Abstract: Ways and methods of negotiations. Presentation and closing of the deal

Negotiations actually happen every day in business, in the family, and even in court, but doing them well is not easy.

There are three main methods of negotiation: soft, hard and principled.

Soft method . A person who is gentle in character wants to avoid personal conflict and is willing to make concessions in order to reach an agreement. He wants an amicable outcome, but the matter most often ends with him remaining offended and feeling slighted.

Hard method . A tough negotiator views every situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes the extreme position and persists in its position will gain more. He wants to win, but he often ends up causing an equally tough situation that exhausts him and his resources, as well as ruining his relationship with the other party.

Principled Negotiation Method is a third way of negotiating that involves a position that is not based on weakness or strength, but rather combines both. This method believes that you strive to find mutual benefit wherever possible, and where your interests do not coincide, you should insist on an outcome that would be based on some fair standards, regardless of the will of each of the parties. This method means a tough approach to the consideration of the merits of the case, but provides a soft approach to the relations between the negotiators.

Principled negotiation shows how to achieve what you are entitled to and still remain within the bounds of decency. This method allows you to be fair while protecting you from those who would take advantage of your integrity.

The method of principled negotiation is a strategy designed to achieve all goals and can be used to resolve one issue or several, in circumstances prescribed by ritual, or in an unpredictable situation, as in negotiations with hijackers. This method depends on the methods of the opposing side and can be reduced to four main points:

1. people - differentiation between the participants in the negotiations and the subject of negotiations;

2. options - before deciding what to do, highlight the range of possibilities;

3. interests – focus on interests, not positions;

4. criteria - insist that the result be based on some objective standard.

Let's also consider additional methods.

Positional method , or the method of positional discussions, in which the emphasis is not on the essence of the dispute, but on the positions of each side. This method does not meet the basic criteria: it is not effective, does not achieve the goal, and spoils the relationship between the parties.

The principled method is an alternative to the positional method and is intended for friendly negotiations and achieving a reasonable result.

Variational method. When preparing for difficult negotiations, you need to find out the following questions:

What is the ideal solution to the problem posed in a complex?

What aspects of an ideal solution can be abandoned?

What should you see? optimal solution problems with a differentiated approach to expected consequences, difficulties, obstacles?

What arguments are needed in order to properly respond to the expected assumption of the partner, due to the divergence of interests and their unilateral implementation?

Which extreme proposals from a partner should definitely be rejected and with what arguments?

Such reasoning goes beyond a purely alternative consideration of the subject of negotiations. They require an overview of the entire subject of activity, vividness of thinking and realistic assessments.

Integration method . Designed to convince the partner of the need to evaluate the issues of negotiations taking into account social relationships and the ensuing needs for the development of cooperation. The use of this method does not guarantee agreement in detail; it can be used in cases where, for example, a partner ignores social relationships and approaches the implementation of his interests from a narrow departmental position.

Compromise method . Negotiators must show a willingness to compromise: if the partner’s interests do not coincide, an agreement should be achieved gradually, adhering to the following principle: lean gradually, like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but do not fall immediately!

In a compromise solution, agreement is achieved due to the fact that the partners, after a failed attempt to reach an agreement among themselves, taking into account new considerations, partially deviate from their demands. They refuse something, put forward new demands.

Although negotiations occur very often, not everyone knows how to conduct them effectively. As a rule, unprepared people see only two possibilities for negotiating. The first obvious course of action is to force the other side to accept their point of view, to be tough. Supporters of tough negotiations are confident that victory is given to those who know how to insist on their own. What are the disadvantages of this approach? You may come across an even tougher position; such an approach depletes the strength of the participants, especially when their strengths and capabilities are approximately equal, spoils relationships and, as a result, can lead to the impossibility of further interaction. The second line of behavior is to give in, be pliable, understand and accept the point of view of the other side. This behavior is usually used by those who do not want to conflict, for whom achieving agreement is very important.

The disadvantage of this approach is the internal dissatisfaction, resentment, dissatisfaction with the achieved solution, which is often experienced by the yielding participant.

If neither side is ready to concede and at the same time neither side manages to push through its decision using a forceful, hard method, perhaps in the end a third way will be found - between soft and hard, reaching a compromise through partial concessions by each side.

The disadvantage of the compromise approach is that both sides are often dissatisfied with it; each believes that its concessions are very large.

Apart from these three obvious methods of negotiation - first - force, second - give in third - find a compromise solution, there is at least one more way to negotiate. It involves developing a position that is not based on weakness and strength, or softness and hardness, but rather one that considers the cooperation of the parties in the negotiation process, or The Harvard Method of Principled Negotiation.

Before this method of negotiation is discussed, it is necessary to mention personal styles of conflict resolution, since the principled negotiation method is associated with one of these styles, namely cooperation.

In practice First principle of the Harvard method(“Separate people from problems”) means that the participants should not fight with each other, but all together – with the problem, i.e. we need to change the approach to the rules for resolving the problem. The value of the problem always evokes strong emotions, forces participants to take opposing positions and defend them, showing mercilessness towards the other side, which worsens the situation, is perceived as an insult and does not provide the opportunity to develop a solution that suits all parties.

Personal perception in such a situation often distorts reality, leads to misunderstanding, and misunderstanding increases rejection and leads to the same reaction on the other side. The result is a vicious circle that does not allow emotionally agitated, and often offended, people to act rationally.

The way out of this vicious circle is not to start a war with each other for accepting one’s position, but to all together pay attention to common problem.

In practice The second principle of the Harvard method(“Focus on interests, not positions”) is due to the fact that the position taken in negotiations may differ quite significantly from what a given participant really needs and what satisfies his interests.

