Gheorghe Bunea, Olga Mihaela Muntean
The article defines negotiation as the use of information, time, and power to influence outcomes. It underscores the importance of negotiation in both personal and professional settings, highlighting strategies like rhetoric, logic, and non-verbal communication. Various negotiation types, such as distributive (win-lose), integrative (win-win), and rational (objective-based) are discussed. The authors stress the importance of mutual benefit, the psychology of reciprocity, and ethical considerations in negotiations. Finally, the article outlines negotiation tactics and strategies, such as the "YES...BUT" tactic and stress-inducing techniques, while emphasizing that negotiation should be a deliberate choice based on one's comfort and needs. The ultimate message is that learning to negotiate effectively can significantly improve the quality of life. KEYWORDS: effective communication, ethics, manipulation techniques, morality, mutual benefit (WIN-WIN), negotiation, power and influence, social and business J.E.L CLASSIFICATION: E6, E64, E71, F62, G15, H12 1. INTRODUCTION Human beings are highly interactive socially. Talking to each other gives people an exceptionally quick, clear, and thorough way to get to know and form relationships with each other. The real world is a huge bargaining table, and whether we like it or not, we are all participants. We all come into conflict with others, such as family members, business agents, competitors, or government entities. How we approach these encounters can determine not only whether we will prosper, but whether we will enjoy a satisfying, enjoyable, and fulfilling life. Negotiation is an area of knowledge and effort that focuses on winning the favor of people from whom we want certain things. Traditionally, it is assumed that those with the greatest talent, dedication and education are rewarded. But life has disappointed those who claim that virtue and hard work will ultimately triumph. The "winners" seem to be the people who are not only competent, but also have the ability to "negotiate" how to get what they want (Vasile Tran, Irina Stănciulescu, 2001). 2. WHAT IS NEGOTIATION? In every negotiation we are involved in, in every negotiation in the world, from a geopolitical diplomatic negotiation to buying a house, three crucial elements are always present: information, time and power. Everyone's ability to negotiate determines whether we can influence the environment or not. It's about analyzing information, time and power to influence behaviour, satisfy needs and make things happen the way we want them to. What is negotiation? It is the use of information and power to affect behavior in a "warp of tension". If we think about this broad definition, we realize that we actually negotiate all the time, both at work and in our personal lives. Against whom do we use information and power to affect their behavior outside of the job? Husbands negotiate with wives and wives with husbands. We use information and power in addition to friends and relatives. Negotiations can take place with a traffic policeman ready to give us a fine, with a store that does not want to accept our personal check, with a landlord who does not provide essential services or wants to double the rent, with a merchant who wants to cheat us. We can negotiate with customers, bankers, vendors, suppliers. We negotiate more often than we realize. That's why it's important to learn to do it better, more efficiently and thus improve the quality of our lives, at work or outside of it. Regardless of where and between whom they are conducted, negotiations call on rhetoric, logic, and elements of argumentation theory. Sometimes effective communication and manipulation techniques are used. Notions such as offer, request, position, claim, objection, compromise, concession, argument, transaction, argumentation, evidence, etc., can frequently intervene in the negotiation process. At the same time, non-verbal communication elements, such as physiognomy, facial expressions, gestures, posture, clothing, general appearance can have an importance that should not be neglected. The culture of the partners and the bargaining power of the negotiating parties are other elements that must be taken into account. Elements of tactics and strategy, rhetorical traps and tricks, as well as knowledge of the psychology of perception, can play a decisive role in obtaining large advantages in exchange for small concessions. In the contemporary business world, negotiation and the negotiator acquire considerable importance. Never in history have commercial transactions been more numerous and conducted at higher values. For the manufacturer, importer or wholesale distributor, a good negotiator can do in three hours what ten or a hundred contractors do in a few weeks or months. A weak negotiator can lose just as much. A margin of a few percent on the price, the warranty period, the delivery conditions and shipping, at the payment term or a margin of a few percent on commission or interest, always remain negotiable. In large transactions, in the industrial market, where contracts worth billions are negotiated, this negotiable margin can amount to tens or hundreds of millions. From the position of each of the parties, they can be lost or won. Negotiation is a talent, an innate grace, but also a skill acquired through experience, training and learning. The job of negotiator is an elite one, in business, in diplomacy, in politics. Broadly speaking, negotiation appears as a focused and interactive form of interpersonal communication in which two or more disagreeing parties seek to reach an agreement that solves a common problem or achieves a common goal. The understanding of the parties may be a simple verbal agreement. Consolidated by a handshake, it may be a tacit consent or a letter of intent or a protocol, convention or contract, drawn up following common procedures and usages; it can also mean an armistice, an international pact or treaty, drawn up in compliance with special procedures and customs. In relation to the area of interest in which negotiations are carried out, we can distinguish between several specific forms of negotiation. By negotiation we understand any form of unarmed confrontation, through which two or more parties with contradictory but complementary interests and positions aim to reach a mutually beneficial commitment whose terms are not known from the beginning (Ștefan Prutianu, Communication and negotiation in business). In this confrontation, mainly and