You are on page 1of 23


Negotiation Negotiation is a technique of discussing issues among one selves and reaching to a conclusion benefiting all involved in the discussion. It is one of the most ways to avoid conflicts and tensions. When individuals do not agree with each other, they sit together, discuss issues on an open forum, negotiate with each other and come to an alternative which satisfies all. In a laymans language it is also termed as bargaining. Please go through the above two real life situations once again. You want to go for a movie but you know that your parents will never agree to your decision. Will you fight with your parents? Obviously NO, instead you will sit with them and try your level best to convince them and negotiate with them without fighting and spoiling everyones mood. Probably you will spend the coming weekend with your parents if they allow you today for the movie else you will negotiate with your friends so that they agree for a noon show. Negotiation helps you to achieve your goal without hurting anyone. Your goal in this case is to go for a movie and you negotiate either with your parents or friends to achieve the same. In the second situation, Tom could not afford to lose the CD player as it was an exclusive one, thus he tries to negotiate with the store owner to lower the price so that it suits his pocket and even the store owner earns his profit as well. Negotiation is essential in corporates as well as personal lives to ensure peace and happiness. Your boss asks you to submit a report within two working days and you know that the report is a little critical one and needs more time. Will you say a yes to your boss just to please him? Your yes might make the boss happy then but later you will land yourself in big trouble if you fail to submit it within the desired time frame. Its always better to negotiate with your boss rather than accepting something which you know is difficult. Ask for some more time from your boss or probably dont make an exhaustive report. Negotiation is better as it would prevent spoiling your relation with your superiors later. Negotiator An individual representing an organization or a position who listens to all the parties carefully and comes to a conclusion which is willingly acceptable to all is called the negotiator. Skills of a negotiator A negotiator ideally should be impartial and neutral and should not favour any one. He needs to understand the situation and the parties well and decide something which will benefit all. It is not always that people will easily accept the negotiators decision; they may counter it if they feel their personal interests are not satisfied. In such a situation, where the negotiator is left with no choice, he must use

his power to impose his ideas on all, after all one cant please everyone. A negotiator has to be a little tactful and smart enough to handle all situations and reach to a conclusion. Elements of Negotiation Negotiation Process + Behaviour + Substance (Agenda) Process- The way individuals negotiate with each other is called the process of negotiation. The process includes the various techniques and strategies employed to negotiate and reach to a solution. Behaviour- How two parties behave with each other during the process of negotiation is referred to as behaviour. The way they interact with each other, the way they communicate with each other to make their points clear all come under behaviour. Substance- There has to be an agenda on which individuals negotiate. A topic is important for negotiation. In the first situation, going for the late night movie was the agenda on which you wanted to negotiate with your parents as well as your friends. Models of Negotiation Let us go through various models of negotiation:




Win Win Model - In this model, each and every individual involved in negotiation wins. No body is at loss in this model and every one is benefited out of the negotiation. This is the most accepted model of negotiation. Let us understand it with the help of an example: Daniel wanted to buy a laptop but it was an expensive model. He went to the outlet and negotiated with the shopkeeper to lower the price. Initially the shopkeeper was reluctant but after several rounds of discussions and persuasion, he quoted a price best suited to him as well as Daniel. Daniel was extremely satisfied as he could now purchase the laptop without burning a hole in his pocket. The negotiation also benefited the store owner as he could earn his profits and also gained a loyal customer who would come again in future. Win Lose Model - In this model one party wins and the other party loses. In such a model, after several rounds of discussions and negotiations, one party benefits while the party remains dissatisfied. Please refer to the above example once again where Daniel wanted to buy a laptop. In this example, both Daniel and the store owner were benefited out of the deal. Let us suppose Daniel could not even afford the price quoted by the storeowner and requests him to further lower the price. If the store owner further lowers the price, he would not be able to earn his profits but Daniel would be very happy. Thus after the negotiation, Daniel would be satisfied but the shopkeeper wouldnt. In a win lose model, both the two parties are not satisfied, only one of the two walks away with the benefit. Lose Lose Model - As the name suggests, in this model, the outcome of negotiation is zero. No party is benefited out of this model.

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


Had Daniel not purchased the laptop after several rounds of negotiation, neither he nor the store owner would have got anything out of the deal. Daniel would return empty handed and the store owner would obviously not earn anything. In this model, generally the two parties are not willing to accept each others views and are reluctant to compromise. No discussions help. Let us understand the above three models with an example from the corporate world. Mike got selected with a multinational firm of repute. He was called to negotiate his salary with Sara- the HR Head of the organization. Case 1 - Sara quoted a salary to Mike, but Mike was not too pleased with the figure. He insisted Sara to raise his salary to the best extent possible. After discussions Sara came out with a figure acceptable to Mike and she immediately released his offer letter. Mike got his dream job and Sara could manage to offer Mike a salary well within the companys budgets - A Win win Situation (Both the parties gained) Case 2 - Sara with her excellent negotiation skills managed to convince Mike at a little lower salary than he quoted. Mike also wanted to grab the opportunity as it was his dream job and he was eyeing it for quite some time now. He had to accept the offer at a little lower salary than expected. Thus in this negotiation, Mike was not completely satisfied but Sara was - A win lose negotiation Case 3 - Mike declined the offer as the salary quoted by Sara did not meet his expectations. Sara tried her level best to negotiate with Mike, but of no use.-A lose lose model of negotiation. No body neither Mike nor Sara gained anything out of this negotiation. RADPAC Model of Negotiation RADPAC Model of Negotiation is a widely used model of negotiation in corporates. Let us understand it in detail Every alphabet in this model signifies something: R - Rapport A - Analysis D - Debate P - Propose A - Agreement C - Close R - Rapport: As the name suggests, it signifies the relation between parties involved in negotiation. The parties involved in negotiation ideally should be comfortable with each other and share a good rapport with each other. A - Analysis: One party must understand the second party well. It is important that the individual understand each others needs and interest. The shopkeeper must understand the customers needs and pocket, in the same way the customer mustnt ignore the shopkeepers profits as well. People must listen to each other attentively. D - Debate: Nothing can be achieved without discussions. This round includes discussing issues among the parties involved in negotiation. The pros and cons of an idea are evaluated in this round. People debate with each other

and each one tries to convince the other. One must not lose his temper in this round but remain calm and composed. P - Propose: Each individual proposes his best idea in this round. Each one tries his level best to come up with the best possible idea and reach to a conclusion acceptable by all. A - Agreement: Individuals come to a conclusion at this stage and agree to the best possible alternative. C - Close: The negotiation is complete and individuals return back satisfied. Let us again consider Mike and Saras example to understand RADPAC Model R - Rapport between Mike and Sara. They must be comfortable with each other and should not start the negotiation right away. They must first break the ice. The discussions must start with a warm smile and greetings. A - Both Mike and Sara would try their level best to understand each others needs. Mikes need is to grab the opportunity while Sara wants to hire an employee for the organization. D - The various rounds of discussions between Mike and Sara. Mike and Sara would debate with each other trying to get what they want. P - Mike would propose the best possible salary he can work on while Sara would also discuss the maximum salary her company can offer. A - Both Mike and Sara would agree to each other, where both of them would compromise to their best possible extent. C - The negotiation is complete and probably the next course of action is decided, like in this case the next step would be generation of the offer letter and its acceptance. STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION

INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION When a negotiation is integrative, it means that negotiation is based on interest or otherwise negotiation

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions

strategy which lay emphasis on win-win situation. The goal of Integrative Negotiation is to make the parties interest compatible, so that both sides can win. That is, reach an agreement that satisfies their need. The goals of the parties are integrative. Negotiations are not mutually exclusive. If one party achieves its goals, the other is not precluded from achieving its goals as well. The fundamental structure of integrative negotiation situation is such that, it allows both sides to achieve their objective. While Integrative Negotiation Strategies are preferable, they are not always possible. Sometimes parties interests really are opposed as when both sides want a larger share of fixed resources. CHARACTERISTIC OF INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION It focus on commonalties rather than differences It attempt to address needs and interests, not positions It commit to meeting the needs of all involved parties Exchange information and ideas Invent options for mutual gain Use objective criteria for standard of performance. Past experience, based perceptions and truly distributive aspects of bargaining makes it remarkable that integrative agreements occur at all. But they do, largely because negotiators work hard to overcome inhibiting factors and search assertively for common ground. Those wishing to achieve integrative results find that they must manage both the contest and the process of negotiation in order to gain the cooperation and commitment of all parties. Key contextual factors include: - Creating a free flow of information - Attempting to understand the other negotiators real need and objective - Emphasizing the commonalties between the parties and minimizing the differences - Searching for solutions that meet the needs and objectives of both sides.

