UNIVERSITATEA “DANUBIUS“ DIN GALAŢICURSURI UNIVERSITARE DE MASTERAT

DOMENIUL: CONTABILITATESPECIALIZAREA: AUDIT ȘI CONTROL PUBLIC ȘI PRIVAT

FACULTATEA DE ŞTIINŢE ECONOMICE

Comunicare în audit în limba engleză - curs predat la anul 1

ACPP ZI in semestrul 1 anul universitar 2013-2014

Masterand TEODORA TATIANA BRAILA G

 Lect.univ.dr.LIVIU-MIHAIL MARINESCU

Contents

Introduction

1. Conceptul de negociere si definitii

2. Avantajul reciproc

3. Strategii de negociere

4. Alegerea tipului de strategie

5. Tehnici de negociere

6. Principiile de baza in procesul negocierii

7. Etapele procesului de negociere

8. Pregatirea negocierii

9. Negocierea contractelor

Concluzii

Bibliografie

1. The concept of negotiation and definitions

2. mutual benefit

3. Negotiation Strategies

4. The choice of strategy

5. Negotiation Techniques

6. Basic principles in the negotiation process

7. Stages of Negotiation

8. preparing negotiation

9. Negotiate contracts

Conclusions

Bibliography

Introduction

The art of understanding your exchange partner, avoiding conflicts and reprisals, could be

named negotiation. For this, it isn't enough for your partner to think and feel like you, you have to

think and feel like him.

In business, if you master the art of negotiation , you have an extra chance to win more and

still retain a good relationship with your partner. When you negotiate well , you can orient yourself,

influence and manipulate your partner to make him cooperate.

he secret is to be able to train him in a game of "Let's win together" .

Reasonable people understand quickly that they cannot impose its will unilaterally and seek

joint solutions , negotiated solutions.

Negotiation is a talent, an innate gift , but also a skill acquired through experience, training

and learning. Being a negotiator is an "elite" job in business, diplomacy, politics.

1. Conceptul de negociere si definitii

În sens larg, negocierea apare ca o formă concentrată şi interactivă de comunicare

interumană în care două sau mai multe părţi aflate în dezacord urmăresc să ajungă la o înţelegere

care rezolvă o problemă comună sau atinge un scop comun.

Prin negociere se înţelege orice formă de confruntare nearmată, prin care două sau mai

multe părţi cu interese şi poziţii contradictorii, dar complementare, urmăresc să ajungă la un

aranjament reciproc ai cărui termeni nu sunt cunoscuţi de la început.

În această confruntare, în mod principial şi loial, sunt aduse argumente şi probe, sunt

formulate pretenţii şi obiecţii, sunt făcute concesii şi compromisuri pentru a evita atât ruperea

relaţiilor, cât şi conflictul deschis. Negocierea permite crearea, menţinerea sau dezvoltarea unei

relaţii interumane sau sociale, în general, ca şi a unei relaţii de afaceri, de muncă sau diplomatice, în

particular.

1. The concept of negotiation and definitions

Broadly speaking, negotiation appears as a concentrated and interactive interpersonal

communication in which two or more parties to the disagreement aim to reach an agreement that

solves a common problem or achieve a common goal.

Through negotiation means any form of confrontation reinforced by two or more parties

with conflicting interests and positions, but complementary, aim to reach a mutual agreement whose

terms are not known from the beginning.

In this confrontation, the principled and loyal, are brought arguments and evidence are

brought claims and objections are made concessions and compromises in order to avoid breaking

relations and open conflict. Negotiation enables the creation, maintenance or development of

interpersonal relationships and social, in general, as well as a business relationship, or diplomatic

work in particular.

For negotiations to result in positive benefits for all sides, the negotiator must define what

the problem is and what each party wants. In defining the goals of negotiation, it is important to

distinguish between issues, positions, interests and settlement options.

