1.First of all The two sides need to come to an agreement through talks employer and employee. A decision has to come through negotiations between the two sides. They can perceive how this decision influences a group's exchange here. One gathering has a one-year term, however we later heard that an enterprise has drawn nearer and should reach him inside a quarter of a year, recommending that he is totally reliant on him. We advised him in a month that we'd have the option to help, and afterward we advised him in 10 days that we'd let him know. we were unable to see where he has sufficient free time and this is the greatest find for a group.
2. In,Situation I will give priority to the opinion organization.Organizations work according to the way they organize their structures schedule. There was a person who was at that point marked when I saw the passage in December. We saw that since he was contracted. He later heard a valid statement of view in another situation as a one-year bargain. He was unable to drive him from that point to another area and take him to an office there, all things considered. He needed to advise him and was in a decent spot. There and utilized him to the greatest in different places and saw him face the most elevated significance and where we know. where significant can save and feel great to be there so the choice is by all accounts great to have him there.Basically employees are turnover in organizations in this situation. So I will accept the agreement of the organization.
3
Competing :- deal and results. These individuals tend to pursue their own concerns, sometimes at their counterpart’s expense, and in the extreme can become aggressive and domineering. On the assertive vs. cooperative scale, this style is higher in assertiveness and lower in cooperativeness. Using the substance vs. relationship axes, competing negotiators tend to be more focused on the substance than the relationship.
Avoiding :-Negotiators that exhibit this style are generally less assertive and apprehensive. They prefer to avoid stepping into or creating tension. They stay neutral, objective or removed from the situation or leave responsibility to their counterpart. The individual does not immediately pursue their own interests or those of the other person and there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode. This style is low in assertiveness and in cooperativeness, and not focused on either the substance of the agreement or the relationship.
Accomodating :-Negotiators that exhibit this style focus on maintaining relationships with the other party. They tend to smooth over tensions, minimize differences, and are most concerned with maintaining a good rapport and satisfying the needs of the other party. This style is lower in assertiveness and higher in cooperativeness. These negotiators tend to emphasize the relationship as more important than the substance of the agreement.
Compromising :-parties’ needs. This style is intermediate in assertiveness and cooperativeness and more focused on creating a decent agreement relatively efficiently while maintaining some relationship.
By contrast, participants who were encouraged to care about the other party’s outcomes made less-efficient concessions in order to avoid an impasse.
Thus, to reach mutually beneficial agreements in negotiation, an understanding of the other side’s experience may be more important than an altruistic motivation to improve overall outcomes.