KEY STEPS IN INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION PROCESSS There are four major steps in the Integrative Negotiation Process: Identify and define the problem Understand the problem and bring interests and needs to the surface Generate alternative solution to the problems Evaluate those alternatives and select among them. Increasing Value to Buyer Claiming Value Creating Value Pareto efficient frontier Increasing Value to Seller The first three steps of the Integrative Negotiation process are important for Creating Value. While the fourth step o the Integrative Negotiation Process, the evaluation and selection of alternatives INVOLVE CLOUMING Value. Claiming value involves many of the distributive bargaining skills discussed earlier. 1. IDENTIFY AND DEFINE THE PROBLEM The problem identification step is often the most difficult one and it is even more challenging when several parties are involved. Negotiator need to consider five aspects when identifying and defining the problems. Define the problem in a way that is mutually acceptable to both sides. State the problem with an eye toward practicality and comprehensiveness State the problem as a goal and identify the obstacles to attaining this goal. Depersonalize the problem Separate the problem definition from the search for solution. 2. UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM FULLY Identify interest needs Many writers have stressed that a

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions

key step in achieving an Integrative Agreement is the ability of the parties to understand and satisfy each others interest.2 Identifying interest is a critical step in the Integrative Negotiation Process. Interests are the underlying concerns, need or desires that motivate a negotiator to take a particular position. However, in as much as satisfaction may be difficult and understanding of the underlying interest may permit them to invent solutions that meet their interest. More so, several types of interests may be at stake in a negotiation and that type may be intrinsic (the parties value it in and of itself) or instrumental (the parties value it because it helps them derive other outcomes in the futures. 3 TYPES OF INTERESTS Substantive Interests - related to the focal issues under negotiation Process Interests are related to the way a dispute is settled Relationship Interests indicate that one or both parties value their relationship with each other and do not want to take actions that will damage it. Finally, Lax and Sebenius point out that the parties may have interests in principles concerning what is fair, what is right, what is acceptable, what is ethical, or what has been done in the past and should be done in the future. Some observation on Interests (a) There is almost always more than one type of interest underlying a negotiation (b) Parties can have different types of interest at stake (c) Interest often stem from deeply rooted human needs or values (d) Interest can change (e) Surfacing Interests is not always easy or to ones best advantage (f) Focusing on interests can be harmful (g) Generate alternative solutions.

The search for alternative is the creative phase of the Integrative Negotiation. Once the parties have agreed on a common definition of the problem and understood each others interests, they need to generate a variety of alternative solution. The objective is to create a list of options or possible solution to the problem; evaluating and selecting from among those options will be their task in the final phase. Several techniques have been suggested to help negotiators generate alternative solutions. These techniques fall into two general categories. 4 i. Redefining the Problem or Problem Set: This technique call for the parties to define their underlying needs and develop alternatives to meet them. Five different methods for achieving integrative agreements have been proposed and are highlighted below: 5 ii. Expand the pier: This involves beginning negotiations with shortage of resources, this is not possible for both parties to satisfy their interests or obtain their objectives under current condition. A simple solution is to add resources expand the pie. a. Logroll for logrolling to be successful, parties are required to find more than one issues in conflict and to have different priorities for those issues. 6 Logrolling is frequently done by trial and error as part of the process of experimenting with various packages of offers that will satisfy everyone involved. However, logrolling may be effective when the parties can combine two issues, but not when the parties take turns in successive negotiation. More so, logrolling is not only effective in inventing options but also as a mechanism to combine options into negotiated packages. Neale and Bazerman identify a variety of approaches in addition to simply combining several issues into a package. 7 Three of these in particular, relate to the matters of outcome probabilities,

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions

and timing in other words what is to happen, the likelihood of it happening and when it happens. b. Exploit differences in risk preference. c. Exploit differences in time preferences - Use nonspecific compensation A third way to generate alternatives is to allow one person to obtain his objectives and pay off the other person for accommodating his interests. For non-specific compensation to work, the person doing the compensating needs to know what is valuable to the other person and how seriously she is inconvenienced. - Cut the costs for compliance: Through cost cutting, one party achieves her objectives and the others costs are minimized if she agrees to go along. - Find a bridge solution: This involve a situation whereby parties invent new options that mete all their respective needs.

However, the disadvantage of brainstorming is that it does not solicit the ideas of those who are present at the negotiation. 4. EVALUATE AND SELECT ALTERNATIVES: The fourth stage in the Integrated Negotiation Process is to evaluate the alternatives generated during the previous phase and to select the best ones to implement. When the challenge is a reasonable, simple one, the evaluation and selection steps may be effectively combined into a singly step. For those uncomfortable with the Integrative Process, though we suggest a close adherence to a series of distinct steps: definitions and standards, alternative, evaluating and selection. The following guidelines should be used in evaluating options and reaching a consensus. Narrow the range of solution options

3. GENERATING ALTRNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM AS GIVEN: In addition to the techniques mentioned above, there are several other approaches to generating alternative solution. These approaches can be used by the negotiators themselves or by a number of other parties. Several of these approaches are commonly used in small groups. These include: Brainstorming: In brainstorming, small groups of people work to generate as many possible solutions to the problem as they can. Someone records; the solutions without comment, as they are identified participants are urged to be spontaneous, even impractical and not to censor anyones ideas. The success of brainstorming depends on the amount of intellectual stimulation that occurs as different ideas are generated. The (a) Avoid judging or evaluating solutions (b) Separate the people from the problem (c) Be exhaustive in the brainstorming process (d) Ask outsider

Evaluate solution on the basic of quality, and acceptability Agree to the criteria in advance of evaluating options Be willing to justify personal preferences Be alert to the influence of intangibles in selecting options Use subgroups to evaluate complex options Take time out to cool off Explore different ways to logroll. FACTORS THAT FACILITATE SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATIVE NEGOTIATION We have stressed that successful Integrative Negotiation can occur if the parties are predisposed to finding a mutually acceptable joint solution. Many other factors contribute to a predisposition toward problem solving and a willingness to work together to find the best solution. These factors are also the preconditions necessary for more successful integrative negotiation. These factors includes:- some common objective or goal

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions

- faith in ones problem solving ability - a belief in the validity of ones own position and the others perspective - The motivation and commitment to work together. - Trust - Clear and accurate communication In conclusion, whether a negotiation is distributive or integrative, negotiation should focus on substance which will produce a mutually beneficial agreement at lower cost and also focus on relations in which the parties maintain civil relations of mutual recognition and respect and improve their joint problem solving ability. STRATEGY AND TACTICS OF DISTRIBUTIVE BARGAINING The distributive bargaining competitive, or win-lose, bargaining is a situation where the goals of one party are usually in fundamental and direct conflict with the goals of the other party. Resources are fixed and limited, and both parties want to maximize their share. As a result, each party will use a set of strategies to maximize his or her share of the outcomes to be obtained. One important strategy is to guard information carefully one party tries to give information to the other party only when it provides a strategic advantage. Meanwhile, it is highly desirable to get information from the other party to improve negotiation power. Distributive bargaining is basically a competition over who is going to get the most of limited resources, which is often money. Whether or not one of both parties achieve their objectives will depend on the strategies and tactics they employed. For many, the strategies and tactics of distributives bargaining are what negotiation is all about. Others are repelled by distributive bargaining and would rather walk away than negotiate this way they argue that distributive bargaining is old fashioned, needlessly, confrontational and destructive.

