4.1.5. Types of negotiations
There are various negotiations - political and diplomatic, personnel and telephone, business negotiations and negotiations with terrorists, etc. Each of the varieties of negotiation situations has its own communication specifics, a special structure and distinctive characteristics. Let's consider the most important of them.
Everything that we have said so far can be primarily attributed to such a basic type of active dialogue communication as trade negotiations (business negotiations). Therefore, without paying more attention to this model, we note only some of its features.
First of all, let us recall that the completion of trade negotiations is always a deal. A good deal is one that is good under all circumstances during the entire time of the agreement. It provides for all unforeseen circumstances before they arise. A bad deal is one that is good, but not under any circumstances. It has aspects that worsen your situation when new circumstances arise, or those that look good on paper, but are poorly implemented in practice.
In this case, one should not overly be deceived about the term "mutually beneficial", which people often and willingly use when talking about negotiations. Of course, in the negotiation process related to business (as well as many other aspects of human activity), one must take into account the interests of the partner one way or another. However, no book, no lawyer will advise you to act so as to abandon the fight and completely comply with the interests of the opposite side. You can not sacrifice your own goals and production needs for the sake of reaching agreement. In business negotiations, always proceed from the fact that adults are engaged in the process on an equal basis (except for those situations, of course, when your partner is a child), and each of them must take care of their own interests.
A very special type of negotiations is personnel negotiations1. They are also called management communication or personnel conversations. Such negotiations are a purposeful, with a planned effect and result communication, which is designed to solve certain management issues. Personnel negotiations include disciplinary talks, negotiations on hiring, negotiations on dismissal and some other types of business contacts.
Personnel conversations, including disciplinary, are necessarily built taking into account the typical traits of the interlocutor's personality should know about the joint work (this distinguishes this kind of negotiations from, for example, business negotiations, where sometimes people first meet at the meeting table personally). Attitude to his work (profession), to the team, to the boss and to himself - these are four features that characterize the partner in the personnel conversation, which can help the initiator of the negotiations to achieve the planned goal. Such common types of interlocutor as "quitter", "offender of discipline", "ambitious careerist", "gossiper" etc., are repeatedly described in the socio-psychological literature and are well known to experienced personnel negotiators.
Disciplinary negotiations are usually associated with some production problem. Spacing in no case can not be carried out "hot on the trail", in place, spontaneously, but the type "who first came under the arm". This, as a rule, ends with aggression, which people are not inclined to forgive to their superiors - the result can be quiet sabotage of further instructions or an open conflict with unpredictable consequences.
Disciplinary conversations are held one-on-one, with a preliminary study of all information and a clear subsequent presentation of job descriptions. You must define the frames problems and the degree of responsibility of a particular person. Penalty should not feel that he is alone with the unsolved problem: he is ready to help, but the main burden still lies on him because of his professionalism and job duties. By observing the technique of "speech mercy and the manifestation of a certain trust, one can not nevertheless orient oneself in such negotiations only on positive grounds - after all, a conversation is not accidentally called "disciplinary". In determining the punishment, neither intimidation nor, like the other extreme, sucking and flirting, are suitable. Everything should be said clearly, but politely and tactfully. Obligatory requirement: no matter how difficult the conversation, it should end on a positive note - if it is impossible in principle, then it is necessary to not negotiate with such an employee, but simply to part.
Negotiations on dismissal are usually rather difficult. In the west, in large firms, there is a special position - "manager-terminator" (from the verb finish & quot ;, kill ), whose duties include just the so-called "sparing dismissal", designed to reduce worker stress.
When dismissing an employee, it is advisable to consider the following rules:
o never mumble: "You see, this is not my decision ... If only my will ...". You can not blame others, trying to wash your hands yourself, and you can not give an unjustified hope to a person that everything has not been decided yet and can be reconsidered;
o conduct similar negotiations at the end of the workweek so that the employee can calm down at home and gather. In addition, this will minimize the discussion of dismissal in the workplace with other employees;
o to negotiate the dismissal of an employee one-on-one, never hold such negotiations directly at the workplace, so as not to injure the very person who is dismissed by unnecessary sympathy of the remaining, nor their own fear of the same situation;
o do not delay the conversation for more than 20 minutes, but also not expose the person after 3 minutes, without giving him time to deal with the blow and "make the person" before appearing on the public;
o if possible, offer some kind of "softening procedures" to the person, something like a rehabilitation program (a list of vacancies in related businesses, a reference to good recommendations, an offer to rest for a week at the recreation center of the enterprise, etc. - if the intention to help the lay-off does exist).
