Counseling Determine and Explain the Key Steps

Counseling Determine and explain the key steps you would take in opening the negotiation session. The previous scenario was negotiation on the purchase of computers for the government. I would start off on a friendly basis reminding the other party why we are here and reminding them of their interest in accomplishing the deal. In this way, I have laid the basis for a meeting that would hopefully be perceived as friendly rather than as potentially combative (where each attempts to best the other).

I would stress the win-win attitude: that we each have something to gain from the outcome and that we can each meet the other's needed. In order to meet my other party's need, I want to understand them as well as I possibly can. My aim would be to strive for the friendly atmosphere where there is open communication, emphasis on compatibilities, mutual endeavor towards problem solving, and the back-and-forth of opinions.

Before opening the session, I would also have determined whether it were best that the session be conducted via one particular representative of each party, whether by several key people, or whether by both teams as a whole. Those most skilled in negotiating and representing the other should be chosen. Relevant specialization and needs should be represented. A strong leader must be chosen. It is most important that my team be united so that they not splinter under possible conflict or stress.

I would have prepared my strategy in advance, and would open the session by allowing the other party to speak first. This would not only be a way of according them respect, but would also enable me to assess their strategy hence allowing me to determine which issues to address and which to refrain from. I will be able to see which issues they want to refrain from discussing. My opening offer, in turn, should not be so substantial that it displays my entire strategy. 2.

Determine and explain the key steps you would take in conducting the negotiation session. A facilitator may direct the discussion and ascertain that each hears the other's side in a non-judgmental manner and that points are elaborated upon when necessary. The procedure may be something like the following: The team representing the Government may present their points. We may then present ours. The facilitator will summarize and concretize points when necessary.

The facilitator will help each party brainstorm for ways to deal with sticking points and for ways to understand each other if an impasse crops up. The facilitator must not only be skilled at communication, but he/she must be careful to make communication lucid and clear and, even then, not to convey an iota of criticism in his voice or mannerisms. The facilitator too can create joint conditions for success, emphasizing a collaborative environment.

When such is in place, the parties will feel more of the 'we' rather than the threat of their autonomy being threatened by an 'I'. The joint and collaborative atmosphere can go a great way in not only de-escalating tension but in helping each party understand the other's position and seek to emerge their goals so that instead of 'opposite sides' all are intent on working towards one goal. At times, however hard one tries, anger does creep into the negotiating session.

The recent opinion has been that anger communication may be an effective emotional strategy to use when attempting to win concessions. Sinaceur et al. (2011), however, concluded that issuing threats is a more effective negotiation strategy than communicating anger but only depending on how it is done. A great strategy for managing potential impasses is finding the 'hot buttons' or sore points in a deal and soothing it.

For instance, if my negotiating price can be a 'hot button' with the other team, I can ask them directly whether it is more important for them to complete the acquisition and gain likely more success in the future, or break it due to unacceptability of price.

Another great technique in the eventuality of impasse is asking them questions that create options for a consensus such as: why? why not?, what if?, what do you advise? The entire negotiating session will be worked at in an incremental manner -- small point after small point worked out, and the next only brought up once the former has been equitably decided. 3. Determine and explain the key steps you would take in closing the negotiation session. I would veer towards closure by starting from their position and moving towards agreement.

I would ask for constructive criticism of some of my ideas; I would include their ideas in my summation; I would identify and attempt to meet unmet needs such as esteem, respect, security; I would offer alternative; and I would phrase sticky points, or contingencies in a conditional "if. Then" manner so as to invest the other party in agreeing to conditions. It may be that a third party will be used to achieve closure so that the other party will be saved from discomfort or emotional pain.

The other party will be praised -- genuinely -- for their contributions. I would sum up our goals and final decision as well as the major steps reached along the way, variables that would be involved in implementing that decision, timelines for implementing the decision, potential risks and ways of overcoming those problems (possibly involving introduction of dispute-resolving procedures). Responsibilities would be reiterated, the session summarized and plans solidified for a future meeting. I would then end on a cordial tone, and thank all for attending.

No further discussions would occur once the negotiations have ended. 4. Explain what you would do differently if dealing with a non-American counterpart Research shows me that cultural differences may play a great part in making or breaking the session. For instance, Giannetti and Yafeh (2011) discovered that not only do cultural differences between either parties impede short-term and long-term open relationships between them but may also be a problem in recognizing and dealing with risk taking.

Giebels and Taylor (2011), too, showed that what they called high-context (HC) or low-context (LC) cultures have different ways in presenting issues. HC cultures tend to more likely communicate threats, particularly in the first half of the negotiation session, whilst LC perpetrators tend to prefer persuasive arguments, particular in the opening session, and respond to persuasive arguments in a compromising way. Understanding the negotiating style of one's counterparts is therefore helpful in recognizing and dealing with possible hurdles.

I would have conducted previous intensive research into cultural nuances of the other party in terms.