The main purpose of the business negotiations for each participant - to reach such an agreement, such a result of negotiations that would satisfy the material interests of this participant. In addition, participants in business negotiations strive to maintain or establish constructive relationships with each other. But the difficulty is that material and psychological issues are so intertwined that the problem and the relationship become connected. As a result, any indications of particularly painful aspects of the problem are perceived as personal insults, and unless one specifically focuses on separating the material interests of each party and the relationship between the parties, all comments related to the problem can automatically be perceived as offensive.

The specific positions defended by each side further strengthen the process of fusion into a single problematic lump of material and psychological issues. If negotiations are seen as a struggle of egos, excessively defending one's positions, then this only worsens the situation, but does not lead to an acceptable solution.

An example of successfully separating interests from positions in negotiations is given in Fisher's book .

Two readers are in the library reading room. One gets up and tries to open the window, the other actively objects to this. A dispute breaks out between them about how far the window can be opened: open it halfway, make a small crack, or not open it at all. No solution satisfies both disputing people.

The positions of the parties to the dispute are as follows:

– opening the window: “It’s so stuffy here that I’m going to feel bad in my heart, I need to open the window immediately!”;
- objecting: “From the open window it blows directly into my back, even if only a small gap is open. My lower back hurts, and I won’t be able to be here, but I absolutely need it for work. Just close the window!”

The positions of the participants look completely opposite, and if none of them gives in, then it is not clear what to do. A simple compromise in the form of a small crack through which the window can be opened slightly does not suit the objecting participant, since it still lets through the window.

But then the librarian comes in. He asks the opener, Why he wants to open the window. The answer is “I need fresh air.” The librarian then asks the objector, Why he's against it. Answer: “So that there is no draft.” The librarian thought a little and opened the window in the next room, where the door from reading room. After some time, the air in the room became fresher, but the draft did not bother the objecting participant. This decision turned out to be mutually acceptable, since it took into account the real the interests of the participants are fresh air and the absence of drafts, not le positions, i.e. expressed demands that were directly opposite - to open or close a specific window.

In order to move from discussing positions to discussing interests, two questions help: “Why?” and “Why not?” that need to be asked to the disputing parties. These questions help in understanding the interests of the parties.

In the described situation, the interests of the participants are the need of one for fresh air and the need of the other for the absence of even the slightest draft.

Interests- these are the predominant ones in at the moment the needs and concerns that motivate people to take certain actions.

Interests are hidden behind positions, i.e. expressed requirements.

Position– these are the formulated, verbally and emotionally expressed demands of one of the parties.

In contrast to the position being put forward, the interests lie in what exactly makes that party put forward such demands.

The transition from discussing positions to discussing interests cannot be done instantly; the emotions of the participants usually greatly interfere with this, making the transition to an objective, calm discussion impossible. The natural reaction is to express these emotions, which often leads to conflict escalation rather than resolution.

At the same time, it is often not only impossible to avoid the emotional stage, but it is also useful to let the participants speak out and “let off steam.” However, after this you will still have to move from a subjective and emotional approach to an objective and emotionally neutral one.

In order for such a transition to take place, it is necessary to go through a number of intermediate steps. For example, analysis of participants' positions.

Such an analysis can lead to an adjustment of positions, and this will already be a significant step towards each other, reducing the area of conflict.

To analyze positions, it is possible to use the following speech forms:

Please clarify why you think so?
In our opinion, does this require further consideration?
As a professional, you, of course, know what design errors and neglect of GOST requirements can lead to, so I suggest...
Why can't we carry out... (delivery in the first quarter, creating a deeper foundation)?
Maybe let's look at this situation from the other side?

In this case, it is necessary to take into account not only the expressions used, but also intonation, facial expressions, and tempo of speech. We must remember that non-verbal messages are perceived as more important than verbal ones, and if the intonation is indignant, and the meaning of the words is reconciling, then the transmitted message will be perceived as carrying a negative, but not a positive emotion.

The perception of the situation is always different for each side. To be able to influence another participant, you need to understand someone else’s point of view, feel its emotional strength, which does not mean agreeing with it, i.e. it is necessary to analyze and adjust the perception of the situation. But understanding gives an advantage; it reduces the conflict zone, which has increased due to the escalation of negative emotions during the conflict.

The position of one is that the window must be open. The other's position is that the window should be closed. The positions seem so opposite that compromise is impossible.

The interests of the participant opening the window are fresh air.

The objector's interests are the absence of a draft.

These interests are not absolutely contradictory and allow for the possibility of developing a mutually acceptable solution.

Solution- open the window in the next room, where the door from the reading room was also open.

Conclusion: a transition is necessary from discussing the positions of the parties to discussing the interests of the parties, and this requires openness to discussion and common sense.

Your perception needs to be analyzed and adjusted in the same way as someone else’s. For example, you need to learn not to give in to the habit of interpreting all the words and actions of the other side in the worst way, to get rid of excessive suspicion and a negative attitude. It is necessary to abandon accusations and talk about the problem in a detached manner without mentioning specific people or organizations with whom the conversation is taking place. Any other approach will be completely unproductive.

When analyzing opposing positions in order to reveal and identify the interests hidden behind the positions, a solution option is often discovered that can satisfy all parties. The fact is that some interests of the parties may conflict, but other, no less important interests, as a rule, turn out to be quite compatible and consistent.

It helps to analyze positions by compiling a list of the consequences of accepting the proposed decision as each side sees it. Compiling such a list, even a hypothetical one assumed by the other party, helps to understand the interests of the other party and how they differ from the position expressed by that party.

You should also openly discuss each other's emotions and perceptions of each other. You need to find an opportunity to interact with the other party's perceptions by taking some important step for the other party, or using a symbolic gesture that can have a good emotional effect on the partner, or giving the other party an opportunity to "blow off steam" by expressing negative feelings.

After negative feelings are expressed, you can move on to more thoughtful, productive ways of expression, an example of which is given in table. 4.1.

