Respond to the following student responses provided in Prompt 1 based on the following (Response should be 137 words)
Prompt 1. Regrettably, systematic planning is not something that most negotiators do willingly. What are some of the consequences that the authors point out as being the result of failed planning? Discuss using examples that you have seen.
Student Response
Regrettably, systematic planning is not something that most negotiators do willingly. As a result of any failed planning, there are obviously important consequences worth noting. Throughout the text, we examine a variety of these consequences. The first consequence is that negotiators fail to set clear goals. This could be a consequence resulting from when negotiators enter negotiation with a vague or incomplete sense of what they want to achieve, or realize later that what they thought they wanted from a negotiation is not what they really wanted or needed (Barry, 2020, p.111). A second consequence could be that negotiators fail to set clear objectives or targets that serve as benchmarks for evaluating offers and packages in progressing toward their goal (Barry, 2020, p.111). This could be a result when negotiators who do not have clear objectives are not in a position to evaluate proposals quickly and accurately and as a result, negotiators may agree to deals that they later regret (Barry, 2020, p.111). A third consequence could be if negotiators have not done their homework, they may not understand the strengths and weaknesses of their own positions or recognize comparable strengths and weaknesses in the other partys arguments (Barry, 2020, p.111). A fourth consequence could be that negotiators need to consider their alternatives to doing the deal in front of them. If negotiators understand what alternatives are available to them if the current deal does not look like it will succeed, they will have more confidence and power to walk away from a bad deal (Barry, 2020, p.111). A final consequence may look like negotiators cannot simply depend on being quick and clever during the give-and-take of negotiation (Barry, 2020, p.111). One example of a consequence I have seen is when negotiators fail to set clear goals. I have seen various people go into a negotiation hoping for a variety of positive outcomes. In the end, since there was no clear goal for the outcome of the negotiation, the individual did not feel successful.
Respond to the following student response provided in Prompt 2 based on the following Response should be 137 words)
Prompt 2
Perception, cognition, and emotion are the basic building blocks of all social encounters. How does a working knowledge of how people perceive the world, process information and experience emotions prove important in negotiations? Can this knowledge be used in your favor? How?
Student Response
Perception perceived is perception believed. People use their perception to tie together the surrounding environment and circumstances (Lewicki, 2020, p. 192). A concern with this is ones ability to perceive subjectively instead of objectively, thus entering a wild card human element into any negotiation. Cognitive understanding of a negotiation is also subject and relates to human understanding and perception of the situation. When a person truly believes they are right in their stance or belief, they are more likely to continue pursuing an irrational or even unachievable end goals (Lewicki, 2020, p. 205). When emotion is added to the mixture of perception and cognition there is opportunity for a perfect storm in negotiating, whether the results will be positive or negative are still undecided. When considering this trio together, right away it may cause a negotiator to be attracted to the other party or frame them right away as someone they do not like.
The more in control of these three areas someone is able to be, the more likely it will be they are going to be successful in a negotiation. Of course, leaving room for skewed results of a completely irrational or overwhelmingly emotional person, I would venture to state being in control is the better option when negotiating.
Reference:
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2020). Negotiation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
