[How is it that negotiation brings two parties together who have different, even completely opposite, interests and enables them to reach an agreement that is acceptable - and accepted - by both of them?]

by

Acknowledgement

I would take this opportunity to thank my research supervisor, family and friends for their support and guidance without which this research would not have been possible.

How is it that negotiation brings two parties together who have different, even completely opposite, interests and enables them to reach an agreement that is acceptable - and accepted - by both of them?

Purpose of the Study

This will be the second of a two-part item that discovers the attachment between leveraging and negotiating (Christie 2000 23). The item originated from the investigation of facts and numbers assembled by the authors in their capability as teaching and development advisors and concentrates, in specific, on three major questions. First, what are the diverse schemes that persons at work really use in their endeavours to leverage others? Second, how manage persons disagree in the modes that they use such strategies? In other phrases, what are the distinct leveraging methods that such persons adopt? Third, what is the connection between an individual's leveraging method and their negotiating skills?

 

Rationale of the Study

This part will analyze the connection between the leveraging methods delineated overhead and negotiating skills. It starts by summarising the authors' work on assessing negotiating abilities and proceeds on to interpret the study which loans heaviness to the outlook that negotiating abilities can be glimpsed as one facet of leveraging (Sam 2010 78).

 

Research Question

How it is that discussion adds two parties simultaneously who have distinct, even absolutely converse, concerns and endows them to come to an affirmation that is agreeable - and acknowledged - by both of them?

 

Literature Review

This study engaged 71 participants on teaching techniques on negotiating and leveraging abilities who accomplished both the Influencing schemes and method profile and the Negotiating abilities questionnaire. It was, thus, likely to discover the connection between tallies on these two groups of variables (Rackham 2008 12). The major deductions to appear from this study are:

(1) The “strategist-opportunist” dimension of leverage is associated mainly to “clarity of focus” in negotiating, with strategists tending to illustrate somewhat high grades of clarity of aim and opportunists somewhat reduced levels.

(2) The “strategist-opportunist” dimension is furthermore associated to dissimilarities in set about to the negotiating method, whereas the connection is lower than that recounted directly above. In specific, strategists are inclined to have somewhat higher tallies all through the entire method, particularly in relative to both groundwork and closure, while opportunists have somewhat smaller tallies all through, particularly in relative to groundwork and closure (Mullins 2006 pp34).

(3) The “collaborator-battler” dimension of leverage is mainly associated to “flexibility of strategy”, “win-win values” and “win-win interactive skills” in negotiating. Indeed, these three groups of matters in negotiating cluster simultaneously in such a way that they can helpfully be considered of as a lone component “flexible interaction in the direction of ...