Negotiation Reflective Portfolio - Coursework Example

Running Head: NEGOTIATION REFLECTIVE REPORT Individual Negotiation Reflective Report Name Institution Date Individual Negotiation Reflective Report 1. Reflection on the First Three Negotiations Performed The first three negotiations were very important in the preparation for the mega negotiation. Skills, ideas and knowledge gained in the negotiations were to form the basis for the mega negotiation. In the first negotiation, my group was competing against and other group in the sale of an old car. As a group, we clearly understood the important of being informed before facing a client for any negotiations (Cragan et al, 2004). As a result, we engaged in intensive research on the model of cars in the market, their cost and the characteristics of each. Since we were both selling a Holden Commodore 2003, the most important thing was our ability to persuade the client to purchase our car instead of that of our competitor. We gave the client a chance to bargain our selling price which was within the margin of the selling price at the market. In addition, we gave the customer a free service and fueled the car for him. Though this was covered in the total cost, it appeased the client therefore closing a deal with our group. We applied reward power base to persuade the client to accept our offer (Conley, & William, 1998). 2. E-negotiation The second negotiation was e-negotiation. In current global trends, this form of communication has become very important since people can communicate regardless of the distance between then (Kouki & Wright, 1999). Though this mode of communication has its own challenges, it has the advantage of reduced cross-gender difficulties, racism, tribalism and gender bias. Since people communicate via writing, it is hard to identify who they are or their skin color especially where individuals and teams use nick names and registered business names. However, it is time consuming and not everyone is in a position to access every feature in the internet (Kouki & Wright, 1999). These problems were evident during our negotiations. In addition, the negotiation lacked the convincing power that comes as a result of expression and sampling. This was as a result of the distance involved. Responses were not sent back immediately especially in cases where there were disagreements. A negotiation that would have taken 20 minutes ended up taking two and a half hours. In addition, there is the problem of time difference which makes it difficult to carryout negotiations. According to Kouki & Wright (1999), being participants from different cultural backgrounds and having different experience strengthened our team in that we concentrated on the strength of each person. We took advantage of the research we had conducted earlier to emerge as the best negotiating team. After winning in the first negotiation, we relaxed and assumed that we would definitely make it in the next one. We did not have enough meeting as was the case in the previous preparation. As a result, we wasted a lot of time during the negotiation especially due to fact that it involved a lot of writing. We lost the negotiation power to win over our competitor. Through this, we learnt how important preparation and brainstorming is before negotiation. In addition, we learnt the importance of team work in carrying any task. It is through planning that ideas are organized in terms of the strongest to the weakest point giving one a ground to win despite being limited by time. We agreed to apply the win-win approach so as to maintain a good relationship. This is a very efficient style to apply especially where one aims at continuing business with a person or a group. This is attributed to the fact that both parties feel satisfied at the end of the negotiation. I was the leader in my group. I was able to mobilize all members to participate and feel equally important while appreciating the uniqueness of each individual. This way, all our emotional needs were met and we were able to detach from our motions during the negotiation to enhance rationality. According to Pole et al (1992) emotions can result to irrational thinking if not controlled. The third negotiation involved a mediator since it was likely to result to a conflict if the teams did not agree. It was about MPT, pacific communication, NTT and central digital. My team was central digital and we had to keep to the agreed points of discussion. If at one point we seem to go out of the topic, the moderator would come in to redirect the negotiations. We engaged in a heated debate applying all the strategies we had learnt earlier to ensure that we won the negotiations. We remained focused and each group member worked his or her level best to ensure that our group objectives were met. Though we did not come to a conclusion due to the fact that we had consumed a lot of time, we were the strong team. At one point, the group members of our opponents were in disagreement, a factor that gave us a better chance of winning. Through this, we learnt the importance of unity in team work (Friedman & Barry, 1998). In my point of view, we may have been a weaker team but event the weakest team could become the winner where unity prevails. We also learnt the need for better organization during negotiations to avoid time wastage. The mediator did not only act as a mediator between two teams but also between team members where they were in disagreement. 