There are three reasons that every negotiator should be familiar with Distributive Bargaining. First, negotiators face some interdependent situations, that are distributive, and to do well in them, they need to understand how they work. Second, because many people use Distributive Bargaining strategies and tactics almost exclusively, all negotiators need to understand how to counter their effects. Third, every negotiative situation has the potential to require Distributive Bargaining skills when at the claiming value stage 2. Understanding Distributive Bargaining strategies and tactics is important and useful, but negotiators need to recognize that these tactics can also be counter productive and costly. Often they cause negotiating parties to focus so much on their differences that they ignore what they have in common 3. These negative effects notwithstanding, Distributive Bargaining strategies and tactics are quite useful when a negotiator wants to maximize the value obtained in a single deal, when the relationship with the other party is not important, and when they are at the claiming value stage of negotiation. Before negotiation, both parties to a negotiation should establish their starting, target and resistance point. Starting points are often in the opening statements each party makes (i.e. the sellers listing price and the buyers offer). The target point is usually learned or inferred as negotiations get under way. People typically give up the margin between their starting points and target points as they make concessions. The resistance point, the point beyond which a person will not go and would rather break off negotiations, is not known to the other party and should be kept secret 4. One party may not learn the others party resistance point even after the end of a successful negotiation. After an unsuccessful negotiation, one party may infer that the others resistance point was near the last offer the other was willing to consider before the negotiation ended.

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions

The spread between the resistance points, called the bargaining range, settlement range, or zone of potential agreement, is particularly important. In this area, the actual bargaining takes place, for anything outside these points will be summarily rejected between one of the two negotiators. When the buyers resistance point is above the sellers, he is minimally willing to pay more than she is minimally willing to sell. However, because negotiators dont begin their deliberation by talking about their resistance points, it is often difficult to know whether a positive settlement range exist until the negotiators get deep into the process. It is worthy of note that, negotiations that started with negative bargaining range are likely to stalemate. Target points, resistance points and initial offers all play on important role in Distributive Bargaining. Target point influence both negotiators outcomes, opening offers play on important role as a warning for the possible presence of hardball tactics5. In addition to opening bids, target points and resistance points a fourth factor may enter the negotiations: and alternative outcome that can be obtained by completing a deal with someone else. In some negotiations, the parties have only two fundamental choices: (a) reach a deal with the other party, or (b) reach no settlement at all. In other negotiations, however, one or both parties may have the possibility of an alternative deal with another party. An alternative point can be identical to the resistance point, although the two do not have to be the same. Alternative are important because they give negotiators the power to walk from any negotiation when the emerging deal is not very good. The number of realistic alternatives that negotiators have will vary considerably from one situation to another. In negotiations, where they have many alternatives they can set their goals higher and make fewer concessions. In negotiations where they have no attractive alternatives, such as when dealing with a sole supplier, they have much less bargaining power. Good

distributive bargainers identify their realistic alternatives before starting discussions with the other party so that they can properly gauge how firm to be in the negotiation. Good bargainers 6 also try to improve their alternatives while the negotiation is underway. Negotiators need to ensure that they have a clear understanding of their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) 7. Having a number of alternatives can be useful, but it is really ones best alternative that will influence the decision to close a deal or walk away. Negotiators who have stronger BATNAs, that is, very positive alternatives to a negotiated agreement, will have more power throughout the negotiation and accordingly should be able to achieve more of their goals. In almost all negotiations, agreement is necessary on several issues: the price, the closing date of sales renovation, price of items forgone etc. The package of issues for negotiation is refers to as the barraging mix. Each item in the mix has its own starting target and resistance points. Some items are of obvious importance to both parties, others are important only to one party. Negotiators need to understand what is important to them and to the other party and they need to take these priorities into account during the planning process 8. Within the fundamental strategies of distributive bargaining, there are four important tactical tasks, concerned with targets, resistance points, and the cost of terminating negotiations for a negotiator in a Distributive Bargaining situation to consider: Assess the other partys target, resistance point, and cost of terminating negotiations Manager the other partys impression of the negotiators target, resistance point and cost of terminating negotiation. Modify the other partys perception of his or her own target, resistance point and cost of terminating negotiation and

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions

Manipulate the actual cost of delaying in terminating negotiations. POSITION TAKEN DURING NEGOTIATION Effective distributive bargainers need to understand the process of taking positions during bargaining, including the importance of the opening offer and opening stance and the role of making concessions throughout the negotiation process. 9 At the beginning of negotiations, each party takes a position. Typically, one party will then change his or her position in response to information from the other party or in response to the other partys behaviour. Changes in position are usually accompanied by new information concerning the others intentions, the value of outcomes and likely zones for settlement. Negotiation is interactive. It provides an opportunity for both sides to communicate information about their positions that may lead to change in those positions. OPENING OFFER When negotiation begins, the negotiator is faced with a perplexing problem. What should the opening offer be? Research by Adam Galinsky and Thomas Mussiveiler suggest that making the first offer in a negotiation is advantageous to the negotiator making the offer. 10 It appears that first offer can anchor a negotiation especially when information about alternative negotiation outcome is not considered. Negotiator can dampen first offer effect by the other negotiator, however, by concentrating on their won target and focusing on the other negotiators resistance point. A second decision to be made at the outset of Distributive Bargaining concerns the stance or attitude to adopt during the negotiation. Will you be competitive (fighting to get the best on every point) or moderate (willing to make concessions and compromise?). Some negotiators take belligerent stance, the other party may mirror the initial

stance, meeting belligerent stance with belligerence. It is important for negotiators to think carefully about the message that they wish to signal with their opening because there is a tendency for negotiators to respond in kind to distributive tactics in negotiation11. That is negotiators tend to match distributive tactics from the other party with their own distributive tactics, so negotiators should make conscious decision about what they are signaling to the other party with their opening stance and subsequent concession. An opening offer is usually met with a counter offers and these two offers define the initial bargaining rang. Sometime the other party will not counter offer but will simply state that the first offer is unacceptable and ask the opener to come back with a more reasonable set of proposals. Note that it is not an option to escalate ones opening offer that is, to set an offer further away form the other partys target point that ones first offer. Opening offers, opening stance, and initial concessions are elements at the beginning of a negotiation that parties can use to communicate how they intend to negotiate an exaggerated opening offer, a determined opening stand, and a very small opening concession signal a position of firmness. Firmness can create a climate in which the other party may decide that concessions are so meager that he or she might as well capitulate and settle quickly rather than drag things out. Paradoxically, firmness may actually shorten negotiation12 However, negotiations can be flexible. There are several good reasons for adopting a flexible position. 13 First, when taking different stances throughout the negotiation, one can learn about the other partys target and perceived possibilities by observing how he or she respond to different proposals. Negotiators may want to establish a comparative rather than a competitive relationship, hoping to get a better agreement. In addition, flexibility keeps the negotiations proceeding; the more flexible one seems the more the other party will believe that a

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions

settlement is possible. FINAL OFFERS

not effective negotiators. 17 Many negotiators consider these tactics out-of-bounds for any negotiation situation. The followings are the hardball tactics

