Negotiation is an essential element of modern-day businesses. Organizations that have mastered this skill often excel in their respective fields and are better positioned to grow. Negotiation skills are used to resolve conflicts, reach agreements, and build relationships. Firms can have either formal or informal processes for choosing negotiators depending on size and culture. Whichever the case, decision-makers must carefully select individuals to be involved in negotiations to increase the chances of success. Training of negotiators and post-negotiation reflection are equally important elements of the process. This paper explores my organization’s process of selecting and training negotiators. It also highlights the company’s post-negotiation review process. I will include recommendations for improvement throughout the paper and compare organizational processes with industry best practices.
Choosing and Training Negotiators at our Company
The selection of negotiators at our firm is mainly informal. We select them based on past performance, experience, and skills in the desired area. This approach allows us to remain flexible and gather insight from various members of the team. This enhances the process and enables us to make changes easily. Despite these advantages, the absence of standardized selection approaches leads to subjectivity and repetitive selection patterns. Individuals with more experience are often selected for negotiation, excluding junior staff. It also encourages selection bias, and new talents are likely to be ignored. On the other hand, the training process for negotiators is more formal and has a clearly defined structure.
Training for negotiators follows a standardized procedure where selected individuals undergo on-the-job training and attend workshops. We couple negotiators with mentors and enroll them in online courses to facilitate skills acquisition. The training curriculum is adjustable to fit specific contexts, and the management recommends new areas of learning. Compared to best practices, our selection and training processes have some gaps. The lack of a formal selection process for negotiators implies that the process is subjective and based on individual perceptions. This implies that the firm is likely to overly on a few negotiators and overlook hidden talents. Additionally, the semi-formal approach to training suggests that the process is also subjective and prone to bias. Brett, Friedman and Behfar (2009) postulate that the lack of standardized approaches in negotiator selection and training exposes firms to leads to conflict of interest and hinders effective communication. These observations underscore a need for improvements in our existing approaches.
Recommendations for Improvement
This paper proposes the following initiatives to enhance the negotiator selection process:
| Recommendations | Rationale |
| Establish clear criteria | Define the required skills, experience, and knowledge to ensure an objective selection process. |
| Formalized assessment | Introduce scenario-based evaluations and behavioral interviews to enable decision makers to understand candidates’ negotiation skills. |
| Talent identification program | Implement a program to identify negotiation potential. This will broaden the pool of potential negotiators (Brett, Friedman and Behfar, 2009). |
The recommendations for training are outlined below:
| Recommendations | Rationale |
| Structured curriculum | Develop a negotiation training curriculum that covers foundational principles and advanced techniques for consistent skill development. |
| Continuous learning platforms | Implement online courses and resources for negotiators to engage in self-paced learning. This will help them stay updated on emerging negotiation strategies. |
| Provide feedback to negotiators on their performance | This will enable decision-makers and trainers to identify areas for improvement. This will enable negotiators to share meaningful insights into how we can enhance existing structures (Rybacki, 2016). |
| Use a variety of training methods. | The organization should combine lectures, discussions, case studies, and role-playing exercises. This will help to ensure that the training is effective and suitable for all employees. |
| Have evaluation criteria | The management should measure employee performance at the end of training (Rybacki, 2016). This will allow us to select the most qualified individuals for future negotiation. |
The Organization’s Negotiation Process
As mentioned above, our organization’s approach to negotiation is informal. The process usually begins with an initial meeting to outline objectives and identify potential issues. During this stage, the management identifies key stakeholders and explains the issues involved. The team is allowed to raise areas of concern and propose negotiation strategies. This process is usually subjective as those involved propose approaches based on previous experience and personal anecdotes. The current process can be visualized as below:
Comparison With Best Practices
McCarthy and Hay (2015) underscore the importance of structured planning in the negotiation process. This helps organizations ensure they fully analyze negotiation factors and, hence, have an upper hand in the process. Although our organization attempts to emulate this best practice, our arbitrary approach means that we overlook essential elements of negotiation. Best practices also advocate for a checklist that covers critical elements. We cannot overstate the benefits of this approach; a standardized list of issues contributes to the quality of choices made and ensures that teams do not overlook issues (McCarthy and Hay, 2015). Additionally, McCarthy and Hay (2015) outline the importance of cultural considerations in negotiation processes. This aspect is usually overlooked when preparing for negotiations in my organization. As the world becomes a global village because of technological advancements, we are more likely to engage in negotiations with people from diverse backgrounds. Understanding their preferences and thought processes gives us an edge during the negation process. Ignoring cultural dimensions minimizes our chances of successful deals and puts us at a disadvantage.
