Negotiations make part of everyday interaction. Negotiations exist among friends, coworkers, customers, spouses, governments, professions, and departments. There has been substantial contribution to negotiation knowledge and skill development within the last 20 years. Most negotiation insights focus on attaining mutual gain and knowing the alternative to a mutual agreement. However, Negotiations sometimes fail. The failure to plan strategically and tactically may trigger emphasis, de-emphasis or delay. A negotiator who undermines the extent of research required for a successful negotiation is likely to fail. Again, the failure to set realistic goals and objectives attracts negative anchors. Apart from negotiations that do not materialize to an amicable agreement or an alternative cause, failure may result from a bad negotiator. Dominick Misino talks on what makes a bad negotiator. A negotiator who hates rejection denies that negativity is not always personal. Bad negotiators are likely to think that a wrongdoer is angry at them leading to faulty decisions. Misino tells that it is important to let the person vent as it pays off incredibly. In this sequence, you are likely to learn of the guy’s problem and give a knowledgeable solution. Precisely, negotiators should avoid a soft or defensive perspective while negotiating.
Active negotiations are implemented in four strategies; competition, accommodation, destruction, and collaboration. Depending on the situation, the end goal should determine the methodology adopted within any negotiation. Dominick Misino enlightens on negotiations that need collaboration, a win/win situation. While it is without intents of letting a wrongdoer walk scot-free, a negotiator wishes to resolve any crisis without destruction of life or property. Ideally, this collaboration is a win for both counterparts. This strategy intends to build trust between the participants, and possibly a mutual relationship, from which negotiators can resolve a crisis without harm. Misino states that getting a collaborative base necessitates respect, sincerity and reliability. Often, negotiations may involve extremely nasty people who require tact to defuse the situation. A polite standpoint is also crucial in solving a crisis negotiation. While it is frustrating to deal with persons that you dislike, a negotiator should always focus on the end goal of getting hostages out alive. Applied common sense also resonates well with crisis negotiation. For instance, asking a person if they want to tell the truth invokes their need to share personal information or requests. A negotiator may, therefore, get information that informs the direction to proceed with the negotiation. Furthermore, negotiations are a series of small agreements that a successful high-stakes negotiator need to learn to implement over time.
The dynamics of negotiations are also strongly influenced by whether they are intercultural or cross-cultural. This is because cross-cultural negotiations are often more difficult and challenging because they entail dealing with different if not competing ideologies, goals, values and worldviews. Research, in fact, indicates that greater levels of negotiation success are attained in inter-cultural than in cross-cultural communication. Misino underscores the reality of competing perspectives by suggesting the significantly different background of the criminal. Most criminals are not book-learned which creates a gap in the negotiation process. However, just like people from other cultures, criminals have their own strengths that we may lack such as being street smart. They can thrive and survive in environments that we would otherwise fail. Therefore, just like with people from other cultures, it is important to show during negotiations that the other side has its own dignity while trying to understand the nuances of their culture or situation.
Analyzing the other party is also one of the more important steps in the negotiation process. This can be achieved by looking at their resources, their needs, and desires, their reputation or their objectives. Through this analysis, one is able to formulate their position and develop the best alternative to what is negotiated. In fact, negotiating position is adjusted based on the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the other party. Misino also reinforces the necessity of knowing the relative position of the negotiating partner. In hostage negotiation, critical information is gotten through a variety of means such as mirroring. This entails exchanges characterized by repetitive statements and questions meant to make the criminal reveal as much information as possible. While the same tactic may not be suitable for business negotiations, the necessity of probing to find more information remains.
An interesting negotiation experience was with parents some few years ago before I acquired my driving license. I was interested in attending boxing coaching classes in a recently opened community center two times a week. My parents, though not on-board to the idea, lacked the time to drive to the center some 15 miles away owing to household and work commitments. After a period of meditation, I approached my father with the proposition that I will be maintaining a high GPA in school with receiving grades not less than an 80% in all my assignments. In return, he would commit the saved time to drive me to the center. Seeing the value proposition, and of course, given the desire to do better at school, he agreed to the offer. Just a few weeks into the deal, proving to my father that I could keep my promise. This process of give and give has often characterized our relationship since.