Free Paper Sample on Negotiations

Introduction

When an individual identifies procedures and goals in the discussion, there are three essential points that he or she should remember. Firstly, they should be open to the reason for the appropriate standards and how to apply them. Secondly, never vintage to stress but principles. Finally, they should frame all the issues as a mutual search for impartial standards.Reason and be open to reason. In most negotiations, individuals use models and other impartial standards basically as arguments in supporting a position. Using such standards usually digs individuals deeper into their roles in the negotiation.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Remain Fair

A principled negotiator can hold his or her way and remain fair at the end of the deal. This bargaining ends when the other side does not budge and advance its persuasive basis. During a negotiation, an individual should act as a judge even though they may be inclined on one side. Someone should be ready and willing to reply to motives that make them apply another standard or apply a customary differently. This is because, in cases, there two criteria like depreciation cost and market value that produce different results. However, a principled negotiator is always open to reasoned conversion on the virtues, whereas a positioned bargainer is not. The combination of frankness to a resolution established on detached criteria makes principled negotiators much convincing and operative at making the other side play.

Shifting of Deliberations

Never yield to pressure. Shifting of deliberations in a negotiation as of the query of whatever the other side is eager to ensure to the request of the way the problem ought to be concluded does not pledge a promising result or ends the argument. However, it provides a strategy an individual can strongly follow without experiencing high prices of positional negotiating. In this intellect, moral arbitration is a prevailing approach over the positional negotiation. There are pressures of many types; threats, bribes, controlled requests to conviction, or subtle snub to budge. These pressures are used to persuade the other side to join in defense. The moral response to all these cases is similar.

What if they are more powerful? In some cases, there is no need for negotiation if the other side has a powerful bargaining influence. There is no secure success negotiation if the leverage lies on one side. There are existing realities that are hard to adjust to any talks. In response to power, any negotiator should meet two intents in such a case; fist, to help them make much from the assets they have to ensure any agreement, they satisfy their well-being. Secondly, to defend themselves against making agreements that they are going to regret.

Protecting Yourself

In some situations, individuals worry that they may not agree to important deals that they maybe have invested to a long time. In such a case, people avoid losing the agreement by accepting the other side's views to end the deal. It gives people a chance to gain an understanding that they could have rejected.

Conclusion

Most of the negotiators protect themselves from such consequences by accepting the outcomes of the outcome. Using the bottom line, it is easy to resist temptations and pressure in a negotiation. This reduces the limits of authority, such as brokers, lawyers, and agents. Using the bottom line also hinders imagination. It decreases the enticement of tailor-made solutions that would reconcile opposing interests. However, the protection offered by the use of the method is costly.