Reflection
REFLECTION
Negotiation has been defined as the act of discussing or conferring with another with the objective of arriving at an agreement where some interests may be opposed, and some may be shared. Negotiation is a useful way of resolving a disagreement, a conflict, or a problem. The objective of the negotiation is to reach a middle ground where each party is satisfied. However, this is not usually the case. I have been involved in negotiation on various issues in the past. During the negotiations, I employed various tactics.
In the past I have employed tactics such as listening and paraphrasing, using the power of emotional labeling, building rapport, using effective open-ended questions and pauses, becoming a projective thinker, and creating a win-win situation. Some of these tactics worked. For example, creating a win-win situation was very effective. This tactic worked best because I talked less, listened more, and tried to understand the concerns of the other party. Building rapport also worked because I demonstrated to the other party that I held no prejudice. Being a projective thinker helped arrive at an agreement faster. This is because I avoided talking too much and also avoided recalling many examples of historical evidence. Instead, I listened to the concerns of the other party and allowed little room for reactive or proactive thoughts and actions. However, some tactics did not work. In emotional labeling, I sometimes misinterpreted the other party’s emotions and ended up responding wrongly. For example, when I realized the other party was almost blowing up, I showed a calm face hoping that the other party will automatically calm down. However, some people failed to calm down. Using effective pauses and open-ended questions also failed in many cases. When I applied the tactic, I realized the negotiation took unnecessarily long without any agreement.
There were occasions when my opponent used tactics against me. To recognize and nullify the tactics, I employed critical negotiation theories. For example, when the other party shifts to adversarial/positional negotiation, I switched to interest-based/collaborative negotiation. In adversarial negotiation, the other party attacked me instead of attacking the problem. The other party also stays at his/her position and viewed me as an opponent. By adopting collaborative negotiation, I separated the other party from the problem, view him/her as a joint problem-solver, sought underlying needs, and focused on mutual gain rather than personal gain. When the other party assumed distributive bargaining, I switched to integrative bargaining. In distributive bargaining, the other party sought to establish starting positions, make gradual concessions, and “cut the pie.” However, I sought interests, created value, “expanded the pie”, and looked for opportunities for joint gains.
