Negotiator Concern for Relationship and Goal

Question: Describe about the Negotiator's Concern for Relationship and Goal? Answer: Introduction: Negotiation is referred to a proper social process through which all interdependent people along with their conflicting interests actually determine the way in which they are also going to assign resources otherwise work together for the future. This is also a social process as people must actually interact with each other for the achievement and attainment of their actual and desired outcomes. Usually, negotiation also was viewed like a argumentative process which is also a battle amid the adversaries. Although few people still hold such beliefs, as well as this approach yet exists attitudes plus even evidence are altering day by day. Negotiation also is now seen widely like a proper collaborative process which is utilized to find best solutions intended for everyone who is involved in the situation. It is in reality a procedures through which two parties arrive at a mutual decision which is beneficial in some or the other way to both the parties. Domination of any one party can ham per the process of negotiation. a) Scenario 1- Accommodating style- This style actually will indicate the willingness towards meeting needs and requirements of the other party at expense of person's self needs. Here I am the accommodator and being this I know the place when to actually give in to the other party, but this can also be persuaded towards surrendering a position when it actually is not properly warranted. I am being highly assertive and greatly cooperative. I will try to understand the arguments given by my employer as I want to maintain a good long run relation with him (Lagnado Shanks, 2007). Accommodation also is appropriate at the time when issues matter extra to other party otherwise when peace also is extra valuable than the winning case, or when one person wants to get in the position towards collecting on "favor" that other provides. Winning here does not supplies all happiness to either of the parties rather coming down to a conclusion where a relation will be appropriately maintained would contend the part ies more. Since I am negotiating with an employer I will apply accommodating conflict where I believe that being agreeable is extra vital than winning the situation. Here I will try to maximize empathy and minimize assertiveness. In such type of strategy I will derive a proper satisfaction for myself and will also meet my own needs and requirements. Since I am indulged in job negotiation I also dont want to loose the job for silly reasons. I merely want to negotiate so that I can earn as much as I can. Here I am also perceptive as well as intuitive about the emotional state and even is able to detect the subtle verbal as well as non verbal cues. I also tend to carry a good relation with my employer and actually never will afford sourness in my relation if carried further. Thus this strategy will be very fit for me as it carries several positive characteristics like: Help in maintenance of my relation with my employer on long run Support me in coming down to a mutual decision without hampering my relationship and my image (Oye Esvelt, 2014) Will enable me to somehow convince the employer and bring the ball into my court. b) Scenario 2- Competitive conflict style- Some people who actually tend towards the competitive style also take a very firm stand and strict decision and also understand as well as properly know what they in reality want. They even usually function from the position of the authority and power which is drawn from something like the position and rank, expertise as well as persuasive capability (Pedler, 1976). Such a style can also be very useful at the time when there exist an emergency as well as a decision has to be immediately made; when decision is also very unpopular; or also when the defending against some person who is even trying to develop situation selfishly. Moreover it can also leave people with a feeling of getting bruised, unsatisfied as well as resentful while used in lower urgent conditions. Since I am with a car dealer and have many choices of car dealers in the local area I will apply the strategy of competitive conflict style as it would help me to maximize assertiveness as well as minimize the empathy. Being a competitive type I will be capable of enjoying negotiation and will be capable of dominating and controlling the communication. Since many choices are available tome easily I can dominate the seller as my bargaining power has automatically risen up. This strategy will also help me to pay less attention towards the relation underlying the dispute as I do not have to carry this relation with the seller further for long run (Russell, n.d.). I strongly feel that this is a lose-win situation and I actually do not want to lose it because I also feel that this same car might not be found in other outlets. This strategy has several characteristics: The strategy will make me fall into winning situation where I would be able to dominate the seller as there are number of sellers available in the location. The buyer can put pressure on the seller to sell the product in the price quoted by the buyer. The strategy will help the buyer attain his aims and goals (FLOWER, 1996) c) Halo effect can be perceptual distortion in this case. The candidate might have negotiated and has won and such situation before and also is applying the same concept here as well. When I take such a shortcut, I will actually carry an impression that also might have in reality been created in any such condition before (Mills Oneal, 1971). Recency effect can be distortion taking place in this case as I am feeling that I will get the same car in every outlet but maybe I would not succeed in the process of attaining the car of the same