Think About Prior Negotiation Scenario In Your Own Life

Think About Aprior Negotiation Scenario In Your Own Life

Think about a prior negotiation scenario in your own life, something professional or personal that you've experienced in the past that did not end 100% the way you wanted it to end. Examples include purchasing a vehicle, deciding how many children you wanted with a partner, selling a business, getting a job, etc. Share your scenario with the class per the prompt and format below. Italics are there as directions to you, the student and may be deleted prior to submission. Your posts will be evaluated based on their alignment to the principles in GTY (Getting to Yes), writing quality, and the creativity and thorough quality in your responses to others.

Note: this is a “post-first” discussion so until you post, you will not see your colleagues’ posts. The Problem: Describe narratively what happened in this negotiation scenario through the new GTY lens. Separate the People from the Problem: Discuss the perspectives of each side and identify the joint problem. Focus on Interests, Not Positions: Identify the Interests of each side and describe them in an objective way, e.g. “the interests of the construction company are to complete a quality job quickly, efficiently, cost-effectively, and to preserve their reputation for safety and reliability in the community.” Invent Options for Mutual Gain: What options do you see for mutual gain in your scenario? Insist on Using Objective Criteria: Following the steps in Chapter 5, list some objective criteria that both parties could have used to move forward in the negotiation. How could using the steps above have changed or how do you suspect they will change the outcome of your negotiation scenario? Here's the key - how could GTY techniques have helped you in that scenario?

Paper For Above instruction

Narrative of a Negotiation Scenario Prior to applying GTY Principles

Several years ago, I was involved in negotiating the purchase of a used car from a private seller. The negotiation did not reach a mutually satisfying conclusion, primarily due to misunderstandings and a lack of structured negotiation techniques. This scenario serves as an insightful example for applying the principles outlined in "Getting to Yes" (GTY), emphasizing the importance of separating the people from the problem, focusing on interests, and utilizing objective criteria.

To understand this negotiation through the GTY lens, I will first outline the initial circumstances. I approached the seller with the intent to purchase a reliable vehicle within my budget, prioritizing safety, fuel efficiency, and affordability. The seller, on the other hand, aimed to maximize the sale price, emphasizing the car’s features and recent maintenance records. The initial interaction was somewhat tense, with both parties advocating for their positions without fully understanding each other's interests. I was focused on negotiating a lower price, whereas the seller wanted to receive as much as possible. Recognizing this, I now see that this conflict was rooted in both parties' positions rather than underlying interests.

Applying the GTY framework, the first step involves separating the people from the problem. In my case, the seller and I had a transactional relationship that became personal due to misunderstandings and emotional investments. We both had perceptions of being fair or unfair, which heightened tensions. Understanding that the core issue was not about personalities but about prices and perceptions could have facilitated a more collaborative approach.

Next, identifying each side’s interests revealed that I needed a reliable, fuel-efficient vehicle at a fair price, while the seller’s primary interest was a swift sale at a good price. These interests could have been transformed into shared goals—securing a fair price that reflected the vehicle's value and verifying this value through objective measures. This approach aligns with the GTY principle of focusing on interests rather than positions, which fosters a more flexible and problem-solving mindset.

Inventing options for mutual gain involved considering various alternatives like performing a pre-sale inspection, mutually agreeing on a fair market value based on recent sales data, or agreeing on a price that incorporated potential future repairs. For example, both parties could have agreed to have the vehicle inspected by an independent mechanic and use the inspection report as an objective criterion to set the final price. By focusing on objective criteria, such as market value, condition reports, and comparable sales, the negotiation could have shifted from bargaining over subjective perceptions to an evidence-based agreement.

Insisting on using objective criteria involves establishing standards that both parties consider fair and independent of each other's bargaining power. These might include recent sales prices for similar vehicles, the vehicle’s condition, and industry valuation guides. Incorporating these standards would have minimized the influence of emotional biases and power imbalances, making the negotiation more transparent and equitable.

Implementing GTY principles could have drastically changed the outcome of my negotiation. Instead of getting entrenched in positional bargaining, I could have engaged in a joint problem-solving effort centered on the shared goal of fair valuation. Employing objective criteria would have provided a logical foundation to justify the price adjustments, and emphasizing interests would have fostered mutual understanding and cooperation rather than conflict. Ultimately, these techniques promote trust, clarity, and fair outcomes that benefit both parties.

In conclusion, the application of "Getting to Yes" principles to my past negotiation experience demonstrates the value of separating people from the problem, focusing on interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and insisting on objective criteria. These strategies help shift the negotiation from adversarial bargaining to collaborative problem-solving, leading to more satisfactory and sustainable agreements.

References

• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin.
• Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2015). Negotiation (7th edition). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Thompson, L. (2015). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations. Bantam Books.
• Pinkley, R. L., & Boyer, K. K. (2005). Beyond bargaining: Negotiating for mutual gain. Psychology Press.
• Carnevale, P. J., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation in social conflict. Open University Press.
• Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press.
• Fisher, R., & Shapiro, D. (2005). Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. Viking.
• Thompson, L. (2009). The Truth About Negotiations. Harper Business.