Negotiation Tools
MDO/LDO (most desirable offer/least desirable offer) is a commonly used negotiation tool. It enables negotiators to highlight the most favorable outcome a negotiator aspires to achieve and the least favorable outcome they are willing to accept without abandoning the negotiation. This tool has similarities with ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) because it outlines the acceptable and unacceptable offers during negotiation. MDO/LDO is best suited for negotiations in my organization as it helps negotiators have clear goals and know when to continue or abandon negotiations.
We can operationalize this tool in my firm by defining the MDO/LDOs at the beginning of the pre-negotiation process. The company can integrate a checklist into the process to ensure we do not skip steps during planning. Importantly, we must train negotiators on how to apply the tool in real-life situations by conducting simulations during training Peleckis (2014). This will ensure we get the best possible outcomes during negotiations and allow our negotiators to know when to abandon deals.
Recommendations to Improve the Pre-Negotiation Process
The recommendations for the pre-negotiation phase are summarized below:
| Recommendations | Evidence |
| Structured planning | Introduce a step-by-step negotiation planning framework, incorporating elements from McCarthy and Hay (2015). |
| Simulations for practical experience | Integrate regular simulation exercises to enhance negotiators’ preparedness for various scenarios. |
| Incorporate cultural elements into the negotiation process. | Understanding the psychological aspects in negotiations will enable our teams to get better outcomes as argued by McCarthy and Hay (2015). |
The Company’s Post Negotiation Review Process
Like with the selection and training process, my organization does not have a formal post-negotiation process. However, it follows informal processes to follow-up on completed negotiations. The most common approach is the lead negotiator holding meeting with the rest of the negotiating team to discuss the process and areas of improvement. Although this strategy enables the team to discuss important aspects of the negotiation, the absence of a structured review framework poses challenges. It inhibits our ability to leverage valuable insights and limits the organization’s ability to learn from past negotiations. The greatest concern here is that the informal approach overlooks important elements of the negotiation process, thus continuous improvement is impacted adversely. Another shortcoming of the current process is that it is not always conducted on time. Because we do not have a formal process, the lead negotiator decides when to review negotiations. As time goes, employees involved no longer have pertinent issues to raise, compromising the process further.
Proposed New Approach
The gaps identified above require a new approach to overcome. I propose that my company implement a formal post-negotiation review process. The new method has four steps outlined below:
- The lead negotiator should distribute a feedback form to all team members immediately after negotiation.
- Hold a post-negotiation review meeting within two weeks after close of negotiations.
- Document the team’s findings and share a report with the whole team as well as the top management.
- The team lead should follow-up with the team to ensure recommendations are adopted for subsequent negotiations.
Craver’s Checklist
Craver’s checklist is an essential post-negotiation review tool that helps us evaluate our performance during the process (Craver, 2012). It contains over 20 questions which assesses important aspects of the negotiation. The questions in the tool can be divided into:
- Preparation- Whether the team was prepared for the negotiation.
- Communication- Evaluate whether the team communicated effectively with each other and with the other party.
- Strategy- Assesses the strategies adopted by the team.
- Relationship building between the team and the other party.
- Outcomes- Evaluates whether the negotiators got the desired results.
This checklist is relatively straightforward and, therefore, easily operationalized in the organization. The first step in having the checklist adopted by the company is distribution and training. Second, we should train negotiators on best practices to ensure they complete the checklist as required and on time. Importantly, the company should customize the checklist for the organization and depending on the negotiation. Some of the questions are generic and, therefore, not suited for some contexts. Finally, we should encourage negotiators to provide insights into the checklist’s effectiveness and propose adjustments based on experience.
