1

ASSIGNMENT ON CONFLICT RESOLUTION & NEGOTIATION SKILLS

2

CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND NEGOTIATION SKILLS.

Before we go to the conflict resolution and negotiation process we should have to

know that what is conflict and what is negotiation. After this we will discuss the conflict

resolution and negotiation skills.

What is Conflict…?

According to William Wilmot and Joyce Hocker (2011),

“conflict is known to be a fact of life and it truly exists and happens in our lives”

Conflicts occur between individuals, families, and even nations. These conflicts occur in

the workplace, at homes between families, or even through marriages.

Definition of conflictAccording to William Wilmot and Joyce Hocker (2011),

“an expressed struggled between at least two interdependent parties who perceive

incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their

goals”

According to Ruth Abigail and Dudley Cahn (2011)

“A kind of communication process within which a problematic situation with certain

characteristics arises”

Regardless of how the conflict is defined, it is possible for anyone to change his

or her conflict behaviors because these behaviors are not inborn but rather developed

repertoire of skillsand communication practices that we can learn, refine, and practice

(Wilmot &Hocker, 2011, p. 9).

Types of conflict

There are five different types of conflict as bellow,

1. Relationship Conflict

2. Data Conflict

3

3. Interest Conflict

4. Structural Conflict

5. Value Conflict

Relationship Conflict

Relationship conflict occurs when the perception of the differences among two or

more parties is negative which leads to negative emotions, miscommunication, and

negative behaviors among the parties involved in the situation. In other terms, a

relationship conflict is a disagreement or a struggle that happens between two people

within a relationship whether it is work or personal related relationship. This type of

conflict is a result of having misperceptions, stereotypes, or negative behaviors and

emotions.

Data Conflict

Data conflicts occur when there is a lack of information that help people make the

right decisions. This conflict also occurs when the decision makers are misinformed or

given the wrong information. The parties involved in the conflict usually disagree on

which data and information is relevant because they interpret the information in different

ways and the follow different assessment procedures to make the decisions. Most of the

data conflicts situations occur over data, either through the lack of communication

between the two parties or through the data collection and interpretation. In both cases,

there are solutions for these types of conflicts by providing more information or through

the collection of new data.

Interest Conflict

A conflict of interest occurs when one party has interests that are contrary with

each other. This type of conflict causes confusion and struggle with one’s points of view

and loyalties. The conflict of interests can happen in the workplace or in the personal life

and occurs over variety of different types issues as money, resources, time, respect, trust,

fairness, etc. According to Ashby and Neilson, “Conflict is concerned with an opposition

4

between two individuals, and is characterized by events in which one person resists,

retaliates, or protests the actions of another” (Ashby &Neilsen-Hewett, 2012, p. 145).

Structural Conflict

A conflict by definition is the discrepancies resulting from different viewpoints or

actions. Structural conflicts are just another type of conflict that is a result of external

factors rather than personal bias or stereotypes, e.g., organizational changes, time,

distance or proximity. As mentioned in the syllabus of the OL7001 course “Structural

conflicts come from outside factors such as geographic or time constraints, limited

physical resources, or organizational changes and these conflicts tend to have structural

solutions if they are properly mediated” (OL7001-08 Syllabus, 2012, p. 1). One of the

main differences between structural conflicts and other conflict types is that internal

factors are not the main drive for structural conflicts but it rather occurs because of the

external factors. These external factors are usually out of the control of the parties

involved in the conflict thus in order to solve and dispute these conflicts, it becomes

necessary to get some help from external agents.

Value Conflict

Values are the beliefs and assumptions that people have as part of their lives that helps

them set the basis for their ethical actions. People from the same culture tend to have

equivalent values and assumptions regarding their social world. These beliefs and

assumptions become part of their lives and it determines their behaviors and actions. On

the other hand, when two parties are not sharing the same values and beliefs or if they

come from different cultural backgrounds, their expectations start to interact and

sometimes it leads to creating conflicts because each party believes strongly in the way

they do things and the way of thinking about things while the other party thinks in the

same manner. This makes them both believe that each other's behaviors are strange and

wrong. Value conflicts occur between individuals or groups of people that have different

viewpoints that are fundamentally built on their subconscious value and believe systems.

