Negotiation Role Play

  1. Style Discussion

My preferred assessment for form is the Mornachic Style. This style is highly conducive for negotiation purposes. The elements that are under investigation in this style, often refer to the techniques that are often used when negotiating with different people or parties (Boyer, Urlacher, Hudson, Niv-Solomon, Janik, Butler, Ioannou 2009, p. 30). A negotiation process often involves the discussion of ideas that are presented by parties that are participating in the negotiation process. Therefore, I have the capability to stick to the main idea under discussion. This creates a good environment for the negotiation process to take place (Hatfield, Houston, Stefaniak & Usrey 2010, p. 1650). During the decision making process, I have the skills to make decisions depending on the overlying major factor that is under negotiation. Using this assessment style, I can determine that I have the capability to compromise some elements in a bid to reach a consensus with the other negotiating party. Understanding is a crucial trait that one should possess while on the negotiating table.

The preferred scope form is the External Style. This style provides a conducive environment for negotiation purposes (Brooks & Rose 2008, p. 200). This assesses an individual’s ability to engage in the negotiation activities. For example, before the beginning of the negotiation, it is best to brainstorm some ideas that will help in the process. This capability is assessed in the self-assessment style (Trotman, Wright & Wright 2005, p. 350). The external style analysis the ability of people to work with other people on various issues. Negotiation involves getting along with other people and working together with other people to resolve issues of common concern. External features equip individuals willing to negotiate with other people for various elements (Hinshaw 2013, p. 90). The assessment examines the prospect of sharing ideas with one another and ensuring that all elements are fully examined before a decision is made. It also welcomes the opinions of others, which is crucial for a negotiation process to be successful.

  1. Adjustment Explanation

The selected styles for both the form and scope are optimal for the negotiation process. In the negotiation process, I would exhibit certain behaviours that will help in the executing the process effectively and efficiently. Prior to beginning the negotiation, I would brainstorm and develop some few ideas that I will raise in the process. These are things that I think would be embraced by the other party. On commencement of the negotiation process, I would welcome the comments of the other party and consider their opinions. This will allow for proper negotiations between the two parties. I will exercise patience in the negotiation process. This will enable me to accommodate all ideas that will be raised in the discussions. During a negotiation, it is crucial for all parties to consider everything that will be raised to their concern. This will ensure timely and effective conclusions of the negotiation process. I would ensure that I explore all available options for the issues raised in the discussion. I would provide evidence with my explanations, in a bit to become the highest beneficial from the process. However, the negotiations should not be considered as a competition. Instead, it should be seen as a means of achieving greater things through a consensus.

  1. Client’s BATNA

In a negotiation, it is customary not to accept a worse resolution than the BATNA. This is the best alternative to the negotiating agreement. My client is seeking to buy a piece of real estate. However, the budget is one of the most limiting factors of their purchase. They are only willing to spend the allocated budget within the financial year. Therefore, their BATNA is a low cost building priced at $10,000. There are specific needs that they hope will be met by the purchase of this property. In their hope, they wish that it will be an additional source of revenue for them.

  1. Other Party’s BATNA

The other party in the negotiation also had their BATNA that they hoped to stick to. They are in the business of selling a real estate property to my client. Similarly, they have their goals and objectives that they hope to achieve with this sale. For the same property, they were willing to lower the price to $15,000. However, this was above budget for my client. This was resolved through a deal that allowed my client to pay the full amount in instalments of a 1 year period. This was favourable for my client and largely affordable.

  1. ZOPA Range

This refers to the zone of possible agreement. This zone is realised when both the negotiating parties are within limits of their BATNA regions. Therefore, any point of this negation can be termed as acceptable to either party. In these negotiations, the ZOPA zone was any figure between $10,000 and $15,000. Both the buyer and the seller had expressed their limits and they were able to agree, leading to the conclusion of the negotiations. However, the greater proportion of the ZOPA zone is around $12,000 for the property. Despite this, negotiations determined the ultimate outcome of the transactions.




Boyer, M., Urlacher, B., Hudson, N., Niv-Solomon, A., Janik, L., Butler, M., . . . Ioannou, A 2009, Gender and Negotiation: Some Experimental Findings from an International Negotiation Simulation. International Studies Quarterly, 53(1), 23-47.

Brooks, B., & Rose, R 2008, The Influences of Matched versus Mismatched Negotiation Orientations on Negotiating Processes and Outcomes. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(3), 199-217.

Hatfield, R., Houston, R., Stefaniak, C., & Usrey, S 2010, The Effect of Magnitude of Audit Difference and Prior Client Concessions on Negotiations of Proposed Adjustments. The Accounting Review, 85(5), 1647-1668.

Hinshaw, A 2013, Teaching Negotiation Ethics. Journal of Legal Education, 63(1), 82-97.

Trotman, K., Wright, A., & Wright, S 2005, Auditor Negotiations: An Examination of the Efficacy of Intervention Methods. The Accounting Review, 80(1), 349-367.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *