People negotiate daily in different domains of life such as workplace, businesses and even in marriage. Some of the major situations that may find people negotiating include asking or a pay rise, seeking the best deals from suppliers and making social arrangements with colleagues. In any negotiating situation one party has to compromise something and probably seek something in return such that at the end of the day, it is a win-win situation (Reynolds, 2003).
Negotiation depicts to a form of a dialogue between two or more people or parties meant to reach a beneficial outcome in regards to one or more issues where there is a conflict. Negotiation can best be described as a method by which people settle their differences. During the process of negotiation, their parties involved strive to reach either compromise or agreement by avoiding dispute and argument. A successful negotiation process should ensure that all the parties aggrieved are contented with the outcome (Neumann, 2015). Negotiation is intended to resolve the points of differences and also an advantage of all the parties by satisfying their interests. A negotiation should begin by putting forward concessions in a bid to achieve the desired agreement. The extent, to which the parties making the negotiations trust each other, goes a long way in determining whether negotiation is successful (Adair, Okumura & Brett, 2001).
Negotiation depicts a process of mutual discussions between two or more people or groups with competing interests with the aim of establishing an amicable agreement. The rapid globalization that is being witnessed in the contemporary epoch has greatly promoted the formation of negotiating agreements between businesses and countries across different parts of the globe (Salacuse, Jeswald, 2004). This module has been critical in describing the process of negotiation and how different cultures use negotiation skills to settle disputes and even form treaties. The module has further helped us to gain important insights about negation by testing our negotiating skills through the administration of numerous negotiation exercises throughout the past four weeks on which the module gas been c covered (week 9 to 12). This paper seeks to offer an explicit reflection of the tree notable negotiations simulations and the final simulation whereby my colleagues and I participated actively (Houses for sale in North Lambton, 2017).
2. Reflection on negotiation simulations in weeks 9 to 11
Strategy and outline
Through the four simulations, our group consisted of six members and sheikh was the head negotiations in all the negotiations that we undertook. Negotiation 1 which was conducted in week nine our group was acting as the buyer of a house from a property agent who was the other group. I advised my group to use distributive strategy and make the negotiation one-time deal since a healthy relationship with other party was unnecessary. This was thus a win-lose situation. However, after a tough negotiating session the deal failed to go through because the group that was to purchase our property offered unrealistic options that did not match the prevailing market prices.
Both groups were aggressive, and the buyer was a bit emotional, and therefore this influenced the negative outcome of the negotiation. The second negotiation which took place in week 10 encompassed a negotiation whereby our group was the publishing company. In this simulation, our group represented the Jamie Oliver agents who aspired to distribute cookery to an Asian market segment. Unlike the first case, the second negotiation was successful. All the group members were composed, confident and armed with all the facts and this greatly boosted our deal making our group stronger than the other group.
Negotiation 3 which we undertook in week 11 was about property development. Our group in this simulation acted as Japanese developers. The other group seemed to be unprepared and, therefore, it was easy for us to close the deal within a span of only 20 minutes of the 45 minutes assigned for the entire simulation.
In the fourth and final simulation, which was about a foreign investment where our group was to invest in coal mining in China; we managed to seal the deal with an anticipated net profit of 57.5 %.
The integrative strategy that was adopted in week 10 and 11 was successful. However, in week 9’s simulation, no deal was reached since both groups adopted the distributive strategy whereby each group maximized its benefits.
Throughout all the simulations from wee 9 to 11 the negotiation tactics that we used were bargaining and operative behavior. In all the cases, I used the low price to negotiate and was always steadily increasing it as a buyer. However, as a seller, I began with a high price and then lowered the price until we reached an acceptable price.
Culture does not only influence the negotiator’s thinking, behavior or even the communication skills but also the type of deals that one enters. For instance, for the deal in week 9 to be concluded effectively, we had to adopt the Chinese culture so that the other party could agree with our argument. In the negotiating table, therefore, it is paramount that the parties comprehend each other’s culture so that they align their perceptions according to the culture of the other party (Cardella & Seiler, 2016).
Strengths and weaknesses
The major strengths that helped me succeed in the week 9 to 11 simulations are that I was always well prepared with background research on the cases presented. I was also aware of the cultural dimensions that involved the deal as well as the other party. There were, however, a number of weaknesses. For instance, I never settled for either a strictly formal or nonformal negotiation strategy. In week 11, we did not greet or even introduce ourselves to the members of the other group.
3. Reflection on final negotiation
In the final negotiation, the negotiation was about a joint venture whereby Fernet brio and Zijing mining were to engage in the deal sharing process. Sheikh acted as the CEO of Fernet Brio since this was our company while Gopinath acted as the head of the operation. Aditya was the finance director. I adopted the collaboration method of negotiating in this final simulation. The collaboration method is best elucidated in the dual concern model whereby all the parties should prioritize on having healthy relationships. The Chinese usually value relationships more than profits, and since the venture was to be done in China, there was a need to have a win-win situation and have both companies engaged in a healthy manner (Thompson,Wang & Gunia, 2010). We engaged in an integrative way that would yield a positive outcome for both parties.
As a result of using the collaborative and integrative methods, the negotiation was successful and led to the signing of a deal that satisfied the interest of both parties. The terms and condition in which the business venture would be undertaken appealed to the initial interests of both parties.