Such viewpoints can be related to the standards of rightness, wrongness, goodness, and

5

badness. When one party holds a strong personal believe to their own values and

assumptions, it becomes difficult to believe in the value system of the other party and

each party starts stressing the importance of their own value system which leads to

conflict. Regardless of how substantive the issues are between any two parties, and as

long as these issues are related to one’s values and beliefs, the conflict becomes more

difficult to dispute because it is related to the moral system of each party. In addition to

that,

“Moral conflicts are intractable and interminable, and are morally and rhetorically

attenuated” (Pearce & Littlejohn, 2005, p. 44).

“Given the lack of agreement on both process and substance, parties involved in value

conflicts tend to turn to force-based conflict options more

often than negotiation or persuasive approaches, because force seems to be the only

common language that both sides understand and

honor” (Williams, 2005, p. 3).

Now we will discuss conflict resolution.

What is conflict resolution…?Conflict resolution is a way for two or more parties to find a peaceful solution to

a disagreement among them. The disagreement may be personal, financial, political, or

emotional. When a dispute arises, often the best course of action is negotiation

to resolve the disagreement. 

The concept of "conflict resolution" is open to many interpretations. On one hand,

conflict resolution can be regarded as any process that resolves or ends conflict via

methods which can include violence or warfare. Alternatively, it can be viewed as a non-

violent process that manages conflict through compromise, or through the assistance of a

third party who either facilitates or imposes a settlement or resolution. Conflict resolution

processes are many and varied and can be seen on a continuum ranging from

collaborative, participatory, informal, non-binding processes (such as mediation,

conciliation, third party negotiation) to adversarial, fact-oriented, legally binding and

imposed decisions that arise from institutions such as the courts and tribunals (Boulle,

6

1996). Typically, non-adversarial practices such as mediation, negotiation, arbitration and

conciliation are practices which have been associated with conflict resolution or alternate

dispute resolution (ADR) procedures rather than adversarial institutions such as courts

and tribunals where a settlement is imposed on the disputants by an external authority

(Boulle, 1996). In contrast mediation, conciliation or negotiation are activities that

facilitate communication between participants who are seeking to resolve their

differences in a cooperative way.

Some commentators such as Wertheim et al (1998) and Fisher and Ury (1996)

believe that the key to resolving conflict is to focus on interests rather than positions,

which is the solution one party seeks to impose on another. Burton (1986, cited in

Tidwell, 1998) has argued that resolution between two parties in conflict can only occur

when "relationships have been re-examined and realigned" (p.9). Although this form of

resolution may by regarded by some as more desirable it is not always practicable.

Resolution in cases of marital separation or divorce can in some cases simply mean the

settlement of an outstanding property dispute rather than the "realignment of

relationships." The "transformation" of relationships may be an ideal pursued by a third

party who is intervening on behalf of the disputants, but it is not necessarily the goal of

the disputants who may simply desire a solution to their problem.

Laue (cited in Charles Sturt University, 1998) has argued that conflict can only be

considered resolved if the following conditions are met:

• The solution jointly satisfies the interests and needs of the parties via joint agreement.

• The solution does not compromise the values of either party.

• The parties do not repudiate the solution even if they have the power to do so following

the settlement.

• The solution is fair and just and becomes self-supporting and self-enforcing.

Although this form of resolution seems ideal because it aims to achieve an

enduring outcome it is not always practicable in situations where the relationship between

two parties is severely strained or when there is no ongoing relationship to be maintained.

In such situation parties in conflict will often attempt to maximize their gains at the

expense of the other through the negotiation or bargaining process (Boulle, 1996). To

summarize, conflict resolution can be viewed as a problem solving process which is

7

designed to offer parties an opportunity to resolve their differences collaboratively. This

process often involves third parties who employ techniques and methods that are aimed at

facilitating communication between parties engaged in conflict.

Conflict resolution is related to peacemakingBefore answering the question of how conflict resolution is related to

peacemaking it is important firstly to consider what is meant by the term "peacemaking".

