My personal style in negotiation

I wish to use this paper as a tool for personal introspection, to understand my personal
style in communication. Negotiation takes place daily in our lives, without our complete
realization. It is something that never came naturally to me, confrontation of any sort
makes me uncomfortable. But I have come to realize how negotiation could just be a
simple discussion involving what each party wants. But usually if I am not personally
losing something in a situation, I would consider it to be a hassle to take efforts to
negotiate for any added benefits I may or may not deserve. I usually tend to choose the
subtle route of diplomacy in most of the situations.

1) Reasoning
My father never exactly used the ‘because I said so’ attitude, with me or my sister. I
grew up in a more collaborative environment where I and my sister were taught to make
our own decisions, now in hindsight I believe my parents somehow led us to make
those decisions. Any decisions my parent thought wasn’t right I would have to provide
reasonings as to why I wished to it and why it was beneficial to me. It was a practice on
expanding the negotiating pie and making trades. For example, I would use bargaining
chips like completed homework to stay out later to play or my parents used some tasks I
wouldn’t complete as the reason to decline my petitions.

1)Transparency
Last summer I interviewed for my dream role at BNP Paribas, it went quite well. Both
interviewers were already expressing interest to extend the offer and asked if I was
already interviewing elsewhere. I expressed how this role is exactly what I was
interested in, but it would be great if it could be converted to an apprenticeship than an
internship and stated all the reasons for the same. They said they would think about it, I
received an offer for the apprenticeship in a week and I happily cancelled all my other
offers in the pipeline for my dream offer. A week later I received a call from the recruiter
to discuss the nitty-gritty bits of the offer. I had some friends working at the firm and
knew all the monetary benefits as well as other terms of the 2-year contract. But to my
surprise, the recruiter was offering me 40% less than what my friends were offered. I
wasn't exactly sure what to make of it, it was a dream role in a well-established firm.
Also, if I go ahead with the offer, I would be free of my student loans plus receive a
stipend, which would make me financially independent. But I was very disappointed, but
they had already made a concession, converting the internship to apprenticeship it still
felt unfair
The HR continued going through other details of the contract, my mind was racing on
how to address the subject and without jeopardizing my chances to sign the contract. I
let her finish, and then expressed how happy I was to receive the offer and tried to
clarify the numbers on my salary and then stated the offer my friends were made. The
HR stated different departments have different salary offers. I made a half-hearted
appeal knowing full well that they had an upper hand. I accepted the offer but in my last
attempt scheduled an appointment with the career centre at ESSEC to mediate on my
end. Thinking if it comes from a neutral side it could aid my case and it did. I believe this
was a good exercise for my future when I wish to negotiate the same for my full-time
job.
It helped me when I was transparent that I wished to convert my internship to
apprenticeship offer, instead of never voicing it out. It was possible as they had an
intern for 2 years than train a new one every six months, so it was in a way beneficial for
BNP as well. Being transparent does helps one case only if it isn’t a hassle or is
somehow beneficial for the other party.

2)The power of listening and empathy….

I have always understood the power of active listening especially when making new
connections. People in general like to talk about themselves, the more you listen and
ask questions, the more they talk. The get feeling that they are being heard. This also
when you empathize with the person. You may or may not agree with the person, but
you understand where he comes from. And same goes for the person in front of you, he
feels this sense of rapport with you.
In negotiation exercises in class I always tried to listen to the other party first and
genuinely tried to empathize with their situation. This helps you to see things from their
side too and get a sense of what they would want next. Once you build the rapport,
there is a sense of trust in the relationship. Once that trust is developed and you wish to
work towards a similar goal, one can get back to working on a problem and recommend
a course of action that would be feasible. The purpose of the negotiation gets into action
mode than which side wins in the situation.
Once you listen and empathize it also important how phrase and lead the conversation.
It helps when you ask open ended questions initially it helps to understand their point of
view better.
4)Collaboration

Different people have different conflict management styles, some may have a
competitive style while some have a more collaborative style. Competing styles are
most goal oriented, dominant, assertive, persistent but sometimes it can be
uncooperative, which could in turn prove to be detrimental to process of negotiation.
Collaborative style can also try to achieve an optimal choice not only for yourself but
have consideration for the other party too. With this approach you value the
relationship, which helps in future dealings as well. It helps seek a fair agreement. As
opposed to always conceding in order to sustain the relationship. It is about increasing
the size of the pie, creating value for bot the parties. Fairness is a highly important
factor whenever negotiating with the other. Even if you are winning a negotiation you
wouldn’t feel satisfied unless your need for fairness is met.
A collaborative approach to negotiation would be to perceive both the individual’s
problem into a single problem, bringing both parties together and use it as a problem-
solving exercise. It helps one be more objective and keeps us at an equitable position to
collaborate from.

5) Assertion
Every once in a while, we come across situation where in the purpose of the discussion
doesn’t actually involve actually solve the problem at hand but to just win the argument.
So, instances where trust can’t be established, I tend to use logic over emotion in my
arguments. Asserting my exact points backed with strong reasoning helps but at the
same time it is important to understand the counterpart’s perspective, too. Because if
both parties try to assert dominance the entire discussion becomes counter-productive.
To achieve your goals, one must be able to advocate for oneself while still considering
all sides involved in the negotiation. Being able to adapt your style requires both self-
awareness and agility, especially when using an assertive negotiation approach.

Knowing and unknowingly I do use some of the above point when dealing with different
issues in daily life. In fact, realizing what I usually do seemed enlightening in a way.
These were what I am usually comfortable with, while I know the other ways and
understanding and learning those may help me become a stronger negotiator.