Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Negotiating Down Prices
For an assignment we were tasked with walking into a retail store and trying to negotiate down the price. Oddly, a lightning storm centered above my building the other night and a lightening bolt struck the building causing the destruction of my TV. I went to Best Buy to purchase a new TV. I had been looking for a new TV for a while and was well aware of what was out there and the prices I could expect. I knew that Best Buy was running an incredible special on a TV and Blue Ray package but had no need for the blue ray player. I went to Best Buy and talked to a salesman. I told him my situation and told him that I would purchase the TV for $130.00 less, taking into account the value of the Blue Ray player. After some time of discussing the matter and him getting in contact with the store manager, they declined my offer. I accepted their decline and did not purchase the TV. Instead, I chose a model that I preferred in the first place, at a lower cost, and purchased that. The negotiation may have been more successful should I have had more time to purchase the TV and not had such a pressing need. In the end, I saved money and purchased the same TV as the one offered, just slightly smaller but more practical.
Mutual Adjustments
The book Essentials of Negotiation discusses Mutual Adjustment. Reflecting on chapter one of the book, this is the most obvious aspect that will affect my professional life. Every person in the workforce deals with mutual adjustment. Some may deal with it in their dealings with co-employees, superiors, or customers. The most prevailing aspect of my professional career that I see this impacting is stating your salary. As I prepare for graduation and look at job openings I am amazed at the information that employers want from you. Specifically, are the requests for salary requirements. Apparently applicants are required to submit to the employer their salary requirements. This is completely opposite of any position I have had in the past and is one that troubles me. How do I go about stating what I am worth? I am concerned that in an effort to make myself employable, I will undervalue myself in an effort not to push away a potential employer. The book discusses situations like this and offers some guidance.
One needs to find a balance between honestly and trust in negotiating salary marks with employers. It is important to show some of your cards but not all. Likewise, it is important to know when and that you can show some of your cards. If you go out showing all of your cards it is likely that the employer will lowball you or give you the lowest number you gave them. However, if you chose not to show them any of your cards you run the risk of losing the employer’s interest because of your lack of cooperation. Finding a balance between what you want and what they want is critical. They want to employ someone at a reasonable cost and you want to work for a reasonable wage. Finding the positions of each side and understanding why they have that position will allow you to make an informed decision. Finding your bargaining range in a salary talk will help each side see the minimum and the maximum each party expects. By fining this range, it is easier for the parties to reach an agreement simply by meeting in between the two figures. This results in the employer getting an employee at a satisfactory cost and the employee getting a job at a wage that they feel comfortable.
I think that many of my professional encounters will require the use of this technique outside of salary talks. Negotiation has become a highly important skill that lawyers must not only learn but become experts in. By having the ability to see both sides of the coin and understand each party’s position, I will be better able to serve my client and bring about a solution to the problem that is best for my client.
One needs to find a balance between honestly and trust in negotiating salary marks with employers. It is important to show some of your cards but not all. Likewise, it is important to know when and that you can show some of your cards. If you go out showing all of your cards it is likely that the employer will lowball you or give you the lowest number you gave them. However, if you chose not to show them any of your cards you run the risk of losing the employer’s interest because of your lack of cooperation. Finding a balance between what you want and what they want is critical. They want to employ someone at a reasonable cost and you want to work for a reasonable wage. Finding the positions of each side and understanding why they have that position will allow you to make an informed decision. Finding your bargaining range in a salary talk will help each side see the minimum and the maximum each party expects. By fining this range, it is easier for the parties to reach an agreement simply by meeting in between the two figures. This results in the employer getting an employee at a satisfactory cost and the employee getting a job at a wage that they feel comfortable.
I think that many of my professional encounters will require the use of this technique outside of salary talks. Negotiation has become a highly important skill that lawyers must not only learn but become experts in. By having the ability to see both sides of the coin and understand each party’s position, I will be better able to serve my client and bring about a solution to the problem that is best for my client.
Differences in Bargaining Techniques
There are two techniques of bargaining discussed in the Book Essentials of Negotiation. The first is called distributive bargaining. Distributive bargaining is a negotiation technique that is focused primarily on competition. A negotiator that employs this technique views the conflict through the eyes of an extreme competitor. The negotiator wants to win and wants the other party to lose. This technique is primarily used when there is a conflict over a fixed resource. This technique has its advantages as it is a very intimidating and scary tactic. Opponents of a negotiator employing this technique may be caught off guard to the point that they concede the victory to their opponent for the sole reason that they do not have the ability to respond. This technique is very valuable to a client seeking to win something over another person. Conceivably, this technique may be employed in divorce disputes, employment disputes, or even contracts for star athletes.