The relevance or otherwise of conflict resolution processes to peacemaking needs to be

considered in the light of the meaning given to this term. Laue (cited in Charles Sturt

University, 1998) has defined peacemaking as the "active process of peace, the behavior

of actors and institutions that leads to more peaceful relations" (p.303). Peace is

considered by Laue (cited in Charles Sturt University, 1998) as the state of relations

between individuals or groups that is characterized by the absence of war, the presence of

social justice and economic wellbeing, and the respect of human rights. Galtung (1985,

cited in Barash, 1991) used the term "positive peace" to denote a society that is free of

overt as well as structural or institutionalized violence which permits its citizens to enjoy

economic, social advancement, political equality and freedom from oppression.

In considering whether conflict resolution as defined previously is related to

peacemaking the question needs to be asked whether conflict resolution processes

facilitate peace. It is debatable whether processes such as mediation or negotiation when

applied to interpersonal, community, or organizational disputes constitute activities that

can be regarded as peacemaking. Although the process of conflict resolution in these

cases may generate a mutually agreed upon settlement that results in improved relations

between parties it does not necessarily meet Galtung's (1985, cited in Barash, 1991) and

Laue's (cited in Charles Sturt University, 1998) definition of a peacemaking activity.

These commentators have argued that peace is defined by the presence of justice and

equality in society as well as the absence of war or structural violence. Although conflict

resolution procedures may be indicative of a society that encourages reconciliation

between individuals (e.g. in a community, organizational or interpersonal context) it is

not an activity that can be regarded as "peacemaking" unless it addresses problems that

arise from the absence of peace (e.g. war, injustice or structural violence).

8

Conflict Resolution Skills The ability to successfully manage and resolve conflict depends on four key

skills. Together, these four skills form a fifth skill that is greater than the sum of its

parts: the ability to take conflict in stride and resolve differences in ways that

build trust and confidence.

1: Quickly relieve stress

 2: Recognize and manage your emotions.

3: Improve your nonverbal communication skills.

4: Use humor and play to deal with challenges.

Quickly relieve stress.The capacity to remain relaxed and focused in tense situations is a vital aspect of

conflict resolution. If you don’t know how to stay centered and in control of yourself,

you may become emotionally overwhelmed in challenging situations. The best way to

rapidly and reliably relieve stress is through the senses: sight, sound, touch, taste,

and smell. But each person responds differently to sensory input, so you need to

find things that are soothing to you.

Recognize and manage your emotions.Emotional awareness is the key to understanding yourself and others. If you don’t

know how you feel or why you feel that way, you won’t be able to

communicate effectively or smooth over disagreements. Although knowing your own

feelings may seem simple, many people ignore or try to sedate strong emotions

like anger, sadness, and fear. But your ability to handle conflict depends on

being connected to these feelings. If you’re afraid of strong emotions or if you insist on

finding solutions that are strictly rational, your ability to face and resolve differences will

be.

 Improve your nonverbal communication skills.The most important information exchanged during conflicts and arguments is

often communicated nonverbally. Nonverbal communication includes eye contact, facial

expression, and tone of voice, posture, touch, and gestures. When you’re in the middle of

a conflict, paying close attention to the other person’s nonverbal signals may

9

help you figure out what the other person is really saying, respond in a way that builds

trust, and get to the root of the problem. Simply nonverbal signals such as a calm tone of

voice, a reassuring touch, or a concerned facial expression can go a long way

toward defusing a heated exchange.

 Use humor and play to deal with challenges You can avoid many confrontations and resolve arguments and disagreements

by communicating in a playful or humorous way. Humor can help you say things that

might otherwise be difficult to express without creating a flap. However, it’s important

that you laugh with the other person, not at them. When humor and play

are used to reduce tension and anger, reframe problems, and put the situation into

perspective, the conflict can actually become an opportunity for greater connection

and intimacy.

Tips for resolving conflict Resolving conflict requires emotional maturity, self-control, and empathy.

It can be tricky, frustrating, and even frightening. You can ensure that the process is as

positive as possible by sticking to the following conflict resolution guidelines:

· Make the relationship your priority

· Focus on the present.