3. Final Reflection of the Final Group Negotiation Since each group had learnt a lot from the previous negotiations, the lecturer decided to raise the standards for the last negotiation which was more complicated as compared to the others. Research, group discussions and brainstorming sessions held in my group had equipped each member for this specific task. However, there was still a lot we were to learn from the last negotiation. This made it clear to us that no one is perfect. There is need to gain more knowledge and some negotiation skills are only applicable to certain situation. To be an effective negotiator, one needs to evaluate each situation uniquely and argue his or her point with regard to the people involved and complexity of the matters being discussed (Friedman & Barry, 1998). In several occasions, the groups went out of the discussion and the lecturer had to keep on redirecting them. This resulted to wastage of time a very important resource in the process. Both teams were well prepared for the final negotiations and they applied the win-win strategy. However, the negotiations were not as easy as one would think. Each team leader had a chance to introduce his members and give a strong background regarding the company they were representing. This formed the basis for the negotiations. This negotiation was a complex one as it involved to cultures which were completely different. While Chinese members and the government saw a chance to create social ties, we were grabbing a business opportunity and a chance to make profit. The deal could not be closed if only one side was benefiting (Conley & William, 1998). We therefore came to a conclusion that it was necessary to divide the profits gained in closing the mines, training the engineers and upgrading the existing railway system. Though they had requested for 75 members to be trained and 40 mines to be closed, we found this to be unrealistic as it would increase the cost and make more than 2000 people jobless within a short time. The challenge in China was identified as lack of safe working conditions. We agreed to train 25 engineers who would later act as the trainers for the rest of the group thus reducing the total training cost. In addition, we agreed to close the mines in phases to reduce the problem of unemployment and therefore would close 10 mines per phase for three phases. This meant that we would have to close a total of 30 small mines. We were also to invest a lot in upgrading the railway system thus resulting to an agreement of dividing the profits at a ratio of 60% to 40%. We agreed to take the social responsibility of creating employment for people thus training Chinese engineers who were to later train their colleges. Both groups benefited bringing the negotiations to a close. However, it was agreed that the terms of the contract should be reviewed after 10 years and any necessary adjustments be made with regard to individuals involved and the conditions existing at that particular time. With this, the contract between the two companies was signed. To win in this negotiation, we had selected Chesah who had strong communication skill to head the negotiations. We only contributed when she gave us the chance. This enhanced order in the team a factor that ensured that our argument was well organized. Improving communication to enhance productivity is very important in any team. As Nooriafshar and St Hill (1998)explains, good team leaders are those that communicate effectively by evaluating the learning styles of each individual. Chesah was good in this due to her leadership skills making every member contribute to their best. Having leadership skills drives team members to owning the goals and thus contributing effectively in order to achieve the best (Zammit, 2006). In addition to this, we had brainstormed on possible threats during our meeting. This made it easier for us to answer any questions posed by the opponents. As much as both companies benefited, our team emerged winner since the other team was not well coordinated. This was evident when members of the same groups presented their points concurrently. Giving inaccurate and outdated responses was one of the common mistakes that our opponents made. In this negotiation, we applied information power base to win over our opponents (Conley & William, 1998). The team members worked hard to get as much information as possible which was important in building our confidence in the negotiations. This is in recognition that information empowers (Stephanie, 2003). 4. Conclusion In all the negotiations, I had a chance to learn to be a better and strong person in a negotiation. The negotiations were geared towards developing good leadership, teamwork, communication, negotiation and planning skills. These skills are not only applicable in business but also in all real life situations. The negotiations left me a stronger and more skilled person. In our various discussions, we realized that information is power as the most informed group always won. When one is informed, he or she becomes more confident when presenting ideas. Lastly, it was a chance for everyone to learn more about intercultural matters thus enhancing personality and promoting confidentiality in presentation. We realized that planning is the most important element in negotiation without which the negotiation process cannot be successful. This portfolio brings out the importance of team work, good leadership skill, timing as well as good communication skills in negotiations. In addition, planning has been brought out as the most critical part of negotiation. References Conley, M., and William, O'. (1998). A Natural History of Disputing." Just Words: Law, Language and Power, pp. 78-97. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cragan, F., David, W. and Chris, K. (2004). Communicating in Small Groups: Theory, Process, Skills, 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Friedman, R and Barry, B. (1998) Bargainer Characteristics in Distributive and Integrative Negotiation: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, issue No. 2, pp 345- 359. P Kouki, R & Wright, D (1999). Telelearning via the internet. London: Idea group publishing. Nooriafshar, M. and St Hill, R., (1998) Adopting The Technologies Associated With Modern Computing To Incorporate Studentsˆ Modal Preferences Into Course Design. Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland. Poole, M. S. & Dale L. Shannon (1992) “Communication Media and Negotiation Process,” pp.21-45 Stephanie, M. (2003) "Real teams in small Australian firms", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 Iss: 9. (learning style) Zammit, K. (2006). Senior management teams: Member roles and team effectiveness within large hospitality organizations. Melbourne: Victoria University (both). Read More