Index IntroductionStrategies in Personal NegotiationDeadlocks and Concessions in NegotiationJoint Value CreationConclusionReferencesIntroductionThis document reflects my personal negotiation experience and behavior based on the theory and practical applications learned in this unit. To identify the true meaning of negotiation, (Fells 2012) summarized negotiation as a “process between two parties with differences that need to be resolved”. This summary clearly illustrates that the parties have an individual need for something of value. Furthermore, each party in the negotiation has individual interests, priorities, and strategies (Brett & Thompson 2016). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Personal Negotiation Strategies Negotiation strategies according to (Kochan 1992) can be divided into distributive which “consist mainly of attempts to influence the other party to make concessions through threats and emotional appeals and single-issue offers” and integrative which consist primarily in “sharing information about interests and priorities and then shaping trade-offs (logrolling) to generate high joint gains.” Reflecting personally, I identified myself as a well-trained negotiator with a strategy distributive due to my competitive nature linked to my cognitive bias in which I try to win at all costs, with little regard for the other party nor did I fully understand the negative consequences this attitude can create for myself, however create situations of mistrust that lead to stalemates and make the concession-granting process more challenging than it might otherwise be. Most of my negotiations involve disputes in contracts and the interpretation of clauses or procedures with clients, which generally puts me in a weaker position at the beginning of negotiations. My approach to negotiations focuses more on content rather than process, including discussing more contentious issues early on. Opting to address smaller issues first could be seen as an attempt to change the status quo by the higher power party. (Kteily et al. 2013), although this is an inadvertent move on my part. When faced with situations in which I take a strong stance regarding my personal interpretation of the items being negotiated, my ego takes control, ultimately creating self-inflicted challenges during the negotiation cycle described by (Robinson & Volkov 1998) as “the stages of recognition of the problem, participant solicitation and communication, selection and implementation of the solution". The question asked is: where does all this leave me or how do I represent myself in the areas of blocking and grant management. Deadlocks and Concession Making in Negotiation Research undertaken by (Weber 2001) supports my personal reflection "why taking a tough stand can result in bigger consequences" initial concessions, but eventually opponents will find that they are being treated unfairly and then become tough to in turn, leading to stalemates or breakdowns in the negotiation” often with worse outcomes than my BATNA (created through my own actions), however since Clients are generally in a much stronger position, a they in turn hold power especially when “a stalemate is a direct consequence of my disappointed expectations (Zartman 2005). Research suggests that when the positions of the negotiating parties become incompatible (Zartman 2005) where according to (Spector 2006) “stalled negotiations arethe very conflicts that might be ripe for resolution if pushed just a little further” and provide opportunities to restructure the problem which according to (Sycara 1991) is the process of “dynamically changing the structure of the negotiation problem to achieve a movement towards agreement". It has also been established that negotiators who are known to reach deadlocks are more likely to reach deadlocks in the future (O'Connor, Arnold & Burris 2005). Personally, in addition to preparing for negotiations, my focus needs to shift towards listening and avoiding becoming a negotiator known for creating deadlocks, instead focusing more on the big picture and value generation opportunities. The ability to listen is what distinguishes expert negotiators from the average negotiator (Siedel 2014); it may not be a natural skill but it can be learned and is essential to being a successful negotiator (Baguley 2000). A negotiation that has reached a stalemate does not automatically mean that an agreement is unattainable, but rather an opportunity for reflection where both the negotiation process and the issues should be reviewed to determine what led to the stalemate. As long as one party hasn't already put themselves in an alienated position similar to the one I personally discovered. Indeed, deadlocks should be accepted as a normal phase of negotiations. Progression can be achieved by introducing a new goal that is the mildest form without abandoning the goal (Sycara 1991). Research findings from international negotiation contexts have concluded that negotiating parties with strong negotiation resilience, which (Spector 2006) describes as “the ability of negotiating parties to recover from setbacks, stalemates and impasses, whether actual or expected, tested in the negotiation process by finding ways to restart the negotiation process” (Spector 2006). Deadlocks should be embraced and used as an opportunity to review priorities, review all available options, and consider giving a little; better known as making concessions. If all other individual tasks fail, the negotiating parties may choose to involve a mediator to help resolve the deadlock, however this option is not further discussed in this document. From a personal point of view and after reflection, I must first review my negotiation behavior, especially my positional approach during the preparation phase. As suggested by (Fells 1996) “the first element of preparation in an emerging impasse should be to consider the process and what negotiation behaviors would be appropriate” further supported by (Brett & Thompson 2016), who established that “negotiators who were instructed to "minimize their losses" made fewer concessions, reached fewer agreements, and perceived the agreements as less fair than those who were told to "maximize their gains." I can achieve this by having a script that provides me with a mental model to better handle a variety of situations and implement the strategies learned in this unit. As summarized above, the behavior shown during negotiations has a lot of influence on the negotiation process, so to place myself in a much better position, a thorough review is needed not only what I want to say, but it is necessary to focus more attention on my representation personal, as rightly points out (Voss & Raz 2016) "When deliberating on a negotiation strategy or approach, people tend to focus allown energy about what