客服微信: pphelpme

X

Analysis of Individual Negotiation Style 代写essay案例

文章类型:essay 发布时间:2019-08-07

个人谈判技巧分析
When it comes to the topic of negotiation style, everyone has his own unique comprehension. Nowadays, with all aspects of social development, an even-increasing number of people comes to be conscious of the necessity of appropriate negotiation techniques. Negotiation plays a big role in our work and daily life. Everyday we negotiate, with People of all identities. Negotiation is essential to the community life; it guarantees our regularity of social interaction. It is a process with reception and transmission of our opportunities, that aims at satisfying our and others meet.
谈到谈判风格的话题,每个人都有自己独特的理解。 如今,随着社会发展的各个方面,越来越多的人开始意识到适当谈判技巧的必要性。 谈判在我们的工作和日常生活中发挥着重要作用。 每天我们与所有身份的人进行谈判。 谈判对社区生活至关重要; 它保证了我们社交互动的规律性。 这是一个接待和传播我们机会的过程,旨在满足我们和其他人的相遇。 
Negotiation are always conducted in a soft but actually confrontational manner in China. Everyone make utmost efforts to show their politeness and modesty, which is related to the word ‘harmony’ emphasized in Chinese culture, which emphasizes collectivism and egalitarianism, while in western culture, individualism and hierarchy are given priority. Results of my personal bargaining Inventor also confirm the national characteristic, in which the most consistent descriptions to myself are description 2, 5, 12, 15, 18, 21, 23, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, the typical characteristics of a Chinese, kind and ambitious. Description 2,12,18,23, 33, 34, 35, 37 figure my tendency to be honest, sincere, open, and kind, thinking that the best way to resolve conflicts is to stay calm and consider issues from the other side's perspective to achieve a win-win result. The 5,15,21 picture my character of pursuing power and wanting to win.
谈判总是在中国以柔和但实际上是对抗的方式进行。 每个人都尽最大努力表现出礼貌和谦虚,这与中国文化中强调的“和谐”一词有关,强调集体主义和平等主义,而在西方文化中,个人主义和等级制度是优先考虑的。 我个人讨价还价的结果发明人也确认了民族特色,其中对我自己最一致的描述是描述2,5,12,15,18,21,23,33,34,35,37,40,典型特征 一个中国人,善良而雄心勃勃。 描述2,12,18,23,33,34,35,37表明我倾向于诚实,真诚,开放和善良,认为解决冲突的最佳方法是保持冷静并从另一方面考虑问题 实现双赢。 5,15,21描绘了我追求力量并希望获胜的角色。
In terms of myself,I prefer the strategy “collaborative (win–win), In this strategy, the parties attempt to maximize their outcomes while preserving or enhancing the relationship. This result is most likely when both parties can find a resolution that meets the needs of each.” Apparently, it is best to realize the interests of both parties. But if the desired result cannot be achieved, I tend to choose the “compromising (split the difference)” strategy to gain the limited results as far as possible, and have a conference over problems to weaken the conflict and maintain a good relationship. In my opinion, it is absolutely not advisable to emphasize only one part of outcome and relationship in the negotiations, such as the strategies “accommodating (lose to win)” or “competitive (win–lose)”. The blind pursuit of the results is an overdraft of relationship, while the blind pursuit of the relationship without principles will not be respected by others, and the dream results will not be obtained later. For the really irreparable relationship, “avoiding (lose–lose)” strategy can be used to “withdraw from the active negotiation or avoid it entirely” to soften the conflict. (Lewicki & Barry& Sanders, 2015).)
就我自己而言,我更喜欢“协作(双赢)”战略,在这一战略中,各方试图在保持或加强关系的同时最大化其结果。当双方都能找到满足每个人需求的决议时,这种结果很有可能。“显然,最好是实现双方的利益。但是如果不能达到预期的结果,我倾向于选择“妥协(分裂差异)”策略来尽可能地获得有限的结果,并召开会议来解决冲突并保持良好关系的问题。在我看来,绝对不可能只在谈判中强调结果和关系的一部分,例如“适应(输赢)”或“竞争(双赢)”的策略。对结果的盲目追求是对关系的透支,而盲目追求无原则的关系不会被他人尊重,梦想的结果将无法在以后获得。对于真正无法弥补的关系,“避免(双输)”战略可以用来“退出积极的谈判或完全避免它”来软化冲突。 (Lewicki&Barry&Sanders,2015)。)
There are “three approaches to resolving disputes: interests, rights, and power: meet the interests of all parties, emphasize who is right and who is boss.” (William , Jeanne, & Stephen,1998).) In addition, there is an approach to be patient and avoid the conflict, giving up aspect of one's interest to satisfy the other in order to avoid the loss of an argument, which is applicable in the case of a dispute. Dispute for different disputes, we need to capture the conflict point, that is, what the purpose of the two parties causing the conflict is, and then according to their purpose to resolve we propose the corresponding measure. “It is more likely to find a breakthrough with interests as focus, because it means less transaction costs and higher satisfaction, the pressure on relationship is small, the possibility of reappearance of the dispute is small,” but in some cases, the emphasis on the rights and power is necessary, so we are supposed to form an interests-oriented dispute resolution system to get the best outcomes and relationships through different strategies with the right and power to aid. After learning of this curriculum, I take a try to apply the concepts to our social events. Sometimes we may have a disagreement on direction ‘left’ or ‘right’, some people are to their own needs, some of them are to prove their correctness, others are to prove that they are strong. Negotiations with “the interests-oriented dispute resolution system” I can understand each other needs in the shortest possible time, and come up with conflict resolution measures. We can make an analogy to analyze all the disputes. (Lewicki & Barry& Sanders, 2015).

“解决纠纷有三种方法:利益,权利和权力:符合各方利益,强调谁是对的,谁是老板。”(William,Jeanne,&Stephen,1998)。)此外,还有一种耐心和避免冲突的方法,放弃一方利益的方面来满足另一方,以避免失去争论,这适用于争议。针对不同争议的争议,我们需要抓住冲突点,即造成冲突的双方的目的是什么,然后根据他们的目的来解决我们提出的相应措施。 “更有可能找到以利益为重点的突破,因为这意味着交易成本更低,满意度更高,对关系的压力很小,争议再现的可能性很小”,但在某些情况下,强调权利和权力是必要的,因此我们应该建立一个以利益为导向的争议解决机制,通过不同的战略,以及援助的权利和权力,获得最佳的结果和关系。在学习了这门课程之后,我尝试将这些概念应用到我们的社交活动中。有时候我们可能会对“左”或“右”的方向产生分歧,有些人是出于自己的需要,有些是为了证明自己的正确性,有些则是为了证明自己是强者。与“以利益为导向的争议解决机制”的谈判我可以在最短的时间内了解对方的需求,并提出解决冲突的措施。我们可以打个比方来分析所有争议。 (Lewicki&Barry&Sanders,2015)。
References:
William, L. U., Jeanne M. B., & Stephen B. G. (1988). Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Cost of Conflict. New York: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 3-19.
Roy, J. L., Bruce, B., & David, M. S. (2015). Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes: Interests, Rights, and Power. In L. William, M. Jeanne & B. Stephen (Eds.), Negotiation Readings, Exercises, and Cases. The United States of America, NY10121, 2 Penn Plaza: McGraw-Hill Education. 1-11.
Roy, J. L., Bruce, B., & David, M. S. (2015). Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes: Interests, Rights, and Power. In L. William, M. Jeanne & B. Stephen (Eds.), Negotiation Readings, Exercises, and Cases. The United States of America, NY10121, 2 Penn Plaza: McGraw-Hill Education. 14-28.