What is the trial?
Negotiation is an interactive social process in which people are involved when striving to reach an agreement on behalf of another party or parties.
Negotiation is primarily a joint guarantee of others' expectations. It is a form of communication aimed at reaching an agreement when it comes to agreeing with certain interests of two or more parties and against certain others that are opposed to it. – The Shorter Oxford Dictionary 1977-
Negotiation: Co-operate in another case to settle certain issues by mutual agreement; to discuss a case for settlement or compromise.
– Ginny Pearsom Bames says: Negotiation is a resolution of a disagreement that has given and correlates the broadcast and the relationship. This includes sharing ideas and information and achieving a mutually acceptable result.
– The US Pepperdine University developed an explanatory definition of the negotiations:
Negotiation is a process of communication that merges transactions or resolves conflicts. It is a voluntary, non-mandatory procedure in which the parties check the outcome and the procedures with which they are to conclude an agreement. As most parties contain very few restrictions on the negotiation process, it allows a wide range of possible solutions, maximizing the potential for joint profits.
– According to Williams, Legal and Settlement, 1983, trial is a repetitive process that is reasonably predictable patterns over time. Yet, in legal disputes, attorney's attention and energy is so absorbed by the preliminary negotiation and negotiation approach that it does not recognize the important, identifiable forms and dynamics of the negotiation process
– M Anstey explains the essential elements of the negotiations as follows:
1. Verbal Interactive Process;
2. Involvement of two or more parties;
3. Who wants to agree;
4. A problem or conflict of interest; and
5. As soon as they strive to maintain their interests as much as possible, they must incorporate their views and positions into efforts to reach agreement.
In general, negotiations are the interaction of influences. Such interactions include, for example, the process of settling disputes, agreeing directions of action, individual or collective bargaining or collective or craftsmanships to meet various interests. The trial is therefore an alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
o The trial involves two or more parties who need (or believe they need it). It is in the common interest of the parties to link the parties.
o The parties will start with different opinions or objectives. These differences prevent the agreement.
o Parties are willing to cooperate and communicate to meet their goals.
o The parties are mutually beneficial or avoid damage by influencing each other.
o The Parties acknowledge that any other process does not result in the desired result.
o The parties consider that negotiation is the best way to resolve the differences (or lease, possibly)
o They also think that they will be able to persuade the party to change its original position.
o Even if they do not get their ideal result, both retain the hope of a viable result.
o Each has some kind of effect that is real or suspected of the other actions. If one party becomes completely ineffective, the negotiation will have few points for the other.
o The negotiation process itself involves the interaction between people. This interaction is in person, by telephone, by mail, etc. You may or may use a combination because personal, emotional, and attitudes are always important.
Success or Failure of Negotiations. The following conditions make the success of the negotiations more likely:
Identifying parties who are willing to participate: People or groups who need to be interested in the outcome should be identifiable and willing to sit on the desktop when productive negotiations are taking place. If a critical party is missing or unwilling to commit to the commitment of bona fide bargaining, the possibility of an agreement is reduced.
Addiction: For productive negotiations, participants need to depend on each other to meet their needs or interests. Participants need each other's help or restriction on negative action to ensure that their interests are met. If you can meet one party's needs without the other's co-operation, there will be little momentum to negotiate.
Willingness to Negotiate: People should be ready to negotiate a dialogue. If participants are psychologically unwilling to talk to other parties, if there is no information available or when negotiating strategy is not in place, people are reluctant to start the process.
Devices of influence or leverage: To make people agree on issues they disagree with, they must have some means to influence the attitudes and / or conduct of other negotiators. They often affect the ability to threaten or inflict pain or unwanted costs, but this is just one way to stimulate another to change. Finding inquisitive questions, providing the information you need, seeking advice from experts, joining the party's influential staff, exercising legal mandate, or rewarding each instrument to influence negotiation.