Eventually a negotiator wants to convey the message that there is no further room for movement that the present offer is the final one. A good negotiator will say, this is all I can do or this is as far as I can go. Sometimes, however, it is clear that a simple statement will not suffice; an alternative is to use concessions to convey the point. The final offer has to be large enough to be dramatic yet not so large that it creates the suspicion that the negotiator has been holding back and that there is more available on other issues in the bargaining mix. 14 Closing the Deal After negotiating for a period of time, and learning about the other partys needs, positions, and perhaps resistance point, the next challenge for a negotiator is to close the agreement. Several tactics are available to negotiators for closing a deal, 15 choosing the best tactic for a given negotiation is as much as a matter of art as science. These tactics are: Provide Alternatives Assume the Close Split the Difference Exploding Offers Sweeteners HARDBALL TACTICS We now turn to a discussion of hardball tactics in negotiation. Many popular books of negotiation discuss using hardball negation tactics to beat the other party. 16 Such tactics are designed to pressure negotiators to do things they would not otherwise do and their presence usually disguises the users adherence to a decidedly distributive bargaining approach. They also can backfire, and there is evidence that every adversarial negotiator is NEGOTIATION: strategy and planning In simplest terms, negotiation is a discussion between two or more disputants who are trying to work out a solution to their problem. This interpersonal or inter-group process can occur at a personal level, as well as at a corporate or international (diplomatic) level. Negotiations typically take place because the parties wish to create something new that neither could do on his or her own, or to resolve a problem or dispute between them1. The parties acknowledge that there is some conflict of interest between them and think they can use some form of influence to get a better deal, rather than simply taking what the other side will voluntarily give them. They prefer to search for agreement rather than fight openly, give in, or break off contact. While they have interlocking goals that they cannot accomplish independently, they usually do not want or need exactly the same thing. This interdependence can be either be win-lose or win-win in nature, and the type of Dealing with Typical Hardball Tactics Ignore Them Discuss Them Respond in Kind Co-opt the Other Party Typical Hardball Tactic Good Cop-Bad Cop Lowball/Highball Bogey The Nibble Chicken Intimidation Aggressive Behaviour Snow Job

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions

negotiation that is appropriate will vary accordingly. The disputants will either attempt to force the other side to comply with their demands, to modify the opposing position and move toward compromise, or to invent a solution that meets the objectives of all sides4. The nature of their interdependence will have a major impact on the nature of their relationship, the way negotiations are conducted, and the outcomes of these negotiations. Mutual adjustment is one of the key causes of the changes that occur during a negotiation. Both parties know that they can influence the other's outcomes and that the other side can influence theirs5. The effective negotiator attempts to understand how people will adjust and readjust their positions during negotiations, based on what the other party does and is expected to do. The parties have to exchange information and make an effort to influence each other. As negotiations evolve, each side proposes changes to the other party's position and makes changes to its own. This process of give-and-take and making concessions is necessary if a settlement is to be reached6. If one party makes several proposals that are rejected, and the other party makes no alternate proposal, the first party may break off negotiations. Parties typically will not want to concede too much if they do not sense that those with whom they are negotiating are willing to compromise. The parties must work toward a solution that takes into account each person's requirements and hopefully optimizes the outcomes for both. As they try to find their way toward agreement, the parties focus on interests, issues, and positions, and use cooperative and/or competitive processes to come to an agreement. NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES Negotiation success can be measured in different ways. Focusing on substance, negotiations may be called successful when they produce a mutually beneficial agreement at lower cost that an alternative forum, and when that agreement is implemented. Focusing on process, a successful negotiation would be one which was

fair, efficient in terms of time and money, involved in all the relevant stakeholders, consistent with applicable regulations, and did not establish limiting precedents for third-parties. Focusing on relations, successful negotiations are those in which the parties maintain civil relations of mutual recognition and respect, and improve their joint problem-solving abilities. Generally the substantive measure tends to dominate. One key negotiating strategy is to focus on interests rather than positions. A party's interests are the reasons they have for holding a particular position on an issue. Negotiations based on positions tend to devolve into contests of will. They are less successful by any measure. Incompatible positions may be backed by compatible interests, and so negotiating on interests is more likely to produce fair, mutually beneficial outcomes without generating added hostility. In addition to separating interests from positions, it is helpful to generate a wide range of possible solutions before trying to come to a decision. It is also helpful for the parties to agree on the criteria by which possible solutions will be evaluated before actually setting down to evaluate the proposals. Negotiating strategies may be integrative (win-win) or distributional (zero-sum). Negotiating on interests is often integrative. The goal is to make the parties' interests compatible, so that both sides can win that is, reach an agreement that satisfies their needs. While integrative negotiation strategies are preferable, they are not always possible. Sometimes parties' interests really are opposed, as when both sides want a larger share of a fixed resource. In these cases distributional negotiations, which seek to distribute the costs and benefits fairly, are necessary. Sometimes disputes which appear to be zero-sum can be reframed so that an integrative approach is possible. One way to do this is to find creative ways to increase or use the apparently "fixed" resource. Another way is to reinterpret the parties' interests to make them compatible, or to find more basic interests which are compatible.

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


APPROACHES TO NEGOTIATION Fisher,R.,Ury,W.,Patton,B. make several overlapping distinctions about approaches to negotiation. They distinguish between positional bargaining, which is competitive, and interest-based bargaining or principled negotiation, which is primarily cooperative. But they also make the distinction between soft, hard, and principled negotiation, the latter of which is neither soft, nor hard, but based on cooperative principles which look out for oneself as well as one's opponent9. However distinctions were also made between competitive and cooperative approaches. The most important factors that determine whether an individual will approach a conflict cooperatively or competitively are the nature of the dispute and the goals each side seeks to achieve. Often the two sides' goals are linked together, or interdependent. The parties' interaction will be shaped by whether this interdependence is positive or negative10. Goals with positive interdependence are tied together in such a way that the chance of one side attaining its' goal is increased by the other side's attaining its goal. Positively interdependent goals normally result in cooperative approaches to negotiation, because any participant can "attain his goal if, and only if, the others with whom he is linked can attain their goals. On the other hand, negative interdependence means the chance of one side attaining its goal is decreased by the other's success. Negatively interdependent goals force competitive situations, because the only way for one side to achieve its goals and "win" is for the other side to "lose." Fisher,R.,Ury.,W.,Patton,B.also argue that almost any dispute can be resolved with interest-based bargaining (i.e., a cooperative approach), other theorists believe the two approaches should be used together. Some for example, argue that negotiations typically involve "creating" and "claiming" value. First, the negotiators work cooperatively to create value (that is, "enlarge the pie,")

but then they must use competitive processes to claim value (that is, "divide up the pie")12. However, a tension exists between creating and claiming value. This is because the competitive strategies used to claim value tend to undermine cooperation, while a cooperative approach makes one vulnerable to competitive bargaining tactics. The tension that exists between cooperation and competition in negotiation is known as "The Negotiator's Dilemma If both sides cooperate, they will both have good outcomes. If one cooperates and the other competes, the cooperator will get a terrible outcome and the competitor will get a great outcome. If both compete, they will both have mediocre outcomes. In the face of uncertainty about what strategy the other side will adopt, each side's best choice is to compete. However, if they both compete, both sides end up worse off. In real life, parties can communicate and commit themselves to a cooperative approach. They can also adopt norms of fair and cooperative behaviour and focus on their future relationship. This fosters a cooperative approach between both parties and helps them to find joint gains. From the above discussion, we are able to understand that effective strategy and planning are the most important critical factors for achieving negotiation objective. However, proper attention should be directed at addressing basic causes of failure in strategic and systematic in negotiation. In the long run, with effective planning, and target setting, most negotiators can and will achieve their objective.