Table 4.1

An example of productive and unproductive expression of dissatisfaction during negotiations

Unproductive expression of dissatisfaction that provokes an emotional reaction

A productive expression of dissatisfaction that separates the problem from the person to whom it is expressed.

Your company outrageous , absolutely unreliable. Every time after your repair, our generator fails again and again, and this happens immediately after the repair.

We are ready Immediately change the service company.

Our generator, which is serviced by your company, has broken down again.

This is the third time this has happened in the last month.

The first time the generator didn't work for a whole week, it created huge problems for us. We just A stable generator is required. I would like to discuss with you, How can you reduce the frequency of its breakdowns?

May be , should I contact the manufacturer?

Or can you offer us

something else?

Thus, posing the problem in a productive way requires calmer and more balanced formulations, an expression of readiness for a mutual search for a solution, and cooperation.

The following speech forms are well suited for this purpose:

We have heard a lot of good things about your activities and are ready to cooperate.
We have gathered at the negotiating table to discuss the following issues.
I have been instructed to discuss with you the following issues that are important to us.
Today you and I have to make a decision on an issue that is important to all of us.
We have carefully studied your draft agreement (contract, your proposals, your objections, comments) and want to express the following...

To express disagreement or disapproval, it is recommended to choose emotionally neutral forms, for example, the following:

In principle, we agree with many of your proposals, but we have a number of comments and adjustments.
It is not easy to agree with your option, since its implementation may cause certain difficulties.
We highly appreciate your efforts, but we are not entirely satisfied with the proposed conditions.
Our point of view is somewhat different from yours.

During a calmer discussion, it is easier to move from discussing positions to discussing the interests of the parties and try to identify common interests. To do this, we can suggest the following speech forms:

We are all interested in a favorable outcome of the negotiations. Let us discuss our common interests in the spirit of mutual understanding.
You and I have gathered here to solve our common problem together. I hope that during the discussion there will be manifestations of goodwill and mutual understanding.
There have been difficulties in our relationship, but in order to reach a mutually acceptable solution, let's focus on solving the common problem and try to achieve a reconciliation of interests.
What questions should we start discussing with? If you don't mind, let's first discuss the following...

The third principle of the Harvard method is that before finally deciding what to do, it is necessary to find and consider options that would serve mutual benefit.

It is necessary to interest the other party in the final result and motivate them to reach agreement. This will be served by the understanding of the partner that should be developed as a result of the preliminary analysis and in the process of negotiations itself. At the same time, the process of developing a common solution should be joint, and all parties should be involved in it.

You also need to convincingly explain and argue your interests.

It is necessary that proposals corresponded not only their own interests, but also the interests and values of the other party.

Most Powerful Interests stem from basic human needs. Common interests include:

economic well-being – the desire to achieve a certain level and the desire to increase it;
safety, including the desire to reduce certain risks contained in proposed solutions or in the existing situation;
a sense of belonging to a group;
recognition of certain merits, merits, rights, including the rights to respect;
the ability to maintain and increase control over what constitutes the most significant part of one’s life.

If the proposed solution satisfies all of these needs, or at least those that are currently most important to the other party, then the chances of the decision being accepted increase.

Before making your proposals, you need to formulate the general problem, express your interests and arguments, and only then present your final proposals.

It is very important at this stage to concentrate on the future, on proposing a solution that will allow achieving the necessary goal in the future, and not on the past.

It is necessary to have your own proposals, but at the same time be flexible, open to new ideas that the other side may offer. It is useful not to negotiate only on one aspect, but to expand the area in which discussion can be held. First enlarge the pie, and then divide it.

Be firm on the issue and at the same time gentle with people. It is necessary to demonstrate an attack on the problem, and not on the negotiators.

Let's analyze the work the fourth principle of the Harvard method. The criteria for evaluating proposed solutions must be objective, and this can and should be insisted on.

Let's consider an example of using objective criteria to develop a solution.

A contract has been concluded for the construction of a building at a fixed price. The contract mentions a reinforced concrete foundation, but its dimensions are not specified. The length and width are determined by the dimensions of the building, but how to determine the required depth, about which nothing is said?

The contractor suggests a depth of 0.5 m.

The customer believes that a building of this type requires a depth of 1.5 m.

When discussing this issue, the contractor insists on his decision, arguing as follows: “We have already met you halfway when clarifying the roof design. Now it’s your turn to give in.”

At this time, it makes sense for the customer to talk about the problem arising in connection with such a decision and the need for objective criteria.

For example, like this: “Perhaps 0.5 m is enough. We just want the foundation to be able to support the weight of the entire building. But isn’t it state standards construction for similar buildings, taking into account the type of soil? What are the foundations of other buildings like ours in the area? Could we take a look at the existing standards first?"

This customer proposal contains several alternative options. These alternatives need to be developed and thought through in advance.

Conclusion: We must strive to ensure that decisions are made not under pressure, but on the basis of generally accepted standards and fair principles.

Here a whole series universal criteria for choosing the final solution, which can be proposed as objective and fair, legal and practical, independent of the negotiators:

– market value;
– original yen minus depreciation;
– existing precedent;
– scientific independent assessment;
– professional standards;
- efficiency;
- expenses;
– court decision;
– moral standards;
– equality of the parties;
– traditions;
- mutual benefit.

In addition to applying fair criteria, having a fair procedure helps a lot.

An example of such a procedure is the following sequence of actions: one of the participants divides the disputed resource, and the second participant is the first to choose his share.

Another option for a fair procedure can also be called the following sequence of actions: before distributing roles between participants, develop solutions with fair conditions.

Other options for a fair procedure are drawing lots and inviting an independent arbitrator or mediator to conduct negotiations.

A fair criterion and a fair procedure must be considered as common goal, which all participants strive for. Your proposals must be formulated in such a way that they look like a joint search for a fair, objective criterion.

It is possible that you are being pressured. This pressure can take different types, it can resemble a bribe, a threat, manipulation, or it can simply be a categorical and rigid refusal of any deviations in relation to the position taken.

