Diagnosis of the Needs of the Other Party

Negotiating Styles. Trading Climates

Negotiating Tactics. Concessions and Deadlocks

Systematic Preparation. Skill Development

The time limit determines the outcome of the negotiations. People wait as soon as possible to make a decision.

Those who have sixty minutes to negotiate, reach an agreement in sixty minutes.

Deadlines put pressure on you to close the deal The problem with deadlines is that we tend to be more aware of our deadline than the other person's. This leads us to underuse our power and overestimate our opponent's.

In this regard, take into account the following considerations:

• If necessary, a longer term must be "negotiated".
• Make the most of the time available.
• Quick negotiations, whether necessary or unnecessary, are dangerous.
• The person who is more prepared for a quick negotiation, is more likely to obtain better results. The basic principle of this type of negotiation is that both parties win, therefore there is always a better deal for both, if they are willing to take the time. to look for it time and patience are power.

In the preparation phase, special attention must be devoted to trying to get to know the other party.

The more we know about our interlocutor, the better prepared we will be for the negotiation.

Among other information we are interested in the following: General company data: activity, sales volume and profits, product range, geographic markets, market share.

• Strategies, objectives, goals pursued.
• Negotiating style (cooperative or confrontational), tactics usually used, personal characteristics of the negotiators (manners, honesty, friendliness, etc.).

Power relationship Knowledge of the other party also allows us to estimate the possible power relationship during the negotiation:

• Negotiating with a large company is not the same as negotiating with a small one.
• It is not the same to deal with an issue that affects the core business of a company than to deal with a marginal issue.
• Negotiating trying to establish a lasting relationship with the other party is not the same as simply seeking an occasional agreement.

Negotiation is the process of seeking the acceptance of ideas, purposes or interests, seeking the best possible result, in such a way that the parties involved end the negotiation aware that they were attended to, that they had opportunities to present all their arguments and that the product final is greater than the sum of the individual contributions. And that every day we need to perfect it, especially when the crisis seems to be always present and when the executive is required to adopt a permanent position as a negotiator.

In our negotiation processes, two types of skills stand out: technical skills and interpersonal skills.

The first are related to the knowledge of techniques and processes for negotiation (example: stages for conducting the negotiation): the others are related to the interpersonal knowledge of the negotiators (what is the style of each one, what are their strengths, openness , needs, motivations, etc.).

Undeniably, technical skills deserve more attention than interpersonal skills.

A third type of skill

• business knowledge
• It is extremely specific to each negotiation: it is the minimum knowledge of the subject matter of the negotiation, fundamental even to know if the negotiation was good or not; in our chapter, the business is human resource development.

When the negotiation properly begins, the parties maintain distant positions.

The normal thing is that each one finds his position perfectly logical and rational and, on the other hand, the other's position is not explained, which will probably be selfish and indefensible.

This frequently leads to seeing the opponent in a negative way, as an enemy that must be stopped to prevent them from taking advantage of us.

The failure of this approach lies in not understanding that the interests of the other party are as legitimate as ours.

If we did this reflection, we would come to the conclusion that there are indeed two opposing positions, but that it does not have to follow that people also have to be opposed.

The appropriate use of language helps to make this separation between problems and people: Saying "your proposal is stupid" is not the same as saying "I don't agree with your new proposal at all."

The clarity of the message is the same in both cases, but in the first example the image of the adversary is damaged while in the second case it is not.

Faced with an impertinent comment or a personal attack, it is advisable to remain calm and not respond in the same tone, because if you do not run the risk of entering into a spiral of insults that could ruin the negotiation. We will also gain moral stature.

The negotiator will attend the meeting with a battery of arguments to use. As you detect what the interlocutor's main concerns are, you will focus on those arguments that best respond to them.

Additionally, despite the central role that collective bargaining occupies in unions, this activity still takes place in most cases spontaneously, without systematic preparation based on research and knowledge, disjointed and atomized with respect to the unions of the same sector and of the same region and locality, and without the accompaniment and systematic advice of the CUT and its subdirectorates.

Many people excel at creativity and improvisation when negotiating. For many, preparation is not an important part of the negotiation process. They negotiate by intuition, without preparation. However, a new, broader view of the negotiation process is gaining ground. Having a keen intuition is important for success in negotiations.

Still, business executives, government leaders, and other professionals negotiating complex issues combine essential instincts with systematic preparation.

Every day more and more people are recognizing that careful preparation is a key ingredient for successful negotiations.

People don't prepare to negotiate for three reasons:

1) they do not see an important value in preparation;
2) they are too busy to spend their limited time preparing;
3) They don't know how to prepare for the negotiation in a way that produces results.

They commonly assume no preparation is necessary when negotiating in low-risk situations or feel they know enough about the substance of the issue to improvise.