Provide you with an opportunity to show you have the required skills for this unit.

This activity will enable you to demonstrate the following skills:

• Writing:
• prepares documentation that summarises key findings and outcomes
• prepares presentations appropriate to audience needs, context and purpose
• Oral communication:
  • uses active listening and questioning to seek information and confirm understanding
• Teamwork:
  • selects and uses relevant conventions and protocols when communicating with team members
• Self-management:
  • demonstrates sophisticated control over oral, visual and/or written formats, drawing on a range of communication practices to achieve goals
• Problem solving:
  • uses analytical processes to evaluate options, and aid in problem-solving and decision-making
  • plays a lead role in situations requiring negotiation and collaboration, demonstrating high level conflict resolution skills and ability to engage and motivate others
• Initiative and enterprise:
  • adapts personal communication style to build trust and positive working relationships and to show respect for the opinions and values of others
  • understands the implications of legal and ethical responsibilities to maintain confidentiality
  • selects relevant vocabulary adjusting language and presentation features to maintain effectiveness of interaction
• Planning and organising:
  • plans, organises and implements tasks required to achieve required outcomes.

Answer the activity in as much detail as possible.

Equipment needed:

• A suitable workplace environment and space for activities
• Workplace documentation and resources for negotiation preparation and participation
• Organisational information relevant to the negotiation
• Technologies and equipment to produce documentation and presentation materials.

This activity will need to be observed. The assessor has a checklist of criteria they will base your assessment on.

1. As a real or simulated workplace activity, you must lead and participate in a negotiation. The process must be according to the conventions, procedures, and protocols of the organisation. You must first work with management to determine the objectives and what needs to be resolved in the outcome. This should consider the positions and arguments relevant to both sides, and should result in recognising an appropriate strategy, tactics, and techniques.

Document your initial discussions and plans, summarise the key findings, and determine the outcome that would ideally need to be achieved. (No word count is given; this must be an A4 format document that is neatly and professionally presented).

Next, you must participate in the planned negotiation. You need to take the lead to direct this.

Your negotiations should include:

• Making the first proposal and setting the tone of the negotiations
• Listening to other counter-proposals
• Discussing the proposals and positions
• Renegotiating proposals
• Seeking compromise (if needed)
• Agreeing on an outcome together.

Your negotiation must include good oral communication; you should use active listening and questioning where needed to seek and confirm information. You should think about how to communicate in order to achieve the outcome, and adapt this as necessary to facilitate a positive and productive negotiation. Problems should be addressed and the options analysed for their appropriateness in meeting the objective. You should engage the other party in communications and work together to find a mutually acceptable outcome.

You must be respectful of other people's opinions and values in the negotiation and seek to build trust in the relationship. Confidentiality of information (as necessary) must be maintained according to legal and ethical standards. If you need to use additional conflict resolution skills, you should use these to manage the negotiation.

When complete, add a separate section to your initial document to provide a brief account of the negotiation and the agreed outcome. Attach your completed and checked document to your workbook.

First impressions make a difference. Getting off to a good start in business negotiations is likely to influence the final agreement. Your first offer should reflect your best-case scenario, supported by first-class justification. To steer negotiations toward your goals, find out the other side's needs; think through your opening positions; and master the technique of repeated questioning.

The way you open business negotiations influences the entire process, from the initial offer to the final agreement. For first-time negotiations, especially between different cultures, these opening moments are even more critical.

Business executives should ask themselves three questions when preparing their opening offer:

• Who should make the first offer?
• Should it be high (if you are exporting) or low (if you are importing)?
• What should you do if your opening offer is rejected?

While some negotiators recommend letting the other side open the discussions, others suggest that making the first offer gives you a tactical advantage. These suggestions are simplistic and generally apply to one-time business deals. Doing business in the global arena is a long-term prospect, where personal relationships are essential. Skilled negotiators create favourable atmosphere that has a positive impact on the tone, style and progress of negotiations, as well as the final agreement.

Once made, first impressions are difficult to change, particularly if they are negative. We tend to have quicker, stronger and longer-lasting reactions to bad impressions than to positive ones. So, take extra care in formulating opening statements.

For fruitful negotiations, the opening offer should:

• stress mutual benefits;
• be clear and positive;
• imply flexibility;
• create interest;
• demonstrate confidence; and
• promote goodwill.

Understand what the other side needs

The opening phase is the time to find out what the other side is really looking for. Identify their underlying needs and your common interests, and emphasize the mutual benefits to be derived from reaching agreement. At least in the initial stage of the discussions, be prepared to set aside differences of interests and potential obstacles that could derail the negotiations. Your first offer should be viewed as fair and reasonable. The other party may require justification to support your proposal; you should be in a position to provide it. Overall, the initial offer should be on the higher side to give you room to manoeuvre while protecting your margins. Research has proven that negotiators starting with high aspirations generally obtain higher outcomes than those with lower or more modest goals. As a rule, buyers do better starting with low offers, while sellers improve their results with high openings.

In view of these findings, exporters may be tempted to start high and importers to begin low to maximize their outcomes. However, as every deal is different, both parties should consider each new negotiation as unique, calling for extreme care in the preparation of opening strategies. Experienced negotiators in international business bear a number of factors in mind when planning their opening stance: cultural norms prevailing in the target market; competition in their line of business; and whether they are seeking repeat orders over the long term. Equally important is how badly they need the deal and whether they have other business alternatives.

Should I make the first offer?

Yes, if you wish to take the initiative and set the tone of the discussions. You gain a tactical advantage by submitting your position first, because you establish a reference or anchor point.

Your anchor point will probably influence the other side's responses. The other party now knows your position, and will either reject it or request a counter-offer. The other side may also revise its acceptance limits in light of your opening offer.

