1) Explain with examples the applicability of the collaborative win -win and soviet

styles of negotiations, which style would you prefer? why?

In collaborative negotiation (also called constructive negotiation), the
approach is to treat the relationship as an important and valuable element.
Win-win:
The competitive approach to negotiation assumes a fixed pie, zero-sum, win-lose
situation. In collaborative negotiation, it is assumed that the pie can be enlarged
by finding things of value to both parties, thus creating a win-win situation where
both parties can leave the table feeling that they have gained something of value.
This is a fair process of negotiation. As humans we have a deep need for fairness,
and
when this does not happen, even if we emerge as winners from a
competitive negotiation, the result is not truly satisfying. The most comfortable
result from a negotiation happens when our needs are met, including the need for
fairness.
Joint problem-solving
The collaborative approach to negotiation seeks to convert individual
wants into a single problem and to bring both parties together to work on solving
this problem. By converting individual positions and wants into separated
problems, the people can be freed up from jealous and personal attachment to
their requirements so they can then take a more objective and equitable position
from which they can act in a more collaborative way.
Collaborative strategy
Being collaborative does not mean being weak and giving in. On the contrary, a
collaborative approach seeks to gain the best possible solution.
Transparency and trust
Whilst you may not give away all of your information, deceptive practices need
to be curtailed if trust is to be gained. A simple way of eliminating suspicion is to
be open and transparent, giving information before it is requested.
When the other person is competitive
The biggest dilemma occurs when the other person is acting
competitively, and will try to take advantage of your collaborative approach
(possibly seeing it as a weakness).The approach with aggressive others is to be
assertive and adult rather than fall into the fight-or-flight reaction, for example
naming attempts at deception and showing your strength whilst offering an olive
branch. A critical preparation for this is to have your fall-back alternative to a
negotiated agreement ready, and to show that you are prepared to use it.
Soviet Style:
Winning at all cost the Soviet style or the Win-Lose approach.
Following four methods are mainly used in it:
1. Extreme Initial Positions
a. Buyers low offer or a Sellers higher than market anticipations.
2. Limited Authority: The negotiator may not have final decision authority.

This is where a broker comes in handy for the Seller.

3. Stingy In Their Concessions
4. Deadlines Are Ignored
It works in environment where primarily,
1. No Continuing Relationship: There is no continuing relationship.
2. No Remorse Afterwards: The end justifying the means.
3. No Awareness by Victim: The victim must be nave, innocent and unaware.
I will prefer collaborative style of negotiation as it is a style where you get,

Long term relationshipmeans continuous business.

Emotional Satisfaction.

As it is said,
"All things being equal, people want to do business with their friends. And when
all things are NOT equal, people STILL want to do business with their friends."
5)In the organisational context how does the strategy of moving up help a
negotiator ,
illustrate with example.Analyse the applicability of such a strategy.
Also, state the risks involved in using the strategy indiscriminately.
Moving up in negotiation means going to next level if things are not turning in
your way. The technique of moving up is particularly useful when you are dealing
bureaucracy. If you find that the person you are dealing with or negotiating with has
no authority or limited authority(to accept your proposal) its better to approach the
next level.
In any organisation there is hierarchy with different authorities. Following two
points should always be remembered,
1. A person sitting at higher post has higher authority.
2. They are usually paid higher salaries to take risks which may help their
organisation.