Introduction
The following is a reflection paper based on the findings from the personal inventory questionnaires. The reflection paper contains summary of the findings resulting from the questionnaire.
The second aspect is a plan on how to improve negotiations based on the ten best practices and how they relate to the findings. The following paper outlines my personal negotiation styles, examples of negotiation situations as well as how I would work.
The summary of the findings
There is summary of the findings as per the provided questionnaire. The first finding from the questionnaire one part one concerning rating on personal behaviors is that I am sincere and honest at all times. This is because I try my level best to speak the truth and to provide correct and factual information. It concurs with my disagreement on lying, as I am unable to lie effectively.
The other finding derived from the work is that I am uncomfortable with situations that are ambiguous and there are few precedents. The ambiguous situations are those situations that have few precedents or defined manner of operation. Such situations will certainly affect the manner in which I negotiate as I find it hard to bargain with people who are ambiguous and unreliable in following agreements.
This enables to me to identify people with tendency to deceive. In addition, I am able to judge people’s character based on their ability to agree on certain rules and regulations. This however affects my negotiations as I tend to withdrawal from bargaining with people who I perceive are out to take advantage of me.
This makes me to have the opinion that it is false that people take advantage of those who are honest and truthful. In my case, I feel that the more open, and sincere one is the easier it is to detect those who are not honest and insincere enabling one not to be taken advantage of.
Concerning sharing power, I believe that it is better for two or more to share power than for power to be in the hands of one person. I am uncomfortable with one centre of power or domination of one individual, as I personally dislike dominating others. In the same manner, I do not like anyone taking dominance to the extent of manipulating me.
It is therefore uncharacteristic of me to be in a situation where I want power for myself, for the sake of doing what I want. Rather I find that I like having power in situations where I am accountable to others and likewise those in power should be accountable to someone.
This affects my negotiations skills as I find it hard to negotiate with domineering people who want to create a win-lose circumstance. In such situations, I tend to work for lose-lose situation. I tend to be negotiating for cooperation and mutual benefits than for competition.
In competitive situation, I have found it uncharacteristic of me to want to win. I am not driven by winning but more concerned with having mutual relationships and peaceful coexistence with others provided I be not forced to compromise on some key values. Even when I look forward to a win, I dislike winning by a great margin. Rather, I prefer that both of us win or fail.
That is why I dislike competition and prefer cooperation and working together to ensure that both of us win. However, there are challenges that occur because of this, as there are some individuals or parties anchored towards competing and they dislike cooperating. They want to have all or none and I find it hard to negotiate with such people.
Concerning other person’s behavior, I disagree that if you are too honest and trustworthy that most people will take advantage of you as I find that on the other hand it is easy and possible to identify people whose motives is to take advantage of others.
I disagreed with the statement that one has to compromise their principles in order to cede ground during negotiations. Principles are very important; they are the guiding lights that determine what others should expect from one compromising them. Allowing others to win does not create a win situation but a win lose situation. I strongly disagreed that it is good to lie as long as one is not caught.
This is because lying is temporary and eventually affects both parties negatively. This means that in my bargaining I will provide truthful information to whomever I am negotiating.
This may be both strength and weakness because there are situations where one may win or rake big due to the lie especially in a sales situation where one during negotiations with a customer may lie about the features of a particular product. However, lying breeds mistrust and as soon as the other party discovers the lie then trouble comes in.
On the cognitions I found that I am strong on retention cognitions where I had a score of seventeen out of twenty, this score was replicated in two other cognitions namely presence cognitions and consequence cognitions. In planning and modeling cognitions, I had a score of 14 and 16 respectively.
The high presence cognitions indicate that it is possible for me to detect the other person’s point of view and judge on whether it is sincere or not. The high consequence cognitions’ indicate that I try my level best to assess the quality of the words that I communicate and their effect on people. In negotiation these cognitions enables me to assess the words to ensure that I do not tell lies.
Plan on how to improve negotiation skills
The following part will discuss how I plan to improve my negotiation skills from the findings using negotiation best practices. The first manner of improving my communication skills is through listening to others, as this is an important personal bargaining skill. This is especially because from the personal inventory, I am an honest person and out of my sheer sincerity, some individuals maybe out to take advantage of me.
Listening as a bargaining practice enables one to receive information on what the other parties have to offer. This is very critical because if one does not listen carefully to hear inconsistencies one may be taken advantage of by other parties.
It is also imperative for information to be confidential to prevent disclosing it out of sheer honesty and sincerity. This is important because other parties may not be sincere and may be looking for chances and weaknesses to exploit in the process of negotiation.
Other than withholding information, the other important strategy used is that of assertiveness. This is because even there are situations that are winning or lose and the other party is equally assertive as a matter of principle. This makes negotiations hard if it is a matter of principle. From my personal inventory, engaging others to assist in negotiating a win-lose negotiation is important.
