Talk:Negotiation/Archives/2012

Approaches to Negotiation Section
This section is very poorly written. The last sentence is not finished. Multiple spelling mistakes are prevalent throughout the paragraph. See below:

"because of the assumption of a fixnegotiatiodvocacy in-the most favorable outcomes possible for that party. In this process the negotiator attempts to determine In the advocacy approach, a skilled ed "pie", thatprice in a simple sales ne===The advocate's approach===n, the union might prefer job willing to accept, then adjusts their demands accordingly. A "successful" negotiation in the aFor example, in a labor negotiator usually serves as advocate for one party to the negotiation and attempts to obtain needs to be resolved, such as a refe acceptable.reparty desirences, a trade is possible that is beneficial to both parties. Such a negotiation is therefore not an adversarial zero-sum game. differences in the parties' preferences make wTraditional negotiating is sometimes called 'security over wage gains. If the the minimum outcome(s) the other party is (or parties areapproach is when the negotiator is able to obtain all or most of the outcomes their s, but without driviemployers have opposite p one person's gain results in another person's loss. This is only true, however, if only a single issue )'win-lose gotiation. If multiple issues are discussed, win negotiation possible. ng the other party to permanently break off negotiations, unless the BATNA (see below) is"

Gregsinclair 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Lock
Maybe you should lock it for a while, Wikipedia's negotitation article was featured on the office.


 * 1) The above unsigned comment refers to the NBC television program that aired on April 5, 2007. --Macrowiz 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

--About two seconds before I vandalized this page, wikipedia locked it. I was about to add "don't wear womens clothing" to the tactics section. well done, wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.109.103 (talk • contribs).

Is there protocol for labeling unsigned posts? Is it encouraged/discouraged in wiki? I see it as an unnecessary violation of privacy, the guy above didn't vandalize this page (or the Main page), so why sign his name for him with his IP? Megacake 07:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a violation of privacy because, signed or unsigned, your contributions are recorded on the history page for all to see. The signatures just make the conversations easier to follow. Lovelac 7 11:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that signatures are required on talk pages per the signatures guideline. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Experience
My experience in negotiation is limited largely to business-related negotiation. Anyone with experience in other areas would be more than welcome to add their two-cents to this! F. Lee Horn

Thanks
Thanks for the "t" Ed! I was fresh out! :) F. Lee Horn

Published
Getting to Yes was published in 1981, article makes it sound like it was published in the 70's. darby 00:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Context
It may be the original authors intent, but in the context of this article the Salami Technique should link directly to Salami Tactics rather than the Salami_Technique article.Gdunne 08:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Office
Whoa! This page was mentioned (frequently) on The Office tonight. Do you think somebody should make a note of this somewhere on the page?Zakjedi 01:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah. Avoid self-references. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's what the episode article is for, methinks. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * no reason not to include a mention in the same manner as the film mentioned at the end of the article--or remove the mention of the film, I suppose.--128.186.153.249 13:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (smallwhitelight)


 * The film is a documentary about negotiations. The Office is a sit-com.  What's next - every tv show or movie where some sort of negotiations have taken place should be included?  Sabalon 13:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a "Trivia" or "Negotiation In Popular Culture" section could be added to keep "The Office" fans happy while not spoiling the serious content of the article? New Thought 14:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Negotiation In Popular Culture"? Come on.... Mrtea (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Trivia though.69.161.101.224 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jersyko was right. Avoid self-references. That this article was mentioned on The Office does not add anything to the subject of Negotiation. Kingnosis 07:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But... it mentioned Wikipedia BY NAME... This article, nothing else has done this, why not just throw a brief mention in there?


 * Because it's covered in the Wikipedia in culture and Wikipedia articles, and has nothing to do with negotiation. — Loadmaster 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A mention of Michael mentioning this article on the article for the episode of The Office in question is certainly not out of the question, though. (read it a few times if necessary)--66.229.208.133 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for article?
Should this really be an article? Obviously 'Negotiation' belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. And a "Neogtiation Process" is a stretch, in my opinion. On top of that, the negotiation process part of the article claims it can be divided into "six steps" but offers no references. I really don't know what protocol on Wiki is for this, but I really think this article is utter crap and shouldn't even exist, its articles like these that let the non-wikian's poke fun at wiki, a la "The Office."

At any rate, I really think the six steps should be taken down, unless cited. And even then, they really should be shown to be widely accepted, and not just some CEO's outline. Wiki is not a how to, and this article allowed "The Office" (one of my favorite shows) to exploit wiki. Megacake 07:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It definitely belongs in the encyclopedia. There are many kinds of negotiations and different formal processes that are followed. That information is not suitable in a dictionary. While Wikipedia is not a How-To-guide, it is appropriate to describe negotiation methodologies. It's an issue of form, not content. &mdash; David Remahl 16:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this article is worthless. It makes the mysterious claim that "A negotiation process can be divided into six steps in three phases:" then proceeds to detail the 7 steps in the process. Also, if "Negotiation differs from "influencing" and "group decision making." then why is "Caucusing" listed as a techique? What is the value in providing a list of techniques; why not include a list of possible outcomes, or people that could negotiate, or reasons to negotiate?Leisurejack 21:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Negotiation_%28process%29 section should be removed - but this is a long step from the whole article being worthless. The first line of the article defines its scope, and "caucusing" can be relevant in some situations because negotiation is basically about getting your way in some kind of disagreement. A list of outcomes would consist of:


 * 1. You get more than you were offered
 * 2. You get what you were offered
 * 3. You get less than you were offered


