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.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Method of "Tell Me More"
The process of “tell me more” is very helpful when attempting to understand a person’s thoughts or feelings. When you ask a person to “tell me more” you get more information than you otherwise would have gotten from the individual. After using this method I asked the individual how it made them feel. They responded that it made them feel like I was more engaged and interested in their conversation. They were more willing to tell me more information because they felt that I actually cared and wanted to know.
I think that negotiators and lawyers in general can learn a lot from this process. Our profession relies heavily on information given to us. That is, we rely on information given to us by our colleagues, our clients, our employers, and the court in the handling of our cases and the strategies we employ. Prying more into topics by saying “tell me more” allows you to gain insight that you may not have otherwise gained. It may lead to clients telling you more information that, while they felt was unimportant, is critical to the case at hand. Practitioners should rely on this method and employ it often.
I think that negotiators and lawyers in general can learn a lot from this process. Our profession relies heavily on information given to us. That is, we rely on information given to us by our colleagues, our clients, our employers, and the court in the handling of our cases and the strategies we employ. Prying more into topics by saying “tell me more” allows you to gain insight that you may not have otherwise gained. It may lead to clients telling you more information that, while they felt was unimportant, is critical to the case at hand. Practitioners should rely on this method and employ it often.
Separating Emotion to Understand Concern; Active Listening
Prior to the first week of class I handled a dispute with a client over the work performed by the attorney I work for. The client was very upset that the attorney was not contacting them as much as they wanted them to about the progress of the case. In this instance it was concerning the Judge’s granting of a particular motion. We had previously informed the client that we would contact them as soon as the Judge ruled on the motion. However, the Client did not understand that the process of getting a ruling on a motion could take several weeks depending on the Judge’s caseload. The Client was concerned that we were avoiding him. Asking more about why he felt that way I was able to determine that he thought that us avoiding him meant that we had bad news about the case and that he just wanted to make sure that we were still confident in the success of our case. Listening to his concerns and understanding why he had those concerns has helped us in our future correspondence with the client. We, rather than get frustrated with daily calls, have determined that all the client wants was our reassurance. Since we reassured the client, the client has become more open to waiting for a ruling and has become more confident that this case will yield a positive outcome for him.
Blogging Exercise # 1
In reflecting on Chapters 1-3 of Getting To Yes I find it very interesting the author’s approach to problem resolution. Many people can’t help but to view problems from their position in the dispute. Many people can’t see the other side’s point of view because they are not focused on the other party’s interests but rather their position. When, as the author suggests, people listen to the other party and understand their interests, they are better able to understand their position. If you know why a person has a certain position, while it may not help you to agree with that position, it may allow you to better solve the problem by means of a compromise. A compromise is only possible if you understand the other person’s concerns, i.e. interests. Once you understand these concerns, you can address them when attempting to solve the problem. If you do not open the dialogue so that the parties understand each other’s interests, then a successful compromise or agreement is harder to achieve.
Furthermore, understanding that this is a conflict between two persons with emotions and interest of their own, both within the context of the dispute and outside of the dispute, helps people to better communicate. Once you understand that you are engaging in a conflict with another person and understand that person it places a certain emotional dynamic into the mix that may be helpful. Additionally, in instances where emotions are running high in a dispute, for example a divorce, it is helpful to separate the emotions from the problem, as emotions tend to blind people of solutions to their problems.
Furthermore, understanding that this is a conflict between two persons with emotions and interest of their own, both within the context of the dispute and outside of the dispute, helps people to better communicate. Once you understand that you are engaging in a conflict with another person and understand that person it places a certain emotional dynamic into the mix that may be helpful. Additionally, in instances where emotions are running high in a dispute, for example a divorce, it is helpful to separate the emotions from the problem, as emotions tend to blind people of solutions to their problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)