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions



the same dispute and perceive it in very different ways as a result of their background, professional training or past experiences3.Aframe is a way of labelling these different individual interpretations of the situation. Types of frames; Substantive Outcome Aspiration Process Identity Characterization Lossgainlow COGNITIVE BIASES IN NEGOTIATION A cognitive bias in negotiation is the systematic information processing errors that negotiators make and that may compromise negotiation performance. Thus, rather than being perfect processers of information, it is clear that negotiators have the tendency to make systematic errors when they process information.4 These errors that tend to impede negotiation performance include: 1. Irrational escalation of commitment 2. Mythical fixed-pie beliefs 3. Anchoring and adjustment 4. Isssue framing and risk 5. Availability of information 6. The winners curse 7. Overconfidence 8. The laws of small numbers 9. Self-serving biases 10. Endowment effect 11. Ignoring others cognitions 12. Reactive devaluation MANAGING MISPERCEPTIONS AND COGNITIVE BIASES IN NEGOTIATION Misrepresentations and cognitive biases typically arise out of conscious awareness as negotiators gather and process

Perception, cognition and emotion are the building blocks of all social encounters, including negotiation, in the sense that our social actions are guided by how we perceive and analyze the other party, the situation, and our interests and positions. A working knowledge of how humans perceive and process information is important to understand why people behave the way they do during negotiations. Perception can be defined as the process by which individuals connect to their environment. The process of ascribing meaning to messages and events is strongly influenced by the perceivers current state of mind, role, and comprehension of earlier communications.1 Other parties perceptions, the environment, and the perceivers disposition are also important influence on ones ability to interpret with accuracy what the other party is saying and meaning. PERCEPTION DISTORTION In any given negotiation, the perceivers own needs, desire, motivations, and personal experiences may create a predisposition about the other party. This is cause for concern when it leads to biases and errors in perception and subsequent communication. However, there are four types of perception errors; Stereotyping Hallo effects Selective perception And, projection. FRAMING A key issue in perception and negotiation is framing. A frame is the subjective mechanism through which people evaluate and make sense out of situation, leading them to pursue or avoid subsequent actions.2 Frames are important in negotiation because people can encounter

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


information. The question of how best to manage perception and cognitive bias is a difficult one. However, the following solutions to these systematic distortions can be observed: Awareness of the occurrences Problem definition and problem evaluation Careful discussion of the issue and preferences of both negotiators Negotiators awareness of the negative aspects of these distortions Discuss these problems in structured manner within team and with their counterparts.

the issue being discussed, it is also clear that the content of communication is only partly responsible for negotiation outcomes2. FIVE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF COMMUNICATION Offer, counteroffer, and motives. Information about alternatives. Information about outcomes. Social account. Communication process. METHOD OF COMMUNICATION IN NEGOTIATION

COMMUNICATION While it may seem obvious that how negotiators communicate is as important as what they have to say, research has examined different aspects of how people communicate. The different methods of communication during negotiation are as follows: Use of language. Use of nonverbal communication. Make eye contact. Adjust body position. Nonverbally encourage or discourage what other says. Reduced to its essence, negotiation is a form of interpersonal communication. Communication processes, both verbal and nonverbal, are critical to achieving goals and to resolve conflicts. However, one of the fundamental questions that researchers in communication and negotiation have examined is, what is communicated during negotiation? The researchers found that 70% of the verbal tactics that buyers and sellers used during negotiation were integrative. In addition, buyers and sellers tend to behave reciprocally-when one party use an integrative tactic, the other tended to respond with integrative tactic. Most of the communication during negotiation is not about negotiator preferences1.although the blend of distributive and integrative content varies as a function of SELECTION OF A COMMUNICATION CHANNEL Communication is experienced differently when it occur through different channels. We may think of negotiation as typically occurring face-to-face-an assumption reinforced by the common metaphor of the negotiation table but the reality is that people negotiate through a variety of communication media: over the phone, in writing, and increasingly through electronic channels such as e-mail, instant messaging, and teleconferencings systems. The use of network-mediated information technologies in negotiation is sometimes referred to as virtual negotiations.

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


HOW TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION IN NEGOTIATION Given then ways that communication can be disrupted and distorted, we can only marvel at the extent to which negotiators can actually understand each other. Failures and distortions in perception, cognition,and communication are the paramount contributors to breakdowns and failures in negotiation. Reseach consistently demonstrates that even those parties whose goals are compatible or integrated may fail to reach agreement or reach suboptimal agreements because of the misperception of the other party or because of breakdown in the communication process. Three main techniques are available for improving communication in negotiation: 1.The use of questions-questions are essential elements in negotiations for securing information; asking good questions enables negotiators to secure a great deal of information about the other partys position, supporting arguments; and needs. Questions can be divided into two basic categories: those that are manageable and those that are unmanageable and cause difficulty3.manageable questions cause attention or prepare the other persons thinking for further questions, get information, and generate thought. While unmanageable questions cause difficulties, give information, and bring the discussion to a false conclusion. 2. Another technique is listening. There are three major forms of listening: Passive listening-involves receiving the message while providing no feedback to the sender about the accuracy or completeness of reception. Acknowledgement-is the second form of listening, slightly more active than the passive listening. When acknowledging, receiver occasionally nod their heads, maintain eye contact, or interject responses. Active listening is the third form. When receiver is actively listening, they restate or paraphrase the senders message in their own language4. 3.Role reversal this occur when there is continual 1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1.

argument for one particular position in debate lead to a blindness of involvement, or a self-reinforcement cycle of argumentation that prohibits negotiators from recognizing the possible compatibility between their own position and that of the other party. SPECIAL COMMUNICATION CONSIDERATIONS AT THE CLOOSE OF NEGOTIATIONS Avoid fatal mistakes. Achieving closure. Having carefully examined the importance of communication in negotiation, it is then highly imperative that parties, during negotiation manage communication effectively in order to avoid failure to reach an agreement and breakdown in negotiation BEST PRACTICES: NEGOTIATING Preparation Structure diagnosis Batna Be willing to walk Master negotiation paradoxes Intangibles Coalitions Reputation Relativity Life-long learning Be prepared Understand and articulate your goals and interests Set high but achievable aspirations for negotiation Diagnose the fundamental structure of the negotiation Make conscious decisions about the nature of the negotiation: is it a distributive or integrative negotiation or blend of the two Choose strategies and tactics accordingly Identify and work the BATNA Be vigilant about the BATNA Be aware of the other negotiators BATNA 4. Be willing to walk away Strong negotiators are willing to walk away when no agreement is better than a poor agreement Have a clear walk away point in mind where you will halt the negotiation 5. Master the key paradoxes of negotiation Claiming value versus creating value

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


Sticking by your principles versus being resilient to the flow Sticking with the strategy versus opportunistic pursuit of new options Facing the dilemma of honesty: honest and open versus closed and opaque Facing the dilemma of trust: trust versus distrust 6. Remember the intangibles see what is not there ask questions take an observer or listener with you to the negotiation 7. Actively manage coalitions coalitions against you coalitions that support you undefined coalitions that may materialize for or against you 8. Savor and protect your reputation start negotiation with a positive reputation shape your reputation by acting in a consistent and fair manner 9. Remember that rationality and fairness are relative question your perceptions of fairness and ground them in clear principles find external benchmarks of fair outcomes engage in dialogue to reach consensus on fairness 10. Continue to learn from your experience practice the art and science of negotiation analyze each negotiation Plan a personal reflection time after each negotiation Periodically take a lesson from a trainer or a coach Keep a personal diary on strengths and weaknesses and develop a plan to work on weaknesses