type. This might later leave me unhappy as I might not find the same quality everywhere (Natarajan, n.d.). Cognitive biasesrefer to tendencies towards thinking in convinced ways that could also lead to the systematic divergence from any standard ofthe rationalityotherwise good judgment (Koele, 1992). There are several cognitive biasness: Confirmation Bias- People actually tend to agree with people who agree with them. In the first scenario since the negotiation is taking place amid a candidate and an employer. Actually it is the preferential mode of the behavior which leads to such bias named as confirmation bias which is the often unconscious action of the referencing merely to those whose perspectives actually fuel the other parties pre-existing thinking, while at same time paying simply no attention to the speaker or discharging his opinions also threaten own world view (Besharov, n.d.). Thus this bias will obviously help the candidate in first scenario to deal with his problems and come down to a mutual conclusion which would help both the candidate as well as the employer. The decision taken here will help both the parties in mutual negotiation and of course both can attain the advantage of the decision as the seller will be able to sell at profitable rate thereby convincing the buyer and making him pay somethin g extra. Neglecting Probability- This can be another situation that might take place in the second scenario where I am willing to buy a second hand car in a location where numerous sellers of second hand car exist. Here obviously my bargaining power is very high but the seller with whom I am currently bargaining might be charging higher price due to the better quality that he is providing me. Later I might confront a situation where I may find that other sellers in the local area are supplying lower quality car (Aberegg, 2012). But in this case I am neglecting this probability and continuing with the negotiation. Also since second hand car is being bought there are chances of inner damage and some unseen harms in the car for which I am actually paying a vast amount. Ignoring this probability I am interested in buying the car. This situation is called neglecting the probability. Taking decision in such a situation will obviously be a hectic task for me yet I need to react very carefully and pe rform as per my actual decisions. Conclusion: In both the above situations, both parties need to act patiently and calmly and thus try to sort out the issue mutually because people reacting negatively often tend to throw the ball in others court. Thus this interaction needs to be very calm and demands lot of patient and proper understanding of both the parties for solving the issue appropriately. In a nutshell here lies the details regarding the negotiation and bargaining and also facts related to types of negotiation stratifies that can be applied in both the situations and help to solve the issue. References Aberegg, S. (2012). Cognitive Biases or Inadequate Searching?. Chest, 141(6), 1636. doi:10.1378/chest.11-3248 Besharov, G. Second-best Considerations in Correcting Cognitive Biases. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.381300 Chen, E., Mallinckrodt, B. (2002). Attachment, group attraction and self-other agreement in interpersonal circumplex problems and perceptions of group members. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, And Practice, 6(4), 311-324. doi:10.1037//1089-2699.6.4.311 Crump, L. (2011). Negotiation Process and Negotiation Context. International Negotiation, 16(2), 197-227. doi:10.1163/138234011x573011 FLOWER, L. (1996). Negotiating the Meaning of Difference. Written Communication, 13(1), 44-92. doi:10.1177/0741088396013001004 Hasle, F. (1983). Bargaining: Power, Tactics, and Outcomes. Academy Of Management Review, 8(1), 163-163. doi:10.5465/amr.1983.4287745 Kanning, A., Kanning, W. Fairness Preferences in Distributive Bargaining. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1796684 Kerkhoff, G. (2000). Multiple perceptual distortions and their modulation in leftsided visual neglect. Neuropsychologia, 38(7), 1073-1086. doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00140-2 Koele, P. (1992). Cognitive biases. Acta Psychologica, 81(1), 89-91. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(92)90015-6 Lagnado, D., Shanks, D. (2007). Dual concerns with the dualist approach. Behavioral And Brain Sciences, 30(03). doi:10.1017/s0140525x0700180x Lagnado, D., Shanks, D. (2007). Dual concerns with the dualist approach. Behavioral And Brain Sciences, 30(03). doi:10.1017/s0140525x0700180x Mills, J., Oneal, E. (1971). Anticipated choice, attention, and halo effect. Psychon Sci, 22(4), 231-233. doi:10.3758/bf03332586 Natarajan, R. Halo Effect in Trust. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1137885 Negotiation Journal:On the Process of Dispute Settlement. (1999). Negotiation Journal, 15(4), 198-199. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.1999.tb00727.x Oye, K., Esvelt, K. (2014). Gene drives raise dual-use concerns--Response. Science, 345(6200), 1010-1011. doi:10.1126/science.345.6200.1010-c Pedler, M. (1976). A Conflict Resolution Style Scale. Management Learning, 7(1), 34-41. doi:10.1177/135050767600700107 Roemer, J. (1986). The Mismarriage of Bargaining Theory and Distributive Justice. ETHICS, 97(1), 88. doi:10.1086/292819 Russell, A. Personal Conflict Style and How We Engage in Conflict. SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2319990 Savage, G., Blair, J., Sorenson, R. (1989). Consider Both Relationships and Substance When Negotiating Strategically. Academy Of Management Executive, 3(1), 37-48. doi:10.5465/ame.1989.4277149 Strauss, G., Bacharach, S., Lawler, E. (1982). Bargaining: Power, Tactics, and Outcomes. Industrial And Labor Relations Review, 36(1), 124. doi:10.2307/2522298