Agreement on Some Issues and Interests: People should be able to agree on certain common issues and interests about the progress made in the negotiations. In general, participants have common questions and interests, and others that apply to only one party. The number and significance of common issues and interests influence and negotiate the negotiations. The parties have quite common issues and have an interest in committing themselves to the common decision-making process.
Will Resolve: The success of the negotiations must be addressed by the participants. If the continuation of the conflict is more important than settlement, negotiations are being judged to fail. Parties often want to keep the conflicts in order to preserve the connection (a negative may be better than no contact at all), mobilize the public or support them, or because the conflict link gives life. These factors promote continuous sharing and work against sorting. The negative consequences of non-settlement are far more significant and bigger than reaching the agreement.
The Unpredictability of Outcome: People are negotiating because they need something from other people. They are also negotiating because the outcome of the trial is unpredictable. For example: If you turn to a court, you have 50-50 chance to win, you can decide to negotiate and not take the risk of losing the outcome of a court decision. The trial is more predictable than the court, because if the trial is successful, the party at least gains something. The chances of decisive and unilateral victory are unexpectedly unforeseen for the parties to start negotiations.
Urgency and Time Limit: Negotiations usually occur when there is pressure or an urgent decision. The urgency can be achieved with external or internal time constraints or possible negative or positive consequences for the outcome of the negotiations. External constraints include court deadlines, close executive or administrative decisions, or foreseeable changes in the environment. Internal constraints may be the arbitrary deadlines chosen by the negotiator to enhance the other's motivation to settle. To make the negotiations successful, participants must feel a common sense of urgency and be aware that they can be vulnerable to unfavorable actions or the loss of benefits if no decision is made in time.
There are no significant psychological barriers in the settlement: the expressed feelings felt by the other party can sharply influence the psychological ability of man to bargain. In the case of successful negotiations, it is necessary to negotiate.
Issues Must Be Negotiated: For successful negotiations, negotiators need to think that there are acceptable settlement options that are possible as a result of participation in the process. If it appears that the negotiations will only win / lose and the party's demands will not be met as a result of the participation, the parties are reluctant to enter the dialogue.
Negotiating Styles. Negotiating style is also a strategy. In some cases, the style reflects the attitude of the party, and an experienced negotiator can find the result of the party's behavior as the style becomes apparent. The negotiating styles are reflected in communication skills, interpersonal behavior of negotiators, language, voices, choices, listeners, non-verbal gestures and judgments. There are usually three main negotiating styles. Below is a brief description of:
– Affiliated Style:
Strategies commonly used in this type of negotiation style include concessions, sharing information and are fair and reasonable. Thus, the cooperative negotiator typically explains the reasons for his concessions and suggestions and attempts to reconcile the conflicting interests of the parties; his proposals are measured by standards that can be agreed by both parties, such as the legal merits of the case and fairness between the parties.
The advantage of negotiating co-operative styles is that it will result in less negotiated breakdowns by negotiating later, and both parties will bring more favorable results. With this, both customers and negotiating partners remain in a position to continue to "do business". However, cooperative styles are subject to certain operational difficulties if the participants in the trial are unequal in property or power, or if one party does not wish to achieve a common or mutual gain, – the contestant style
is reluctant to negotiate concessional concessions, as "position is weakened" by loss of position or loss of image. They often seek high initial demands, provide little concessions, and usually have a high level of ambition for their customers.
We often recommend that this style guide professionals to specific negotiation strategies, for example, never to make the first bid, always trying to conceal the real goals of the client, always the ultimate bidding creator; and the use of exaggeration, threats and bluffs to exert a high level of tension and pressure on the opponent. If these tactics are used effectively, the opposition side loses confidence in this matter and reduces their expectations to customers. This is therefore a substantially manipulative approach designed to intimidate the opposite side to accept the negotiator's needs.  – Problem Solving Style:
The problem solving style of access disputes can be based on the assumption that both parents want access to their children for a certain period of time and practically do not want access to them all the time. On this basis, a negotiated settlement (including children) is possible for all parties.