So it is not necessarily your ideal outcome--unless your ideal outcome is something you can get without the cooperation of the other person. It is the best you can do WITHOUT THEM. BATNAs are critical to negotiation because you cannot make a wise decision about whether to accept a negotiated agreement unless you know what your alternatives are. If you are offered a used car for $7,500, but there's an even better one at another dealer for $6,500--the $6,500 car is your BATNA. Another term for the same thing is your "walk away point." If the seller doesn't drop her price below $6,500, you will WALK AWAY and buy the other car. Your BATNA "is the only standard which can protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would be in your interest to accept."[2] In the simplest terms, if the proposed agreement is better than your BATNA, then you should accept it. If the agreement is not better than your BATNA, then you should reopen negotiations. If you cannot improve the agreement, then you should at least consider withdrawing from the negotiations and pursuing your alternative (though the relational costs of doing that must be considered as well). Having a good BATNA increases your negotiating power. If you know you have a good alternative, you do not need to concede as much, because you don't care as much if you get a deal. You can also push the other side harder. If your options are slim or non existent, the other person can make increasing demands, and you'll likely decide to accept them--because you don't have a better option, no matter how unattractive the one on the table is becoming. Therefore, it is important to improve your BATNA whenever possible. If you have a strong one, it is worth revealing it to your opponent. If you have a weak one, however, it is better to keep that detail hidden. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess have adapted the concept of BATNA slightly to emphasize what they call "EATNAs"-estimated alternatives to a negotiated agreement" instead of "best alternatives." Even when disputants do not have good options outside of negotiations, they often think they do. (For example, both sides may think that they can prevail in a court or military struggle, even when one side is clearly weaker, or when the relative strengths are so

BEST ALTERNATIVE TO A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT (BATNA) What BATNAs Are....... BATNA is a term coined by Roger Fisher and William Ury in their 1981 bestseller, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In.[1] It stands for "Best ALTERNATIVE TO a negotiated agreement." Said another way, it is the best you can do if the other person refuses to negotiate with you--if they tell you to "go jump in a lake!" or "Get lost!"

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


balanced that the outcome is very uncertain.) Yet, perceptions are all that matter when it comes to deciding whether or not to accept an agreement. If a disputant thinks that he or she has a better option, she will, very often, pursue that option, even if it is not as good as she thinks it is. BATNA and EATNAs also affect what William Zartman and may others have called "ripeness," the time at which a dispute is ready or "ripe" for settlement.[3] When parties have similar ideas or "congruent images" about what BATNAs exist, then the negotiation is ripe for reaching agreement. Having congruent BATNA images means that both parties have similar views of how a dispute will turn out if they do not agree, but rather pursue their other rights-based or power-based options. In this situation, it is often smarter for them to negotiate an agreement without continuing the disputing process, thus saving the transaction costs. This is what happens when disputing parties who are involved in a lawsuit settle out of court, (which happens in the U.S. about 90 percent of the time). The reason the parties settle is that their lawyers have come to an understanding of the strength of each sides' case and how likely each is to prevail in court. They then can "cut to the chase," and get to the same result much more easily, more quickly, and less expensively through negotiation. On the other hand, disputants may hold "dissimilar images" about what BATNAs exist, which can lead to a stalemate or even to intractability. For example, both sides may think they can win a dispute if they decide to pursue it in court or through force. If both sides' BATNAs tell them they can pursue the conflict and win, the likely result is a power contest. If one side's BATNA is indeed much better than the other's, the side with the better BATNA is likely to prevail. If the BATNAs are about equal, however, the outcome is much less certain. If the conflict is costly enough, eventually the parties may come to realize that their BATNAs were not as good as they thought they were. Then the dispute will again be "ripe" for negotiation. The allure of the EATNA often leads to last-minute breakdowns in negotiations, particularly when many parties are involved. Disputants can negotiate for months or even years, finally developing an agreement that they think is acceptable to all. But then at the end, all the parties must take a hard look at the final outcome and decide, "is this better than all of my alternatives?" Only if all the parties say "yes," can the agreement be finalized. If

just one party changes his or her mind, the agreement may well break down. Thus, knowing one's own and one's opponents' BATNAs and EATNAs is critical to successful negotiation Determining Your BATNA BATNAs are not always readily apparent. Fisher and Ury outline a simple process for determining your BATNA: 1. 2. 3. develop a list of actions you might conceivably take if no agreement is reached; improve some of the more promising ideas and convert them into practical options; and select, tentatively, the one option that seems best.[4] BATNAs may be determined for any negotiation situation, whether it be a relatively simple task such as finding a job or a complex problem such as a heated environmental conflict or a protracted ethnic conflict. Fisher and Ury offer a job search as a basic example of how to determine a BATNA. If you do not receive an attractive job offer by the end of the month from Company X, what will you do? Inventing options is the first step to determining your BATNA. Should you take a different job? Look in another city? Go back to school? If the offer you are waiting for is in New York, but you had also considered Denver, then try to turn that other interest into a job offer there, too. With a job offer on the table in Denver, you will be better equipped to assess the New York offer when it is made. Lastly, you must choose your best alternative option in case you do not reach an agreement with the New York company. Which of your realistic options would you really want to pursue if you do not get the job offer in New York? More complex situations require the consideration of a broader range of factors and possibilities. For example, a community discovers that its water is being polluted by the discharges of a nearby factory. Community leaders first attempt to negotiate a cleanup plan with the company, but the business refuses to voluntarily agree on a plan of action that the community is satisfied with. In such a case, what are the community's options for trying to resolve this situation? They could possibly sue the business based on stipulations of the Clean Water Act. They could contact the Environmental Protection Agency and see what sort of authority that agency has over such a situation.

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


They could lobby the state legislature to develop and implement more stringent regulations on polluting factories.

third party may simply insert new information into the discussion...illustrating that one side's assessment of its BATNA is likely incorrect. Costing is a more general approach to the same is a systematic effort to determine the costs and benefits of all options. In so doing, parties will come to understand all their alternatives. If this is done together and the parties agree on the assessment, this provides a strong basis upon which to come up with a negotiated solution that is better than both sides' alternatives. But if the sides cannot come to such an agreement, then negotiations will break down, and both parties will pursue their BATNA instead of a negotiated outcome.

The community could wage a public education campaign and inform citizens of the problem. Such education could lead voters to support more environmentally-minded candidates in the future who would support new laws to correct problems like this one. It might also put enough public pressure on the company that it would change its

mind and clean up voluntarily. In weighing these various alternatives to see which is "best," the community members must consider a variety of factors. Which is most affordable and feasible? Which will have the most impact in the shortest amount of time? If they succeed in closing down the plant, how many people will lose their jobs?

C ASE STUDY- ROLE NEGOTIATION AT BOKARO STEEL PLANT SUMMARY The case study is all about the Role Negotiation between The Bokaro Steel Plant. Their main objectives of Bokaro plant is to understand each other role in the area of employees service, eliminating hardship, treating employees as human beings and image building of departments along with an improvement in the service rendered to the employees. Almost 32 persons were participated putting their effort for 2 days working in the particular exercise continuously for 11 hour. The time schedule was fixed for microlab, image building, image sharing and clarification ,empathy building (positive image)expectation in home group, exchange of expectation and clarification, discussion in home groups, consolidation by a joint team and listing joint recommendations, signing of agreement and preparation for dialogue with the top management. Role negotiation has three phases with top management and the top purposes of these exercise was to give the judgment on and lead to mutual understanding by keeping positive image in mind. The starting of the microlab exercise with the executive of different departments was very interesting ,as everyone shared their pleasant and unpleasant experiences and also came out with their own

These types of questions must be answered for each alternative before a BATNA can be determined in a complex environmental dispute such as this one. BATNAs and the Other Side At the same time you are determining your BATNA, you should also consider the alternatives available to the other side. Sometimes they may be overly optimistic about what their options are. The more you can learn about their options, the better prepared you will be for negotiation. You will be able to develop a more realistic view of what the outcomes may be and what offers are reasonable. There are also a few things to keep in mind about revealing your BATNA to your adversary. Although Fisher and Ury do not advise secrecy in their discussions of BATNAs, according to McCarthy, "one should not reveal one's BATNA unless it is better than the other side thinks it is."[5] But since you may not know what the other side thinks, you could reveal more than you should. If your BATNA turns out to be worse than the opponent thinks it is. Then revealing it will weaken your stance. BATNAs and the Role of Third Parties Third parties can help disputants accurately assess their BATNAs through reality testing and costing. In reality testing, the third party helps clarify and ground each disputing party's alternatives to agreement. S/he may do this by asking hard questions about the asserted BATNA: "How could you do that? What would the outcome be? What would the other side do? How do you know?" Or the