loyally, arguments and proofs are brought, claims and objections are formulated, concessions and compromises are made to avoid both the breakdown of relations and open conflict. Negotiation enables the creation, maintenance or development of an interpersonal or social relationship in general, as well as a business, work or diplomatic relationship in particular. It should also be mentioned that negotiations do not necessarily always aim at results manifested in the direction of an agreement. Often they are carried for their collateral effects such as: maintaining the contract, buying time, preventing the deterioration of the conflict situation. Apart from these, negotiators' meetings can be seen as a potential channel for urgent communications in crisis situations. The absence of communication can be considered as an alarming sign of the impossibility of carrying out the negotiation; its presence is an indication of the chances that negotiation will occur. At the same time, we must pay sufficient attention to the climate of discretion and thorough gradual construction. As long as the negotiation is conducted with the conscious and deliberate participation of the parties who seek together a solution to a common problem, the approach involves a certain ethics and principle. Mutual benefit (WIN-WIN) In principle, in negotiations, each side adjusts its claims and revises the initial objectives. Thus, in one or more successive rounds, the final agreement is built, which represents a satisfactory compromise for all parties: the negotiation therefore works according to the principle of mutual advantage. According to this principle, the agreement is good when all negotiating parties have something to gain and none to lose. Everyone can achieve victory, without anyone being defeated. The important thing is that when all parties win, they all support the chosen solution and abide by the agreement. The principle of mutual advantage (WIN-WIN) does not exclude, however, the fact that the advantages obtained by one of the parties may be greater or smaller than the advantages obtained by the other or the other parties in negotiations. I use it often. In the psychology of communication, there is a so-called psychological law of reciprocity, a law according to which if someone gives or takes something, the partner will automatically feel the desire to give or take something else in return. Even if we don't actually give something in return, we are still left with the feeling that we owe, that we should give. Following the subtle action of this psychological law, any form of negotiation is governed by the principle of compensatory actions. The consequence is reciprocity of concessions, objections, threats, reprisals, etc. The Latin expressions of this principle are: "Do ut des" and "Facio ut facio". In Romanian, the principle can be found in expressions like: "I give if you give", "I do if you do", "If you give more, you leave me too" or "If you make concessions, I will do it too", "If you raise demands , I will also pick up" etc. 3. MORALITY AND LEGALITY The law is the law and most respect it even beyond the principles. To avoid unpleasantness, the morality of commercial deals, where the law does not appear, often remains a matter of principle, of deontology. Strict adherence to this principle is not really possible. The control of communication ethics is relative. The legal aspects of transactions are an exception, but also from this point of view, in international negotiations, the parties must agree from the start on the rules of commercial law that they will respect. When these differ from one country to another, each party tries to remain under the legal rules of its country. This fact can generate conflicting situations, which can be overcome by adopting the norms of commercial law and international customs. The fine art of negotiation is actually not new. Two of the greatest negotiators in history lived about two thousand years ago. Neither was part of any institution of their time, neither had official authority. However, they both exercised their power. Both men dressed poorly and went about asking questions, and thereby gathering information, the one in the form of syllogisms, the sense of mastery over their situation. Each of them chose their place and manner of death. Yet by death they both gained the devotion of disciples on the face of the earth. In fact, many of us try to live our daily lives according to our values. It is about Jesus and Socrates. They were ethical negotiators, followers of the win-win theory, and they were people of power. There are several fundamental types of negotiation. The real world is a huge bargaining table, and whether we like it or not, we are all participants. Analyzing the type of negotiation we are engaging in is always important. To know and evaluate him already means to predict in broad terms the behavior that the partner will adopt and to prepare his own behavior in response. In this way, the risk of a rupture to conclude a disadvantageous agreement decreases. The specialized literature distinguishes between three fundamental types of negotiation: Distributive negotiation is either/or type, which opts between victory/defeat. It corresponds to a zero-sum game and takes the form of a transaction in which it is not possible for one party to win without the other party losing. Every concession made to the partner is detrimental to the grantor and to each other. In this perspective, negotiation pits two adversaries with opposing interests against each other and becomes a confrontation of forces, in which one of the parties must win. Any concession appears as a sign of weakness. Any successful attack appears as a token of strength. The object of the negotiation will be an agreement that will not take into account the interests of the partner and which will be all the better the harder it hits the opposing party. The negotiation tactics and techniques used in distributive negotiation are typical for resolving conflict situations. They are hard and tense. Among the usual tactics, we can mention: the polemic carried out by permanent counters and by systematic deviation from the subject; assault by force; intimidation; rhetorical maneuvers based on dissimulation, masking intentions, hiding intentions, hiding the truth and blaming the opponent; disqualification for bad faith, personal attack and disparagement. This type of negotiation is possible when the opposition of interests is strong and the imbalance of forces is significant. Another negotiation tactic is