I negotiated with the retailer, my mother, and myself for a toy for my younger sister. The cost and condition of the item were the primary concerns. The result was that I was pleased with the toy’s value and could purchase it for less money than the retailer had requested. Due to the fact that I was able to buy the toy for less money than the store owner requested, the negotiation was effective. Moreover, I was pleased with the toy’s quality, which contributed to its effectiveness, thus increasing the product’s value. Had I been able to get the toy for even less money, and if the item had been of higher quality, the negotiation could have gone better.
Preparation, information exchange, problem-solving, and resolution were all made following the decision-making phases throughout the negotiation. Throughout each step, the participants’ actions altered. Both sides researched whatever they anticipated from the negotiation throughout the preparation, exchanged ideas with one another during the sharing stage and sought a remedy that would benefit them throughout the problem-solving phase. During the resolution phase, both parties reached an understanding.
The toy’s cost and level of quality were the BATNAs in my illustration of a negotiation. The retailer and the toy’s value were determined on the BATNAs. BATNAs were employed to bargain over the toy’s cost and level of quality (Chen, 2022). The BATNAs’ function, in my case, was affected by the distributive strategy of the negotiation. Although I was trying to maximize personal gains, an integrative strategy was used because everyone was looking to save money on the item as a whole. In my illustration, the interests are related to the toy’s cost and condition. The quality and cost of the item were the main points of interest.
The cost and quality of the toy were the relevant relationship concerns. By haggling over the toy’s price and quality, the stakeholders disclosed or identified their interests. The interests influenced the negotiation by affecting the toy’s cost and quality. By impacting how the stakeholders regarded one another, the preconceptions that were present in the negotiation had an impact on it. The process was modified by additional perceptions, selective perceptions, or perceptual distortions that affected how the parties interacted with one another. The toy acted as the substantive interest, and the fact that the retailer acted kind shows process interests since it covers the behavior of the parties involved. The fact that we mutually agreed with each other shows relational interests.
Happiness and pleasure were the positive emotions while frustration and fury were the negative emotions that influenced the discussion. How the conversation progressed, and the dynamics between the participants caused the emotions to surface. Positive emotions can enhance negotiation in that they help facilitate a more positive outcome (Staff, 2022). The stakeholders showed their familiarity with the building blocks of negotiation by showing interest and excellent communication, thus making them negotiate effectively. If the parties were familiar with the building blocks, the negotiation would be easier with each other.
The fact that buyers always negotiate for goods and products influenced the negotiation of the product. Selective perception impacted the negotiation because the retailer allowed me to negotiate for the toy and did not bother if I was reducing his profit. Stereotyping influence the negotiation in that the retailer was expectant of negotiation of the toy since it is normal for every customer to negotiate. Perceptual distortion impacted the negotiation in that there was a misunderstanding between the retailer and me since he did not understand why I needed negotiation for the product after proving the product to be of high quality. Thus, making the negotiation effective after making him understand why the negotiation was needed and effective.
Combined leverage is the type of leverage that was available in this scenario. The leverage was used because it incorporated the retailers taking the risk of expanding the business but accepting negotiation of the product’s price into being lower. This leverage was used ethically by operating the negotiation reasonably and in a way that both parties took the risk (The Upwork Team, 2022). Combined leverage altered the negotiation when I, the customer, wanted to negotiate higher, but the retailer could not accept it since, to him, he was to make a small profit.
References
Chen, J. (2022). Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). Investopedia. Web.
Staff, P. (2022). Negotiation strategies: Emotional expression at the bargaining table. PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Web.
The Upwork Team. (2022). Types of Leverage: Financial, Operating and Combined. Upwork. Web.