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


strength ,weakness and perception about their own and other department including other perception about their department. The group formed for this particular exercise shared their positive image, strength and building their empathy. The image drawn of executive department related to empathy building exercise was helpful, service oriented, humane, effective communicators, change agents, accountable, adaptable, easily accessible, more involved in production by creating conducive environment and actively solving problem. And the image drawn by finance was: poor record keeping, good team work, problem solving attitude, projecting good image at the cost of other, wrong pay fixation with subsequent corrigendum, partiality, shifting of blame, bureaucratic approach, ad hoc decision and for all problem blame others. The image or personals guess by finance EDP related to empathy building was: wrong pay fixation with subsequent corrigendum, poor record keeping, inconsistency in application of rules, shifting of blame, blamed personnel department for all problems, bureaucratic approach, projecting good image at cost of others, good team work and problem solving attitude. After generating the image of empathy by personnel department. They started to draw out the image of finance and EDP and their individual image drawn out was timely, punctual, effective, sincere, honest, cooperative, open, communicative, understanding and helping. The personnel image drawn was :

personnel image drawn which points out the negative part of finance and EDP department. The positive image or strength generated was:

Effective cost control, strong budgetary, promptness in making payment, good team spirit, good system of timely job rotation, team spirit, tactful, human approach, motivating force, cooperative. After deriving the positive image and empathy the home group was formed to reduce the negative image and increase the positive image to make home group more effective in their role performance. The ideas and view where exchanged and clarification were sought. The home group of executives department continued with Time schedules prescribed for various payments Enquiry counters as the shop floor. Prompt response to final settlement Prompt payment of travel and conveyance allowance. Disbursement of salary and PF at shop floor Time keeping system Preparation of computerized statement of income tax ,PF absenteeism rate ,leave ledger and final settlement, Issuing order regarding appointment ,promotion ,transfer and separation Certifying claims of employees regarding LTC/LLTC The prompt in payment of certain Certifying claims for payment of PF/gratuity/leave salary etc Maintaining good personal relation and coordination Working of final settlement cell

item, good finance, management and effective cost control, rule oriented, lacking human touch, less accessible, low initiative on communication with employees and other department, lack of problem solving approach, more centralized functioning, no involvement in plant problem, subordinate oriented approach and lack of coordination with departments isolated, this shows the

No change was made in this because they were the positive image which did not require any type of changes.

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


The negotiations were conducted on acceptance of each other expectations. In second round of role negotiation one team consolidated and integrated the points on which there was unanimous agreement and which could be implemented without any external help with both the group. The group agreed to implement the final contract and consolidated points which were not within their competence and needed the approval and support of the top management. Payment of medical advances Final settlement through signal window clearance system Decentralization of the pay account section Decentralization of the OD section

The personnel guess of image by finance in empathy building was blaming personnel department for all the problem.

Projecting good image at the cost of other Inconsistency in application of rules Lacking in human touch Less accessible because of distance location Low initiative on communication with employees and other department.

Lack of problem solving approach Inefficient More centralized functioning No involvement in plant problem Lack of co-ordination with the department, isolated.

The recommendation was discussed with the top management regarding all points and the recommendation was approved. The top team gave their full support in the implementation of the recommendation. The task force was constituted with five executes to ensure implementing within 15 days and decided to review the implementation after 2 months. PROBLEMS Some of the problems arise in the role negotiation at Bokaro steel plants are as follows: The 32 persons participated in the role negotiation, they had to work 11 hours, spread over 2 days for obtaining the objectives. Image generated through empathy building exercise was poor record keeping. The personnel guess of image by finance through empathy building exercise was wrong pay fixation with subsequent corrigendum. There was problem solving attitude Partiality was done in payment Shifting of blame in the field of finance No one accepts their mistake, everyone blames each other for all the problems that had or will arise.

Time for giving pay clearance in final settlement cases Insisting on individual order Arising for pay slips in support of claims Discrimination in making payment Late arrival of the payment staff at payment counters Raising superficial objection regarding eligibility for payment in compensation cases.

Delay in enquiry proceedings regarding suspended employees from their payment. Delay in replying representation Delay in sending DA rate orders Sending incomplete claims files for PF/gratuity payment

Delay in processing cases for final settlement No availability of sufficient copies for ensuring prompt action EFFORTS

The efforts done by the executives from different departments are as follows:

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


They put efforts in giving the employees error free service

They insisted to help the top management to implement the points as the points were not within their competence and needed the approval and support of the top management.

They tried to eliminate hardships Treating employees as human beings Image building of department They tried to improve in the service rendered by them to employees They exchanged their Image and seek clarification.

The final contracts was done and asked to accept those points The recommendation was derived after long discussion and was asked to accept to top management The rules and procedures was agreed to simplify and reduced delay and hardship to the employees.

Empathy building Discussion done in home group Signing of agreement and preparation for dialogue.

Working continuously for 2 days(11 hours). Sharing pleasant and unpleasant experiences with each others to know their strength and weakness. Trying to find out the individual perception about their department. like:

SUGGESTION Some of the steps to be taken to reduce these problem

Improve the record keeping style Good team work to be formed among employees Problem solving attitude should not be shown Wrong pay fixation with subsequent corrigendum should be reduced

More involvement in production. Trying to make their home group role eefective Preparing list for the reduction of negative image and developing/increasing positive image. Started reducing negative images like: Time for giving pay clearance in final settlement cases. Insisting on individual orders Asking for pay slips in support of claims. Discrimination in making payments Late arrivals of the payment staff at payment counters Delay in replying representations Delay in sending da rate orders. Sending incomplete claims files for PF/gratuity payments. Delay in processing cases for final settlement.

Partiality done with employees should be stopped and reduced immediately Avoid shifting of blames on others. Stop blaming others for all problem instead of looking for the solution.

Giving reward to one who has worked hard and deserves the reward

Giving more time to employees, spending more time with them. Should be always ready with the solution Both centralized and decentralized functioning should be done

Coordination should be made with every department.

Implementation was done for the unanimous agreement without any external help

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions



For many people and organization, international negotiation has become a norm rather than an exotic activity that only occasionally occurs. In the last 20 years, the frequency of international negotiation has increased rapidly bolstering the interests in international communication. However, there has been numerous inputs, from both academic and practitioner perspectives about the complexities of negotiation across borders, be it with a person from different country, culture, or region. Although the term culture has many possible definitions, we will use it to refer to the shared values and beliefs of a group of people. Country can have more than one culture, and culture can span national borders. As we have examined earlier, negotiation is a social process that is embedded in a much lager context. This context increases in complexity when more than one culture or country is involved, making international negotiation a highly complicated process. Phatak and Habib suggest that two overall contexts have an influence on international negotiations: THE ENVIRONMENT CONTEXTS: Salacuse identified six factors in the environmental context that make international negotiations more challenging than domestic negotiations: and these include the following; Political and legal pluralism. International economics. Foreign government and bureaucracies. Instability. Ideology. Culture. Phatak and Habib have suggested additional factor which is: External stakeholders. IMMEDIATE COTEXTS: At many points in our discussions, we have discussed aspects of negotiation that relate to immediate contexts factors, but without considering their international implications, at this junction we will list the concepts from the Phatak and Habib model of international negotiation. And the immediate contexts are: Relative bargaining power. Level of conflict. Relationship between negotiators. Desire outcomes. Immediate stakeholders. CONCEPTUALIZING CULTURE AND NEGOTIATION.

