situations, they usually adopt simple strategies to achieve successful negotiation process.

Influencing power in negotiation

Both the parties in a negotiating process have to identify what their resource and economic needs as well as their targets in the negation. Moreover, they have to identify the things they can never forsake and still achieve their preset goals. Spangle & Isenhart describes the resistance points as the lowest point a party can accept a deal and target as issues one can live reasonably with. It is noteworthy that the involved parties critically analyze their BATNA as well as other’s BATNA so as to reach an agreement. They have to compromise their positions but to a given limit to reach an agreement (Roy et al, 2010, 35). For instance in bargaining for a package before employment, an individual may demand for $50000 as his target. The employer offers him $30000 but his minimum limit is $40000 (resistance point). His BATNA would be to stick to his minimum limit of $40000 and not accept anything less. It is always important to develop a clear factual argument meant to convince the other party in the negotiation process on the soundness of one’s cause. According to Spangle & Isenhart a clear ideal characterized by proper reasoning and explanation holds the key to negotiation success through persuading the other party in the contract (397). To begin with, parties involved in the negotiation process have to appreciate their common ground including shared values and interest instead of focusing on their differences. It requires creativity for one party to develop value and thereafter validate his/her side of the contract. Moreover, the concerned party can also generate options using creativity especially even when the common approach is elusive. Besides, the parties in the negotiation process can also influence other’s viewpoint through clear communication process involving proper listening and understanding of the other party’s values and interest. Through enhanced communication, one party is in a position to articulate a position as well as support it in attempt to persuade the other party to compromise its resistance point. Spangle & Isenhart however stress on the need of the negotiating parties to understand and appreciate the other’s position in the process (397). The parties always have contrasting views concerning their interests and values and would therefore have varying resistant points as well as set different targets (Spangle & Isenhart, 2003, 397).

Approaches to negotiation

The concerned parties in a negotiation have to fully define the problems which the process is seeking to address before proceeding to the negotiating table. To begin with, it is noteworthy that the parties come together to solve a problem collaboratively in the integrative negotiation process unlike in the distributive bargaining where those negotiating are allowed to define the problems on the basis of solutions to the problems (Lewicki et al, 2010, 70). The distributive negotiations usually involve parties that have never interacted before. This kind of negotiation strategy is used in situations such as bargaining for a product in the market. Here, the seller seeks to sell the product at the highest possible price to get profits while the buyer seeks to purchase the product at the lowest possible price. Consequently, antagonism emerges between the two parties since none is willing to compromise his/her position. In such a situation, neither of the parties would achieve their target as no one will be willing to compromise their position. A lose or lose scenario is therefore inevitable in the negotiations. Instead, both the parties should consider the underlying interests in the negotiations (Lewicki et al, 2010, 71).

Integrative negotiation process on the other hand demands that the parties involved in the negotiation should fully define the problem together before identifying possible solutions to the problems collaboratively. Besides, integrative negations revolve around multiple issues unlike distributive negotiations and the negotiators are interested in trading something of high value for other items of lesser values. Moreover, The negotiation process require that both the parties engage in sharing information as well as problem solving in an attempt to fully understand the interest and problems of the others. Moreover, it enhances long-term relationship between the negotiators which is important as it guarantees greater security (Lewicki et al, 2010, 70). Generally, the two aforementioned negotiation strategies overlap at times but are used in many occasions hence their understanding would be useful when one is confronted with different situations.

Importance of BATNA in negotiation

It is always important for one approaching the negotiating table to bring more than one proposal so as to enhance chances of securing a deal. Negotiations may not go the way a negotiator had planned and therefore an alternative plan may prove helpful in such a situation. This is always referred to as the Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). BATNA may prove useful to a negotiator when he/she is not in a position to secure the planned deal due to wobbling in negotiations since he will have alternative plan for the negotiations and may therefore secure a fairer deal than walking out of the table empty handed. The strength of a negotiator’s BATNA is very important in the negotiation process. To begin with, it provides the negotiator with two options. Notably, the negotiator either settles the contract with favorable terms or contemplates quitting (Lewicki et al, 2010, 137). BATNA should be adopted during the planning and preparation phase of the negotiations. It always a two-fold process where the negotiator is initially involved in determining all the available options for him before gauging the options with those of the counterpart in the negotiation process to establish which alternative is stronger than the other. Negotiators should be flexible enough in their approach so as to achieve their goal in the negotiation process. This is due to the unexpected changes that might occur during negotiation thereby affecting the process. For instance, the changes in price of an item in review may occur as a result of the government’s decision to enforce legislation that was inexistent before.

Attractive BATNA improves the negotiator’s power in the negotiation as he will have less to lose if the deal is not stricken. The importance of strong BATNA may be exemplified by an organization that seeks to buy a machine for its operation and therefore approaches two firms to negotiate on the price of the product. In the process, two other firms intervene to seek the organization’s interest in purchasing their item. The purchasing organization therefore has many options and will therefore enjoy the power of making a decision of whether to accept the deal offered by the two original firms or quit and purchase the product from the other two firms. In essence, the purchaser has the power to either enter into a deal or not. He is therefore entitled to make high reservations since he has other alternatives incase a deal is not reached in the negotiations. On the other hand, negotiators with low BATNA usually make low reservations as he lacks the varied options and therefore seek secure a deal in the negotiation (Lewicki et al, 2010, 155).

Work cited:

Lewicki, Roy et al. Essentials of Negotiation, Canadian Edition. Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson

Ltd. 2010. Print.

Spangle, Michael & Isenhart, Myra. Negotiation: communication for diverse setting. London:

SAGE. 2003. Print.