Before the actual negotiation, our group met and held discussion the case. We made important resistant points that we would use to argue our case. For instance, we all agreed that we should only sign a minimum share profit of 55%. We also agreed that we would listen to our colleagues more are talk less since the case affected the social, economic aspects of the people. As such, we would allow our colleagues to have a positive feeling that we appreciate and understand their standpoints. Most importantly we allowed the other group to make their offer first so that we could then make ours. This turned positive since we managed to get our intended 55% share of profit.
Unlike in the previous research where I only studied the cultural dimension of the other group the final negotiation was so engaging that I had to go an extra mile and research on the cultural aspects if china and that of Australia. It is from Hofstede (2011) that I learned that china is associated with a high context culture while Australia has a low context culture. To ensure that there is a smooth negotiation process we had to adapt a low context culture even though the Fernet brio company that we represented was from Australia which is a high context culture. For instance, even though we clearly understood that the technology that would be used in the investment venture would lead to loss of jobs, we communicated t the other group smoothly by letting them know that at one point the venture would still offer alternative jobs. After concluding the deal, we greeted warmly with the other group and exchanged our business cards something that we had not done in the other previous negotiation simulations.
4. Ethical issues surrounding the negotiation simulations from week 9 to 12
The only ethical issue that I encountered in the negotiation simulations was in week nine during case 1. This case entailed our group as the buyer and the opposite as the property agent where the property being sold was a three bedroom house. According to the discords of real estate business price strategy is an important aspect (Rhoades & Carnevale, 1999). However, the other group resulted in aggressive pricing strategy where they quoted that was almost double the market price. It is out such aggressive pricing that I advise my group to decline the deal. In all the other simulations, however, I did not encounter any cases of unethical behavior. Our group complied with all the ethical considerations in a business transaction, and as such we could not entertain any form of unethical behavior by the other groups that we engaged with throughout the simulation.
5. Individual negotiation plan for the final group negotiation simulation in week 12
I played the role of the leading financial analyst the final simulation. I was to handle the last part of the negotiation which was about the manner in which the profits garnered would be garnered. Since this was a new technology and we wanted to take it global, my responsibility was to ensure that we maximize the profits while also considering that the group would also yield substantial profits. According to the agreement that we had already made as a group my responsibility was to ensure that we negotiate and get a net profit share of 57.5%.
I first planned to raise the profits are high level and give the other group an opportunity to negotiate their anticipated profits. I also went ahead to explain to the representative of Zejin company on how the surface mining technology would yield overall profitability to the business venture. I planned to convey to Zijin representatives on the dynamics of the new technology and how it would boost the level of profits. I also explained to them that the technology was an intellectual property and that it had been protected by copyrights and patents. Therefore, the profit would be guaranteed.
My major responsibility on the final negotiation was to negotiate on the share profits that our group would get. This profit would be based on the level of output in comparison to the input. I, therefore, developed concrete argument and managed to convince Zejin to minimize the amount of costs in terms of income to guarantee maximize maximum profits. The major argument was that minimizing the costs used in the b would in turn yield huge profits in future (Hawes & Fleming, 2014).
Long term and short term provisions
My short-term objective was to minimize the costs of production on the surface mining technology which would benefit Fernet Brio to maintain a competitive advantage in terms of acquiring more profits. This was contrary to Zejin Company since they wanted to maximize on the profits for long-term gain since they wanted to become self-reliant. For the long-term plan, I suggested that the project would bring other auxiliary profits though economic activities such as stocking, distribution, and transport that would generate job opportunities.
Culture is an important entity in shaping the discords of a negotiation proves as well as the outcome. Though the negotiation simulation s that I have participated in throughout this model, I have managed to grasp important insights and knowledge about negotiation tactics, methods and communication skills paramount to a successful negotiating process.
Hi there, would you like us to help you do this question?
We are professional assignment help service for students. Get your papers written starting at just $11.99 a page.Do my question
Adair, L., Okumura, T., & Brett, J.M. (2001). Negotiation behavior when cultures
Collide: the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 371–385.
Cardella, E., & Seiler, M. J. (2016). The effect of listing price strategy on real estate negotiations: an experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 5271-5290. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2015.11.001
Hawes, J. M., & Fleming, D. E. (2014). Recognizing distributive or integrative negotiation opportunities in marketing channels: the conceptualization of adaptive negotiations. Journal of Marketing Channels, 21(4), 279-287. doi:10.1080/1046669X.2014.905402
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Houses for sale in North Lambton, NSW 2299. (2017). realestate.com.au. Retrieved 27 March 2017, from http://www.realestate.com.au/buy/property-house-between-0-450000-in-north+lambton%2c+nsw+2299/list-1?source=location-search
Neumann, I. (2015). The Language of Negotiation in Management Training. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 6(11), 49.
Rhoades, J. A., & Carnevale, P. J. (1999). The behavioral context of strategic choice in negotiation: a test of the dual concern model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(9), 1777–1802.
Reynolds, A. (2003). Emotional intelligence and Negotiation. Hampshire: Tommo Press.
Salacuse, A., Jeswald, W. (2004). Negotiating: the top ten ways that culture can affect your negotiation. IVEY Business Journal 69(1), 1–6.
Thompson, L. L., Wang, J., & Gunia, B. C. (2010). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 491–515. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100458
How it works
Why our online essay writing service?
Let us cover any of your writing needs!