Problem-solving style begins with both negotiating partners trying to determine the underlying needs of their customers. This is best achieved through customer-generated interviews when a lawyer examines with the client how he intends to end the debate in social, economic, ethical and psychological terms. Focusing on the actual (unsupported) needs of customers often provide more complex and yet more satisfactory solutions to social justice than those that have been ordered by the court or which can result in competitive negotiation.
The four fundamental tactics Fisher and Ury describe in the release of the problem-solving process:
1. Remove people from the problem; In other words, isolate the interpersonal relationship between negotiators and their clients from the merits of the problem or the conflict
2. Focus on interest is not a position; ie the interests of the clients, thus the parties' motives, goals and values were understood by both parties
3. Creating a number of options; such as providing new ideas to meet the needs of the parties
4. Insist that the outcome of the trial is based on an objective standard, ie, based on objective criteria, evaluate the proposed findings based on the easily recognizable standard base
The basic structure of the negotiation process:
It is important to note that there are some negotiating core structures of the process. These structures increase the negotiating ability and skills and help to create a successful environment for effective negotiation. The most important structure can be described as follows:
If an Agenda is not agreed in advance, you agree with the Opposition Attorney on the practical issues involved in conducting the trial, record appointments and minutes.
Clarifying the Facts:
The first possible one is to identify and agree between you and your opponent between the facts that are being challenged and the law on these facts. This can be your identification and acceptance, missing or contradictory facts, or differences in documentation. At this point, you are trying to solve this difference cold by further testing and hearing and questioning the order page.
Evaluation and relocation:
– The next survey will require an alternative solution to evaluate the co-operative problem solving style for both parties' needs) or form strong counter-proposals for the position of opponents (race style)
– Removes unobtrusive suggestions (cooperative problem-solving style) or uses different negotiation tactics to increase your position and deprive your opponent (confrontational style)
– Creates new suggestions (cooperative problem solving style) or identifies compromises and discounts (competitive style)
– You will consider completing the negotiations if the compromises are too high for both parties (co-operative problem solving style) or if trade withdrawals are acceptable on your side, but not the other (competitive style)  Closing:
Finally, you have to find a way to close the trial. The alternatives at this stage are:
– Adjourning for more information and instructions received from your customer
– Announcement of the final bid from the other party to your client and to find instructions
– Completing a Final Agreement by a Customer Authorized Agent
If the result is successful and settlement has been received, you must verify the settlement's understanding of your opponent to make sure it is agreed. You have to decide whether the settlement becomes legally enforceable (if any) and who will develop the terms of the written settlement.
The whole time of the above-mentioned process is useful for lawyers to review the discussion. This is especially recommended if it appears to have reached deadlock or has an unpleasant silence. The review gives both parties the opportunity to compare the results achieved so far with the original objective and consider how to continue the negotiations. This may result in one or other negotiating party indicating a revised or more innovative situation that can be used to resolve the problem.
1. Section: Evaluate and choose a strategy to guide your problem solving
o Assessment of a number of approaches or procedures – negotiation, facilitation, mediation, arbitration, court, etc. – can be solved.
o Choose an approach
2. Section: Keeping in touch with other parties or parties
o Initial contact personally, by telephone or by post.
o Explain your desires to negotiate and coordinate approaches.
o Connect to and expand the relationship
o Build your own personality or organization's credibility.
o Promoting Commitment to the Procedure.
o Information and procurement of the parties about the process to be used
3. Section: Collecting and analyzing background information
o Collect and analyze relevant data about people, dynamics, and problem content.
o Check the accuracy of the data.
o Minimizes the impact of inaccurate or unavailable data.
o Identifying the material, procedural and psychological interests of all parties
4. Section: Developing a detailed negotiation plan
o Identify strategies and tactics that allow the parties to agree on the agreement.
o Learn the tactics to respond to the specific situation of specific cases to be discussed.
