The results of the negotiation style self-assessment that I completed have shown that my negotiation style falls under the âcompromisingâ category. According to my score, I exhibit negotiating characteristics that are moderate to strongly consistent with the Compromising style. This means that in most conflicts and arguments, I try to reach a solution that would have equal benefits for me and my opponent. Having analyzed my behaviors and tendencies during arguments and negotiations, I can say that the results seem credible to me. The information about my negotiation style is extremely useful, as it will allow me to learn more about my communication skills and improve them further. As I negotiate with others, I will be able to find compromises more often and handle the negative responses of my opponents in case they occur.
There are different situations in which a compromising style can be considered most appropriate. For example, when there are issues that prevent one from exploiting the full potential of the conversation or a conflict (Lewicki et al., 2020). These issues could include is a shortage of time, an emergency on one or both sides of the negotiation, and so on. In these cases, compromising may be the most appropriate style to use. One example of a situation when compromising is inappropriate is when none of the parties gain anything from it. It may also be inappropriate to compromise when some of the requirements compromised are critical for one or both parties (Lewicki et al., 2020). The bargaining tactics that I like are mostly related to mutual gain bargaining. These include making commitments, presenting extreme demands that are followed by slow concessions, and using negotiable offers.
The strategies of negotiating can be appropriate and inappropriate based on the situation or conflict in question. An example of a situation when one should negotiate is when they understand and can present and explain the value they bring to the agreement and why a particular solution will be most beneficial. Besides, I think that negotiation is crucial when it concerns the rights of some of the parties. For example, when the employeeâs salary is lower than it should be, they have a right to negotiate it with their management.
There are, however, cases when negotiating will not bring benefits and should instead be prevented or stopped. For instance, when one or both parties have a more beneficial alternative to a negotiated agreement, engaging in negotiations will result in a pointless waste of time and resources. In this case, the âavoidanceâ type of non-negotiation can be a more appropriate step to take (Lewicki et al., 2020). Another example is a no-win situation, which refers to an argument in which there can be no winning side. If it is clear from the beginning of the conversation that there can be no agreement that satisfies both parties, negotiating is pointless; in this case, yielding is a more reasonable option.
Mutual adjustment is one of the crucial elements of the negotiation process because it signals an important change. It occurs when both sides of the conversation realize that they can have an impact on the other partyâs outcomes and vice versa (Lewicki et al., 2020). This concept plays an important role in the negotiation process because it allows the sides to make changes to the positions proposed by their opponents. As a result, both parties can understand what they can and cannot gain from the negotiations.
Reference
Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2020). Negotiation (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.