At this point, don't make unnecessary concessions; seek clarifications instead. This approach assumes that your initial offer is based on recent market information, is credible and is presented with conviction.

In most international business deals, sellers are expected to make the first offer since buyers consider themselves in a position of power. In some markets, buyers dictate the discussions and control the negotiations from the beginning to the final agreement.

No, if you are not familiar with the market in which you are trying to do business. Making an offer without adequate information or a clear understanding of what the other side wants places you in a risky position. For example, having your first offer accepted means that you have underestimated the market.

Another reason for not making the first offer, even if you know the market price, is to test the seriousness of the other side, particularly if it is new a business deal. In this case, prepare in advance. Find out about quality standards, delivery terms, size of order, payment conditions and other relevant information. This will enable you to present a credible offer or counter-offer.

Please helping me make a role

A:

B:

A:

B:

A:

B:

2. You must prepare /deliver a presentation on a subject of your own choosing; this must be relevant to your organisation and/or business industry. You should have a clear purpose for your presentation (something that you want to communicate). Your audience will be the learning group, and you should think about their needs and the context of the presentation.

The presentation should last approximately fifteen to twenty minutes.

You must:

• Develop presentation materials using appropriate technologies, making sure information is structured and presented clearly
• Develop a presentation script that follows your intended agenda
• Use a combination of visual and written information to communicate with the audience
• Think about how you can communicate and choose methods and styles that are appropriate and engaging for the audience.

Deliver your presentation.

The outcome of a negotiation depends a great deal on each side's leveragethe better your outside options are and the more ways you have to reward or coerce the other side, the more likely you are to achieve your objectives. But the psychology of the deal can be just as important.

In my experience, the frame, or psychological lens, through which the parties view the negotiation has a significant effect on where they end up. Are the parties treating the interaction as a problem-solving exercise or as a battle to be won? Are they looking at it as a meeting of equals, or do they perceive a difference in status? Are they focused on the long term or the short term? Are concessions expected, or are they seen as signs of weakness?

Effective negotiators will seek to control or adjust the frame early in the processideally, before the substance of the deal is even discussed. Here are three elements of framing that negotiators would be wise to consider.

Value versus price.

I've worked with many technology companies whose innovative products provide tremendous value for customers but are priced significantly higher than what their competitors are chargingor what customers are paying for their legacy systems. While the high price is justified by the value proposition, salespeople often face immediate resistance when a potential customer learns that the cost will be five or 10 times the amount he is currently paying. Too often, the salesperson will hear something like: "You are charging five times what others charge. No one pays that much for this kind of thing!" One of the most common mistakes salespeople make in those situationswithout even realizing itis to apologize for having a high price. They do when they say "I understand it's pricey, but..." or when they hastily signal a willingness to adjust the price. My advice: Always justify your offer, but never apologize for it. When you apologize, you signal that even you don't think the price is appropriate, and you give the other side license to haggle. The entire frame of the negotiation becomes about price, when what you really want to discuss is value.

A better response would be, "What you seem to be asking is, How is it that despite a higher price, we still have a long and growing list of customers? We both know that no one will pay more for something than it's worth, so let's discuss the value we bring so that you can decide what's best for you."

In negotiations of all kinds, the sooner you can shift the discussion away from the cost to your counterpart and focus on the value you bring to the table, the more likely it is that you will be able to monetize that value.

Your alternatives versus theirs.

Research and experience suggest that people who walk into a negotiation consumed by the question "what will happen to me if there is no deal?" get worse outcomes than those who focus on what would happen to the other side if there's no deal. When you are overly concerned with your own alternatives, and especially when your outside options are weak, you think in terms of "what will it take (at a minimum) to get them to say yes?" When you make the negotiation about what happens to them if there is no deal, you shift the frame to the unique value you offer, and it becomes easier to justify why you deserve a good deal.

Equality versus dominance.

Not so long ago I was consulting on a strategic deal in which our side was a small, early-stage company and the other was a large multinational. One of the most important things we did throughout the processand especially at the outsetwas make sure the difference in company size did not frame the negotiation. I told our team, "These folks negotiate with two kinds of companiesthose they consider their equals and those they think should feel lucky just to be at the table with them. And they treat the two kinds very differently, regardless of what they bring to the table." Over the years, I've seen many large organizations impose demands on their perceived inferiors that they'd never require from those they considered equals. In this negotiation, I wanted to make sure our counterpart treated us like equals.

To keep the dominance frame from taking hold, we started shaping expectations and perceptions at the very beginning, before we even considered the economics of the deal. For example, any time our counterpart made a procedural demandhowever smallthat we felt they would not have made of an equal, we respectfully pushed back on it. Any time they included a provision in the term sheet that seemed one-sided, even if it would not have been a costly concession, we redrafted it to be symmetrical. And throughout the negotiation, we made sure they understood that although our firm was much smaller, we were equals in this negotiation because of the tremendous value we offered. While I am not an advocate of nitpicking on minor issues, in this case we did so intentionally to help set the right frame.

Negotiators can shape the frame in countless other ways and on many other dimensions. At the very least, you want to ensure that the psychological lens that takes hold respects the value you bring to the table.

In The Art Of War, Sun Tzu posits that every war is won or lost before it even begins. There is truth to this sentiment in most strategic interactions. While it would be unwise for negotiators to minimize the importance of carefully managing the substance of a deal, they should make every effort to avoid the mistakes that can occur before anyone has even formulated an offer. By paying attention to the four factors discussed here, you increase your chances of creating more-productive interactions and achieving more-profitable outcomes

Please helping me make a presentation