It is not a challenge to make decisions during the negotiating process. Challenges emerge as one behaves as if the expectation were the absolute truth. There are two sides participating in the negotiating process. Discussions by both sides are usually relevant. This analogy means that a decision must be reached at the conclusion of the debate. The challenge faced in making decisions is increasing as the inference made is found to be incorrect. The person involved in this situation is going to get hurt.
As negotiators, little has to be assumed. This factor is critical in order to prevent a mental ambush during the process. Usually, common assumptions are based on life experience, economic status, fashion, schooling, or even the kind of vehicles the opponent drives in with. Chances that one is wrong in such cases is high thereby creating unnecessary pressure when the facts are revealed. Occasions when an anticipated reason to be in a meeting turns to be a completely different one finds the negotiator unprepared for the current agenda.
In a negotiation, information is power. For a negotiation to be successful, it is important to identify any issues that may surface from the opposite side. This aspect enables one to prepare well in advance to address the issues. Occasions when negotiation takes effect when either of the parties lacks a proper knowledge of the background of the conflict, an individual could easily be blindsided. Negotiation can be viewed as a dispensed thought through a space of potential agreements. The participants are the active components that carry the information critical to the decisions. Typically, information determinants from every perspective side is important to that effect. Negotiation proceeds by the participants suggesting specific points in the agreement space as potentially acceptable (Jennings, Faratin, Lomuscio, Parsons, Wooldridge, & Sierra, 2001).
In every negotiation, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement influences the outcome. Information is the key in this scenario. The moment a negotiating party understands the pillars of the intended agreement an alternative is offered in the due process. Indications of a successful deliberation from both parties is strengthened since a failure to achieve the prior intention does not kill the whole process.
Moreover, acquiring relevant information for the discussion enables both parties to find a common ground. Deciding on a common ground from two perspectives. Each party in this order should understand the views of the other. At the end of the process both parties will have focused on their areas of interest. This aspect critically shapes and frames the negotiation to a mutual resolution. It must be taken into consideration the possibility of other issues that may not within the framework of discussion. Such issues must be identified and treated with similar weight by the opposite sides. This analogy ensures the outcome of negotiation is more appealing to all the participants.
Having more advantage in every negotiation fully depend on the amount of information gathered prior to the process. Information about what will be negotiated and who to negotiate with is prudent. Hidden information from an opposing party is necessary during the process. In a nutshell, this hidden information may not be revealed by the opposing party during the process. The power of negotiation improves when one acquires the kind of information the opposing party could not deliberately give out. Generally speaking the outcome of the negotiation in such a case will be steered in a harmonized way. No assumptions will deter the facts revealed.
Also, information is important for the negotiators to justify their negotiation stance. A participant might have a compelling reason to adopt a particular negotiation stance (Jennings, et al, 2001). For example, a case of insufficient stock of a particular product ascend during the process, the ability to justify the same occurrence to win the trust of the opposite agent over later delivery is important. In this case the opponent appreciates the agent’s behavior and constraints fully. Persuasion during the process strengthens the instances used by every party. In most cases, an opponent may persuade the other participant to change their agreements based on enough information available to that effect. This analogy of persuasion depending on various negotiation stances is attributed to the art of creative thinking.
Trust and negotiation have an interesting relationship (Davis & Smith, 1983). The kind of information revealed by each opponent and when the information is given out deliberates on the honesty the parties show each other. If one on the things that a participant discovers is that the opponent has been lying throughout the process, the trust is compromised and everything change. The anticipated positive outcome may not be realized in this scenario.
Finally, it is worth noting that making appropriate concessions help the opponents in building the best outcome of the whole process. The techniques and tools used in the process should be compatible for both participants. The aim of any business negotiation is to effect a mutual benefit for the two negotiating firms. This analogy is further supported by the need to give all the relevant information needed by both sides in order to harmonize the results deliberated on.
Davis, R., & Smith, R. G. (1983). Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving.
Artificial intelligence, 20(1), 63-109.
Jennings, N. R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A. R., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M. J., & Sierra, C.
(2001). Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 199-215.