1. What is negotiation?

The word ‘negotiation’ was defined by several sources. According to, negotiation is a bargaining (give and take) process between two or more parties (each with its own aims, needs, and viewpoints) seeking to discover a common ground and reach an agreement to settle a matter of mutual concern or resolve a conflict.

Meanwhile in her website, Maiese (2003)defined negotiation asa discussion between two or more disputants who are trying to work out a solution to their problem.

  • This interpersonal or inter-group process can occur at a personal level, as well as at a corporate or international (diplomatic) level. Negotiations typically take place because the parties wish to create something new that neither could do on his or her own, or to resolve a problem or dispute between them.
  • The parties acknowledge that there is some conflict of interest between them and think they can use some form of influence to get a better deal, rather than simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them.
  • They prefer to search for agreement rather than fight openly, give in, or break off contact.
  • When parties negotiate, they usually expect give and take. While they have interlocking goals that they cannot accomplish independently, they usually do not want or need exactly the same thing.
  • This interdependence can be either win-lose or win-win in nature, and the type of negotiation that is appropriate will vary accordingly. The disputants will either attempt to force the other side to comply with their demands, to modify the opposing position and move toward compromise, or to invent a solution that meets the objectives of all sides. The nature of their interdependence will have a major impact on the nature of their relationship, the way negotiations are conducted, and the outcomes of these negotiations.
  • Mutual adjustment is one of the key causes of the changes that occur during a negotiation. Both parties know that they can influence the other’s outcomes and that the other side can influence theirs. The effective negotiator attempts to understand how people will adjust and readjust their positions during negotiations, based on what the other party does and is expected to do.
  • The parties have to exchange information and make an effort to influence each other. As negotiations evolve, each side proposes changes to the other party’s position and makes changes to its own. This process of give-and-take and making concessions is necessary if a settlement is to be reached. If one party makes several proposals that are rejected, and the other party makes no alternate proposal, the first party may break off negotiations.
  • Parties typically will not want to concede too much if they do not sense that those with whom they are negotiating are willing to compromise.The parties must work toward a solution that takes into account each person’s requirements and hopefully optimizes the outcomes for both. As they try to find their way toward agreement, the parties focus on interests, issues, and positions, and use cooperative and/or competitive processes to come to an agreement.


  1. What are the negotiation styles? Explain!

There are 5 types of negotiating styles that are described by Dr. Kenneth W. Thomas and Dr. Ralph H. Kilmann:

  1. Competing (I win – You lose)

This is one of the most used styles in negotiating. This style is primarily concerned with only on their own needs. They often use a variety of tactics, some those tactics are manipulative such as attacks, threats, and other aggressive behavior to achieve their objectives. Their concern for the relationship is low.This style is most effective when results are needed quickly, or you are certain there is no room for negotiation.

  1. Accommodating (I Lose – You Win)
    This style of negotiation is all about the relationship with the other party. Negotiators, who follows this style believes that in order to get what they want, they have to give everything to the other party and maybe they will do the same thing in return. But often, negotiator of this kind, give away too much too soon and tend to neglect their needs in favor of helping the other side get what they want. Examples of this style are when a person knowingly injures another person and willingly offers to pay all medical expenses hoping the injured party does not sue.
  2. Compromising (I Lose / Win Some – You Lose/ Win Some)

This style is common when both of the negotiating parties have a strong relationship and high level of trust. Compromising style is also common when there is a short period of time in making the decision. This style values the relationship and acknowledges that there is a loss but it is better to compromise then completely lose. A compromising style results in both parties getting more or less half of what they originally wanted. This style should not be confused with Collaborating (I win – You win).

  1. Collaborating (I Win – You Win)
    In the Collaborative style, the negotiators are innovators. They recognize that both parties have needs that must be met and focuses on using problem solving methods to find creative solutions and satisfactory agreements. Negotiators with this style, tend to be assertive about their needs and cooperative with the other side. It needs to be recognized that this style of negotiating is somewhat wonderful ideological because in reality it is high on resources and time.
  2. Avoiding (I Lose – You Lose)
    This style can be called as the ‘passive aggressive style’. The user of this style is unassertive and uncooperative. They do not immediately pursue their own concerns or the other parties nor do they ever address the conflict. This style is characterized by sidestepping, postponing, and ignoring the issue or situation. While this is in play, mutual resentment builds and cracks to total breakdown of the relationship may occur. But, this style can be useful when the stakes of a negotiated outcome are not worth the investment of time or the potential for igniting conflict. Moreover, it is effective when avoidance of the situation or issue does not greatly affect the relationship and short term task is not important to either party.


