The Art of Getting to Yes When Negotiating

Negotiation

International business negotiations are often complex and delicate affairs. What one culture considers to be a good negotiating tactic may be seen as highly offensive in another. As a result, it is important to be aware of both good and bad negotiation tactics before entering into any cross-cultural business deals. Some good negotiation tactics include being flexible, maintaining a positive attitude, and showing a genuine interest in the other party's needs. On the other hand, some bad negotiation tactics include being too aggressive, making demands without being willing to compromise, and failing to show respect for the other culture. By being aware of both good and bad negotiation tactics, businesses can increase their chances of success when entering into international contracts. In my experience with negotiations, I once had a very small role—mainly as an observer—with a negotiation team in the corporate sector. The team was trying to secure a contract with a potential client who was based in a different country. The negotiation process appeared to be very intense, as I remember it at the time, and it went on for several months. In the end, the team was able to reach an agreement that was beneficial for both parties. I learned a lot from this experience, and it helped me in terms of understanding what to do and what not to do when negotiating. One big lesson I learned was that no action is never an option that should be permitted, and Larson and Gray (2017) point this out as well.

The team I observed was very reluctant to offend the counter-party in the negotiation, and so it did not want to seem pushy—but this caused some delay because when a resolution could not be reached the team should have escalated to the next level (Larson & Gray, 2017). Neither side was willing to budge on a specific issue in the contract and so nothing happened for what seemed like months, and the language started to get very aggressive. Eventually, during a video call with the counter-party one of the department heads stormed out of the room, and the negotiation came to a standstill. Looking back, I can see that both sides could have benefit from using the principled negotiation technique. Both sides were clearly attached to their own positions, and they were not willing to listen to the other side’s point of view. Part of the issue was that our side seemed unable to separate the people from the problem. Our side seemed convinced that the counter-party was being deliberately stubborn because of some cultural bias on their part. The other problem was that our side seemed stuck on its position instead of looking at the interests of both parties and how a win-win conclusion could be beneficial to all. All that would have had to have happened would for new options to be invented that would have benefited everyone—and this could have been done if the negotiation had escalated properly, or if people had been separated from problems—or even if options given some creative thought (Fisher et al., As it was, neither side got what they wanted for a good long while, and the whole process was needlessly stressful.