5th Section 2: Creating trust and cooperation
o Preparing to be psychologically involved in negotiating substantive issues. Develop a strategy for dealing with strong emotions.
o Check the perceptions and minimize the effects of stereotypes.
o recognize the parties' legitimacy and problems.
o Building trust.
o Clarifying Communication
o Section 6: Beginning of a Negotiation Meeting
o Add all parties.
o The chat declarations that are willing to listen, share ideas, show openness to the notion, and show the desire for bona fide bargaining.
o Defining Behavioral Policies.
o Mutual expectations for negotiations.
o Describe the history of the problem and explain why change or agreement is needed.
o Identifying interests and / or positions
7. Section: Defining Issues and Creating a Schedule
o Identify wide-ranging topics for people.
o defines the specific issues you are going to discuss.
o The frame is determined by the non-judgmental neutral.
o Arrange the issues to be discussed.
o Determine the order to discuss the problems.
o Choose a turn, describing how you see the situation. Participants should be encouraged to get to know their stories in detail so that everyone understands the point of view presented.
o Use active listening, open-ended questions, and focus on questions to get more information.
8th section: Discovering hidden interests
o Try each and every one of the questions together or together to identify the interests, needs, and concerns of the main participants in the debate.
o definition and elaboration of interests are to ensure that all participants understand the others and their own needs.
ninth Section: Creating an Option for Settlement
o Improve your awareness of the need to select or create the final settlement.
o Reviewing Parties' Issues.
o Establishes criteria or objective standards that can guide settlement disputes.
o Basically you are seeking a settlement.
o Consider issues on smaller, more manageable issues and provide solutions to sub issues.
o Create options either individually or through joint discussions.
o Use one or more of the following procedures:
o Expand the pie to improve the benefits for all parties.
o Alternative Satisfaction to meet the interests of both parties, but at different times.
o Commercial products, which have been evaluated differently by the parties.
o Look for integrative or win / win options.
o Test multiple solutions and generate errors.
o Try a silent generation in which each individual develops a list of opportunities and then presents his ideas to other negotiators.
o Use a club to develop your opportunities.
o Create a position / counter position option.
o Separate Generation of Possible Solutions from Evaluation
10. Section: Surveying Settlement Opportunities
o review the interests of the parties.
o Measure how interests are made available with the available options.
o Measure the costs and benefits of choosing options.
eleventh Section: Final Negotiations
o Final problem solving occurs when:
o Select one of the alternatives.
o Incremental discounts are made and parties are closer to each other.
o Combine alternatives or transform them into an excellent solution.
o Develop a package of settlements.
o The Parties shall establish a procedural instrument to reach a substantive agreement.
12th Section: Achieving Formal Settlement
o The agreement may be a written memorandum of understanding or a legal contract.
o Determine "What if" and solve problems to overcome the blocks.
o Creating a Valuation and Verification Procedure.
o form the settlement and establish enforcement and commitment mechanisms.
o Judicial Review
Affecting factors of the trial:
There are influential factors or negotiating elements that are essential and play a key role in effective negotiation. Below is a short description:
– Meeting Room: The negotiation process is influenced by a number of factors. The first such factor is the ability and ability, character and credibility of the negotiator. Another ability, which is one of the most important factors in the negotiations, is that the negotiator has to check the process. The negotiator should review the progress of the negotiation process; again and again striving for the bridging structure. He or she should try to create a positive attitude towards the agreement. There is plenty of skill and experience to check the overall process of negotiations, which is a tremendous observation of the strategies adopted by other parties, the study of past experience and the best negotiation processes in the contemporary world.
– Parties: The parties have a significant influence on the negotiation process. The parties, their interests and the way they react, decide the process. The parties to the dispute have their own way of thinking when they come to a negotiating table.
– Selection of the team: The negotiating team should be selected according to the case and the circumstances, so that each member contributes to achieving the goal through productive work.
– Place of Negotiation: Sometimes the status of the trial is important. An unfamiliar environment can cause stress to the opposite party from a familiar place.
