Definition of Negotiation谈判的定义.doc

Definition of Negotiation谈判的定义Negotiating is part of everyday life. You negotiate far more than you realize. In a business or an administrative position, you do so when youre dependent upon others for getting your ideas accepted, your goals accomplished or your problems solved. You also negotiate on how tasks, rights and responsibilities, resources and risks, and monetary gains and losses should be assigned or divided up.Negotiation is a cooperative undertaking, in which you and the opposing party attempt constructively to find solutions that satisfy both your needs. Successful cooperation results in solutions that are more cost-effective and involve less risk. The needs of others and the needs of the environment are more likely to be given consideration. Negotiator of Two Extremes两种极端的谈判者We not only negotiate to solve problems, but also how to divide up responsibilities and work, as well as the distribution of costs, risks, profits and gains. Accomplishing this successfully places special demands on you as a negotiator. You need to be businesslike. This requires your finding a happy balance between two extreme behaviors, that of being naive, and that of being greedy.A naive negotiator gives away too many advantages and too much potential profit. He accepts too much of the work and responsibility, and too many of the risks. Thus, a naive negotiator is expensive for the organization. He is easily taken advantage of. Even the parties he negotiates for many have little trust in him.A greedy negotiator wants to get everything without being willing to give. He is unable to accept the idea of the other party gaining anything. He wants to threat the other party and defeat it. A greedy negotiator is also expensive for the organization. No one wants to deal with him. People avoid him if they can. Those he has victimized are likely to seek revenge. A greedy negotiator, just like the naive one, fails to gain trust and support. Dynamics of Negotiation谈判的潜在力量The negotiation process is about power, ego, and saving face.Power: At the core, every negotiation is a power struggle, no matter how small. It is one sides attempt at primacy over the other sides point of view or position. And, no one ever wants to feel powerless. Even police hostage negotiators know as a first tactic to create the illusion of power or control in the mind of the hostage-taker. If he feels powerless, the situation could erupt. The same is true in even more calm surroundings. In a broad sense, people have power when they have the ability to bring about outcomes they desire or the ability to get things done the way they want them to be done. However, a person could also be described asshavingsinfluence, being persuasive, or being a leader. Ego: Ego also drives many negotiations and lies at the heart of many disputes. Negotiators of all shapes, and sizes, and levels of sophistication have enormous amounts of ego invested in their proposals. Also, people like winning, however they might define it. To lose is a blow to the ego, and no one wants that. Negotiations grow more difficult the more the negotiators are owed to their proposals, to their way of seeing the world.Saving Face: Also tied up in ego and power is the concept of saving face. No one wants be taken advantage of at the end of the day, both parties must be able to save face. The more high-level the dispute, the harder this is, which is one reason why mediators attempt to institute“media blackouts”in very public cases. The greatest decisions are made when no more than two people are in a room. Even mediators must sometimes clear out and let the parties talk directly to one another, because theyve been busy posturing for the mediator as well. They need to save face even with the mediator.As a negotiator, it is very easy to become caught up in your own point of views and to grow increasingly averse to the point of views of your counterpart. This is natural because you are an advocate after all. In difficult or prolonged negotiationsswherespersonalities clash, it is easy for each negotiator to want unconditional surrender from the other. However, the best negotiators understand that it is their job to make sure their counterpart saves face. You need to give your counterpart a“back door,”a way out, a way to claim even partial victory. If you do, it makes it easier to reach a deal on your terms, which, presumably, is your goal. Key Elements of Negotiation谈判的关键要素TrustMany researchers have explored trust in negotiation. As one might expect, the research has generally shown that higher levels of trust make negotiation easier, while lower levels of trust make negotiation more difficult. Similarly, integrative processes tend to increase trust, while more competitive processes are likely to decrease trust.There is a three-stage developmental mode of trust: calculus-based trust, knowledge-based trust, and identify-cationbased trust.Calculus-based Trust. Calculus-based trust has to do with assuring consistency of behavior: It holds that individuals will do that they say because (a) they are rewarded for keeping their word and preserving the relationship with others, or (b) they fear the consequences of not doing what they say. Trust is sustained to the degree that the punishment for not trusting is clear, possible, and likely to occur. Thus, the threat of punishment is likely to be a more significant motivator than the promise of reward.How to Increase Calculus-based Trust1. Create and meet the other partys expectation. Be clear about what you intend to do and then do what you say.2. Stress the benefits of creating mutual trust. Point out the benefits that can be gained for the other, or both parties, by maintaining such trust.3. Establish credibility. Make sure your statements are honest and accurate. Be believable.4. Keep promises. Make a commitment and then follow through on it.5. Develop a good reputation. Help others believe that you are someone who has a reputation for being trusted and acting trustworthily.Knowledge-based Trust. The second form of trust, knowledge-based trust, is grounded in knowing the other sufficiently well so that you can anticipate and predict his or her behavior. Knowledge-based trust relies on information about