  1. Explain the negotiation process!

Steps of the Negotiation Process

The negotiation process can essentially be understood as a four-stage process. The four stages of the negotiation process are preparation, opening, bargaining and closure.

Stage 1: Preparation

Preparation is instrumental to the success of the negotiation process. Being well-prepared generates confidence and gives an edge to the negotiator. Preparation involves the following activities:

(i) Gathering Information: One needs to learn as much as one can about the problem and ascertain what information is needed from the other side. Understanding clearly the issues involved is also needed.

(ii)  Leverage Evaluation: Evaluation of one’s leverage and the other party’s leverage at the outset is important because there may be a number of things one can do to improve one’s leverage or diminish the leverage of the other side.

(iii)  Understand the people involved: It is important to know the people with whom the negotiation is to take place. An understanding of their objectives, roles and the issues likely to be raised by them will facilitate better handling of the situation during the negotiation process.

(iv) Rapport: It is helpful to establish a rapport with the opponent during the early stages, that is, before the bargaining process begins is helpful. This was, one can determine early on how cooperative the opponent is going to be.

(v) Know your objectives: Clarity of objectives is absolutely essential. It needs to be decided in advance how much you are willing to concede to the opponent and what your priorities are. All arguments and justifications should be ready.

(vi) Type of negotiation: Anticipate the type of negotiation expected, that is, ascertain whether it will be highly competitive, cooperative or something unusual; whether the negotiation will be face to face, by fax, through a mediator, or in some other manner.

(vii) Plan: Decide on the negotiation approach and plan accordingly.

Stage 2: Opening Phase

Here the two sides come face to face. Each party tries to make an impression on the other side and influence their thinking at the first opportunity. Psychologically, this phase is important because it sets the tone for the negotiation to a large extent. It involves both negotiating parties presenting their case to each other.

Stage 3: Bargaining Phase

The bargaining phase involves coming closer to the objective you intended to achieve when you started the negotiation. In this phase, the basic strategy is to convince the other side of the appropriateness of your demands and then persuading the other party to concede to those demands. For this, one needs to be logical in one’s approach and frame clearly-thought-out and planned arguments.

Stage 4: Closure Phase

The closing phase of a negotiation represents the opportunity to capitalize on all of the work done in the earlier phases. The research that has been done in the preparation phase, combined with all of the information that has been gained is useful in the closing phase. It also involves the sealing of the agreement in which both parties formalize the agreement in a written contract or letter of intent. Reviewing the negotiation is as important as the negotiation process itself. It teaches lessons on how to achieve a better outcome. Therefore, one should take the time to review each element and find out what went well and what needs to be improved.

  1. What are the characteristics of negotiation?



The negotiation is presented as an activity of change, a meeting sponsored by the parties. These players can represent their own interests or defend the interests of a group, the role of negotiators in the latter case is much more complex due to the implementation of the mandate and expectations about their behavior on the one hand, and the need for agreement another, depending for that confidence margin were told. This situation generates what is called dual membership.


The meeting between the parties is a voluntary process designed to resolve differences. The voluntary nature of it means that the parties may choose to join or not the process to settle their differences and accept any outcome.

There is always the desire not to agree, but sometimes incurring heavy losses for both sides, precisely to avoid the encounter is promoted because the protagonists depend on a decision that involves them, which a priori is not taken when deliberating, this is because there is a range of views regarding this decision that concerns them.

In this sense, negotiation is a joint exercise of decision-making, generally , we would say that the negotiations preceding a potential conflict precisely intervening to end hostilities.


As for where scoping exercises , we see that negotiation occurs in all kinds of social system contributing to its continuity. In any social system, even in the most repressive, the established order is always a negotiated order in so far as the decision of a party involves the agreement of other parties who have some power over the first. This phenomenon is found in all models of society as a way of permanent connection. Negotiation enables articulate, organize and perpetuate various forms of social interaction, nations negotiate as do governments, employers and trade unions, parents and children.As noted Chalvin, negotiation emerges as one of the last attempts to maintain social connections .