The most frequently studied aspect of international negotiation is culture and the amount of research on the effects of culture n negotiation has increased substantially in the last 20 years. There are many different meanings of the concept of culture, but all definition share two aspects. First, culture is a group-level phenomenon. That means that a defined group of people shares beliefs, values, and behavioural expectations. The second common element of culture is that cultural beliefs, values, and behavioural expectations are learned and passed on to new members of the group. It is also important to remember that negotiation outcomes, both domestically and internationally, are determined by several different factors. While cultural differences are clearly important, negotiators must guard against assigning too much responsibility to cultural factors. Dialdin, Brett, Okumura, and Lytle have labelled the tendency to overlook the importance of the situational factors in favour of cultural explanations the cultural attribution error. It is important to recognize that even though culture describes group-level characteristics, it doesnt mean that every member of a culture will share those characteristics equally. In fact, there is likely to be a wide of a variety of behavioural differences within cultures as there is between cultures. Although knowledge of the other partys culture may provide an initial clue about what to expect at the bargaining table, negotiators need to be open to adjusting their view very quickly as new information is gathered. The two important ways that culture has been conceptualized are: Culture as shared value And, culture as dialectic. THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON NEGOTIATION: Managerial perspectives Cultural differences have been suggested to influence negotiation in several ways. Now lets examine different ways that culture can influence negotiation. Definition of negotiation: the fundamental definition of negotiation, what is negotiable, and what occurs when we negotiate can differ greatly across cultures.(i.e.) American way and the Japanese ways of viewing negotiations. Negotiation opportunity: culture influences the way negotiators perceive an opportunity as distributive versus integrative. Negotiators in North America are predisposed to perceive negotiation as being fundamentally distributive. But this is not the case outside North America. Selection of negotiators: The criterion used to select who will participate in a negotiation is different across cultures. These criteria can include such subject matter as age, seniority, gender, status, etc. Protocol: cultures differ in the degree to which protocol, or the formality of the relations between the two negotiating parties, is important. Communication: cultures influence how people

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


communicate; both verbally and nonverbally. There are also differences in body language across cultures. Time sensitivity: cultures largely determine what time means and how it affects negotiations. For example, comparing North American time consciousness with that of China or Latin Americans. Risk propensity: Cultures vary in the extent to which they are willing to take risks. Some cultures tend to produce bureaucratic, conservative decision makers who want a great deal of information before making decisions. Groups versus individuals: cultures differ according to whether they emphasize the individual or the the United State is very much an individual-oriented culture. Nature of agreements: culture also has an important effect both on concluding agreements and on what form the negotiated agreement takes. Emotionalism: culture appears to influence the extent to which negotiators display emotions. These emotions may be use as tactics, or may be a natural response to positive and negative circumstances during negotiation. THEN INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON NEGOTIATION: Research perspectives A conceptual model of where culture may influence negotiation has been developed by different scholars, for example Jeanne Brett, suggested that culture will influence, setting of priorities, and strategies, the identification of the potential for integrative agreement, and the pattern of interaction between negotiators. Researchers also explore how intracultural and cross cultural factors will influence the outcome of an agreement. It has also been suggested that overall negotiation process and outcome will be influenced by cultures. CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE NEGOTIATING STRATEGIES Stephen Weiss has proposed a useful way of thinking about the options we have when negotiating with someone from another culture. Weiss observes that negotiators may choose from among up to eight different culturally responsive strategies. These strategies may be used individually or sequentially, and the strategies can be switched as the negotiation progresses. Weisss culturally responsive strategies can be arranged into three groups, based on the level of familiarity (.low, moderate, high): LOW FAMLIARITY: Employ agents or advisers (unilateral strategy) Bring in a mediator (joint strategy) Induce the other negotiator to use your approach (joint strategy) MODERATE FAMILIARITY:

Adapt to the other negotiators approach (unilateral strategy) Coordinate adjustment (joint strategy) HIGH FAMILIARITY: Embrace the other negotiators approach (unilateral strategy) Improvise an approach (joint strategy) Effect symphony (joint strategy) Lastly, there has been considerate research on the effects of culture on negotiation in the last decade. Findings suggest that culture has important effects on several aspects of negotiations, including planning, the negotiation process, information exchange, negotiation cognition, and negotiator perception of ethical Behaviour.

COUNSELLING In general the counseling is to help individuals to overcome many of their problems. It involves two factors. TERMS INVOLVED IN COUNSELING 1. Counselor 2. counselee DEFINITION Smith(1955): A process in which the counselor assists the counselee to make the interpretations of facts related to choice, plan or adjustments which he need to make. Perez(1965): The counseling is an interactive process conjoining the counselor who needs assistance and the counselor who is trained and educated to give the assistance. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE EMERGENCE OF COUNSELING 1. Technological factors 2. Psychological factors 3. Educational factors 4. Human factors TECHNOLOGICAL FACTORS Technological changes have made a major impact upon the peoples lives and work. Because of the rapid change in the technology the need of counseling arises and it comes into existence. PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS The growth of counseling is also because of Psychological factors. As a part of broader field of psychology the counseling is being introduced for the development into it.

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions


EDUCATIONAL FACTORS Modern counseling is a product of education system especially American education system. It has deep roots in the concern for an individuals freedom, rights, and dignity. The development of counseling can best be appreciated by analyzing the various issues that affected and influence its development. HUMAN FACTORS There are several mutually opposed conceptions of the basic human nature. Is human nature either evil, or good, or neutral? This factor of human nature also helps in the emergence of the counseling. GROWTH OF COUNSELING The growth of counseling is divided into four phases. They are: 1. 1850-1900 2. 1900-1930 3. 1930-1940 4. Second world war and after 1850-1900 Under this period the innovations in the field of psychology were made. under this period the the first psychological laboratory was founded at Leipzig by Wilhelm Wundt in 1879. However, it was Jesse b. Davis who first used the term counseling in this period. 1900-1930 During the first few years of the twentieth century several significant events took place. These movements boosted efforts to develop knowledge and services in order to assist the individuals. Unfortunately there is a wrong impression that counseling is a poor mans psychotherapy. All these factors helps in the emergence of the counseling. 1930-1940 Under this era the workers needs the guidance for suitable tools and techniques to understand the concept of counseling. There were very few Psychological tests available and few persons were trained to use them at that time. SECOND WORLD WAR AND AFTER In this era a book was published as counseling and psychotherapy by Carl Rogers in 1942. Before this there was a hesitation regarding the acceptability of counseling as a form of psychotherapy. In this era counseling obtained the recognition by the American Psychological association(APA). The APA accepted the recommendation of meeting and designated counseling psychology as its seventeenth division.

LASTLY Over the past five decades counselors have gained overwhelming acceptance from society. A large number of sub-specialities have developed to serve in setting such as schools, mental health clinics, rehabilitation centers, colleges. APPROACHES OF COUNSELING 1. Psychoanalytic approach 2. Bahaviouristic approach 3. Humanistic approach PSYCHOANALYTIC APPROACH Psychoanalysis was originated by SIGMUND FREUD, who developed his theory from his past experiences as a therapist and wrote about his work. In this the client is ignorant And unaware of the reasons for his difficulties or suffering which are deeply embedded in the unconscious. The client is therefore helpless and it is the therapist who has to play the role of interpreting the material. This principle is known as psychological determinism. BEHAVIOURISTIC APPROACH Counseling and psychotherapy are concerned with behavior change. learning here is understood as changes in the behavior which are relatively long-lasting and which are not due to the psychological factors like fatigue etc. one such application is in the form of Bahaviouristic approach. Its purpose is to change the ineffective and self defeating behavior into the effective and self winning behavior.

HUMANISTIC APPROACH The practical application of the humanistic Psychology made a great impact on the academic scene. According to ROGERS in any kind of psychotherapy the basic theme is the helping relationship. In all human Interactions such as mother-child, teacher-pupil, therapist-client The helping relationship is fundamental. This relationship is one in which the counselor seeks to bring about a better expression of the clients inner resources. Thus the helping relationship helps in the growth of person.

Prof. Amit Kumar FIT Group of Institutions