Types of negotiation.pptx

Types of Negotiation

1. Types of Negotiation & Six habits of negotiators By Prof (Dr) Ashok Patil , Professor of Law & Mr V Surya, Ph.D Scholar, NLSIU.

2. Principled negotiation Principled negotiation is a type of bargaining that uses parties' principles and interests to reach an agreement. This type of negotiation often focuses on conflict resolution. This type of bargaining uses an integrative negotiation approach to serve the interests of both parties. There are four elements to a principled negotiation: a) Mutual gain: The integrative approach to a principled negotiation invites parties to focus on finding mutually beneficial outcomes through bargaining.

3. Cont., B) Focus on interests: Negotiators can identify and communicate their motivations, interests and needs in a principled negotiation. C) Separate emotions from issues: In a principled negotiation, parties can reduce emotional responses and personality conflicts by focusing on the issues at hand, rather than how the issues make them feel. d) Objectivity: Parties in a principled negotiation can agree to using objective criteria as a baseline for negotiations. Examples of objective criteria in negotiations include market rates, expert opinions, laws and industry standards

4. Team negotiation In a team negotiation, multiple people bargain towards an agreement on each side of the negotiation. Team negotiations are common with large business deals. There are several people involve in the team negotiation as: a) Leader b) Observer c) Relater d) Recorder e) Critic f) Builder

5. Multiparty negotiation A multiparty negotiation is a type of bargaining where more than two parties negotiate toward an agreement. An example of a multiparty negotiation is bargaining between multiple department leaders in a large company. Here are a few of the challenges of multiparty negotiations: Fluctuating BATNAs: BATNA stands for best alternative to a negotiated agreement. With multiple parties in a negotiation, each party's BATNA is more likely to change, which can make it harder for parties to agree. Each party can evaluate their BATNA at each stage in negotiations to understand the results of a proposed agreement.

6. Cont., Coalition formation: Another challenge of multiparty negotiations is the possibility for different parties to form coalitions, or alliances. These alliances can add to the complexity of bargaining. Coalitions can agree to a specific set of terms to help all parties reach an agreement. Process-management issues: Managing the negotiation process between multiple parties can lead to a lack of governance and miscommunications. People in multiparty negotiations can avoid these issues by choosing a leader who's willing to collaborate with others toward an agreement.

7. Adversarial negotiation An adversarial negotiation is a distributive approach in which the most aggressive party in a negotiation achieves an agreement with a manner of solving the problem. The essential elements in the Adversarial negotiation includes: a) Hard bargaining b) Future promise c) Loss of interest.

8. Tips for effective negotiation A) Use numbers instead of ranges B) Ask open-ended questions C) Perform research D) Listen during negotiation E) Aim for a win-win scenario F) Consider your timing

9. Six Habits of Merely Effective Negotiators 1) Neglecting the other side’s problem: If you don’t understand the deal from the other side’s perspective, you can’t solve his problem or yours. Example: A technology company that created a cheap, accurate way of detecting gas-tank leaks couldn’t sell its product. Why? EPA regulations permitted leaks of up to 1,500 gallons, while this new technology detected 8-ounce leaks. Fearing the device would spawn regulatory trouble, potential customers said, “No deal!”

10. Letting price bulldoze other interests Most deals involve interests besides price: • a positive working relationship, crucial in longer-term deals • the social contract, or “spirit of the deal,” including goodwill and shared expectations • the deal-making process—personal, respectful, and fair to both sides Price-centric tactics leave these potential joint gains unrealized

11. Letting positions drive out interests: Incompatible positions may mask compatible interests. Your gain isn’t necessarily your “opponent’s” loss. Example: Environmentalists and farmers opposed a power company’s proposed dam. Yet compatible interests underlay these seemingly irreconcilable positions: Farmers wanted water flow; environmentalists, wildlife protection; the power company, a greener image. By agreeing to a smaller dam, waterflow guarantees, and habitat conservation, everyone won.

12. Searching too hard for common ground While common ground helps negotiations, different interests can give each party what it values most, at minimum cost to the other. Example: An acquirer and entrepreneur disagree on the entrepreneurial company’s likely future. To satisfy their differing interests, the buyer agrees to pay a fixed amount now and contingent amount later, based on future performance. Both find the deal more attractive than walking away.

13. Neglecting BATNA BATNAs (“best alternative to a negotiated agreement”) represent your actions if the proposed deal weren’t possible; e.g., walk away, approach another buyer. Assessing your own and your partner’s BATNA reveals surprising possibilities.

14. Cont., Example: A company hoping to sell a struggling division for somewhat more than its $7 million value had two fiercely competitive bidders. Speculating each might pay an inflated price to trump the other, the seller ensured each knew its rival was looking. The division’s selling price? $45 million.

15. Failing to correct for skewed vision Two forms of bias can prompt errors: • Role bias—over committing to your own point of view and interpreting information in self-serving ways. A plaintiff believes he has a 70% chance of winning his case, while the defence puts the odds at 50%. Result? Unlikelihood of out-of-court settlement. • Partisan perceptions—painting your side with positive qualities, while vilifying your “opponent.” Self-fulfilling prophecies may result. Counteract these biases with role-plays of the opposition’s interests.