In the dynamics of the negotiation are involved the concepts of divergence and cooperation. The effort to resolve their differences and reach a decision on the distribution of resources among the parties involved embark on a social relationship in which both together common and divergent interests, where the parties have simultaneously confronted with incentives to cooperate and incentives to compete.

Through negotiation, the parties resolve the dilemma competition – cooperation while maintaining or improving their positions and thereby protecting it from other groups or individuals. They get so keep conflict within acceptable limits, trading in this sense is not a debate, it’s a conversation without order.

Negotiating conflict is playing cooperation, the product of negotiation is formalized in terms of commitment representing roughly calculated result of a series of reciprocal concessions.


Is required in any case of a power relationship between the parties to the negotiations for this result arises. This relationship can be statutory order, the standard hierarchical can say who must negotiate and who is not.

The standard may be charismatic staff, may represent that power in their area (the oldest place). It can be as a phenomenon of competence on the matter. You can also represent someone who is the result of an alliance of interests between the parties.

As noted Chalvin, it is necessary to negotiate when the reasons do not require power, we would say that is not traded on principle, negotiations with a given situation of the parties .

Without any power relationship between the parties one of the parties could take unilaterally imposed obligation to the other. When the power of one is greater than the other negotiation has no reason to be and will be replaced by domination.

  • Interdependence RELATIONSHIP

According to social exchange theory of Thibaut and Kelly, dependency exists when an actor results are determined by interpolation between their behavior and that of others. Based on this principle suggests that negotiation arises from two circumstances :

The scarcity of resources creates competition among those who need the same resources on one side and the other an unequal allocation of itself that creates the need for exchange between the parties the different resources needed by each. This theory has also been studied by BACARACH LAWLER .

Rubbin, summarizes the character of relationships in defining negotiation that negotiation is ultimately the very interdependence of the parties.


Trading relations between the parties, involving efforts to influence perception and the other party assessment of the situation made ​​by tactics such demands, threats, concessions, promises, in fact each party uses its perceptual abilities to disrupt the opponent’s tactics, while the latter conveys the impression you created. The critical tactical. Is to manipulate the perception of power through tactics such as exaggeration, the boasts and argumentation.

The negotiation about creating a mutually acceptable definition of the relationship of power that will be the most beneficial way possible for each. At the end of the process each party is motivated to comply with mirror image received from the other party.

Each actor, you need two sets of skills to persuade the other hand the direction of boast. On the one hand the need to project or put in the place of another and otherwise pose a situation consistent with self – projected image.


If negotiation is an encounter between the protagonists, the result of confrontation during a deviation observed, requires each party holds a target to attack and leeway to reduce divergences.

It is necessary to have resources for concessions, a situation typical of negotiation is to be tactically prepared. Armed with arguments from the competitive and the cooperative aspect concessions.


The negotiation is replaced by one side in the existence of cooperation for the sake of the survival of the system. On the other hand in maximizing the goals and interests of each party. This individual desire to maximize the interests and collective desire to achieve an equitable, cooperative aspect involves a conflict of the parameters involved.

In this respect the loyalty and organizational integration are key elements sought to develop consensus ideology by advocating that the survival needs of the negotiation is binding on all the others and that each party has to avoid instability and maximize loyalty for the bargaining power is strong, consistent and durable.


The pattern of relations during the negotiation is sequential rather than simultaneous . The whole point is that given sequential assessment exchanges, decision, down to an acceptable result.

  1. Explain the positive & negative effects in negotiation!

Positive :

  • Having more confidence and higher tendencies to plan to use a cooperative strategy
  • Negotiators who are in a positive mood tend to enjoy the interaction more, show less contentious behavior, use less aggressive tactics and more cooperative strategies
  • Negotiators with positive affectivity reached more agreements and tended to honor those agreements more.
  • Increasing satisfaction with achieved outcome and influences one’s desire for future interactions.

negative :

  • Competitive strategies and to cooperate less can reduce joint outcomes.
  • Anger disrupts the process by reducing the level of trust, clouding parties’ judgment, narrowing parties’ focus of attention and changing their central goal from reaching agreement to retaliating against the other side.
  • If the negotiators is angry and pay less attention to the opponents’ interest, it achieves lower joint gains.
  • Because anger makes negotiators more self-centered in their preferences, it increases the likelihood that they will reject profitable offers.





Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:


You are commenting using your account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout /  Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout /  Ubah )


Connecting to %s