The principled behavior in all these cases should be similar: the negotiator who can be called fair and principled (in the sense of the Harvard method of principled negotiations, and not in the sense of a rigid position), invites the other party to justify its arguments in accordance with objective criteria and refuses to go to make concessions on any other basis.

An example of negotiating under pressure .

Contractor: “Agree to our proposal on the depth of the foundation, and we will hire your son.”

Customer: “Thank you. But I think that the work of my relatives in your company has nothing to do with the safety of the building under construction.”

Contractor: “Then the cost of the object will have to increase.”

Customer: “We have already discussed this issue, let’s see how much other companies charge for similar work and compare it with your calculations.”

Contractor: “But you trust me, otherwise you wouldn’t come to us?”

Customer: “Don’t you think that we have deviated somewhat from the topic of conversation? We are now talking not about trust, but about the safety of the building under construction - what should be the depth of the foundation in order to be confident in the safety of the entire structure?”

Cm.: Regnet E. Conflicts in organizations. Forms, functions and methods of overcoming. P. 30.
Fisher R., Patton B., Urey W.
Cm.: Fisher R., Patton B., Urey U. Negotiations without defeat. Harvard method.
Cm.: Fisher R., Patton B., Urey W. Negotiations without defeat. Harvard method. P. 21.
Cm.: Fisher R., Patton B., Urey W. Negotiations without defeat. Harvard method. M., 2006.

The basic rule is that both parties come to the belief that they have gained something as a result of the negotiations. The most important thing in negotiations is your partner. He needs to be convinced to accept the offer. The entire course of negotiations, all argumentation must be oriented towards it. Negotiation is collaboration. Any cooperation must have common base, so it is important to find a common denominator for the different interests of the partners. Rarely do negotiations go without problems, so the tendency to compromise is important. Any negotiations should be a dialogue, so it is important to be able to ask the right question and be able to listen to your partner. Positive results of negotiations should be considered as their natural conclusion, therefore, in conclusion, it is necessary to dwell on the content of the agreement, which reflects all the interests of the partners. Negotiations are considered completed if their results have been subjected to thorough analysis, on the basis of which appropriate conclusions have been drawn.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Introduction

The main way to resolve conflicts is negotiations. Their implementation is one of the most important aspects of the activities of any organization. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the most important features of the negotiation process in more detail.

Negotiations are understood as a special type of joint activity of two or more persons not connected by direct subordination, aimed at solving the problems they face. The task of negotiations is to find an option that would optimize possible result. This is achieved by bringing the positions of the parties closer together in the process of their implementation on the basis of the commonality of their goals, the presence of different ways to achieve them, the possibility of combining interests through mutual concessions, the losses from which turn out to be significantly less than they would have been in the absence of an agreement.

Negotiations may not necessarily involve resolving any conflicts. Often they are conducted in conditions of cooperation for its continuation or greater efficiency However, the latter is typical for external negotiations.

Negotiation theory

Business negotiations can be defined as the exchange of opinions with the aim of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. Negotiations as a phenomenon of business life should include not only coordinated and organized contacts of interested parties in a certain way, but also a meeting, conversation, telephone conversation (telephone conversations).

Negotiations are usually started when there is a mutual desire to find a mutually beneficial solution to the problem, to maintain business contacts and friendly relations, when there is no clear and precise regulation for solving the problems that have arisen, when for one reason or another a legal solution is not possible, when the parties realize that any Unilateral action becomes unacceptable or impossible.

Business negotiations are not only an area of business expansion, but also the most important part of an organization’s PR activities, forming and effectively maintaining its image. Successful and professional negotiations expand the positive information field about the company and help attract attention to it potential clients and partners.

Unfortunately, the role of business negotiations in modern domestic entrepreneurship is not yet high. It is also obvious that in the business community there is a growing awareness of the importance of negotiations in the development of any business and an understanding of the role and importance of improving the culture of negotiations.

Any negotiation is a process of implementing effective interpersonal communications, it is the use of acquired skills of communicative rhetoric, adjusted for the personality of the partner. The most important component of the negotiation process is communication between the parties and their effective interpersonal communication. The communication skills of negotiators, the ability to communicate, make contact and carry on a conversation, largely determine their overall success.

The communicative aspect of negotiations is decisive and therefore the negotiation process is considered as an integral part of speech communication (primarily dialogue, argumentation), as the ability to effectively use speech influence to achieve set goals.

The communicative competence of negotiators is thus considered as the ability to maintain verbal stability and confidence in any situation, mastery of interpersonal communication techniques, the basis of which is the theory and practice of dialogue, the art of conversation, and mastery of argumentation in business.

Negotiation is the most important tool for resolving business relationships or conflicts. The very intention to negotiate in any situation, and especially in a conflict situation, is worth a lot, and the task is not to miss the chance and take advantage of the parties’ desire to solve problems.

Negotiations as one of the types of creating and maintaining dialogue with business partners may be carried out for the purpose of:

· establishing business relationships;

· clarifying the positions of the parties on one or more issues;

· exchange of information;

· settlement of relations;

· deepening mutual understanding;

· reaching new agreements;

· signing agreements.

First of all, the subject of negotiations must be clearly understood and specified, and the desired goals that the parties strive to achieve must be clearly defined.

If one of the parties believes that it is capable of independently and effectively solving its problems, there is little basis for negotiations. Unless the other side can be convinced that a joint solution to its problems will be more effective. Negotiations will not take place even if the legal framework fully allows all the issues that have arisen to be resolved.

Finally, the parties must show a desire to jointly search for solutions and achieve their goals. This, naturally, implies the willingness of both contracting parties to make mutual concessions and understanding of each other’s interests.

Coincidence of interests or too great a divergence of interests deprives negotiations of meaning. Negotiations are more likely to succeed when your interests and the other party's interests are equal and divergent.