· Pick your battles.

· Be willing to forgive.

· Know when to let something go.

Make the relationship your priority.

Maintaining and strengthening the relationship, rather than

“winning” the argument, should always be your first priority. Be respectful of

the other person and his or her viewpoint.

Focus on the present.

If you’re holding on to old hurts and resentments, your ability to see the reality of

the current situation will be impaired. Rather than looking to the past

and assigning blame, focus on what you can do in the here and now to solve the problem

10

Pick your battles.

Conflicts can be draining, so it’s important to consider whether the issue is really

worthy of your time and energy. Maybe you don't want to surrender a parking space if

you’ve been circling for 15 minutes. But if there are dozens of spots,

arguing over a single space isn’t worth it.

Be willing to forgive.

Resolving conflict is impossible if you’re unwilling or unable to forgive.

Resolution lies in releasing the urge to punish, which can never compensate for our losses

and only adds to our injury by further depleting and draining our lives.

Know when to let something go.

If you can’t come to an agreement, agree to disagree. It takes two people to

keep an argument going. If a conflict is going nowhere, you can choose to disengage

and move on.

Conflict resolution: Ground rulesRemain calm.Try not to overreact to difficult situations. By remaining calm it

will be more likely that others will consider your viewpoint.

Express feelings in words, not actions.Telling someone directly and honestly

how you feel can be a very powerful form of communication. If you start to feel so angry

or upset that you feel you may lose control, take a "time out" and do something to

help yourself feel steadier.

Be specific about what is bothering you.Vague complaints are hard to work on.

Deal with only one issue at a time.Don't introduce other topics until each is fully

discussed. This avoids the "kitchen sink" effect where people throw in all their

complaints while not allowing anything to be resolved.

No "hitting below the belt."Attacking areas of personal sensitivity creates an

atmosphere of distrust, anger, and vulnerability.

Avoid accusations.Accusations will cause others to defend themselves. Instead,

talk about how someone’s actions made you feel.

Don't generalize.Avoid words like "never" or "always." Such generalizations

are usually inaccurate and will heighten tensions.

11

Avoid "make believe."Exaggerating or inventing a complaint  or your feelings

about it  will prevent the real issues from surfacing. Stick with the facts and your honest

feelings.

Don't stockpile.Storing up lots of grievances and hurt feelings over time is

counterproductive.  It's almost impossible to deal with numerous old problems for which

interpretations may differ. Try to deal with problems as they arise.

Avoid clamming up.When one person becomes silent and stops

responding to the other, frustration and anger can result. Positive results can only

be attained with two-way communication.

 Resolving conflict by learning how to listen.When people are upset, the words they use rarely convey the issues and needs at

the heart of the problem. When we listen for what is felt as well as said, we connect

more deeply to our own needs and emotions, and to those of other people. Listening in

this way also strengthens us, informs us, and makes it easier for others to hear us….

Negotiation Negotiation is a process – a sequence of activities, perhaps with anunderlying pattern. It

is not a single event – choices are made along theway. It is not mechanical or

deterministic – the choices negotiators makeaffect how agreement is achieved and what

the agreement will be.

Definition…1. Negotiation can be defined as: "To communicate with the objective of reaching

an agreement by means, where appropriate, of compromise."

2. “Negotiation is the process in which parties that perceive one or more

Incompatibilities between them, try tofind a mutually acceptable solution”

3. “Negotiation is a process where two parties with differences which they need

To resolve are trying to reach agreement through exploring for options and

Exchanging offers – and an agreement.”

12

4.“ It is a process by which the involved parties or group resolve matters of dispute by

holding discussions and coming to an agreement which can be mutually agreed by

concerned parties”

5. “A process by which people deal with differences”

6. “To seek mutual agreement through dialogue”

Types of Negotiations Distributive Negotiation

Integrative Negotiation

Or

Multi-phase

Multi-party

Most negotiations combine elements of both types.

Distributive Negotiation1. Parties compete over distribution of a fixed sum of value.

