In any negotiation process, there are always constraints involved and decision making process involves an analysis of the gains and tradeoffs one has to go through to reach the best optimal solution Decision making process is not just a psychological process as perceived by many but more of a game theory because both the bidder and the negotiator are faced by various constraints, which both have to develop a model with both constraints and targets and later iterate to obtain an optimum solution Here, again, BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) comes into play; both parties must go for a sacrifice. None gets exactly what he wants but goes for a better alternative. The opportunity cost of leaving the job must be lower than the cost of taking it in order for the candidate to stop negotiating Discussion
Although negotiation in most cases is ubiquitous, research has suggested that negotiation behavior is usually far from optimal. While negotiators often feel they have successfully "negotiated" with other parties, research has demonstrated that untrained negotiators are not good at getting the best agreement, even when obliged to do so. Movement towards an optimal solution is consequential since it may end up with additional gains to either party involved in negotiating terms. Research here has shown how to improve negotiators in these tasks, though it has not demonstrated how to best get these negotiators to task
In this case, negotiation is viewed neither strictly as a computational formalism nor as a mathematical game, but as a problem solving task Therefore, when negotiators engage in such a game, they in fact, are relying on the normal problem solving apparatus for cognitive tasks. Two negotiators together attempt to obtain a solution to which both parties stand to benefit. The task of negotiation described below involves two parties (a dyad; in this case and throughout the model description I will take the place of the dyad...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document