•        An issue is a matter or question parties disagree about. Issues can usually be stated as

problems. For example, "How can wetlands be preserved while allowing some in-

dustrial or residential development near a stream or marsh?" Issues may be substan-

tive (related to money, time or compensation), procedural (concerning the way a dis-

pute is handled), or psychological (related to the effect of a proposed action).

•        Positions are statements by a party about how an issue can or should be handled or

resolved; or a proposal for a particular solution. A disputant selects a position be-

cause it satisfies a particular interest or meets a set of needs.

•        Interests are specific needs, conditions or gains that a party must have met in an

agreement for it to be considered satisfactory. Interests may refer to content, to spe-

cific procedural considerations or to psychological needs.

•        Settlement Options--possible solutions which address one or more party's interests.

The presence of options implies that there is more than one way to satisfy interests.

Negotiation is inseparable from interpersonal communication and is, inevitably, based on

dialogue. A bargain is to communicate the hope of reaching an agreement.

2. Avantajul reciproc

In communication psychology there is a so-called psychological law of reciprocity,

according to which if someone gives or takes, a partner will automatically feel the desire to give or

not and , respectively, instead of taking something ( Bruno Medicine, Handle and avoid being

manipulated, Business Ideas , 1996 and 1997). Even if you don't give something in return ,

effectively , the feeling that we owe , that we should give still remains.

Following the subtle action of this psychological law, any form of negotiation is governed

by the principle of compensatory actions . The consequence is reciprocal concessions , objections ,

threats , retaliation , etc. . Latin expressions of this principle are : "Du ut des " and " Facio ut

facias ." In Romanian , the principle can be found in phrases like : "I give if you give" " if you do I

do" , "I give so that you would " , "I do so that you would", "If you give more, I will too " or " If

you make concessions, so will I", " If you raise your claims , so will I " etc. .

The idea is that one can not get something if he doesn't give anything in return. Without

making concessions with your partner, you cannot get concessions from him.

3. Negotiation Strategies

Negotiation is one of the most common approaches used to make decisions and manage

disputes. It is also the major building block for many other alternative dispute resolution

procedures.

Negotiation occurs between spouses, parents and children, managers and staff, employers

and employees, professionals and clients, within and between organizations and between agencies

and the public. Negotiation is a problem-solving process in which two or more people voluntarily

discuss their differences and attempt to reach a joint decision on their common concerns.

Negotiation requires participants to identify issues about which they differ, educate each other about

their needs and interests, generate possible settlement options and bargain over the terms of the final

agreement. Successful negotiations generally result in some kind of exchange or promise being

made by the negotiators to each other. The exchange may be tangible (such as money, a

commitment of time or a particular behavior) or intangible (such as an agreement to change an

attitude or expectation, or make an apology).

Negotiation is the principal way that people redefine an old relationship that is not working

to their satisfaction or establish a new relationship where none existed before. Because negotiation

is such a common problem-solving process, it is in everyone's interest to become familiar with

negotiating dynamics and skills. This section is designed to introduce basic concepts of negotiation

and to present procedures and strategies that generally produce more efficient and productive

problem solving.

Negotiation strategy only works accompanied by the art of orientation and control,

unnoticeably , the interaction between the wills in conflict, by using both cold logic of rational

arguments and psychological energy of emotions and feelings .

Any form of negotiation involves a confrontation of will, feelings and interests. In turn ,

each party can take the initiative and control , but cannot all dominate simultaneously. Each of the

parties is influenced by the perceptions of their own position and in relation to it , that of the

opponent. The party that has a clearer vision from the confrontation of wills is more likely to

control the interaction and get victory.

4. The choice of strategy

Establishing a negotiation strategy essentially means to determine the stage of preparation,

the starting point, which goals are to be achieved, what resources are needed and what is the best

way to take the route between the starting point and the desired result.

 Strategy is a lasting way of orientation, meant to be followed during the entire negotiating

process. This does not mean that it cannot be changed if it your strategy does not match the strategy

of your chosen partner.

Strategies are not standard lines of thought which guarantee success in any kind of conflict

situations. They should rather be determined separately and specifically for each situation to

negotiate.

Strategy is inherently dependent of the aspects and circumstances of the dispute and the

personality and negotiation style characteristic to the people involved. Strategy is essential to match

the personality of the negotiator, the character and specific cultural values . The task of the

academical method should provide premises for the development of academic thinking , the

character of the negotiator and predict , if possible , an effective application of strategies, regardless

of the circumstances.

Any form of negotiation involves a confrontation of wills , feelings and interests. In turn ,

each party can take the initiative and control , but cannot dominate simultaneously.

 Each party is influenced by perceptions of its own position and, in relation to it , that of the

opponent. The party that has a clearer view over the confrontation of wills is more likely to control

the interaction and achieve victory. The ideal situation would be the one where my negotiation

partner understands that I'm right and he's wrong , before investing too much time and effort to

convince . If that is the situation, it means that I have chosen the best strategy.

The basic principle of strategy is to master the interaction of wills that face each other at the

negotiating table and not let them go into open conflict . The conflict can be defused in the bud .

Clues and progressive worsening conflict phases include: discomfort , incidents ,

misunderstandings, tension and crisis .

5. Negociation strategy

Questioning technique- the questioner leads

Questions and answers are a part of the negotiation process , and by Aristotle 's phrase , " the

questioner leads ". Every question has the character of a request and the answer is a concession. The

art of formulating questions and answers isn't to be right or wrong but knowing what and how to

say and how to say no.

In any case, a good negotiator already knows most of the questions and answers, which will

be formulated by both himself and his partner before actually sitting down at the negotiating table.

He will behave like a student that masters the material and cannot be confused by the teacher.

By asking the right questions, any party can take the initiative anytime . You can check and

clarify the statements of your opponent. By asking the questions that you already know the answer

of , you can check if some suspicions opponent attitude is based on a correct assumption.

Through questions , you can corner your opponent and impose your strategy without

damaging him in a unacceptable manner. For example , when you notice some inconsistencies and

contradictions between his statements , instead of brutally giving everything, you can just look

confused asking something like: No offense, but I don't quite understand . Could you back up and

explain how these statements relate to each other ?

Questions and labeling protocol can defuse tension start negotiations : Did you have a good

trip? How did you sleep?

Protocol questions can also stimulate and maintain the psychological tone of the partner:

How do you always keep yourself fresh ? How do you get this note of elegance ?

Tactical questions can delay and gain time to build your own argument : Can we resume,

point by point, the things that we already agreed upon?

By asking tactical questions politely , you can avoid or delay a direct response to a sensitive

issue : May I please resume this question later?

Guiding questions can point the discussion in the desired direction : I see we both agree on

this matter. Do you think we can discuss the next problem ?

Trick questions are designed to determine whether the partner is telling the truth: Isn't that

matter exactly as I discussed on the phone with your colleague ? Have you decided something else?

By exposé questions, you can provide beneficial information to the adversary of our point of

view : Did you know that the wine we proposed earned several medals abroad?

By asking stimulator questions, you can guide and stimulate the thoughts of your partner

towards the target of our argument : Have you thought about the productivity increase that you can

get if ... ? Is inflation a problem for you? Have you thought about changing the package?

Through curiosity awakening questions, your partner may be involved in the argument : You

know what happens if you rotate / capsize / downsize etc. . ?

By ironic or aggressive questions you can initiate attacks on opponents : Do you really think

your youth allows you to make statements that require a much more vast experience?

Rhetorical questions can be used not so much to get answers as to affect an emotional

argument : The superiority of our product is obvious, isn't it ? Do you really want me to believe

you? Are you always focused?

Through exploratory questions you can track the purchase motivations of your

partner : What's essential for you in this kind of machine?

Insinuating questions are designed to make assumptions and hypotheses unpleasant and

dangerous to the partner, but in a veiled form : Why does the material X cost so much?

Lock questions are asked directly to force a decision or to force the suspension of

negotiations : Do you accept or refuse? Is this your final offer? Do you realize what you're doing ?

Do you realise how good was the offer I proposed?

Sometimes when there is doubt on the decision taking ability of your partner, the problem

can be clarified with a question like: Shall I allow myself to assume that you are invested with all

the authority necessary to solve this problem ?

Often , even when concluding the agreement , the partner may use the " trick " to ask one

last concession . And this can make us rebel , but all damage can be avoided with a question like:

Are you suggesting reopening negotiations ?

If answer is no, what remains is respecting the terms already negotiated in the agreement . If

the answer is positive, they will be asked of another concession in return .

The "time out" Technique - you deserve a break , man

Periodic interruption of the negotiation process by requesting "time out" may be a way to

temper a partner you irritated or fragment and disrupt his argument. In addition, if you request a

break, when enemy launches an attack or tries obtaining unacceptable concessions, the break may

be useful to prepare a satisfactory defense, for consultating with advisors and documents and to

formulate a strategy to counter . In addition, time can bring the opponent out of hand, cutting the

offensive impulses .

When you face ( argue ) with someone and hostilities escalate into open conflict , suggests a

break , coffee , tea , ten minutes of music or even ten minutes of silence, pure and simple. At the

end of ten minutes, you can have the pleasant surprise of finding reasons not to continue the

argument; they don't exist anymore. Time out is a needed breath .

The paraphrasing technique

The dictionary explains that paraphrasing is the reproduction or explanation in a personal

form of a text or given speech. In negotiations, to paraphrase is to summarize in your own words ,

what you understand from what your partner said. The fact that it is his point of view must be

explicitly mentioned. The paraphrase is simply introduced by sentences like: " If I understand

well ..." or " Let me see if I understand what you mean I ..." or " You mean ..." .

By paraphrasing, we give our partner the satisfaction that he made himself understood, we

earn additional time for thinking and formulating a response and also verifying that I understood

correctly. Along with paraphrasing, we can ask for any further clarifications. By paraphrasing, we

have an easier chance to get further clarification .

6. Principiile de baza in procesul negocierii

Autorii Jean M.Hiltrop şi Sheila Udall prezintă in lucrarea „Arta negocierii”, vin in sprijinul

managerilor care doresc să devină buni negociatori, descriind principiile de bază ale negocierii,

paşii esenţiali spre negocierea eficientă: negocierea în cadrul grupurilor şi între grupuri, problemele

legate de negocierile interculturale, cultura negociatorului.

6.Basic principles in the negotiation process

Authors Jean M.Hiltrop and Sheila Udall presents in his "art of negotiation", come to

support managers who want to become good negotiators, describing the basic principles of

negotiation, essential steps to effective negotiation: negotiation within groups and between groups,

the problems intercultural negotiations, negotiator culture.

Basic principles and their implications in the negotiation refer to:

-Negotiation is a voluntary activity , meaning that each party can decide not to enter the

discussion at any time;

-A negotiation usually starts from the premises that at least one party wants to change the

present status and believes that it is possible to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement ;

-Successful negotiations imply the ability to determine by observation and analysis the best

way of persuasion and implementation of their method at the right time ( negotiation means

influencing and persuasion, not constraint and defeating your opponent ) ;

-To be successful, negotiation shouldn't be a struggle for verbal supremacy;

-Not every situation guarantuees a specific bargaining treatment : negotiations should not

start when you are not in a position to negotiate, you do not have enough time to prepare , you are

too weak or inexperienced to negotiate with the other party and so on ;

-Since time is an important factor in negotiation, you must observe at what the point of the

negotiation you're in, and plan your actions accordingly; time plays an important role in influencing

the overall environment and directly affects the outcome of the discussion, you must plan every

move in the negotiation process, if you have time to plan , then negotiate ;

-The process of any negotiation, even if it is run by a third party, is strongly influenced by

personal values , understanding , attitudes and emotions of the people standing at the table .

Bazându-se pe experienţa sa de negociator, John Illich (1992) a sugerat că managerii fac de

obicei următoarele greşeli în negociere:

- intră în negocieri cu anumite idei preconcepute;

- nu cunosc persoana care are autoritatea finală în negociere;

- nu ştiu precis ce putere deţin şi cum să o folosească eficient;

- iniţiază negocieri numai pentru atingerea unui obiectiv general;

- nu reuşesc să avanseze poziţii şi argumente pline de substanţă;

- pierd controlul asupra unor factori consideraţi lipsiţi de importanţă, cum ar fi timpul

şi ierarhizarea subiectelor de discuţie;

- nu au răbdare să lase cealaltă parte să facă prima ofertă;

- ignoră importanţa timpului şi amplasării ca arme în negociere;

- renunţă atunci când negocierile par să se afle într-un impas;

- nu ştiu când trebuie încheiate negocierile.

Based on his experience as a negotiator, John Illich (1992) suggested that managers usually

make the following mistakes in negotiation:

- Enter into negotiations with certain preconceived ideas;

- Do not know the person who has the final authority in negotiation;

- I do not know precisely what power have and how to use it effectively;

- Start negotiations only to achieve an overall objective;

- Failure to advance positions and arguments full of substance;

- Lose control of factors considered unimportant, such as time and prioritizing topics for

discussion;

- Do not have the patience to let the other side make the first offer;

- Ignore the importance of time and location as weapons in negotiation;

- Give up when negotiations seem to be at an impasse;

- Do not know when negotiations concluded.

7. Etapele procesului de negociere

Negocierea reprezintă un proces în timpul căruia două sau mai multe părţi îşi dispută

anumite elemente - obiectele procesului - pentru că doresc să obţină controlul asupra lor. Deşi este

vorba de o situaţie aparent conflictuală, pentru că fiecare vrea să-şi satisfacă propriile interese

(uneori în detrimentul celuilalt), negocierea se bazează pe o strategie câştig-câştig. Aceasta

presupune concesii pentru a obţine ceea ce doriţi. In acest proces, cel mai puternic nu este

întotdeauna şi câştigătorul negocierii pentru că trebuie să ştiţi să ascultaţi, să analizaţi şi să oferiţi

contraargumente serioase.

Procesul presupune câteva etape - cunoaşterea partenerilor de discuţie, stabilirea

obiectivelor, începerea negocierii propriu-zise, exprimarea contraargumentelor, reevaluarea poziţiei

şi concesiile, acordul de principiu.

Procesul de negociere presupune abordarea următoarelor probleme:

• principiile de bază ale negocierii;

• atitudine:

• comunicare:

• etapele procesului de negociere:

• stiluri de negociere;

• cum să fiţi un negociator inventiv:

• etape pentru a construi o negociere de succes.

Cei mai mulţi negociatori consideră importantă următoarea succesiune de etape ale

procesului de negociere, prezentată în cele ce urmează.

Negotiation is a process during which two or more parties are disputing certain items - items

that process - because they want to gain control over them. Although it is a seemingly conflicting

situation , because everyone wants to satisfy their own interests ( sometimes at the expense of the

other) , negotiation is based on a win-win strategy. This involves concessions to get what you want .

In this process, the stronger bargaining is not always the winner because you have to know how to

listen, analyze and provide serious counterarguments.

The process involves several steps - knowledge partners for discussion, setting goals, start

negotiating mode, expressing counterarguments, reappraisal position and concessions, the

agreement in principle.

The negotiation process involves addressing the following issues:

• basic principles of negotiation ;

• attitude :

• Communication :

• stages of negotiation :

• negotiation styles ;

• how to be a resourceful negotiator :

• steps to build a successful negotiation .

Most important negotiators consider the following sequence of steps of the negotiation

process , shown below .

8. Pregatirea negocierii

The success of negotiations greatly depends on the manner in which it was prepared . The

premises of presenting the negotiating position, as well the arguments and strategies used are built

in the prenegotiation state .

There are three basic elements in any training :

a) establishing negotiation objectives ;

b ) assessment of the other party's case;

c ) assessing strengths and weaknesses .

The success of negotiations depends much on the manner in which it was prepared . The

premises of presenting the negotiating position, as well the arguments and strategies used are built

in the prenegotiation state. Practice proved that among the highlights of training in business

negotiations you must not forget to :

a) study the industry and market ;

b ) set your goals ;

c ) initiate contact and business relationships .

Psychologically speaking , a specialist should not be afraid that the partner will have

objections . He must appreciate the fact that the complaints are a confirmation of purchase interest

shown by the partner and highlights the position that he is in .

Objections raised by partners:

-unexpressed, which can be " read " on the face of the partner ;

-false, behind which we find their real problems ;

-Due to prejudices ;

-Due to lack of adequate information ;

-founded.

For all stages of contract negotiation, participants must meet certain deadlines for answering

questions, sending filled in forms etc . These deadlines exist to ensure that the negotiation is

conducted regularly and doesn't take much time. If these deadlines are not met without a good

reason, the negotiation procedure may stop.

9. Negocierea contractelor

Pentru toate etapele procedurii de negociere a contractelor, participanţii trebuie să respecte

anumite termene pentru răspunsul la întrebări, trimiterea formularelor completate etc. Aceste

termene au funcţia de a garanta că procedura de negociere se desfăşoară regulat şi pentru ca aceasta

să aibă loc într-un timp cât mai scurt. Dacă aceste termene nu sunt respectate şi aceasta fără un

motiv întemeiat, procedura de negociere se poate întrerupe.

9.Negotiate contracts

For all stages of contract negotiation, participants must meet certain deadlines for answering

questions, sending filled in forms etc. These limits are there to ensure that the negotiation is

conducted regularly and for it to take place in a short time. If these deadlines are not met and this

without good reason, the negotiated procedure may stop.

Negotiating the contract involves a series of steps:

1. completing the contract ;

2 . presentation of financial data ;

3. contract drafting ;

4. first meeting ;

5. last meeting ;

6. signing the contract ;

7. Contracts are signed in a single language, chosen by the contract partners .

8 . Commencement of the contract .

The costs incurred by contractors under the contract may be taken only after its

commencement . Expenditures made during the negotiation phase , for example travel expenses for

preliminary meetings are not generally covered by contracts.

To facilitate the communication and negotiation procedure , the number of key participants

should be minimized. Participants have the interest to set strict deadlines for submission of

information to the project coordinator.

Project coordinators should ensure that preparatory work goes as planned in order for the

contract negotiations to take place in the best conditions . Most of the delays in contract negotiation

are due to the slow communication speed between partners.

Usually before you reach a business agreement, you'll need to negotiate, and here are

summarized 11 of the most common and popular contract negotiation tactics.

1. Break the negotiation into parts. Some negotiations disintegrate because the parties take

an "all or nothing" approach, in which the other party must agree to all of their terms in order to

move forward. A good way past this type of roadblock is to break the negotiations into sections

("compartmentalize") and reach an agreement on each part separately. This makes it feel as if you

are reaching a series of solutions -- and making progress -- rather than battling one big war.

2. The "I'm only asking for what's fair" approach. This approach emphasizes that one party's

requests are simply in line with industry standards or current market prices. This strategy relieves

you of the obligation to justify your terms or spend time negotiating for them. If you emphasize that

you are asking only for standard deal terms, the burden shifts to the other party to convince you that

you should make an exception in this case (and to make that exception worth your while by offering

concessions elsewhere).

3. The Getting to Yes approach. The authors of this book emphasize that to reach agreement

(to get to "yes") the negotiating parties must separate the people from the issues (that is, remove the

emotion from the equation), look beyond the negotiating parties to see who or what is the real inter-

est or influence affecting each party, generate options to create a problem-solving environment, and

neutralize conflict by sticking to objective and easy-to-justify principles of fairness.