the other rather than the management of rewards and punishment. It develops over time, largely because the parties develop a history of experience with each other that allows them to predict the other, which contributes to trust. The better you know the other party, the more accurately you can predict what he or she will do.Consider the example of two friends who agree to meet at a restaurant at 6 p.m. Alan fails to show up until 630 and Beth is kept waiting. To the degree that their friendship is based simply on calculus-based trust, Beth will be angry at the high costs she must incur for being“stood up.”She might be upset at Alans unreliability, and may be angry enough to terminate the relationship. If they are operating more on knowledge-based trust, however, Beth will tolerate Alans behavior to the degree that she can muster some adequate explanation for his behavior-“He must have gotten stuck at work,”or“He is always running behind and that doesnt bother me because I know he will get here eventually.”How to Increase Knowledge-based Trust1. Have frequent interaction with the other. Meet often. Get to know the other and tell him or her about yourself.2. Build familiarity with the other. See him or her in a variety of situations and context. Learn each others thoughts and reactions, likes and dislikes, reasons for doing what you do.3. Be predictable. Help the other understand how you will respond to certain situation, and then act in that manner. Identification-based Trust. The third type of trust is based on identification with the others desires and intentions. At this level, trust exists because the parties effectively understand and appreciate each others wants; this mutual understanding is developed to the point that each can effectively act for the other. Identification-based trust thus permits a party to serve as the others agent in interpersonal transactions. The other can be confident that his interests will be fully protected, and that no monitoring of the actor is necessary.How to Increase Identification-based Trust1. Develop similar interest. Try to be interested in the same things.2. Develop similar goals and objective. Try to develop similar goals, objective, scenarios for the future.3. Act and respond similar to the other. Try to do what you know he or she would do in the same situation.4. Stand for the same principles, values, and so on. Hold similar values and commitments.EmotionsA second factor that plays a significant role in negotiation within long-term relationships is emotions. While emotions can certainly be a factor in market-transaction negotiations - parties express delight at anothers offer, parties express anger and outrage at the others tactics - emotion is much more of a critical factor when negotiators have an ongoing relationship.At the negotiating table, youre likely to encounter surprisingly bad behavior. People take negotiations personally and invest a lot of emotion and energysintosthem. Dont be surprised if people behave irrationally or dont seem to play by any logical set of rules. The most familiar example of an irrational negotiation emerges in a personal relationship. People have so much invested and so much history with each other that the negotiation is rarely about the purported topic.“So I think California would be a great vacation.”“You would! I think Florida would be much better.”“But California has everything that Florida has - seafood, ocean, sun - and it has the wind region. We could drive down to Mexico, we could go hiking in the mountains-”“Its not Florida. I like the water in the Atlantic much better than the Pacific.”“The water is just about the same.”“Not true! You just dont want to go to Florida because I suggested it.”“Thats not true. I just think that California is like Florida plus more stuff. I think itll make a better vacation spot.”“I dont. I guess we have to agree to disagree.”When the negotiation heads down a personal path, you have to find a way to steer it back to the issues at hand without aggravating the personal issues that are already at stake. Again, the use of the question is immensely valuable here. Use questions to open the discussion up.“So I think California would be a great vacation.”“You would! I think Florida would be much better.”“But California has everything that Florida has - seafood, ocean, sun-and it has the wind region. We could drive down to Mexico, we could go hiking the mountains-”“Its not Florida. I like the water in the Atlantic much better than the Pacific.”“What do you like about the water?”“Its not as salty.”“You dont like salty water?”“No, not really.”“What do you want out of a vacation?”“I dont know, sun, relaxation, some interesting thing to see.”“How about Arizona? Its warm, there are freshwater streams, there are the desert and Death Valley and all the spots out there.”“Sounds interesting.”By asking questions, one party opens up the discussion and can change the entire negotiating mindset. In emotional situations you have to acknowledge the emotional state of the other party. If you dont, you are going to runsintosthe illogical negotiator problem, which almost always leads to the end of discussion.Emotions shouldnt be simply dismissed - after all, even the person youre negotiating with is human. Take his feelingssintosconsideration. Behave as if you want to make him comfortable. By thinking about the things that drive you crazy, you can avoid driving him crazy. Before you walksintosthat room, think of all the things people have asked you to stop doing, from picking your nose to whistling in an elevator, and make sure you dont do then during the negotiation.Negotiations create both positive and negative emotions. As we noted above, both the negotiation process and the outcomes create positive and negative feelings. Positive emotions can result from being attracted to the other party, feeling good about the development of the negotiation process and the progress that the parties are making, or liking the results that the negotiations have produced. Thus, a cognitive assessment of a“good outcome”leads parties to feel happy and satisfied. Conversely, negative emotions can result from being turned off by the other party, feeling bad about the development of the negotiation process and