2. Key question, ‘Who will claim the most value?’

3. Gain by one at the expense of the other. Also known as a zero-sum negotiation.

4. Often, there is only one issue in distributive negotiation: money.

5. It is impossible to make trade-offs based on differing preferences.

6 .Relationship and reputation are irrelevant; not willing to trade value for value in

their relationship.

Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining

negotiation. It tends to approach negotiation on the model of haggling in a market. In

a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme position, knowing that it

will not be accepted, and then employs a combination of guile, bluffing, and

brinkmanship in order to cede as little as possible before reaching a deal. Distributive

bargainers conceive of negotiation as a process of distributing a fixed amount of

value.

The term distributive implies that there is a finite amount of the thing being

distributed or divided among the people involved. Sometimes this type of negotiation

13

is referred to as the distribution of a "fixed pie." There is only so much to go around,

but the proportion to be distributed is variable. Distributive negotiation is also

sometimes called win-losebecause of the assumption that one person's gain results in

another person's loss. A distributive negotiation often involves people who have

never had a previous interactive relationship, nor are they likely to do so again in the

near future. Simple everyday examples would be buying a car or a house.

Integrative Negotiation1. Parties cooperate to achieve maximum benefits by integrating their interests

into an agreement.

2. Also known as win-win negotiation.

3. In business, integrative negotiations tend to occur at these times,

During the structuring of complex, long term partnerships or other

collaborations.

When the deal involves many financial and non-financial terms

Between professional colleagues, or superiors and direct subordinates

whose long term interests benefit from the other’s satisfaction

4. The goal of each side is to create as much value for each other

5. Each side makes trade-offs to get the things it values most, giving up other

less critical factors.

6. When parties’ interests differ, your ability to claim what you want from the

deal does not necessarily detract from the other party’s ability to claim what it

wants.

7. Both parties’ interests and preferences may be satisfied.

Integrative negotiation is also sometimes called interest-based or principled

negotiation. It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of

negotiated agreement by providing an alternative to traditional distributive negotiation

techniques. While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value (a

"fixed pie") to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation often attempts to

create value in the course of the negotiation ("expand the pie"). It focuses on the

underlying interests of the parties rather than their arbitrary starting positions, approaches

14

negotiation as a shared problem rather than a personalized battle, and insists upon

adherence to objective, principled criteria as the basis for agreement.[1]

Integrative negotiation often involves a higher degree of trust and the forming of a

relationship. It can also involve creative problem-solving that aims to achieve mutual

gains. It is also sometimes called win-win negotiation.

The Three Phases The three phases of a negotiation are:

1. Exchanging Information

2. Bargaining

3. Closing

These phases describe the negotiation process itself. Before the process begins,

both parties need to prepare for the negotiation. This involves establishing their

bargaining position by defining their BATNA, WATNA, and WAP (see Module Three).

It also involves gathering information about the issues to be addressed in the negotiation.

After the negotiation, both parties should work to restore relationships that may

have been frayed by the negotiation process.

It is essential to pay attention to all the phases of negotiation. Without the first

phase, the exchange of information, and the establishment of bargaining positions, the

second phase cannot happen in any meaningful sense because no one knows where they

stand. It sets a scene for demands to be manageable and reasonable. Negotiations are,

after all, about the art of the possible. Without the third phase, anything that has been

decided during phase two cannot be formalized and will not take hold – leading to the

necessity for further negotiation or an absolute breakdown in a relationship

15

Exchanging Information

The first phase in a negotiation involves an exchange of information. Both sides

state their positions on the issues being addressed in a non‐confrontational way. The

tricky part of this phase is deciding what to reveal and what to hold back. The “poker”

metaphor for negotiating is a very good one, because it describes exactly the way that

negotiating parties will want to “allow” each other to think. The information you share

with your negotiating counterpart will allow them to read a certain amount about your

position. You cannot negotiate blindly, after all. However, too much information given

away can really come back to bite you. 

