Why expand the traditional definition of effective negotiation?
Because a lot more is at stake. For starters, if you have not adequately prepared for your negotiation and have consequently undervalued your positioning, you may have set your objectives too low. Thus, merely satisfying those inaccurately defined objectives is not optimal for your client and does not represent effective negotiation. Conversely, if you have not adequately prepared you may have an overly optimistic view of your position and consequently may forego an opportunity that is in your client’s best interest. Further, if you try to merely maximize the net benefit to your client, in the absence of exercising integrity and without paying any obligation to fairness, you will compromise your reputation. An effective negotiator gains the trust of his opponent and influences his opponent to compromise by being reasonable and credible. The negotiator who has a reputation for being unfair will be ineffective in gaining his opponent’s trust and thus influencing his opponent. So how do y
Related Questions
- Does the definition appear to exclude some types of wheelchairs, mobility scooters, or other traditional wheeled mobility devices?
- What are most commonly used techniques which might usefully be described within the definition of effective dispute resolution?
- When is digital printing cost effective versus traditional printing technologies?