– Arrangement of the Room: The arrangement of the hall affects to some extent the conduct of the negotiations. Ideally, the layout should be chosen to take into account the circumstances in which the parties operate. For example, if negotiations on industrial disputes are involved, negotiating parties should ensure that the distance between the parties is not too high. The sitting system must be such as to encourage a relaxed atmosphere. The layout of the layout should reflect the attitudes and observations and questions formulated during the negotiations.
– Psychology in Negotiations: Negotiators 'activities play an important role in the negotiators' psychology and the parties. People involved in the process work with different attitudes, approaches, and activities. Maslows "Need Hierarchy Theory" says people's behavior is influenced by their needs. People's needs are classified into the following category:
1. Physical and survival needs;
2. Safety and security requirements;
3. Social Demands;
4. The ego needs;
5. Self-realization needs
Effective negotiating skills:
The key to effective negotiation is clear communication. Communication involves three important faculties: conversation, listening, and understanding. A single ability can not be without the others – for example, there can be no good understanding without good listening and speaking. Negotiation is most effective when people are able to clearly identify and discuss sources of disagreements and misunderstandings.
The trial begins with a clear, concise explanation of the problem, as every person sees. The facts and the emotions rationally present the "I" statements from the individual's point of view. Communication between people is better when it comes to statements such as "I'm very upset when" and not aggressive statements such as "You're guarding me when you are" blaming and defending the other person makes her position. Instead of individual problems, shared concerns remain at the heart of the negotiations. The process of negotiation will be most effective when people take time to think about what they are saying. Whenever possible, plan ahead to meet the time and place for everyone comfortable. A quiet, neutral place where there is little interference or interruption is perfect for an open discussion.
Listening is an active process to focus one's attention on the other. Encouraging another person to share thoughts and feelings, feedback to hearings, and eye contact preservation are skills that show you are interested in understanding what to say. It is always helpful if you simply ask, "Did I understand that you said I was right about this?" or "do I hear you say that you are the one you feel?" Active silence provides the other person with the opportunity to listen, accept and respect. An actively listening ability supports open, ongoing negotiations. Progress or anticipation of the conversation is a disturbance that disturbs the silence. Bad Listening and Listening Can Lead to Misunderstandings, Inappropriate Solutions, and Continuous Conflict
Before two parties seek solutions; common understanding needs to be achieved. If two people do not understand each other's problems and problems, the negotiation process will either be interrupted or will be completed with solutions that do not work. Active listening encourages understanding. Fontos, hogy fordítsanak figyelmet arra, amit valaki mond, valamint, hogy hogyan viselkedik. A testbeszéd, beleértve az arckifejezéseket, a kézmozdulatokat és a szemkontaktus mértékét, nyomot adhat a másik személy gondolatairól és érzéseiről. Az észrevételeket ugyanakkor a megfigyelő alakítja, mint a megfigyelőt. Jó gyakorlat, hogy soha ne feltételezzék, hogy megértse a másik személyt, anélkül, hogy megkérdezte volna: "Hallottam-e?" vagy "észrevettem, hogy megjelenik" vagy "úgy érzem, hogy feszültség alatt vagy." és "Szeretnék hallani rólad, hogy érzed magad", mind jó példák azokról a kijelentésekről, amelyek ösztönzik a kommunikációt és az emberek közötti jobb megértést.