 * ANYONE can negotiate - and there is only ever one reason to negotiate - to get more than you are being offered. If you can write all this clearly and succinctly, and you believe that the article needs this information, you can always add it. New Thought 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the '6 Steps' process rubbish. Most university courses and negotiation training organisations have their own brand of negotiation approaches. For wikipedia to promote one of these many approaches as 'The' right one makes a mockery of wikipedia. Negotiation as a field of study is expanding. MBA courses are increasingly offering more modules on negotiation. Every year more books are being published. This area is likely to attract more traffic and attention as time goes by. I'm going to do my best to log in regularly to keep it more factual and clear of shameless self promotion. If time permits, I'll add more valuable content to this increasingly important area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Negotiations (talk • contribs) 04:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The how-to sections in this article may be encyclopaedic
I simply don't agree that the so-called "how to" sections in the article are "unencyclopaedic" (since when was inventing non-existent words "encyclopaedic"?), and I am inclined to remove this tag. Before I do so, can anyone give me a compelling reason why I shouldn't? New Thought 09:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOT, point 4. "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s.".  --Xyzzyplugh 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * please tell us which sections of this article fall foul of the guidelines at WP:NOT point 4. Apart from the new "Practical Negotiation Skills" section, I don't see any. I also think that it would be tactical to seek agreement on this talk page before doing something as aggressive as tagging the article - that is not the way to win people over to your case. New Thought 14:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is with this section: Negotiation_%28process%29. The entire thing is instructions.  Also, this is either original research, or taken from one particular book or website somewhere (which is generally the case with any instructions contained in an article).  There is no reason to believe that the content of this section is generally considered to be the negotiation process.  --Xyzzyplugh 21:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha! May I suggest that either that section alone be tagged, or that the section be removed from the article. Surely either would be preferable to tagging the entire article? New Thought 21:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Xyzzyplugh 13:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the list in current form was entirely original research. Support the removal. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Another section that needs attention per WP:NOT is Tactics. Neitherday 05:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I'm perplexed as to what the counterargument would be, this anon's protestations notwithstanding. · jersyko   talk  14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Being "helpful" is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. And even if it was, I don't see how a sprawling unsourced list that includes "tactics" such as "Dress to impress", "Rejecting an offer", and "Walking out unexpectedly" is particularly helpful. Neitherday 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

STOP REMOVING THE TACTICS SECTION
It's helpful and relevant. Stop removing it. 209.217.70.150 13:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a tactics section could be helpful and relevant, but not this one. What we need is something like, "according to Dr. Bob Fakenmeyer and Prof. Jane Examplestein of Harvard, the most effective negotiation tactics are A, B, and C, especially when combined with D. Conversely, a study at Tokyo School of Business found that experienced negotiators invariably rely on X, Y, and Z because they believe that Q." A list of bullet points which are apparently chosen at random, with no citations and no explanations, isn't helpful in any way that I can see. Eleland 17:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the tactic where you sit and wait for the other person to speak first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.159.20 (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Bargaining
The Bargaining article also needs a lot of improvement (especially references), but does make some points. It would seem that the two could be merged. DCDuring 00:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bargaining is a small stage in most negotiations (yes, many negotiations don't have a 'bargaining' stage). To merge bargaining and negotiation would be like merging a 'tyre' and the 'car'. Different logical levels. Negotiations 05:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The advocate's approach
Unless someone can explain why this recently added section deserves pole position on this page, I'm going to remove it. Why should an advocate deserve special mention? What about the tens of other fields where negotiation is applied? Negotiations (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: where did you find these 3 basic elements?
"Negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and substance". Who made this division, and based on which obeservations? Could someone please give me the source of this? 09:30, 10 april 2008

From a 'Negotiation' Professional
This page is even more fascinating than the actual Wiki content page itself, and mimics much of what is controversial concerning academic inquiry and ‘best practice’ in negotiation itself, especially that which has been promoted in the USA.

The two leading 'populist' proponents in the US have anything but a lock in the field and are actually both seriously flawed which to Wiki’s credit you seem to have picked up on.

Some very perceptive comments and edits, especially on a subject as deep and complex as this, which even professional buyers (of negotiation training services) for very large corporates know next to nothing about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.171.39 (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Racial claims
I note that there is a referenced list of general strategies for negotiation, with a reference, which is immediately followed by a great number of racial claims about 'foreigners' and Japanese, with no references. I think that sweeping racial claims, especially without reference, should not appear in this article. It also seems to have the tone of original research--beginning with weasel words in places and then appealing to different readers.210.174.6.89 (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially the section titled "new creative approach." The claims about "the Japanese" are almost completely devoid of references and I can speak as someone who studies Conflict Resolution/Negotiation and lives in Japan, the claims are almost entirely based on old stereotypical images and racial myths that Japanese intellectuals created a long time ago.  Many Japanese use conflict resolution strategies that involve what Roger Fisher calls the "soft" approach or what others call "yielding."  But they also engage in straight-out "contending" or "hard" strategies as well.  Don't think of cultures as monolithic entities, because you will often be proved wrong. For example, the claim that "it is easy to get Japanese in close physical proximity (#3)" is right only in rush hour trains.  In conversational interaction they are more physically distant than the USA (and probably most other cultures), and are uncomfortable with close physical proximity to another person they are interacting with.  That section should probably be changed or deleted.220.148.75.49 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Josh
 * Just my two cents but, much of the first half of the article seems a little Japan oriented, and I'm not sure that the ethnocentrism is appropriate to wikipedia. I'm not anything close to an expert on the subject (which is why I was looking at the wiki for some general information), so perhaps the centrism is merited; however if the field is that relevant to Japanese culture/history, something like that should be justified in the article rather than taken for granted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmclark (talk • contribs) 09:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. Quite strange. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.216.236 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Psychology Project
There is a large empirical research literature on the social psychology of negotiations in psychology and organizational behavior, so I added the wikiproject_psychology template to the talk page. I don't know if I inserted the template correctly, though. Robertekraut (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)