NEGOTIATION

INTRODUCTION

People usually settle disagreements through negotiation. According to this approach, disputes
and fights are avoided in order to find a solution. The secret to success is the notion of fairness,
the pursuit of mutual gain, and the maintenance of connections. It's generally agreed upon that
negotiation is a non-binding procedure in which the parties communicate with one another
without the involvement of a third party in order to reach a mutually agreeable resolution to the
particular disagreement at hand. Thus, bargaining is a method for regulating interpersonal
interactions. It is a fundamental human action that sociable animals engage in. We negotiate
because we are social animals and because it is essential to our daily activities.

ESSENTIALS

Negotiation is described as a communication between parties with the goal of coming to a

mutually satisfactory solution. It is a method when parties sit down together, evaluate the
advantages and drawbacks of a settlement, and then decide on a course of action that will benefit
everyone rather than fighting among themselves.

Although there are certain essentials of negotiation which are as follows -

1. It is a form of communication.
2. It resolves disputes.
3. It is an additional exercise.
4. The outcome and the procedure remain within the parties' control.
5. It is claimed that this process is non-binding.
6. There is a possibility to maximise shared benefits that benefit all parties and to achieve
effective solutions.

TYPES -

DISTRIBUTIVE NEGOTIATION -
Distribution discussions, often known as hard bargaining or situational negotiating, make an
effort to divide the "fixed pie" of particular benefits. Distributive talks are those that are taking
place on a zero-sum basis, meaning that any gains achieved by one side come at the expense of
the other and vice versa. Because it is thought that one person's benefit is the other person's loss,
distributive exchanges are frequently referred to as win-lose. According to the distributive
strategy, each negotiator strives to take home the biggest possible piece of the pie, therefore the
parties push one another to adopt a tougher stance than the other. However, the Prospect Theory
suggests that since people are less willing to take risks and do more harm than good, concession-
convergence bargaining is more likely to be acrimonious and less likely to result in an
agreement.

INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION -

Integrated negotiation is also known as interest-based negotiation or princely negotiation. It is

referred to as a set of approaches that seek to increase the quality and likelihood of contact by
capitalizing on the fact that different parties frequently value distinct outcomes differently. While
the sharing negotiation implies that the parties have a set quantity of value (a "fixed pie"),
integrated negotiation attempts to produce value during the negotiation ("grow the pie") would
either "compensate for the loss." With the advantage of one thing over another ("trade-offs" or
logrolling), or by generating or reframing conflict problems such that both parties' profit ("win-
win" negotiations).

NEGOTIATION PIE -

The phrase conversation pie refers to the total number of benefits and drawbacks that can be
conveyed in a discussion. During the dialogue, these values may grow, decrease, or remain
constant. If the negotiating parties are able to increase the total pie, then a win-win situation is
achievable, given that both sides gain from the increased pie size. In practise, however, the so-
called small pie bias, or a psychological minimising of the size of the interaction pie, imposes
this maximal strategy. Similarly, because of the so-called inconsistency bias, the probability of
enlarging the pie might be underestimated. In addition to growing, the pie might shrink
throughout a conversation. Because of the high bargaining expenses.
The 5 Stages of the Negotiation Process -
While there are many approaches to negotiation tactics, there are five common steps that most
effective negotiations follow to achieve a successful outcome.
1. Prepare: Negotiation preparation is easy to ignore, but it’s a vital first stage of the
negotiating process. To prepare, research both sides of the discussion, identify any
possible trade-offs, determine your most-desired and least-desired possible outcomes.
Then, make a list of what concessions you’re willing to put on the bargaining table,
understand who in your organization has the decision-making power, know the
relationship that you want to build or maintain with the other party, and prepare your
BATNA (“best alternative to a negotiated agreement”). Preparation can also include the
definition of the ground rules: determining where, when, with whom, and under what time
constraints the negotiations will take place.
2. Exchange information: This is the part of the negotiation when both parties exchange their
initial positions. Each side should be allowed to share their underlying interests and concerns
uninterrupted, including what they aim to receive at the end of the negotiation and why they feel
the way they do.
3. Clarify: During the clarification step, both sides continue the discussion that they began when
exchanging information by justifying and bolstering their claims. If one side disagrees with
something the other side is saying, they should discuss that disagreement in calm terms to reach
a point of understanding.
4. Bargain and problem-solve: This step is the meat of the process of negotiation, during which
both sides begin a give-and-take. After the initial first offer, each negotiating party should
propose different counter-offers for the problem, all the while making and managing their
concessions. During the bargaining process, keep your emotions in check the best negotiators use
strong verbal communication skills (active listening and calm feedback; in face-to-face
negotiation, this also includes body language). The goal of this step is to emerge with a win-win
outcome—a positive course of action.
5. Conclude and implement: Once an acceptable solution has been agreed upon, both sides
should thank each other for the discussion, no matter the outcome of the negotiation; successful
negotiations are all about creating and maintaining good long-term relationships. Then they
should outline the expectations of each party and ensure that the compromise will be
implemented effectively. This step often includes a written contract and a follow-up to confirm
the implementation is going smoothly.

