The negotiation styles vary because they depend on the situations and the people that are involved in the process. Considering the scenario where I am a lead contract negotiator of a small company that specializes in small GPS guided guidance equipment that can be used in most vehicles, my team should use the competitive and collaborative approach. But considering the productivity my team should focus on the collaborative instead of the competitive approach, because collaboration give rise to positive results (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). My negotiation team should be assertive and respect the other party as the party also has goals and objectives. My team should work out its objectives in advance so that it becomes easy for the team to compromise if necessary. My team should make it certain that the outcome that is received is mutually beneficial.
Considering the mentioned scenario that the federal government is developing driverless convoys for moving goods and supplies, and we are specializing in the GPS guided guidance equipment that can be attached easily to the standard portable radar and laser system, the mutual beneficial relationship between my team and the Federal government can generate profitability for both the parties. This is because customers who prefer driverless convoys will become aware that now convoys are available with GPS guided guidance equipment with which they can reduce the errors ad can also monitor their performance and remain updated with the current conditions. So, this results in more sales of the driverless convoys. Furthermore, my team should collaborate in order to attain a satisfactory agreement for all the concerns. My team should be able to create a win-win situation. In the case, if the team deals with the aggressor, then one will always want to win the cost, which will result in win-lose situation. This occurs due to lack of proper cooperation. Bargaining should be stopped if the other party is aggressive to avoid lose- lose situation.
Our competitors are also offering GPS guided equipments that provide connectivity to the standard portable radar & laser system. But the basic difference between their offered product and ours is that our product provides continuous connectivity and accuracy, without any discontinuation of service. The competitor’s equipment has limited connectivity and got disconnected after a certain period. This distorts the information process and creates difficulty in successful completion of the work. With GPS guided equipments, it will become possible to move the convoys more smoothly on roads and to improve the safety as well as save the fuel as the information becomes available automatically. Furthermore, the convoys can sense the radar signals more appropriately, and the identification of the navigational paths becomes easy. Moreover, with efficient GPS guided equipments the control system of driverless convoys becomes more advanced for interpreting the sensory information and identifying the navigational paths.
Our cost for the product is justified on the basis of advanced features, and quality offered for provision of efficient and continuous service to the customers. The price of our product is a bit high as compared to the competitors, but the fact is that we are delivering the quality as well as satisfaction to the customer that provides proper guidance to the customer and helps to produce more output. The customers want satisfaction from the product and as willing to purchase the product again if the product meets their expectation (Taylor & Baker, 1994), same is the case with our product, by utilizing the services that our product is offering the customers will want to buy our product again and are willing to pay the price because of the advanced features and satisfaction, which is not offered by our competitors.
Moreover, for successful and fruitful negotiation, I will advice my negotiating team to decide about the starting position and about bottom line for justifying the price. Further, I will advice them to consider the emotional and the objective motivational factors of the other party. They will be advised to develop an agenda and argue in a logical way instead of adopting emotional way. They should be able to adopt the changing positions for meeting varying positions. They should plan the proposals sequence expected counter suggestions and proposals. The team members will be advised to be prepared with the facts and figures and information, comparable costs and prices. If other party is the first one to make the proposal then start a discussion with mutually agreed discussion point, the point at which both the parties are comfortable to say yes.
For example, we are offering GPS guided equipment at somewhat high price as compared to competitors, but at the same time we are also offering high quality product, so this high quality will enhance the repute and goodwill of federal government’s offered driverless convoys, which will strengthen the confidence of customers and generate more sales and profitability. Further, the team should make the proposals and arguments strategically and incrementally, and they should avoid going to the lowest acceptable point or to the bottom line. At last if the other part i.e., Federal government is willing to close the deal and the offer is acceptable for us them I will advise my team to make the process easy for them and enter into the agreement.
The two negotiating gambits that I would use are to get a better deal and never say yes or ok to the first offer. These two gambits can be justified on the basis of the facts that we are negotiating in order to arrive at a better deal that is beneficial for our company as well as for the federal government’s wing that is producing driverless convoys. By arriving at a better deal it becomes easy for both to cover their cost and to generate the profitability. Our company will be able to sell its product and the federal government will also be able to sale more due to the facilities that are provided with the product with which work can be accomplished easily. Secondly, the negotiating gambit i.e., never say yes or ok to the first offer because it might be possible that the other party will not present good offer and our company will not be able to achieve the desired targets. So, the better solution for this problem is to act dumb and then act smarter when the offer is in our favor and when we are better off. This is also essential from the point of view that a stronger party wants to take advantage of weak people and want to exert undue pressure on them, but the weak want to compete for proving their smartness. So the argument of acting dumb is justified on the fact that it helps in diffusing competitive spirit and a better offer can be achieved that help both the parties to end up with fruitful results. So, the contract will be established, according to which our company will provide 300 GPS equipments for two years at $25 each, to the federal government’s division that is producing 1000 driverless convoys.
As a negotiator, it is important for me to write the contract and represent the interests of company, because being a lead contract negotiator, I know about the facts and figures of my company. I am aware of the breakeven point of the company, and I have in depth knowledge about the profitability and loss associated with the sale of the product. I know the fact that at a particular price of product, my company will be benefitted. I am also aware of the size of the federal government and have better idea that according to their size i.e., they are manufacturing 1000 convoys, if we provide 300 GPS equipments then almost all will be sold and our company will also be able to achieve profitability. Moreover, Federal Government will be able to sale the GPS enabled convoys at a rate slightly higher than the convoys without GPS, which help them to generate profitability by covering their manufacturing and associated costs. I would not like the industry members to write the contact firstly because they are not fully aware of the company’s fact and figures, so conduction of situational analysis is not possible for them. Situational analysis is very essential before a contract because the future success of a company depends upon the facts and figures that are considered before finalizing any deal (Viardot, 2004). Secondly, as they are not much aware, hence, it not possible for them to arrive at a final deal with the negotiators, and in case the deal is not finalized it is not possible for them to write a contract that is advantageous for both the parties.
Body language plays an essential role in the negotiation process. If one is unable to convince other with words then it is the body language that plays its role and helps a person to convince others (Zhou & Zhang, 2008). It would assist my negotiation team in overcoming any potential obstacles or objections that would arise because it allows an individual to adopt the behavior of the language at that time that make it easier for the other person to understand the meaning what one wants to convey. Furthermore, my team can adopt the polite and calm attitude with a smile on the face in case of any harsh attitude from the federal government representatives. This can be beneficial in controlling the situation and allows others to change their mind about the deal, and better solution can be achieved that goes in favor of both the parties. Moreover, the body language will works in favor of my team as it gives a chance to the negotiator to observe the gestures, postures, and the breathing patterns and my team can transmit the suitable message to the federal government that will enhance the chances of securing good and right deal. The result will be striking of better and profitable deal.
References
Paulus, Pail B., & Nijstad, Bernanrd A. (2003). Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration. Oxford University Press, New York.
Taylor, S. A., and Baker, T. L. (1994). An Assessment of the Relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Formation of Consumers’ Purchase Intentions. Journal of Retailing, 70(2), 163–178
Viardot, Eric. (2004). Successful Marketing Strategy for High-tech Firms. Artech House, Inc. Boston, USA
Zhou, Hui., & Zhang, Tingqin. (2008). Body Language in Business Negotiation. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(2), 90-96