4. Take control. Controlling the location, timing, topics, and pace of negotiation (sometimes

called "controlling the agenda") may create an advantage. For example, lawyers often believe that

the attorney who drafts the agreement is in the contractual driver's seat. Similarly, by controlling the

negotiations, you get to decide which topics are discussed and in what order. Sometimes, parties use

a passive approach to take control -- for example, by seeming to act as the moderator for the negoti-

ations or by offering to "summarize" where things stand (in a letter or brief statement at the start of

a negotiating session). No matter how the reins are seized, the party that frames the issues generally

has more control over how those issues are eventually resolved.

5. Prioritize, prioritize, prioritize. Contract negotiations typically focus on revenue and risks.

But clearly, some revenues and risks are more important than others. When you negotiate, you need

to know what your top priorities are -- usually the business or money-making opportunity offered

by the deal -- and how your other priorities rank below that. This will help you keep your eyes on

the prize and avoid getting bogged down in issues that are not as important to you.

6. The "offer-concession" strategy. Make sure the other side leaves the negotiation feeling

they've made a good deal. The offers you make should always leave you enough wiggle room to

make acceptable concessions to the other side. Or as one businessman put it, "The most important

trip you may take in life is meeting people half way." This also means you shouldn't start negotia-

tions by revealing your absolute bottom line. If you instead leave yourself room to negotiate, you'll

make the other party feel that they've won something -- and you may be surprised to find that the

other party is willing to give more than you would have been willing to accept.

7. Question rather than demand. If the other party is taking a hard line on certain issues, ask

why. Questions open up the discussion; arguments often close communication down.

8. Find points of agreement and end on a positive note. This upbeat approach requires that

you find opportunities to say, "You're right about that," or "I agree." However small these points of

agreement may be, they help set a collaborative tone. At the same time, if negotiations are spread

over a series of meetings, always attempt to end each one positively. This too, goes a long way to

establishing a collaborative tone that is more likely to be conducive to progress and result in an

agreement.

9. Do your research. The party with more information usually has more leverage. For exam-

ple, if you know that the people who put an offer on your house have already sold their own house

and must move quickly, that gives you more leverage -- and some extra bargaining chips. You may

be able to insist on a higher price, particularly if you're willing to allow them to close the deal fast.

Sometimes, even personal information about the parties may affect your ability to create a more col-

laborative atmosphere ("Hey, I'm racing in that triathlon, too.")

10. Dealing with burnouts and ultimatums. If the other party resorts to threats ("Agree to

these terms or there's no deal") or wages a war of attrition by dragging out the negotiations, you'll

have to decide what the underlying deal is really worth to you. If the ultimate prize is so valuable

that you're willing to accept the other party's ultimatum or put up with endless haggling, that's fine.

Similarly, if the other party has all the power (for example, it's the only known buyer for your prod-

uct), then you may have to grin and bear it for a while. If not, however, the best strategy is often to

walk away from the negotiations. If the other party really needs you, it may reevaluate its tactics

and return to the table. If not, you can move on to more productive negotiations with someone else.

11. Use facts, not feelings. Successful negotiators separate business from personal, facts

from feelings. They avoid letting an unpleasant personality or style drag down the negotiations.

They also avoid making the negotiations seem personal by using language such as "I believe" or "I

think," focusing instead on statements of fact ("If we pay this price, both parties to the venture will

be at risk.")

Concluzii

Organizaţii diferite acţionează în moduri diferite şi fiecare are un stil caracteristic de

negociere. O primă distincţie este aceea între negociatorul războinic, cel colaborativ şi cel înclinat

către compromis. Deci, negociatorii au nevoie de pregătire şi experienţă înainte de a putea aborda

diferitele stiluri de negociere.

Este necesar să se anticipeze stilul de negociere al Celorlalţi şi în special atunci când credem

că vor fi agresivi, să ne pregătim în mod corespunzător. Pregătirea unei apărări puternice va creşte

intensitatea bătăliei. Un bun negociator, încrezător în forţele sale, va căuta să controleze climatul şi

procedurile încă din fazele introductive, fără a deconspira propria poziţie, poziţie ce poate fi

defensivă sau agresivă.