MODELS OF NEGOTIATION -

A skilled negotiator will constantly be aware of the best and worst options for the negotiation
process or settlement he is trying to reach. A negotiator is required to learn about and debate the
Best Alternative to Negotiated Arrangement (BATNA) and the Worst Alternative to Negotiated
Arrangement (WATNA) at every stage of the negotiation. He must at least be aware of it, even
in situations when he does not address it. Such comprehension will enable him to navigate the
challenges in the right way. The most effective techniques for assessing the same result are
BATNA and WATNA.

WIN LOOSE OR LOOSE WIN - A zero-sum game is another name for the circumstance where
you win-lose or lose-win.

LOOSE-LOOSE MODEL - It is said that neither party achieves their needs or wants when there
is a lose-lose situation.

WIN WIN MODEL - The outcome of a negotiation does not necessarily indicate that one party
won and the other lost. The best case scenario for practically all talks is a win-win scenario
where both parties benefit. Effective negotiators strike a balance between the goals of each party
to produce a win-win result.

NO OUTCOME - No result, or no winner or loser, is the fourth potential consequence of an

encounter. Negotiators cannot reach an agreement that is acceptable to both sides in this
circumstance, thus the best course of action is to end the negotiation and look for a new partner.
Some individuals view the absence of a solution as either a victory or a failure. When this
happens, a win-win outcome occurs when both parties locate a new dealer, however a lose-lose
scenario sees both parties squander their valuable time in talks while still trying to find a new
dealer. There is a limit to how much sacrifice can be made in every debate. It could make sense
to leave in some circumstances. The negotiator must make clear why they are leaving the table
before approaching it. By doing this, they can avoid missing out on a terrible offer.

RADPAC MODEL OF NEGOTIATION -

This RADPAC model of negotiation is said to be a widely used model of negotiation.
Each alphabet of this model represents something like:
R – Rapport.
A – Analysis.
D – Debate.
P – Propose.
A – Agreement.
C – Close.
RAPPORT - It refers to the relationship between the persons engaged in the discourse, as the
name implies. The persons engaging in the talk should ideally be at ease with one another and
have a good rapport.

ANALYSIS - One side should have a thorough understanding of the other. It is critical that
people understand each other's needs and interests. The shopkeeper must grasp the client's
demands and wallets, and the consumer must not neglect the shopkeeper's earnings. People
should pay close attention to one another.

DEBATE - With conversation, everything is possible. The parties engaged will talk about
problems during this round. In this step, an idea's benefits and drawbacks are assessed. People
dispute with one another and strive to justify their positions. During this time, one should not
lose his temper but rather keep his composure.

PROPOSE - In this round, everyone puts up their finest suggestion and makes every effort to
think of the greatest solution that will be agreed.

AGREEMENT - At this point, people reach a consensus and choose the best course of action.

CLOSE - The discussion is over, and the participants leave happy.

MEDIATION

INTRODUCTION

A typical definition of mediation is "A voluntary procedure through which parties to a

disagreement negotiate to reach a resolution agreeable to both sides, in the presence of a neutral
third-party." Mediation is a voluntary procedure. As a result, no party can be intimidated into
taking part in the process. In light of this, if we examine the notion of implying instances where
intervention is required, it looks repetitious and undermines the fundamental foundation of the
intercession method.

BENEFITS OF MEDIATION -

In the mediation process, resolving conflicts not only saves money but also lessens the workload
of the court, settles conflicts amicably, and improves the mental health of the parties.

The following is a list of some of the advantages of mediation -

Controlling Power: The mediation process gives the parties more influence over the outcome.
In contrast to a court of law, where the parties have little input and are required to accept the
decision rendered, no settlement can be imposed on the parties.

Confidentiality - It is typically seen in court processes that crucial case material, such as
evidence, facts, etc., is frequently made public. But throughout the mediation process, case
details are kept private. The mediator and the other parties maintain confidentiality regarding the
case's records, facts, and other pertinent information.

Economical - As was previously said, the mediation procedure is quite affordable when
compared to concept of going through a legal system to resolve the conflict. This is due to the
mediation procedure.is quick, and the cost of a mediator is far lower than the expense of an
attorney. The cost of engaging the mediator may be split between the parties.

Convenient - This technique entails setting up the case's proceedings at the location and a place
where confidential joint meetings can be held at a time that is convenient for both parties. The
mediator then makes an effort to lead the parties to a resolution and promote settlement.

Speedy - While a lawsuit-related disagreement might be settled in a matter of months or even

years, a mediation-related dispute can be settled in a matter of days or weeks. This suggests that
mediation offers quick dispute resolution.

Informal - In contrast to a court-related conflict, which is subject to a wide variety of regulations

and limitations, mediation is more informal and gives the parties a bit more opportunity to
participate in their case. The mediator interacts with the parties directly, allowing him to better
understand their disagreements as well as their needs and interests.

Mutuality - Parties to a mediation are more receptive to the other party's position because they
are persuadable to jointly working toward a solution. This promotes the reestablishment of the
parties' connection and settles the conflict in a way that benefits both parties equally.