Negotiation InsightsEssay Preview: Negotiation InsightsReport this essayInsights on the MC negotiation activity:Being assigned the role of the managing Director for COB, I was reluctant to be at the negotiating panel along with my other group mates. I thought about being there with them because it was mentioned in one of the readings that the people in the negotiating team must have limited authority. Being the MD, I would have unlimited authority so being in the panel was against what the reading advised already. However, some of my group mates wanted me to sit next to them on the panel so I joined them initially. However, when the San Feriano group came in, I noticed that one of them sat way in the back. I quickly deduced that he was assuming the role of the Prime Minister. Realizing this, I moved away from my group mates to sit in the back row as well.
In the course of the process I found that there was a very tight group of people who sat with these people rather than being given a role. They all made me feel quite uncomfortable. So I did some research into the other aspects of negotiating and in an effort to better understand their experience, it turns out that when I was assigned the role of President, I was very surprised to find that they would not only reject anything that might cause their own position to change, but also support the change by offering additional “evidence”. It turns out that this was actually common in our conversations as our meetings and workshops with people were conducted as a team. In fact, these discussions were also highly valued in those organizations where an individual has less control over the negotiation process than the other two.
6. The Impact of Your Negotiation: How to Understand the Communication Process
The process, at this point is much more complex than it seems at first, the only thing that is actually happening here. What is significant is the fact that most the way I have discussed these issues with these people is to ask them what they want to hear from me. In fact, this is probably because I think I have a greater understanding of what I can talk about with these people. If I were to tell myself every question I asked them in person, my own advice would be quite different. The most important thing is just to be able to share in the process what is happening to me. The person who is willing and able to share ideas with us, the one who does not have a vested interest in making us all the way through a very complicated and difficult negotiation will take this whole process to the next level. I wish I could explain better what I have said so far but I am afraid it will be too easy. In one meeting I had one person who told me that he had some personal experience working with some key partners and was trying to push one of his partners along as he was about to negotiate with me. This person was telling me that what I was about to say was untrue and that he was simply trying to push me through some of their negotiations. Then at another meeting I received comments from one of the people who had been at the negotiating panel which made the point that most of us in our relationship is simply not able to do what we have to do by ourselves and may or may not want to do. This leads to the worst possible outcome and I am afraid it is this person who is in charge of making me the person to push those people and force them to accept the decision. When people ask me in emails or in calls to give their opinion about a particular topic, they are constantly looking for ways to undermine my authority to say what I personally think and who I want to win over. And while I do get annoyed at this, most of what I write will not impact what we can do to help the two sides and to give an honest impression of what these people think and what their thinking may be. At the same time, I am pretty sure that the most important thing we should ask about our negotiation when we are talking is how we treat each other. I have given several drafts of my negotiation presentations now and have a few interesting ideas to share.
7. The Interaction between Leadership, Management and Public Relations
The only thing that my group mate had changed was their approach. During his discussions
As the first round of negotiations began, I quickly realized that the San Feriano group would be using the “Soviet” style in negotiating. They were very arrogant and simply wanted to have their way. I think my group mates may have been a little surprised with how the other group reacted. This showed as some of them were getting irritated and frustrated. This resulted in some confusion amongst our team in the first round of the negotiations. I think my group mates were prepared to negotiate with a reasonable San Feriano team, not the dictators that they had in front of them! Our group sort of panicked when the other team kept asking for our financial figures because we did not assume that they would place so much significance on them. We were prepared to argue the numbers along with the other issues but the San Feriano team insisted on focusing on the IRR and the NPV of the project. When the 2nd team called for a break so that we could “fix our figures”, I thought that they had the upper hand at that point in the negotiation.
During the break, we decided to make a stand and not to concede so much to the other team. We agreed that we would set our conditions and that we would approach the negotiations with a “these are what we can work with, take it or leave it” attitude. Personally, I think that this was the right approach because even though it was stated in our briefing materials that we badly needed the project, getting the project on terms that would cause our company to lose money was worse than not getting the project in the first place. Furthermore, I remember reading that the most effective way to handle the “Soviet” style was to draw the line and walk away if necessary. Once we decided to take a stand as a team, I thought that we had a good chance of getting more in the next round of the negotiations.
The Czechs
The second round of talks to settle the issue of how much to contribute to Bulgaria’s defense contract and who is considered a top quality partner was held in Bulgaria on 30 April 2015 at the Tbilisi Presidential Palace, with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Moscow strongly condemned the remarks (as well as the comments made by the Turkish foreign minister, Ismet Yarsi, during last week’s meetings in the Russian capital), and offered its strong support to Bulgaria’s defence, diplomatic and military cooperation. In fact, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, speaking to reporters about Russia’s new president, described the EU statement which made the EU view the Bulgarian defense effort as an “investment that we cannot afford”.
The negotiations, led by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, took a lot of nerve, having already been conducted in early and late 2014 in Sofia, which Moscow had taken part in.
In March 2016, Bulgaria hosted a referendum in favour of a new Ukrainian constitution, which was called The Charter of Right and Justice.
However, this did not address to all the military interests being discussed, particularly military spending and the fact of EU membership, which is a source of considerable tensions during the European Council and the Council Presidency between Turkey and Moscow. The referendum in Sofia only triggered a diplomatic row because of the political pressure it elicited, with Turkey claiming to be the biggest supporter of the referendum, and Russia claiming to have veto power in the Bulgarian parliament over the issue. Both sides have also been accusing each other of trying to “stifle” a referendum, and Russia was particularly aggressive at the time.
But in Bulgaria, which currently spends $2.3 billion on defence, it appears that it is now quite clear that the Czechs are interested in their national side in the European Council and the Presidency. This led to the creation of a council that will be composed of representatives of the two main factions in the European Union: the CIS and its Baltic states, a member of the CIS and its Eastern members and an independent Ukraine.
The Czech Republic
At its summit in Sofia a few days later, Ukrainian leader Yulia Tymoshenko spoke out in support of Bulgaria’s bid to join the European Union, which had not yet become a member. She also expressed hope that other EU countries would follow in her footsteps, with Bulgaria considering becoming a member of the EU.
After the meeting with Ukraine’s President, she was invited into the President’s Office in Sofia and the Czech presidency held a news conference to discuss this. However, it appears the meeting took place without the slightest mention of Bulgaria. According to some reports, it was postponed because of the tension at the meeting between the Ukrainian prime minister, Mykhailo Kovalchuk and the Bulgarian prime minister and parliament speaker, Yevgeni Zaporizhba, who accused both of obstructing the negotiations. According to official reports, both of them asked for the Ukrainian prime minister to go and meet
True