Much less traumatic, but also full of surprises, there are negotiations when taking work. In essence, they always boil down to the eight basic questions that the initiator of the interview should know and that you must be able to answer, if the person you are hiring is. These questions are as follows.
1. What kind of person are you, what are your personal qualities, professional level, character traits, etc.?
2. Why are you even looking for a job?
3. What can you be to a useful firm?
4. What are your strengths?
5. What are your weaknesses?
6. What, in your opinion, should be the boss?
7. What are your biggest achievements?
8. What salary do you expect?Asking these questions at personnel negotiations, experts use a lot of subtleties and tricks (in particular, the so-called "shock interview" and some others), to which the opposing side should be prepared.
Increased complexity and special features are also distinguished by telephone calls. Almost all books and textbooks on business communication in general and the negotiation process in particular draw attention to them. The significance of telephone conversations can not be minimized: although people often refer to this method of communication as a secondary, in fact it is one of the important ways to achieve the goal of communication with the opposite party.
Telephone conversations are subject to special rules and special etiquette. There are special trainings that help you to understand what you can and can not talk on the phone, at what time you need to call, how to call your interlocutor and how to answer that there is no person in place1, etc. There are also trainings for working out the paraverbal characteristics of the conversation (not related to the content of speech).
As for the latter, here are the points that should be paid attention to specialists:
- the appropriate loudness of the voice (the caller can not be deafened by shouting, but he must hear you quite clearly);
- pronunciation - the words should be pronounced distinctly, with clear diction, vigorously;
- a reasonable pace (you do not need to chatter, but speak in a voice that is stiff with a slowness);
- the right intonation (presence of logical and psychological pauses, highlighting of necessary words, refusal of monotony);
- the right tone (not ingratiating and not rude, but benevolent and confident);
- the absence of words-parasites.
A completely special and perhaps the most complicated negotiating situation due to its tragedy is negotiations with "asocial elements", offenders and terrorists, especially if they have hostages in captivity. Throughout the world, representatives of special services are specially trained to negotiate the impact on terrorists. Sometimes professional psychologists are attracted to such work.
About how exactly it is necessary to conduct such kind of negotiations, the rate in which is the life of people, whole dissertations are written. There are a number of substantive, technical, psychological and style recommendations both at the beginning of such negotiations, and on their continuation and completion.
For example, it is considered that you can never start a conversation with the words of a greeting: "Hello, dear Mr. Pupkin ... No wish to be healthy, especially no respect - these people should know that they have placed themselves outside the law, and that the conversation with them will be conducted adequately to their actions and actions, that is, from the position of strength. At the same time, the negotiating party should in every possible way demonstrate its confidence in its forces and powers, its capabilities and psychological stability. In no case should one be given to understand to his opponents about insecurity and fear for his own life or for the lives of others.
It is not recommended to respond with consent to the first demand of terrorists. A company representative on the spot or a security officer should make it clear to opponents that he does not have the authority to make a final decision (even if in fact it is not) - in this way, the pressure of the terrorists on the negotiator can be reduced and the time needed to make a decision and prepare for decisive action.
Negotiations should be conducted without obvious emotions, strictly and clearly. You can not lie to them about the terms of the contract. You can not directly respond to their requirements no - it can cause an explosion of indignation and have tragic consequences for the hostages. We must always try to show that some progress has been made in solving the situation.
It is usually believed that negotiations must be conducted until the end - until they finally fail or until the moment when the hostage's life will be in obvious danger. For backward reasons, much in the instructions for negotiating with terrorists remains strictly for official use, but the basis for psychological interaction with this kind of "partners" on negotiations should be in the arsenal of competent communicators of various profiles.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay