Positive Argument

Negotiation is a course of action to achieve goals through communication with at least one other party, with the supposed outcome an agreement. The two parties have a conflict, or have differences that may result in conflict. In any case, one party has the ability to prevent other from achieving its goal.

Negotiation is serious business intended at protecting or shielding a gain, preventing damage, or pressing an interest. It is not just a method, for contributing in the procedure may lead to substantive repercussions. Negotiations must not get harsh and should always remain a positive argument.

Competitors want to win. This style may be the right approach when the outcome is more important to you than the cost of achieving it. Positive argument might not require a demanding, aggressive and demeaning negotiator.

The cases for positive argument range from cultural similarities to know-how of the things. Positive argument can also take place when the mediator has full grip over the issue and knows how to discuss a two-way solution in which both sides win.

Aggressive type of negotiating is taken in some culture as a symbol of power. Negotiations normally happen with equals, near equals or when one party has something the other desires or needs. By humiliating the other party, the abrasive negotiating is a sign of force or superior standing.

Competitive natures can force this kind of negotiations, since the negotiator wants to take as much as probable from the other party and even cause damage.

This kind of negotiations takes place when private dislikes for others consequences the emotional baggage disturbing the dialogue. Acting aggressively in negotiations can be a premeditated tactic to put the other party on the self-protective mode in the hope that the off-putting emotional state will affect unintentional disclosure of information or the person approving the terms and conditions they would by no means agree to if in a rational condition.


Breadcrumbs