Think of a negotiation that has taken place in life, or one that you have personally observed in someone else (choose anything from training an animal to nuclear warthink openly on this topic.

my request, does not have to go into detail, I am looking for a paragraph response ----- I have submitted the question in the past and was not happy about the time it took to receive the wrong answer.

Initial discussion describing the negotiation in terms of a battle.

quick guide on what I am looking for - Think of a negotiation that has taken place in life, or one that you have personally observed in someone else (choose anything from training an animal to nuclear warthink openly on this topic. - end quick guide

blue-print for each question,

• logical connections.Does your discussion identify a main idea and logically lead the reader to a deeper understanding of that idea?
• depth of analysis.Does your discussion address multiple thoughts or reasons, showing a complete effort to address multiple aspects of this assignment?
• contribution. Does your conversation leads the reader to think about different parts of the assignment than were contained in the original post?

(discuss more than one idea, respond to more than one part, etc.)

----------------------

the blue-print and questions should look like a paragraph in conversation

--------------

• Who are the two (or more) parties?
• What is the primary issue being negotiated (NOT the two sides, just the ultimate goal)?

Describe what "battle mode" looks like for this negotiation

• What did each party want?
• What did winning look like for each side?
• If one side won, what did losing look like for the other side?
• When the parties were in battle mode, what were the offers made by the battling parties?
• In battle mode, what did each party insist on as acceptance of their offer?

---------------------------

this is what the blue-print is referring like when its a logical connection with the following information or conversation,

1. In this Tedx Talks video, Margaret Nale who is a negotiation expert describes her personal experience of a negotiation with her horse. She tells about her experience of life, and how this negotiation changed her relationship with her horse from war to friendly partners.

She also describes that most people refer to a negotiation as a battle where everyone has to win, but in real terms, negotiation refers to a concept in which the needs of both parties must be satisfied. A negotiation requires flexibility, not rigidity.

According to Margaret, a negotiation is not a battle, a negotiation is an opportunity for solving problems collectively. It allows the parties to view an alternative as a solution.

So,there must be a consideration and consent of both the parties to agree upon a single decision. Anegotiation cannot be applied through force. It can be only applied when another party has an interest in the proposed offer.

• Here the parties involved in the videos are the parties who are dealing in negotiation. For example, in the case of Margaret Nale, the parties involved in the negotiation were Margaret Nale and her horse. As they were negotiating for creating better compatibility between each other.

• According to Margaret Nale, the primary issue is that people consider negotiation as a battle or challenge, they focus on winning rather than finding a solution, whereas for Margaret, a negotiation refers to an opportunity to solve the battle through understanding the needs of the counter partner and to deal in a flexible manner.

• Each party wants to win in the negotiation.

• Winning looks like getting a good deal that satisfies the needs of each party.

• If one side wins, then losing seems to be like a dictatorship for the other party. There should be no dictatorship between the parties. If one side wins, the other party feels like that there is a struggle between the parties.

• If the parties are in battle mode the other party must find a solution to that challenge and act in a flexible manner to move forward in the path of agreement where there is free will and consent of the other party.

• In the battle mode of the negotiation process, each party wants to accept a good deal for themself, without any force and command for the acceptance of an offer. Each party wants to deal in a struggle-free negotiation where the parties are free from risk and anxiousness.

Logical connection and reasoning:

The logical idea behind the narration of Margaret is to make people understand that a negotiation cannot be done through command and force, no implied force can carry out a good deal for negotiation. One should be a good human and a good negotiator by conducting flexible negotiations. One should act as a leader to support and comfort their partner. There should be afair relationship between partnerships not a dictatorship between the parties.

Analysis:

The main aim of the narrator is to promote a free and fair negotiation deal between the parties where the parties should act as partners to support each other to form a better relationship so that agreement can carry forward in a smooth way.

The parties should not consider a negotiation as a battle they should consider it an opportunity to introduce new solutions and better deals for other parties.

Yes, the narration addresses multiple issues that arise in the negotiation process, and by following such tips, an individual can deal to proceed a better negotiation deal by becoming a better partner and better human.

References:

https://youtu.be/KTTtn0i_ZyA

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/negotiation.asp