the integrative (win/win) one in which the partner's aspirations and interests are respected, even if they go against their own. It is based on mutual respect and tolerance of differences in aspirations and opinions. The advantages of this type of negotiation are that it leads to better, more sustainable solutions, the parties feel better, and the relations between the parties are strengthened. Both win and both support the settlement and agreement reached. Integrative negotiation creates, saves and strengthens long-term human and business relationships. It causes each of the negotiating parties to modify their objectives and adjust their demands in order to resolve their common interests. This approach to negotiation circumvents and avoids conflict situations. The climate of the negotiations is characterized by trust and optimism, and the agreement, once reached, has every chance of being respected. Specific tactics are based on reciprocity of concessions (shorter delivery times against immediate parties, for example). Another negotiation tactic is the rational one, in which the parties do not only aim to make or obtain concessions, consents from subjective negotiating positions, but try to resolve substantive disputes from an objective position, other than the position of one or the other among them. For this, mutual interests must be clearly defined within a framework of total transparency and sincerity, without resorting to the slightest dissimulation or suspicion. It starts with formulating the problems that need to be solved, with answers to questions like: What's not working? Where is the evil? How does this manifest itself? What are the facts that contradict the desired situation? It continues with a diagnosis of the existing situation, insisting on the causes that prevent solving the problems. Then, the theoretical solutions are sought and the measures by which at least some of them can be put into practice are determined by common agreement. The algorithm of rationality therefore means: defining problems; diagnosis of causes; searching for solutions. The negotiator seeks to understand the partner's stake, to know his feelings, motivations and concerns. Divergences that remain unresolved are regulated by recourse to objective criteria, as well as scientific references, legal norms, moral norms or by recourse to the offices of a neutral arbitrator. Anticipating the margin of negotiation is essential. Any start of negotiation requires the definition of objectives. They give us a sense of direction, a definition of what we plan to achieve, and a sense of accomplishment once they have been achieved. In principle, the negotiator comes to the negotiating table when he already has something in mind three negotiation positions, realized more or open also This position is in such a way as to a margin of in relation to the partner's As a general for in a commercial negotiation, the will more and the than they each to The of negotiators is that when you start from the and when you start from the The order in which the are made always As a the one who is at a to the one who The position also the or as the may its the negotiator is to in any The position is not by the partners but each of them must and and evaluate the position of the other. the and any made outside of the partner's position involves a certain amount of and The objective position also the It is the position at which the contradictory claims of the partners can be and It represents what the negotiator to be to obtain or from the partner without his or interests. By the three negotiating positions of both an area in which they can understand each other will This area of possible agreement is the negotiation margin and is by the position of the negotiating The to is the of the position AND In the specialized it is often in any form of human a certain and tactic is put into Any form of negotiation involves a confrontation of and interests. At the same time, the of the involved in the negotiation means not to without a and rational It often that a an of the leads to the of the negotiation is something other than a rational of action The tactic can be an effective communication a rhetorical or a psychological It us to in to take the The tactic is the of tactic that us more to the negotiating It's good negotiators they this from the from his long one of the negotiators, that he real where the and of the and were They in the as many on their as they get their the being is a and that and It the risk of the partner and the and It people avoid it. clearly and the remains without It for the negotiation. a like "YES...BUT" can be used with the of two other It has three possible one one and one more which really means At any time you can on the desired The of is that it the of one's own as a of what the partner and not as a of his The tactic of the offer, in can be characterized as negotiation negotiation is always a zero-sum where one win without the other losing. As as the adversaries each at least to the of and of the tactics, found in and often in is that in which the an to the to the and to him in the of the he has obtained this, he a to modify his the by which he the to accept the offer, more As as the is put in the position of The tactic of and in a the and As an and as as when we negotiate with a and to in and negotiations, it is to use and tactics to stress and an and is of side maneuvers can be not and have the role of and the him in a position to the of the negotiations. The can be carried through the and of the can be in a to that prevent him from At the negotiating table, he can be with his in the or of may be with his to a that someone is and as if by can be in a but the only one will and It can be a strong or in a may be to a where he is what he does not like or may be beyond the of his When the long-term relationship is not in our interest and we to use such means of we must do under the of the most and and to be the are some of the negotiation In just many things are mean we always have to But whether or not we negotiate something must be our based on the answers to the following I feel in the position to negotiate in this situation? the negotiation the I can get as a of this worth the and time on If the is to these questions, only should the negotiation We should feel that we are of the situation, our according to our needs. We have the to our certain and and the ability to influence the In other we can play a role than we realize in our lives and our can be negotiated, Irina of communication, of Communication and