Legjobb tárgyalási tippek:
Általában a tárgyalás a képesség, a tárgyaló technikája és ismerete. A tárgyalások tippjei a tárgyalóktól a tárgyalópartnerekig terjednek. Néhány legjobb tárgyalási tipp a következő példával:
– Legyen hajlandó tárgyalni először:
Néhány ember túlságosan félénk ahhoz, hogy beszéljen a pénzről. Mások szerint durva vagy megalázó. És sok esetben igaza van. Azonban, amikor egy üzletről van szó – és mindannyiunknak néha van -, hogy nem hajlandó részt venni a "pénzbeszélgetésben", nagyon drága üzlet lehet. Rengeteg tapasztalt tárgyaló van ott. Ha házat vagy autót vásárolsz, vagy új munkát veszel fel, biztos lehet benne, hogy ilyen emberrel kell foglalkoznia. Ha látják, hogy félénk az egész üzletről, sokan kihasználják ezt a tényt. Önnek nem szabad félnie, hogy olyan dolgokat fordítson, amelyek nem feltétlenül egy tárgyalásnak tűnnek. Ha néhány drága dolgot vásárolok ugyanabból a boltból, gyakran megkérik őket, hogy dobjanak ingyen vagy csökkentik az árat. Csak azért, mert nincsenek jelek arra, hogy ezt teheti, nem jelenti azt, hogy nem teheti meg. Gyakran, egyszerűen kérve valami extraet, jobb üzletet kapok
– Ne érzelmileg vegyen részt:
Az egyik nagy hiba, amire sok amatőr tárgyaló kész, túlságosan érzelmileg kapcsolódik a győzelemhez. Kiabálnak, fenyegetik és követelik, hogy eljussanak. Ez mind ellentétes. A legtöbb ajánlat csak akkor lehetséges, ha mindketten úgy érzik, hogy valamit kapnak. Ha az asztal felett álló személy megtámadja magát, vagy nem szeret téged, valószínűleg nem fog visszalépni. Sokan utálják az elkövetőket, és hajlandóak lesznek elhagyni a tranzakciót, ha ez magában foglalja. Tartsa nyugodt, türelmes és barátságos, még akkor is, ha a másik személy elveszíti hűvösét. Ügyeljen arra, hogy büszkeséget vagy ego-t hagyjon az ajtón. Valószínűbb, hogy ilyen jól teljesít.
– Ne érje el a "szabályok" trükk:
Amikor valaki küld nekem egy szerződést, hogy aláírja, ha van ott valami, ami nem tetszik nekem, átsétálom. Örömmel írok dolgokat is, amelyekhez hozzá szeretnék tenni, ha úgy gondolom, ott kell lenniük. Néha a másik fél visszajön hozzám és azt mondja: "Önnek nem szabad megváltoztatnia az ilyen szerződéseinket". Ó, valóban? Mivel én vagyok az, aki aláírja a dolgot, minden változtatást meg akarok tenni, nagyon köszönöm. Nincs törvény, amely azt mondja, hogy az egyetlen, akinek a dolgokat hozzá lehet adni egy szerződéshez. Ha nem elégedettek a változtatásokkal, hadd tudjam meg, és ki tudjuk dolgozni, de ne mondja meg, hogy nincs engedélyem. Ez rámutat egy tapasztalt tárgyalópartnerek, például ingatlanügynökök, foglalkoztatási ügynökök, autóértékesítők és hasonlók által használt közös tapasztatra. Tudják, hogy sokan ragaszkodnak a következő szabályokhoz. Tehát hivatalos hangzó kijelentéseket fognak felvenni, és ragaszkodni kell ahhoz, hogy "ez az, ahogyan ez megtörtént" vagy "nem teheti meg". If someone starts trying to box you in by adding rules to the deal, ask them to provide proof that such rules really exist.
– Never be the first person to name a figure:
This is an expensive lesson to have to learn, but a good one. I do a lot of contract work, and one of the first questions I'm usually asked is "What's your hourly rate?" This is a high pressure question, and I often found myself blurting out a figure that was lower than what I really wanted. These days, I've learned the importance of getting the other person to say a number first. Now, I respond to that question by asking "What's the budget for this contract?" Often, I'm surprised to discover they're offering me a better deal than I thought they were.
– Ask for more than you expect to get:
Once the other person's given their figure, even if it's much better than you expected, say something like "I think you'll have to do better than that". Don't be arrogant or aggressive. Just say it calmly. When they enquire about your expectations, ask for more than you expect to get. Few people will walk away from a deal once it's commenced, and you can let the other person feel as if they're winning by lowering your "unrealistic expectations" a bit at a time.
– Just giving the impression that you're willing to walk away can do wonders for getting a better deal. Always play the reluctant buyer or seller.