Thus, a situation of mixed interests is necessary. Only in this case we are dealing with interdependent negotiations. The more the parties depend on the success of the negotiations, the higher the likelihood of their successful completion. The higher the degree of interdependence, the less likely negotiators are to take advantage of unilateral actions.

Moreover, we should not forget that participation in negotiations itself creates a situation that allows the parties to build new relationships, regardless of the conditions that existed before they began.

All this indicates that negotiations aimed at reaching agreements are a multifaceted process and include several stages:

· preparation for negotiations (including identifying the problem that needs to be solved);

· identification of needs and goals;

· selection of material and facts;

· identifying the interests of the parties;

· determination of the zone of intersection of interests ("solution zone");

· determination of objective criteria;

· formation of proposals and their options;

· strategic planning;

· tactical planning;

· maneuvers and persuasion system;

· putting forward alternatives;

· analysis of the results of agreements and agreements reached and monitoring their implementation.

Organization and conduct of the negotiation process

Negotiation technology is a creative process, it is difficult to describe it as a given. Just as there are no people alike, there are no similar negotiations. Moreover, there is no universal algorithm for success in negotiations. According to many experts, the subject of negotiations does not have a significant impact on the technology of their conduct.

The course of negotiations is significantly influenced by the relationship between the positions of the contracting parties: if the position of one of the parties is too and clearly weak, then the negotiating tactics of the other party will obviously be chosen either openly “hard” in style, or “soft” in form, but essentially firm and consistent.

The main types and methods of negotiations retain their importance over time, their structure, rules, methods of handling objections and business etiquette change.

Negotiation technology is largely influenced by mentality, national styles, methods and techniques business communication, culture of speech behavior in society as a whole. This is why, for example, American techniques on the art of negotiation do little to optimize negotiations in an environment domestic business.

For the most part, a set of ready-made recipes written for a different cultural, legal and business tradition is not suitable for negotiations in the post-Soviet space in the conditions of the formation of market relations.

The formation of modern domestic negotiation rules was influenced by several factors. In Soviet times, business negotiations in their direct meaning (conclusion of business agreements, business alliances, etc.) were rarely used to solve intra-economic problems. All issues, including production ones, were resolved in the appropriate authorities and then sent down to the conflicting parties for execution.

Negotiation naturally are divided into “standard” and “non-standard”. “Standard” negotiations, repeated in a particular market with high frequency. Participating partners are aware of the main circumstances surrounding business contacts, the basic principles of business reasoning, and the availability of standard contract texts corresponding to this type of transaction. The purpose of such negotiations is to agree on certain details that are determined by changes in the market, when mainly two contracting parties (customer - contractor) are involved.

“Non-standard” negotiations conducted in a new situation of business interaction, having a complex set of issues and factors influencing their outcome, relevant for their solution, including the cost of the project under discussion. Distinctive feature Such negotiations are multi-stage, depending on the number of possible intermediaries: customer - intermediary - intermediary - performer.

Preparation of negotiations

It is known that nothing succeeds without preparation. During the preparation of negotiations, it is necessary to strive to achieve the main goal - to strengthen the partners’ desire for direct contacts. Poorly prepared and conducted negotiations, incorrect decisions and agreements can only aggravate the differences between the parties and intensify the conflict.

This is the price of a mistake at the stage of preparation of negotiations. Preliminary preparation for negotiations largely creates competitive advantages even before the negotiations. You can influence only when you know everything or almost everything about your partner.

Receipt reliable information is important at the initial stage of preparation for negotiations. It is necessary to collect all available information about the negotiating partner: serious, solid, reliable, old, proven, promising. Carefully consider the goals and objectives that are expected to be resolved at the negotiating table

Significant differences in the understanding of goals and expectations of results (differences in assessments of what is profitable, cost-effective, profitable, profitable) will most likely lead to a cooling of the parties’ interest already at the initial stage of negotiations. In this case, it is difficult to count on a positive solution to the problem and successful completion of negotiations, since the other party will form other evaluation categories: unreliable operation, ill-conceived, unprofitable, unprofitable, too high a price.

When preparing for a business meeting, it is necessary to carefully determine its program, the order of issues to be discussed, and determine which of them should be resolved at the stage of preliminary discussion and which at the negotiating table.

Often a situation arises when negotiations have begun, but the parties are not yet ready for a joint discussion or search for mutually acceptable solutions. Lack of results in negotiations should not always be perceived as failure. Negotiations, even if they end without definite agreements, can nevertheless perform other functions, for example, coordinating joint actions of the parties in the future.

Such negotiations are in the nature of preliminary familiarization with the position of the parties and the information function of negotiations is realized at them. Moreover, negotiations without an achieved result nevertheless expand the understanding of the problems discussed, allow us to better understand the positions of the parties, establish personal relationships, i.e. implement another function of negotiations - communication.

As a rule, participants in upcoming negotiations do not disclose their preparations, the stages of preparatory work, which most often remain unknown to the other side. Together, the negotiators discuss, in addition to determining the subject and range of issues, the place and time of their holding and the level of leaders and the number of representatives of the contracting parties.

Equal Match Question official position heads of delegations is of fundamental importance if negotiations take place with foreign partners.

The issue of the place of negotiations should not seem simple and insignificant. It is important because it raises the issue of confidentiality of negotiations.

The subject and range of issues brought up for negotiations form the basis of the negotiating concept (or position) of the party. It also includes analysis possible options decisions.

All materials of the preparatory work must be collected in a negotiation dossier, which includes all documents agreed upon at the preliminary stage of preparation, as well as the necessary reference and information sources.

Preliminary preparation for negotiations in many ways creates competitive advantages even before negotiations. You can influence only when you know everything or almost everything about your partner.

