Can you clarify why you feel a good negotiator should have to compromise their principles to achieve a goal ?
over 500 words, three references
I would have to state that a good negotiator might have to compromise certain principles over substantive issues, one should never abandon one's ethical principles. I think there needs to be a sense of strong clarity in regard to this. For example, according to Cummins (2010) there are still many who see the negotiation process itself, rather than the outcome it inspires, as the objective. For example, according to this author transactional, commodity based thinking certainly does not fit well with many of the relationships required by business today. Within this article, according to this author, citing Jon, the question of 'lying' and the sense among many that this is not only acceptable, but normal, instead not only destroys trust and maintains a strong sense of cynicism among many negotiators but also on a pragmatic basis, unprincipled negotiation will only lead to disappointing results.
According to Cummins (2010) in a recent paper "A Conspiracy of Optimism," the International Center For Project Management identified 'conspiracy' that leads executives on both sides of the table to 'lie' to their trading partners and to create a combined version of the truth that leads to mutual delusion over what they can achieve, by when and for how much; indeed, how truthful are any of us when we are seeking to impress someone with whom we want a deal or a relationship? These business executives are also the ones who then set the measurements or oversee the organization that will negotiate and deliver on their stated goals and objectives; and they do not set measurements that reward truth; in fact, the ways they reward people clearly encourage the ...
Good negotiation skills and principles are examined.