to say or do, but it is the way we are (our general behavior and the way we act) that is both the simplest thing to do and the most immediately effective way of influencing” An eBay study conducted by (Friedman et al. 2004) found that “the angrier the claimant, the angrier the respondent and the less likely the dispute will be resolved. This discovery has given me very useful insight into the fact that my attitude is limiting my success and that my emotions and biases need to be controlled and that more attention needs to be paid to the process. In terms of behaviors displayed, the key to reciprocity is to establish trust so that I can manage concessions more successfully due to my strong positional behavior which is anchored on minimizing my losses. To address deadlocks, my attention must focus on the causes. Therefore, if my behavior and positional stance contributed to the stalemate, it will require a change in my personal approach by actively listening, communicating articulately (Roudias 2015), and listening to my own chatter. To overcome the stalemate, the negotiating parties, including myself, must identify areas of compromise. The first thing I need to be aware of is that it is not advisable to reveal my party's booking point as the other party can be expected to offer the revealed booking point outright. Concessions can take the form of models described as unilateral – made by one side or bilateral – made by both sides. According to (Singh 2008) the concession granting process should consider “the pattern, extent and timing of concessions”. It is argued (Rudd & Lawson 2007) “the rate and timing of concessions can aid the negotiation process or disrupt the process and limit the range of possible outcomes”. When making concessions, negotiators who make smaller and smaller concessions tend to be more effective in obtaining a larger share of the pie, as opposed to negotiators who make large and frequent concessions (Singh 2008). This point will definitely help me in future situations as it will make me more strategic in offering concessions rather than making them out of desperation. The ultimate goal for making concessions is to reach an agreement that involves compromises on both sides where both sides walk away with value, hopefully more than they started with and better than each side's BATNA and to save the face. Personally, my key message is that any concession I propose should involve acting in a way that contributes something of value and not simply giving up (Roudias 2015) or being seen as taking a fully competitive position. Emotions shown and received by negotiating parties are also a key decision maker, as identified through the research of (Van Kleef et al. 2006) "Participants with low power were strongly influenced by their opponent's emotions, while those with high power were not influenced ” and “negotiators make larger concessions and smaller demands when their counterpart shows anger rather than happiness.” Putting this in the current international context, Donald Trump clearly has some problems with the Democrats who now hold power in the House and obtain. the agreement to receive funds for the wall will certainly require some big concessions from the republicans to end this stalemate. From a personal point of view, being a contractor, I consider myself the participant with the lowest power in this research supports my thesis that my personal attributes and behaviorsmanifested strongly influence other parties' willingness to offer concessions, effectively stating that when my actions arouse anger towards the other party, I end up having to make more concessions putting myself in a position that can make fewer demands than being seen as more cooperative on the other side. Creating joint value Due to my individualistic behavior, I missed the opportunity to seek values ​​for both parties, without therefore increasing the “pie”, ending up with less value than would have been possible. Therefore, my focus must shift to co-creating value by increasing “the pie.” To create common value, I must focus more on understanding the needs and desires of the other party and, in turn, use this information, including the “what” and “why,” to work toward a mutually beneficial agreement (Weingart et al. 2007). The mere fact that both parties are willing to enter the concession phase is a sign that differences still divide the parties, yet it is precisely those differences that offer the opportunity to create value for mutual benefit (Sebenius 1992). Therefore, I will have to change my tactics and put more emphasis on building relationships that will only develop when both parties leave the negotiations satisfied (Wright 2012). For my personal image script, I chose the theme of airplane travel. Situation in negotiationprocess Trigger Image What should be done Both parties involved in the negotiation exchange information freely “It's going well” All parties are happy and cooperating. There is a strong feeling of trust. Both parties understand the other's position. Remain in a positive and collaborative position. Keep asking questions and answer questions as they are asked. Continue to reflect on what has been said and suspend all judgment. There has been no progress for some time and it seems like the same information is being repeated over and over again to no avail. “There is some tension in the room and a break is needed” There seems to be some tension and increased competition. The parties should park all current ideas and request a short adjournment. The adjournment time could be used for both parties to reflect on both the process and the issue and review their respective BATNAs. One of the other side's negotiators continually rejects any offer and refuses to listen to the "what" and "why". Outright rejecting any suggestions. “It could get a little tough. Better sit down and fasten your seatbelts. It could be a difficult journey” The other party seems disinterested in exploring a solution, increasing the pie and not focusing on the problems. Reaffirm the current position. Try to park current talking points. Seek to determine and understand the other party's underlying needs, concerns and fears. Consider postponement and discussions off the table. If all else fails, consider enlisting a mediator. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion What should be done? Joint benefits and negotiation values ​​were identified. “Both sides seem to collaborate and understand the value of negotiation” The parties agree on some common interests that are worth pursuing further on the journey. Don't make promises or suggestions about something you can't keep. The formal discussions have come to an end. The parties have reached an agreement in principle or a memorandum of understanding. "Both sides have reached an agreement and/10.1108/00483489610110087