Bargaining

Now we have reached the heart of the negotiation process. This phase —

bargaining — is what most people mean when they talk about negotiation. This module

explains what to expect when you begin to bargain and what to do if you run into an

impasse. It also describes some common bargaining techniques used by experienced

negotiators

Closing

The final phase of a negotiation is a time for reaching consensus and building an

agreement. A little hard work in this phase can ensure that the negotiation achieves it

desired results. Closing a negotiation can mean two different things: First it may be a

question of how to bring different ideas to a mutually agreed conclusion. A second

possibility view of ‘closing’ is what means negotiating parties can use to acknowledge or

formalize the idea that agreement has been reached. Recognizing that parties have

reached agreement can be quite simple. One can ask the other(s), “Then, have we reached

agreement?” The parties can shake hands, make a public announcement, or sign a

document. The real issue is that each has to make it clear to other negotiators that a

mutually agreed conclusion has indeed been reached.

16

Preparing for a Successful Negotiation

Depending on the scale of the disagreement, some preparation may be appropriate

for conducting a successful negotiation.

For small disagreements, excessive preparation can be counter-productive

because it takes time that is better used elsewhere. It can also be seen as manipulative

because, just as it strengthens your position, it can weaken the other person's.

However, if you need to resolve a major disagreement, then make sure you prepare

thoroughly. Using our free worksheet, think through the following points before you start

negotiating:

Goals: what do you want to get out of the negotiation? What do you think the

other person wants?

Trades: What do you and the other person have that you can trade? What do

you each have that the other wants? What are you each comfortable giving

away?

Alternatives: if you don't reach agreement with the other person, what

alternatives do you have? Are these good or bad? How much does it matter if

you do not reach agreement? Does failure to reach an agreement cut you out of

future opportunities? And what alternatives might the other person have?

Relationships: what is the history of the relationship? Could or should this

history impact the negotiation? Will there be any hidden issues that may

influence the negotiation? How will you handle these?

Expected outcomes: what outcome will people be expecting from this

negotiation? What has the outcome been in the past, and what precedents have

been set?

The consequences: what are the consequences for you of winning or losing

this negotiation? What are the consequences for the other person?

17

Power: who has what power in the relationship? Who controls resources? Who

stands to lose the most if agreement isn't reached? What power does the other

person have to deliver what you hope for?

Possible solutions: based on all of the considerations, what possible

compromises might there be?

Establishing Your WATNA and BATNA

In most negotiations, the parties are influenced by their assumptions about what

they think are the alternatives to a negotiated agreement. Often the parties have an

unrealistic idea of what these alternatives are, and they are unwilling to make concessions

because they think they can do just as well without negotiating. If you do not have a clear

idea of your WATNA (Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and BATNA

(Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), you will negotiate poorly based on false

notions about what you can expect without an agreement. Often the parties in a

negotiation need to decide how likely a particular outcome will be. If your WATNA is

something that would be difficult for you to accept, but the likelihood of it happening is

small, you might not feel compelled to give up much in negotiations. Realism is essential

in this situation. If you could have the ideal situation, the “blue sky” scenario,

negotiations would not be necessary. In order to focus on the negotiations with a sense of

purpose, your WATNA is important. What is often referred to as the “worst case

scenario” is something that any sensible person will think about before embarking on any

initiative. What if it goes wrong? How will we deal with that? How you feel about the

WATNA will dictate how flexible you need to be (and therefore will be) in negotiations.

The BATNA is almost more important than the WATNA. If you look at your situation in

the absence of a negotiated agreement, and find it almost unthinkable, you will be pressed

to enter negotiations in the hope of getting a satisfactory agreement. The word

“satisfactory” is important here. Is the WATNA better than satisfactory? Is the BATNA

worse? Generally, people only enter into negotiations because they feel they have to.

They arrive at this conclusion based on analysis of their WATNA and BATNA

18

Identifying Your WAPIn any negotiation, it is important that you keep your WAP (Walk Away Price)

to yourself, especially if it is significantly less than your initial offer. If the other party

knows that you will be willing to take a lot less than you are offering, then you will be

negotiating from a position of weakness. If the other party knows, or has an idea of your

WAP then it stops being your WAP and simply becomes your price. Establishing a WAP

in your mind, and ensuring that those negotiators on your side of the bargain (and only

they) know it, allows you to take your strongest possible bargaining position. The other

party will try to argue you down from your proposed price, so you will need to remain

firm. If they want to pay less, then you may be prepared to agree on a lower price in

return for concessions.  