Negociatorii de tip “pionier” acţionează după flerul personal şi tind să domine tratativele.

Negociatorii “sistematici” (birocraţi) au un mod diferit de acţiune precum şi scopuri distincte.

Nu stilul este cel care contează ci Negociatorii înşişi.

Persoane din ţări diferite au moduri diferite de a evalua lucrurile, cu atitudini şi experienţe

diferite, cu puncte forte şi slăbiciuni diferite.

Din punctul nostru de vedere un negociator competent trebuie să-şi dezvolte un stil potrivit

propriilor aptitudini şi puncte forte, inclusiv cele ale propriei culturi. În cazul în care va căuta să

adopte un stil diferit, atunci poate întâlni negociatori mai puternici în acest stil, iar aceştia îi vor face

mai evidente punctele slabe.

El trebuie să fie conştient atât de punctele sale forte cât şi de cele slabe şi să-şi dezvolte

abilitatea de a le folosi la maximum. De asemeni, trebuie să ştie că poate întâlni persoane care

acţionează în alte moduri şi este foarte important să le respecte punctele de vedere, fără a le fi însă

supus.

De exemplu, un detaliu despre modul în care arabii comunică unii cu alţii este acela că au

contacte fizice diferite de cele ale vesticilor, cum ar fi contactul feţelor. Însă negociatorii arabi

devin suspicioşi în momentul în care şi aceştia respectă tradiţiile arabe, dar păstrându-şi propriile

obiceiuri.

Diferenţele de culturi naţionale nu influenţează numai comportamentul superficial, ci sunt şi

condiţii esenţiale pentru înţelegerea valorilor adoptate de negociatori. Fiecare persoană vine la masa

tratativelor cu deprinderi şi cu obiceiuri de care de multe ori nu este conştient şi există doar

subconştient.

Conclusions

Different organizations work in different ways and each has a characteristic style of

negotiation. A first distinction is that between negotiator warrior, the collaborative and most

inclined to compromise. So negotiators need training and experience before they can address the

different negotiation styles .

It is necessary to anticipate the negotiation style of the rest , especially when we think we

will be aggressive, to prepare properly. Preparing a strong defense will increase the intensity of

battle. A good negotiator , confident in his strength , seek to control the climate and procedures

since its introduction without expose their position , a position that can be defensive or aggressive .

Negotiators of " pioneer" act as personal flair and tend to dominate the talks . Negotiators '

systematic ' ( bureaucrats ) have a different mode of action and distinct purposes .

No style is the one that counts but negotiators themselves.

People from different countries have different ways of evaluating things , attitudes and

different experiences , with different strengths and weaknesses .

From our point of view a competent negotiator must develop a style according to their own

skills and strengths, including those of their own culture . If you seek to adopt a different style , then

perhaps meet stronger bargaining in this style , and they will make them more obvious weaknesses.

He must be aware of both its strengths and weaknesses and how to develop the ability to use

them to the maximum. You also need to know that can meet people who act in other ways and it is

very important to respect the views , but without being subjected .

For example , details about how the Arab communicate with each other is that they have

various physical contact of the Westerners , such as contact faces. But Arab negotiators become

suspicious when they meet and Arabic traditions , but retaining its own habits .

Differences in national culture affects not only the superficial behavior but are prerequisites

to understanding the values adopted by the negotiators. Each person comes to the table with the

skills and habits that often is not aware of and there are only subconsciously .

Bibliography

1. Neagu, Mariana; Daniela Şarpe- Dicţionar explicativ englez - român de termeni economici.;

2. Turcu, Fulvia; Violeta Năstăsescu- Limba engleză pentru întreprinzători şi oameni de aface-

ri;

3. Emerson, Paul- Business English. Macmillan;

4. Administrative Conference of the United States, Negotiated Rulemaking Sourcebook, Ad-

ministrative Conference of the United States

5. Thomas, John Clayton, Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies

for Public Managers, Jossey-Bass Publishers