Not sure how you will improve on this next year. They have all been very thought-provoking and insightful. Every BA must experience this. I love the diversity of topics, exploring common issues and the collaborative spirit amongst the BA's that attend.
Types[ edit ] Negotiation can take a wide variety of forms, from a multilateral conference of all United Nations members to establish a new international norm such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to a meeting of parties to a conflict to end violence or resolve the underlying issue such as constitutional negotiations in South Africa in or in Colombia with the FARC on to a business encounter to make a deal to a face-off between parents or between parent and child over the child's proper behavior.
Mediation is a form of negotiation with a third-party catalyst who helps the conflicting parties negotiate when they cannot do so by themselves Negotiation can be contrasted with arbitrationwhere the decision lies with the third party, which the conflicting parties are committed to accept.
Negotiation theorists generally distinguish between two types of negotiation  The difference in the usage of the two type depends on the mindset of the negotiator but also on the situation: Zero-sum games Distributive negotiation is also sometimes called positional or hard-bargaining negotiation and attempts to distribute a "fixed pie" of benefits.
Distributive negotiation operates under zero-sum conditions and implies that any gain one party makes is at the expense of the other and vice versa.
For this reason, distributive negotiation is also sometimes called win-lose because of the assumption that one person's gain is another person's loss.
Distributive negotiation examples include haggling prices on an open market, including the negotiation of the price of a car or a home. In a distributive negotiation, each side often adopts an extreme or fixed position, knowing it will not be accepted—and then seeks 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. 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, although all negotiations usually have a distributive element.
In the distributive approach each negotiator fights for the largest possible piece of the pie, so parties tend to regard each other more as an adversary than a partner and to take a harder line.
Non-zero-sum game and Win-win game Integrative negotiation is also called interest-based, merit-based, or principled negotiation.
It is a set of techniques that attempts to improve the quality and likelihood of negotiated agreement by taking advantage of the fact that different parties often value various outcomes differently. While distributive negotiation assumes there is a fixed amount of value a "fixed pie" to be divided between the parties, integrative negotiation attempts to create value in the course of the negotiation "expand the pie" by either "compensating" loss of one item with gains from another "trade-offs" or logrollingor by constructing or reframing the issues of the conflict in such a way that both parties benefit "win-win" negotiation .
However, even integrative negotiation is likely to have some distributive elements, especially when the different parties both value different items to the same degree or when details are left to be allocated at the end of the negotiation.
While concession is mandatory for negotiations, research shows that people who concede more quickly, are less likely to explore all integrative and mutually beneficial solutions.
Therefore, early conceding reduces the chance of an integrative negotiation. It can also involve creative problem-solving that aims to achieve mutual gains. It sees a good agreement as not one with maximum individual gain, but one that provides optimum gain for all parties.
Gains in this scenario are not at the expense of the Other, but with it. Each seeks to accord the Other enough benefit that it will hold to the agreement that gives the first party an agreeable outcome, and vice versa.
Productive negotiation focuses on the underlying interests of the parties rather than their starting positions, approaches negotiation as a shared problem-solving rather than a personalized battle, and insists upon adherence to objective, principled criteria as the basis for agreement.
Rather than conceding, each side can appreciate that the other has emotions and motivations of their own and use this to their advantage in discussing the issue.assignments may be drawn from a sizeable literature on cross-cultural business negotiation.
A Cultural Perspective on Negotiation: Progress, Pitfalls, and Prospects. Article. Jan ;. Culture at WORK is edited and produced by business anthropologist and mediator Jennifer Beer, Ph.D., principal of JB Intercultural Consulting.
Her independent consulting practice is . The iMBA program at the University of Illinois is built around 7 key specializations each dedicated to teaching you a critical business skill.
New Perspective of Cross -Cultural Communications: Applications in China Marketing Business negotiation, another kind of important format for marketing communication, also necessitates awareness of cultural difference. A recent study by Chang () has concluded that in.
Cultural Perspective Taking in Cross-Cultural negotiation theory by expanding the conceptualization of perspective taking for the cross-cultural context and illustrating the culturally-bounded beneﬁts of CPT.
Hypothesis 1 In cross-cultural negotiations. Give an example of a cross-cultural negotiation event in which you have been involved or that you have read about in the news.
Using either Hofstede's or Schwartz's work, discuss which perspectives the parties were most likely.