Negotiation strategy and tactics

One can distinguish manipulative and forceful negotiation tactics (which largely corresponds to bargaining) and the tactics of combining “hard” and “soft” positions. R. Fischer and W. Ury rightly believe that none of these negotiation styles is flawless. They offer a third option - principled negotiations, the essence of which boils down to four methodological recommendations:

· separate disputes between partners (people) from the problem that needs to be solved;

· focus on benefits, not positions;

· before trying to reach an agreement, you should think through several options aimed at the mutual benefit of the parties;

· It is necessary to insist on the use of objective criteria.

It should be noted that such a partnership style in solving a problem, when the participants are equally aware that the breakdown of negotiations is disadvantageous to both parties, is rare.

Regarding the choice of negotiation style and methods of argumentation during negotiations, there are very different and sometimes contradictory points of view in the literature. Here are some significant recommendations given by various authors:

· attack in negotiations is the best defense;

· the one who pretends to be a simpleton acts wisely (this makes it easier to trap a negotiating partner anticipating imminent gain);

· use of emotional pressure in the form of direct and frank questions “head-on”;

· ask an equal number of counter questions (answer annoying questions with equally annoying questions);

· when choosing a tough style, you must be careful not to turn into confrontation;

· sincerity in one thing generates trust in everything.

In any negotiations, the possibility of deception cannot be ruled out. Here it is appropriate to refer to Schopenhauer, who wrote: “If you suspect that you are being lied to, pretend that you absolutely believe it. This will encourage your interlocutor to develop the topic. He will lie more brazenly and get caught. If you suspect that your partner has accidentally discovered part of the hidden truth, play in distrust. A partner in temper may reveal the truth."

Depending on the state of affairs on the market, a situation may arise when one of the parties is more interested in completing a transaction than the other. In this case, before more interested party there is a difficult task, which is to determine the degree of emotional pressure on the negotiating partner. It is necessary to hide your interest, but not to the point of apparent indifference, which can lead to the failure of negotiations. The situation is even more complicated with a subtle combination of tactics of emotional and rational pressure on a partner.

Drawing up a preliminary plan of ten points for rapprochement of positions will allow you to purposefully and confidently move toward rapprochement of positions. Points one through five of the plan constitute the main goals that you want to achieve in the negotiations. Concessions in this area are not desirable. Points six to ten are what could be an area of compromise, concessions that do not significantly affect your interests. By crossing out during the negotiations, starting with the last one, you will always be able to see the progress of the negotiations, so to speak, visually.

Drawing up such a plan is advisable in cases where there are many issues under consideration and options for their solution. No matter how well the preparatory measures have been carried out, yet, having sat down at the negotiating table, the parties have only a general idea of each other’s position, especially if this is their first personal contact. Therefore, at the beginning of the negotiation process, it is impossible to avoid mutual clarification of each other’s positions. The stage of clarifying positions is of fundamental importance if the subject of negotiations is the elimination of a conflict situation.

Any ambiguities or misunderstandings on any particular issues should be clarified and all disagreements should be resolved immediately, without delay. This style of behavior at the very beginning of negotiations often allows one to achieve greater procedural flexibility and loyalty of negotiators in accepting mutual alternative proposals, changing or adjusting the initially chosen position. It should be remembered that “the path is the rose, not the pot”: there is no need to regret your preliminary considerations and expectations, you should adjust them during the negotiations and reach a possible acceptable agreement.

At the stage of determining the “solution zone,” it is very important to achieve a common language, clarification of the “starting positions,” including the evaluative argumentation accepted by both sides for the actions of the parties that led to the conflict.

Negotiation technique

An important stage of negotiations is the discussion stage, the purpose of which is to develop a common position for making mutually acceptable decisions. At this stage, the focus is on discussing options for a joint solution. In a conflict situation, discussion is the most difficult and complex stage in the negotiation process.

Successful businessmen, as a rule, are passionate people and have the gift of persuasion about anything. They are in many ways close to politicians. But in business the price of words is higher and irrelevant idle talk is less valued. Successful deals are usually well supported by reasoning.

As a rule, the arguments are well-chosen examples, explanations of why you insist on this method of carrying out a transaction and not another, and why this particular method is the most effective and profitable, simple and requires less costs. These are links to the situation on the market, to certain examples from your experience and your business partners. The main arguments should be focused on the evaluative poles of “profitable/unprofitable” (benefit is the basis of any business), and not on general evaluative concepts: “good/bad” or “easy/difficult”. They are generally used in business communications extremely rarely. The substantive aspect of business communication differs according to the categories of problems being solved.

The partnership approach to negotiations as a joint search for a mutually acceptable solution is based on the principles known from the novel by N.G. Chernyshevsky "What to do?" theories of "reasonable egoism":

The partnership approach to negotiations is based on:

· constructive dialogue,

· searching for joint ways to solve the problem,

· erasing contradictions,

· joint analysis of solution options,

· desire and ability to see the problem through the eyes of the other side.

Thus, a reasonable agreement should best meet the interests of each party, be fair from the point of view of both parties, be long-term and not contain the basis for disagreements in the future.

As can be seen, positional bargaining does little to satisfy these requirements. Firstly, because bargaining creates a favorable environment for various kinds of tricks aimed at misleading the other party; secondly, it contributes to a deliberate exaggeration of initial demands and a long-term rapprochement of two rigid positions.

The principle of “reasonable selfishness” in negotiations includes a joint search for a mutually acceptable solution based on a thorough analysis of the needs and interests of the contracting parties.

Moreover, only the most complete consideration of the interests of both partners provides guarantees that the results of the negotiations will be transparent, acceptable and will not cause either party to want to revise them.

Negotiations as the art of communication

Speech culture and the effectiveness of communication in negotiations are often directly related. Everything that concerns norms and recommendations for improving the culture of business negotiations can be determined by the well-known maxim: “Do not speak so that you can be understood, but speak so that you cannot be misunderstood.” You should talk about the matter, highlighting the main thing, without overloading your partner with minor details and details. Even if your argument is very convincing, you still should not repeat it often. Arabic wisdom says: “Even if you say halwa a thousand times, your mouth will not become sweeter.”