Importance of the Review Process and Recommendations
Reviewing the negotiation process is important because it helps us identify areas for improvement, share lessons learned, and achieve continuous improvement. The recommendations for my company are summarized below:
| Recommendations | Rationale |
| Structured documentation | This will prevent oversight and contribute to continuous improvement. |
| Regular feedback sessions | This will create a collaborative culture and enhance team communication. |
| Modify craver’s checklist | Customize the tool to suit specific negotiation scenarios and address organizational objectives. |
Own Example
My most recent negotiation experience entailed negotiating with vendors for the purchase of software and services. I was a member of the negotiating team; we started the negotiation by exchanging proposals. Our offer was based on our requirements and budget. The vendor’s proposal was beyond our financial allocation, but it included features that would benefit the company. We negotiated for two weeks before we finally found a solution.
The interactions during the negotiations can be understood using the MDO/LDO tool highlighted above. Our MDO was securing a competitive pricing structure, timely delivery, and exclusivity. Simultaneously, our LDO was accepting a compromise on quality standards to meet budget constraints. This framework facilitated a strategic approach and allowed us to gauge the counterpart’s flexibility within our defined boundaries. By the end of the exercise, we managed to secure a deal that was within our zone of possible agreement (ZOPA).
This strategy aligns with best practices as it enabled us to have clearly defined objectives. Indeed, from the onset, we were very clear about what we wanted. From experience, this is an essential element in negotiation as it helps save time and create unity within negotiating teams. One of the negatives here is that our approach was rigid. Since we had already set minimums and maximums, we could not go beyond these boundaries even if the deal appeared “better.”
Recommendations for Improvement
Although we consider this negotiation a notable success for the team and the organization, we can adopt various strategies to enhance future interactions:
- Research more on the other team’s industry- This will enable us to have better information about market dynamics and competitor pricing. Consequently, we can get most value from our investment.
- Diversify the consultation team- Software purchases contain technical terms that can be confusing for non-IT individuals. Including personnel with technical knowledge is essential in overcoming such obstacles (Poorboy et al., 2021).
- Post-negotiation review- This will enable us to reflect on past performance and identify areas of improvement. It is also a good starting point for subsequent negotiations.
Negotiation remains a critical skill in individual and organizational settings. It helps us secure better deals and resolve conflicts amicably. My organization has an informal approach to negotiation. Teams are selected based on past performance and perceived skillsets. While this approach facilitates flexibility, it has major shortcomings as it can lead to oversight. A lack of a formal post-negotiation process exposes the company to repeated errors and hingers continuous learning. To overcome these challenges, the firm can formalize its negotiation approaches and use tools like MDO/LDO and ZOPA. We must train our employees on negotiation best practices and urgently review our selection processes to ensure hidden talents are not overlooked. The suggestions outlined in this paper will enhance our negotiating capabilities and help us secure quality bargains for the firm.
Reference list
Brett, J., Friedman, R. and Behfar, K. (2009). How to Manage Your Negotiating Team. [online] Harvard Business Review. Available from: https://hbr.org/2009/09/how-to-manage-your- negotiating-team.
Craver, C. (2012). The Benefits to Be Derived from Post-Negotiation Assessments. George Washington Law Faculty Publications & Other Works. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232644689.pdf.
Mccarthy, A. and Hay, S. (2015). Advanced negotiation techniques. Berkeley, Ca: Apress.
Peleckis, K. (2014). International Business Negotiations: Innovation, Negotiation Team, Preparation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, pp.64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.848.
Poorboy, D., Mullins, W., Williams, H. and Vaughan, A. (2021). Determining the best practices in hostage/crisis negotiations. [online] Available from: https://digital.library.txst.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/276dc959-7bc9-4741-9427- 556d7ee88825/content
Rybacki, MJ (2016). Principled negotiation: Teaching problem-solving, decision-making and critical thinking skills in leaders. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership United States Military Academy. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27445942
write