Negotiation Strategies Level of Complexity and Issues

Question: Discuss about the Negotiation Strategies for Level of Complexity and Issues. Answer: Introduction to the Topic There are wide range of conflicts exist in daily life adding up to the tensions among the individuals and commercial sectors. Hence, it is better to raise a suitable discussion for clarifying the relevant factors supporting the achievement of possible alternatives to reduce the negative implications. With such an aim, the following portion will be dealt with taking a suitable article and analysing that to develop the argument. Topic Two: Wood, T. (2016). Negotiating Strategies Should Fit Your Situation Depending on the context, the best negotiation strategy or style is adopted. Different experts around the world initially study and analyse the relevant situation, in the beginning, to come up with the techniques for achieving the predetermined goal. The selection of the article is done by considering its importance by analysing and demonstrating the negotiation strategies adopted by four recent United States presidents by understanding their corresponding situations. Based on the adjustment to such situation, the particular style and strategy are embraced for achieving the success. Before the analysis of the examples, it must need to propose that the president of the United States is not only known as the commander-in-chief, but also he is responsible for the chief level of negotiation. The president is often needed to make a strategic decision in order to shape up his approaches for negotiating with different satiations from forging an agreement with the foreign power to breaking a deal with the opposition party. With the help of analysis of these particular situations, the proper knowledge related to negotiation strategies can be acknowledged. Considering the example of the negotiation strategies followed by President Barrack Obama, he initially adopted a collaborative approach to reducing the debt level associated with the economy and ensuring different reformations in the healthcare system of the country. However, it is observed that the particular style of negotiation weakened by the low level of collaboration from the opposition party. In this particular scenario, a series of budget crisis can be observed in 2010-11, which leads to the abandonment of such negotiation approach, as the president switched to the competitive approach for dealing with the situations like employment issues and taxation policy challenges. Though the president remained the popular public figure around the world, it is observed that the poll ratings related to his performance had suffered probably by the failure to his earlier negotiation approach. In the case of George W. Bush (2001 2009), the president embraced a competitive approach from the beginning in order to deal with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 incident. With the help of such approach, the president had developed policies from both international and domestic perspectives without seeking much input from his counterparts. The re-election of the president in 2004 suggested that the negotiation strategy adopted by Bush was highly endorsed by the American citizens from the perspective of foreign affairs and national security. The second terms of his period demanded the need of collaborative approach caused by the incidents related to Hurricane Katrina and the financial crisis of 2008 alongside the issues faced by the county related to the illegal immigration. The combination of these particular factors led the end of Bushs presidency. Considering the case of Ronald Reagan (1981 1989), the president understood right from the beginning that the prolonged negotiation requires the adoption of different strategies for different situations. In the first terms of his presidency, he adopted the competitive approach as the negotiation strategy to form the massive military build-up for dealing with the Cold War with between America and the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, from the domestic perspective, Reagan implemented a collaborative approach for forging collaborations with the conservative Democrats for dealing with the spending cuts. Based on such negotiation strategy, the president was able to ensure the substantial tax code reforms in the second presidential term of his tenure. From the instance of Jimmy Carter (1977 1981), it is observed that the president put apriority on the avoidance approach exemplified by the overly passive response to the Iranian hostage crisis. On the other hand, the USs boycott of Summer Olympic 1980 in Moscow due to the invasion of Soviet Union in Afghanistan can be critically observed during the time. Due to the employment of such negotiation approach, he suffered the lack of public support, denying him the second terms in the presidential election. In line with the overall understanding developed, useful information can be further achieved by the analysis of an article named Negotiation Strategy: Seven Common Pitfalls to Avoid produced by Barbara Buell (2007). The significant output of the article is based on avoiding the common pitfalls is necessary in order to involve in the negotiation process for the firm or the individual position. The development of a proper negotiation strategy is highly influenced by the successful bargaining capacity of the responsible individuals. The success of bargaining depends on finding positivity of every possible circumstance. In this particular scenario, it is also necessary to consider some of the common pitfalls providing a hindrance to the successful delivery of the negotiation strategy. Poor planning is one of such identified drawbacks, where the successful negotiators are critically required to make detailed plans by knowing their priorities and agreement. Failure to know such factors wil l affect the own agenda of the negotiator to provide negative influences on the planning process. Apart from that, ineffective thinking capacity also poses a major threat in preparing the right negotiation strategy. For an example, the employer should need to think rationally before providing a promotion or transfer notice to an employee. The employer should need to consider critically on how such decision will affect the rest of the employees within the workforce. Therefore, different types of alternatives and proper clarifications must need to be prepared by the employer in order sustain a decision made by him over a particular scenario. Thirdly, another significant pitfall causing difficulty to the negotiation process strategy is the failure to pay proper attention to the opponent, as the negotiators should need to analyse different kind of biases the opponents are capable of to bring to the table. Conclusion Though the negotiation strategies for an entity or an individual may not match to the presidential level of complexity and issues, it is crucial to adopt and employ a best fitting negotiation strategy based on the situation for achieving the success. References Wood, T. (2016). Negotiating Strategies Should Fit Your Situation | WatershedAssociates.com. Watershedassociates.com. Retrieved 10 March 2016, from https://www.watershedassociates.com/negotiationblog/negotiating-strategies-should-fit-your-situation