The culture of speech behavior can be illustrated by the principles of politeness of J. Leach, which he formulated as a set of a number of maxims:

· the maxim of tact is the maxim of the boundaries of the personal sphere;

· the maxim of generosity is the maxim of not burdening the interlocutor;

· the maxim of approval is a maxim of positivity in evaluating others;

· the maxim of modesty is the maxim of non-acceptance of praise addressed to oneself;

· the maxim of agreement is a maxim of non-opposition (“Plato is my friend, but truth is dearer”, “Truth is born in dispute, but sympathy perishes”);

· the maxim of sympathy is the maxim of benevolence.

The art of negotiation.

Speech communication during negotiations has general properties that characterize joint activities. It is possible to identify fundamental rules of communication for all functional types of business contacts. Some of them were proposed by G.P. Grice and called them the Rules of Cooperation. He identifies four categories of postulates:

I. Quantity.1. Your statement must contain no less information than is required (to fulfill the current goals of the dialogue).2. Your statement should not contain more information than required. “The second postulate,” notes G.P. Grice, “raises doubt: it can be said that the transfer of unnecessary information is not a violation of the Principle of Cooperation, but simply a waste of time. It can be objected, however, that such unnecessary information sometimes introduces misleading, raising irrelevant questions and considerations; in addition, an indirect effect may occur when the listener is confused due to the fact that he assumed there was some special purpose, a special meaning in the transmission of this extra information.

II. Quality.

1. Don't say anything that would be considered false.

2. Don't say anything for which you don't have sufficient grounds.

III. Relationship. Stay on topic.

IV. Way.

1. Avoid unclear expressions.

2. Avoid ambiguity.

3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary verbosity."

4. Be organized.

The value of G.P.’s postulates Grice's concept of a culture of communication is that they are focused on the connection between a culture of thinking and a culture of speech.

Here are some of these rules, the observance of which will help persuade people to your point of view:

· the only way to gain the upper hand in a dispute is to avoid it;

· show respect for the opinion of your interlocutor;

· never tell a person that he is wrong;

· if you are wrong, admit it quickly and decisively;

· Maintain a friendly tone from the very beginning;

· force the interlocutor to immediately answer you “yes”;

· let your interlocutor do most of the talking;

· let your interlocutor believe that this thought belongs to him;

· sincerely try to look at things from the point of view of your interlocutor;

· be sympathetic to the thoughts and desires of others;

· appeal to nobler motives;

· dramatize your ideas, present them effectively;

· challenge, touch a nerve.

Here are some rules, the observance of which allows you to influence people without offending them or causing them to feel offended:

· start with praise and sincere recognition of the merits of your interlocutor;

· point out the mistakes of others not directly, but indirectly;

· first talk about your own mistakes, and then criticize your interlocutor;

· ask your interlocutor questions instead of ordering him something;

· give people the opportunity to save their prestige;

· Applaud people for their slightest success and celebrate their every success.

These recommendations are based not only on the experience read by the author from biographies famous people, but also scientifically based rules of speech communication. Their main advantage is that they guide each person to find their own way of actually implementing these rules of business communication in practice.

Business etiquette

All sorts of things social behavior regulated by rules. Business etiquette is not much different from other types of etiquette that exist in the international community, in its main function as compliance with historically established traditions of communication between people.

The basis of all etiquette is politeness, which helps us in all cases of communication to quickly achieve our goals. “Politeness is the most precious stone. Beauty without politeness is a garden without flowers,” says Eastern wisdom.

It should never be forgotten that patience, respect and expressions of politeness have always formed the basis of ideal behavior between two contracting parties.

Etiquette rules during negotiations are not much different from the rules of behavior in society. Your freedom of action should not limit the rights and opportunities of others. Of course, this largely depends on the personal culture of each participant in the negotiation process.

Inattention to other participants during business meetings can manifest itself in every action that can distract, prevent at least one of them from concentrating. Participants should not be distracted by extraneous actions, much less noisy actions: tapping a pen on the tabletop, searching too often in a briefcase necessary documents, drawing in a notepad.

Of course, the most essential element in business etiquette is a person’s speech behavior, since violation speech etiquette most noticeable by others. A person as a linguistic personality is constantly evaluated by other people. Norms of speech behavior relate to the sphere of tacit agreement between communicatively obligated members of society. The very existence of these unspoken rules becomes noticeable when they are violated.

It is considered bad form to show inattention to the speaker, interrupt, “cut out of the conversation” with unexpected remarks, carry on a conversation with another team member, be distracted by phone calls during negotiations, and much more.

All this can be done for only one purpose - to put pressure on your partner. But this is already beyond speech and business etiquette. With this behavior, you, wittingly or unwittingly, give rise to a feeling of awkwardness, resentment, negative emotions and, in general, hostility in the speaker.

But etiquette includes not only the rules of speech behavior at the negotiating table, but also, in a broader sense, the preservation of the personal image of a business person and his company.

Expanding business and personal contacts between people in lately contributed to a growing interest in the peculiarities of the national etiquette of other peoples. Of course, in any unfamiliar situations where it is necessary to maintain communication or carry on a conversation, important role play by a person’s intellect, sense of tact, character and intelligence. Etiquette should be respected, but still follow life, which constantly adjusts all sorts of rules.

At the negotiating table, knowledge of the rules of etiquette, the peculiarities of national tradition, and culture has never been superfluous. Etiquette in every national culture has evolved over centuries. Modern business etiquette presupposes respect for tradition on especially special occasions and greater freedom in everyday communication.

Sometimes even minimal regional knowledge about the cultural and everyday traditions of your opponent can be very useful for the successful completion of negotiations. In one Austrian reference book from the early 90s for business people it is said that in negotiations with Russians it would not be a bad idea to show your knowledge of Russian literature and quote Pushkin.