This is especially when negotiating with competitive parties who are out to win or lose. In circumstances that require competition the help of someone who is competitive, to engage with the other party will certainly improve my negotiation.
The other strategy involved in negotiation is that of clarity in speech. This is imperative as it ensures that the other party understands clearly. This is because much of the conflicts experienced result from unclear information due to noise in the communication channels. Ensuring that one communicates effectively is a key strategy in negotiation (Shell, 2010).
Strategies that will work well in negotiations
The following part of this essay will delve into the strategies for negotiation as well as their application in different negotiation situations. The first strategy is the distributive negotiation strategy, which involves winning and I should be the winner and not the other party or individual. This kind of negotiation occurs when one is looking for something, which the other party has.
However, the other party has strategies or people who one is not sure of or unaware of their operations and it might be difficult to create a win-win situation. To negotiate effectively a lot of information is required and one has to withhold that information from the other party.
This strategy is suitable when making purchases of a particular product as the relationship between the buyer and the seller is short lived. For the buyer to win or buy a suitable product there is need to have information about the availability of the product, various types of the product and the price of the product from other dealers.
It is imperative that the buyer does not disclose the information to the sellers first before comparing the seller’s information with the information that he has. That is in situation where silence as a negotiation strategy is important (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2011).
The other major negotiation strategy that can best work with me in various negotiation situations is that of integrative strategy. This strategy is imperative in situations where the relationships existing are personal and they interrelate with each other’s skill. The integrated strategy is a strategy that incorporates the other party’s point of view geared to make everyone win.
For an individual who believes that all parties need to win, the strategy is appropriate in family negotiations where it is important to ensure that everyone wins so that the relationships thrive. It calls for compromise of ones interests in order for the other party to win.
The other party has also to make compromises so that a middle ground may be established. This strategy is also appropriate for business partners to ensure that they are agreed.
The other strategy is that of offering concession. From analysis on the findings of my negotiation style, I like win-win situations. The strategy that is necessary to ensure that there is win-win situation is that of offer concession. During negotiation, one makes a compromise even before the other party makes a decision to influence the decisions and make the other party feel that it has won.
This applies to a situation where I am the salesperson negotiating with the buyer. The offer concession may be in form of a discount of credit payments to make the client win. The fact that I hate lying as a means of persuasion means that it is necessary for me to ensure that I provide the customers with the right information and let them make their decision without my influence that is critical (Barry, Lewicki & Saunders, 2011).
The other key strategy in negotiation is that of principled personal bargaining. This is where both parties come together to bargain, and each party is suspicious as the bargain may lead to a long-term relationship. In this, kind of situation both the parties make themselves vulnerable and they provide more information regarding themselves and what they know and they let the other party make decision to accept their offer or to leave it.
This negotiation strategy is especially suitable when negotiating with employers for a job and its terms and conditions. The employer has to disclose his terms and conditions whereas the prospect or candidate has to disclose interest in the job.
The candidate has to disclose the skills and competencies that they have and their expectations on the terms they will not work under and leave it for the employer to decide whether they are the best candidates for the job or not (Barry, Lewicki & Saunders, 2011).
The fifth key strategy in negotiation that is suitable in personal bargaining is that of hard bargaining or refusal to make compromise or engage with the opposed parties. This strategy involves silence and failing to meet the other party to have an agreement. The strategy is agreeing to disagree. This would suit my negotiation style especially in matters of principle or situations that deal with compromise of ones personal values.
The personal values involve matters concerning religion and political ideologies. These issues are governed by ones principles and therefore making compromise is hard, as it would call for change in beliefs and personal values, which is very difficult.
The hard bargaining will apply in religious situations, to engage in a conversation or negotiation with anyone who is hoping to change one’s religious beliefs. Such a hard-line stance is suitable for negotiating with terror groups and rebel groups that have similar stance on a particular issue (Barry, Lewicki & Saunders, 2011).
Conclusion
Personal bargaining inventory is crucial in ensuring that all parties come to an agreement concerning various negotiation situations. Knowledge of self is imperative in determining negotiation strategies because without proper knowledge on how to negotiate it is hard. Knowledge of negotiation competencies helps to have strategies for different scenarios, which will require different negotiation skills.
Knowledge of cognition is also important to ensure that the individual is aware of the negotiation strengths in order to seek the assistance of other people who are strong in those cognitions to remove loopholes exploited by the other party.
The negotiation skill is imperative in ones coexistence with others as everything in life requires the ability to negotiate. Having a job requires negotiation, marrying requires negotiation, buying furniture or a beautiful home requires negotiation. It is therefore true to say that the quality of one’s negotiation determine the quality of life.
References
Barry, B., Lewicki, J. & Saunders, M. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Shell, R. (2010). Bargaining for advantage: Negotiation strategies for reasonable people. London: Penguin Classics.