The opposing party will then have to consider what is acceptable to them. Rather

than push too hard and lose out on a deal which would be beneficial to themselves, they

will have their own areas where they are willing to make concessions. However, if they

know that you have set a WAP that would save them money, they will simply hold firm

at that price. They have no incentive to make concessions to you. In many ways,

negotiation is about keeping as much to yourself as you possibly can until you can no

longer maintain that position.

Once you have set your WAP, it is essential to keep to it. A walk away price

becomes absolutely meaningless if you are not prepared to walk away should it not be

met. You should give the impression to opponents in negotiation that you could walk

away at any time. They will, after all, not be prepared to stop once they get a price which

is satisfactory to them – they will look to wring a bit more value out of the deal for

themselves, testing you to see what you will give up. A warning against setting your

WAP unrealistically low is that the other party will not take you seriously if you are a

pushover in negotiations. They will seek to test you at every turn.

19

Identifying Your ZOPAThe ZOPA (Zone Of Possible Agreement) is the area in which the final price

will sit, and within that ZOPA you will ideally end up with a price closer to their WAP

than yours. If you hint at where your WAP is, the other party will be less likely to come

to an agreement that is substantially better than that.

In the negotiation for the used car, both parties should feel good about the outcome. Even

though the parties might have hoped for a better deal, both got a better price than their

WAP.

This negotiation demonstrates the importance of keeping your WAP to yourself if

you want to negotiate the best deal. Your range in this situation falls between the price

that you would ideally, realistically get and the WAP you have set. In an ideal world you

could demand a million dollars and expect to get it. In a realistic world, you need to be

realistic in negotiations.  

You should arrive at your ideal realistic price by seeing what the accepted market

value for what you are offering is. By adjusting for your specific negotiating position

(whether you are approaching it from a position of need, etc.), you can find your best

realistic price. Then think about a price at which it would no longer be worthwhile to

strike a deal.

Skills for Successful NegotiatingJob descriptions often list negotiation skills as a desirable asset for job candidates,

but the ability to negotiate requires a collection of interpersonal and communication skills

used together to bring a desired result. The circumstances of negotiation occur when two

parties or groups of individuals disagree on the solution for a problem or the goal for a

project or contract. A successful negotiation requires the two parties to come together and

hammer out an agreement that is acceptable to both.

Top ten negotiation skills list is bellow mentioned…

1. Preparation

20

2. Active Listening

3. Emotional Control

4. Verbal Communication

5. Collaboration and Teamwork

6. Problem Solving

7. Decision Making Ability

8. Interpersonal Skills

9. Ethics and Reliability

10. Problem Analysis

Without the above factors, negotiations will be difficult if not impossible. The

necessity for negotiation arises because neither party will be able to get everything they

want. Knowing that there must be concessions, each party in the negotiation is required to

adopt an attitude of understanding that they must get the best deal possible in a way

which is acceptable to the other party. The importance of effective speaking and listening

is clear; it is necessary to establish what you are looking for and what you are prepared to

accept, while understanding what the other parties will be happy with. A sense of humor

and a positive attitude are essential because they allow for a sense of give and take.

Negotiations can become fraught, and having the ability to see the other side’s point of

view while being sanguine with regard to what you can achieve will be essential. Of

course you will want as much as you can get – but the other side needs to achieve what

they can, too. Seriously uneven negotiations will simply lead to further problems along

the line. An atmosphere of respect is essential. If you do not make concessions while

demanding them from your counterpart, it makes for a negotiation which will end in

dissatisfaction. However important a sense of understanding for your “opponent” may be,

it is also necessary to have the confidence to not settle for less than you feel is fair. Good

negotiators understand the importance of balance. Yes, you will have to make

concessions, but the point of making concessions is to secure what you can get – so you

need to pay attention to your bottom line and ensure you are not beaten down to a

minimum. Knowing what is realistic, and ensuring that you can get the best deal, relies

21

on being ready to insist upon something that the other side may not be willing to give

initially.