The question of national negotiation styles has long been raised in theory, but still does not have a generally accepted solution. Some authors believe that national characteristics are not so significant; others, on the contrary, attach great importance to them.

There is no doubt that a person participating in the negotiation process is greatly influenced by national character traits, national traditions of settling disputes, and moral values learned in their culture almost from childhood.

Technology for completing negotiations

Completion of negotiations is the most important stage that requires special attention. It must proceed without haste, which can be created deliberately. It cannot be ruled out that the tactic of delaying and resolving all issues “at the end” was chosen by your opponent from the very beginning.

If the negotiators do not come to an agreement to resolve the conflict situation, an agreement may be made verbally or in writing to postpone the discussion to a later date.

A situation may arise when one of the parties, in any scenario, needs to complete the negotiations with an agreement, and the partner can afford to wait (say, he has other proposals).

For example, the positions may have been too different to begin with. When, for example, the parties realized during long negotiations that the clash between two tough negotiating styles and tough positions turned out to be a dead end, but it was necessary to complete the negotiations within a certain time frame.

The hope in the tactics of positional bargaining, that the initially high bar would not allow it to fall too low, was not justified: your inflated demands at the beginning of the negotiations encountered the intransigence of the other side and there was no gradual change in the demands put forward.

You should be especially careful at this stage of negotiations and mentally “scroll” everything important events meetings to correctly determine the current situation. It should not be assumed that, having reached a preliminary agreement even on the details of the decision, the parties will not return back to the beginning of the negotiation process.

At the end of the negotiation process, the main attention should be focused on drawing up the final documents. It is better to start drawing up an agreement by discussing a previously prepared project.

At the final stage of negotiations, it is necessary to remember all the discussed details and not to miss the significant ones when agreeing on the draft agreement. During the preparation of the final text of the agreement, one must strive to prevent the other party from possibly introducing into it certain details and additions that were not discussed during the negotiations. If you fail to identify them at this stage, you will be deprived of the opportunity to make any adjustments to the text in the future.

At this stage, a thorough and attentive reading of all preparatory documents is necessary in order to identify wording with double entenders, factual inaccuracies, deliberate distortion of meaning and the results of the agreement. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the final stage.

The final version of the negotiated text of the agreement should be prepared in the number of copies required for all participants in the negotiations. Everything that can add additional valence to the meaning of the agreement must be removed from the text of the agreement. This technique of “double interpretation” is often used in order to push through an agreement and then insist strict adherence"letters" of the agreement. As you negotiate the agreement document, try to ask your opponent as many “what if” questions as possible. And insist on a comprehensive answer.

Ready text agreement may cause very serious disagreements in one or another part of its implementation, control, etc. Not everything that is discussed necessarily makes it into the written agreement. However, all the most important issues of the program, if they were considered during the negotiations, must be reflected in the agreement adopted as a document.

It should be borne in mind that all oral agreements during negotiations that were not included in the final text of the final agreement have no legal force.

Oral agreements have equal importance with a written agreement if negotiations took place with the first person. That is why the participation of top officials is one of the most important conditions for effectively resolving issues.

If, as you believe, too many such exceptions are made in the final agreement, you should make your own special comments and insist on their inclusion. If the other party does not agree with them, then the only option is to either postpone the signing and conduct additional consultations, or not sign the proposed option at all.

Practice shows that no matter how long the discussion lasts and no matter how many people are involved, essential decisions are made when two people remain at the negotiating table.

At the end of the negotiations, all issues related to the implementation of the agreements reached should be clearly discussed, the executors, deadlines, necessary resources and their sources, sanctions in case of failure to comply with the agreements should be determined, and the circle of persons who are authorized in the event of unforeseen or force majeure circumstances can be promptly included in solving problems that have arisen. It is necessary to take into account the guarantees of its execution in the agreement. Whatever the level of trust between the parties, the agreement should be signed regardless of the personal relations of the participants in the negotiations. Final documents are drawn up depending on the type of negotiations.

The final stage of negotiations is also important because the agreements reached largely determine not only the prospects for further cooperation with the partner, but also have an impact on the professional reputation of its participants.

Even if success in negotiations is not achieved, you have a real opportunity to expand the boundaries of your business cooperation with new acquaintances, i.e. you implement in practice the information and communication function of negotiations.

Conclusion

Without realizing general patterns inherent in the negotiation process, it is impossible to correctly build interaction with your partner, taking into account your goals and objectives. At the initial stages, when starting negotiations, you should not waste time analyzing what happened and is happening in these negotiations, how the process of conducting them is structured. In the future, this will be reduced to automation and such a detailed analysis will not be required. What is usually called negotiation experience will appear. However, for this to actually happen, you will have to spend a lot of effort.

You cannot learn to negotiate without participating in them. Therefore, whenever there is any opportunity, it makes sense to use it. With each new negotiation, experience is gained and skills are honed.

It seems that negotiations - as a means of resolving conflict and crisis situations, as well as a means of ensuring cooperation between various social actors - have a great future. They replace force and command methods, providing the most harmonious development social and economic life. And they now require specialists in their field who have high creative potential, are well versed in the secrets of their chosen profession, and are able to make thoughtful and carefully considered decisions.

Literature

1. Ivanova E.N. Effective Communication and conflicts. S-P., 1997.

2. Sheinov V.P. Conflicts in our lives and their resolution. Minsk, 1996.

3. Anisimov S.F. Morals and behavior. M., 1985 p-165.

4. Schmidt R. The Art of Communication. M., 1992.

5. Aminov I.I. Psychology of business communication. M., 2007.

6. Braddick W. Management in the organization. M., 1999.

7. Albastova L.N. Technology of effective management. M., 2000.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Abstract: Ways and methods of negotiations. Presentation and closing of the deal

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Similar documents

Tutoring