A client whose attorney utilizes this technique stands to gain much from it if it is done intelligently and efficiently. However, often times this technique does not serve to preserve relations or even yield the results the client wants. Attorneys using this technique may make their clients vulnerable to losses which might cause more problems than the ones currently on the table. For example, in an employment dispute, if the attorney representing the employer refuses to budge on his settlement figure for the ex-employee, he may subject his client to even more liability should the case escalate and proceed to trial. Employing a win-lose technique opens the door to loss should the other party not back down. Furthermore, attorneys using this technique may not be able to see the other side’s point of view if their attention and focus is only on winning at any cost. They may not be able to see alternatives that yield positive results for both parties. Attorneys should be hesitant to use this technique and, when choosing to employ this technique, make sure that they do not subject their client to additional liability.
The second bargaining technique is called integrative bargaining. This technique is focused on finding a result that is amicable to both parties. Attorneys using this method look to win-win strategies or techniques. They attempt to find solutions so that both parties can do well and achieve their respective goals. This technique involves identifying additional options or finding unique ways to handle the problem. Attorneys using this method think outside of the box. They are not driven by competition, but rather results. Moreover, the results that the attorneys are focused on are positive results for both parties. This method, unlike the distributive bargaining method, does not tend to destroy relationships. Rather this method fosters relationships and allows parties to resolve conflicts without adding more emotion and anger because one party will not budge.
This method has great advantages in that it benefits both parties but it is not without its costs. Attorneys using this method may overlook other options that put their client in a better position simply because they want the other side to walk away happy as well. Some problems are not easily solved and others are never solved with both parties happy. Using this method, an attorney may compromise his or her client’s position simply by being too accommodating. This is not to say that all attorneys should walk away from this approach and adopt the former discussed. Rather, attorneys should consider finding a medium between the two. By doing this, attorneys will be able to be relationship conscious while preserving their client’s interests and positions. In the end, there is no real good solution or method to negotiation. Attorneys should try to be flexible and accommodate where they can and should be mindful of the times that they cannot budge on certain issues. Budging on an issue simply to resolve the dispute may not always be in the best interest of the client and will almost always result in a malpractice claim being filed against the attorney.
A client whose attorney utilizes this technique stands to gain much from it if it is done intelligently and efficiently. However, often times this technique does not serve to preserve relations or even yield the results the client wants. Attorneys using this technique may make their clients vulnerable to losses which might cause more problems than the ones currently on the table. For example, in an employment dispute, if the attorney representing the employer refuses to budge on his settlement figure for the ex-employee, he may subject his client to even more liability should the case escalate and proceed to trial. Employing a win-lose technique opens the door to loss should the other party not back down. Furthermore, attorneys using this technique may not be able to see the other side’s point of view if their attention and focus is only on winning at any cost. They may not be able to see alternatives that yield positive results for both parties. Attorneys should be hesitant to use this technique and, when choosing to employ this technique, make sure that they do not subject their client to additional liability.
The second bargaining technique is called integrative bargaining. This technique is focused on finding a result that is amicable to both parties. Attorneys using this method look to win-win strategies or techniques. They attempt to find solutions so that both parties can do well and achieve their respective goals. This technique involves identifying additional options or finding unique ways to handle the problem. Attorneys using this method think outside of the box. They are not driven by competition, but rather results. Moreover, the results that the attorneys are focused on are positive results for both parties. This method, unlike the distributive bargaining method, does not tend to destroy relationships. Rather this method fosters relationships and allows parties to resolve conflicts without adding more emotion and anger because one party will not budge.
This method has great advantages in that it benefits both parties but it is not without its costs. Attorneys using this method may overlook other options that put their client in a better position simply because they want the other side to walk away happy as well. Some problems are not easily solved and others are never solved with both parties happy. Using this method, an attorney may compromise his or her client’s position simply by being too accommodating. This is not to say that all attorneys should walk away from this approach and adopt the former discussed. Rather, attorneys should consider finding a medium between the two. By doing this, attorneys will be able to be relationship conscious while preserving their client’s interests and positions. In the end, there is no real good solution or method to negotiation. Attorneys should try to be flexible and accommodate where they can and should be mindful of the times that they cannot budge on certain issues. Budging on an issue simply to resolve the dispute may not always be in the best interest of the client and will almost always result in a malpractice claim being filed against the attorney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)