A sense of humor and a positive attitude are essential because they allow for a sense

of give and take. Negotiations can become fraught, and having the ability to see the other

side’s point of view while being sanguine with regard to what you can achieve will be

essential. Of course you will want as much as you can get – but the other side needs to

achieve what they can, too. Seriously uneven negotiations will simply lead to further

problems along the line. An atmosphere of respect is essential. If you do not make

concessions while demanding them from your counterpart, it makes for a negotiation

which will end in dissatisfaction. However important a sense of understanding for your

“opponent” may be, it is also necessary to have the confidence to not settle for less than

you feel is fair. Good negotiators understand the importance of balance. Yes, you will

have to make concessions, but the point of making concessions is to secure what you can

get – so you need to pay attention to your bottom line and ensure you are not beaten

down to a minimum. Knowing what is realistic, and ensuring that you can get the best

deal, relies on being ready to insist upon something that the other side may not be willing

to give initially. Emotional intelligence, persistence, patience, and creativity can all play a

part here.

Preparation

Before entering a bargaining meeting, the skilled negotiator prepares for the

meeting. Preparation includes determining goals, areas for trade and alternatives to the

stated goals. In addition, negotiators study the history of the relationship between the two

parties and past negotiations to find areas of agreement and common goals. Past

precedents and outcomes can set the tone for current negotiations.

Active Listening

Negotiators have the skills to listen actively to the other party during the debate.

Active listening involves the ability to read body language as well as verbal

communication. It is important to listen to the other party to find areas for compromise

during the meeting. Instead of spending the bulk of the time in negotiation expounding

the virtues of his viewpoint, the skilled negotiator will spend more time listening to the

other party.

22

Emotional Control

It is vital that a negotiator have the ability to keep his emotions in check during

the negotiation. While a negotiation on contentious issues can be frustrating, allowing

emotions to take control during the meeting can lead to unfavorable results. For example,

a manager frustrated with the lack of progress during a salary negotiation may concede

more than is acceptable to the organization in an attempt to end the frustration. On the

other hand, employees negotiating a pay raise may become too emotionally involved to

accept a compromise with management and take an all or nothing approach, which breaks

down the communication between the two parties.

Verbal Communication

Negotiators must have the ability to communicate clearly and effectively to the

other side during the negotiation. Misunderstandings can occur if the negotiator does not

state his case clearly. During a bargaining meeting, an effective negotiator must have the

skills to state his desired outcome as well as his reasoning.

Collaboration and Teamwork

Negotiation is not necessarily a one side against another arrangement. Effective

negotiators must have the skills to work together as a team and foster a collaborative

atmosphere during negotiations. Those involved in a negotiation on both sides of the

issue must work together to reach an agreeable solution.

Problem Solving

Individuals with negotiation skills have the ability to seek a variety of solutions to

problems. Instead of focusing on his ultimate goal for the negotiation, the individual with

skills can focus on solving the problem, which may be a breakdown in communication, to

benefit both sides of the issue.

Decision Making Ability

Leaders with negotiation skills have the ability to act decisively during a

negotiation. It may be necessary during a bargaining arrangement to agree to a

compromise quickly to end a stalemate.

Interpersonal Skills

Effective negotiators have the interpersonal skills to maintain a good working

relationship with those involved in the negotiation. Negotiators with patience and the

23

ability to persuade others without using manipulation can maintain a positive atmosphere

during a difficult negotiation.

24

Ethics and Reliability

Ethical standards and reliability in an effective negotiator promote a trusting

environment for negotiations. Both sides in a negotiation must trust that the other party

will follow through on promises and agreements. A negotiator must have the skills to

execute on his promises after bargaining ends.

Problem Analysis

Effective negotiators must have the skills to analyze a problem to determine the

interests of each party in the negotiation. A detailed problem analysis identifies the issue,

the interested parties and the outcome goals. For example, in an employer and employee

contract negotiation, the problem or area where the parties disagree may be in salary or

benefits. Identifying the issues for both sides can help to find a compromise for all

parties.