Friday, November 30, 2012

Credit Card Charge-Off - What Does It Mean and What Should You Do About It?

Have you been told by a creditor that your debt is about to "charge-off"? Did the bill collector make it sound like you will be ruined financially if you allow this catastrophe to happen? If you're behind on your bills, unable to keep up with payments on your credit cards and other debts, sooner or later you will hear a creditor representative threaten you with the dreaded "charge-off." So what is a charge-off anyway? Should you be worried? What are the consequences of this mysterious event?

I'll start by explaining what a charge-off is NOT. Because the term includes the word "charge," many people mistakenly think it has to do with cancellation of the account by the creditor. In other words, you can't "charge" anything on your credit card anymore. But it's not the same thing at all, and most banks will revoke charging privileges around 2-3 months before the deadline we're talking about here.

What banks and bill collectors call a "charge-off" is the point at which the creditor writes off the account balance as a "bad debt." It usually happens after six months of non-payment. After that, they no longer count it on their books as an asset. You still owe the money, of course. And they will certainly make continued attempts to collect it from you. But the creditor has been forced by the rules of accounting to zero out the debt on their financial ledgers. For causing this loss, they will punish you by placing a derogatory mark on your credit report. A "charge-off" is a serious negative mark, to be sure, but it is not the financial ruination that debt collectors would like to have you believe it is.

Credit Card Charge-Off - What Does It Mean and What Should You Do About It?

Should charge-offs be avoided if possible? Certainly. Does the prospect of a charge-off mean you should panic if you have no way to pay the bill? No! Is it the end of the world if the account has already charged off? No! Too often, bill collectors make a charge-off sound so bad, and they apply so much pressure, that people cave in and make payment commitments they cannot keep. Collectors usually demand payment via post-dated checks, and this frequently leads to bounced checks and even worse financial problems. Most of us are brainwashed by the banks and media on the subject of credit. Sure, good credit is important. But committing to payments you really can't afford just to preserve your credit is like watering the lawn while your house is burning down.

Here are a few simple rules to follow when trying to avoid a charge-off that hasn't happened yet:

* Don't be intimidated or threatened by pre-charge-off collection tactics. Keep a cool head and don't take it personally when collectors try to get under your skin.

* Call your creditor to find out the minimum payment necessary to avoid the charge-off, and subsequent payments to keep the account current going forward. Don't commit to this payment (or series of payments) unless you're sure you can follow through.

* Negotiate a lump-sum settlement at 50% or less if you have the resources, or a workout plan for monthly payments that you can live with.

* Do not allow bill collectors to talk you into using post-dated checks, or providing your checking account details over the telephone. Instead, make payments via cashier's check or money order.

* Do not make payments based on a verbal arrangement. Get the deal in writing and signed by a creditor representative who has authority to approve the workout plan.

What should you do if you simply don't have the money to rescue the account from charge-off, or if the account has already been charged off by the creditor?

* Take a deep breath and relax; the sky won't fall on your head just because you had a charge-off.

* Realize that you still have an opportunity to resolve the matter by dealing with the original creditor or the collection agency assigned to the account.

* Negotiate a lump-sum settlement with the creditor or collection agency. Again, aim for 50% or less, and ask for the charge-off to be deleted from your credit report as a condition of the settlement. (Most creditors will not agree to this, but it's worth asking anyway. Do be sure that they will update your credit report to show that the matter has been resolved and the account has been satisfied.)

* If you can't work out a deal with the collection agency assigned to your account, then wait until it goes to another agency! Eventually, it will either be assigned or sold to an outfit that you can deal with to get the matter cleared up.

To sum up, a charge-off is not the end of the world. It should certainly be avoided if possible, but not at the risk of making things worse by committing to payments you're not sure you can keep up with. Just remember that the creditor doesn't want to see a charge-off any more than you do, so use that knowledge to your advantage in working out a mutually acceptable arrangement. Get everything in writing, don't disclose your checking account details, and follow up to make sure the creditor reports the matter correctly on your credit report. You'll find that it's easier than you think to resolve a charge-off situation before it happens, or clean it up if it's already taken place.

Credit Card Charge-Off - What Does It Mean and What Should You Do About It?
Check For The New Release in Health, Fitness & Dieting Category of Books NOW!
Check What Are The Top Cooking Books in Last 90 Days Best Cheap Deal!
Check For Cookbooks Best Sellers 2012 Discount OFFER!
Check for Top 100 Most Popular Books People Are Buying Daily Price Update!
Check For 100 New Release & BestSeller Books For Your Collection

Charles J. Phelan has been helping consumers become debt-free without bankruptcy since 1997. A former senior executive with one of the nation's largest debt settlement firms, he is the author of the Debt Elimination Success Seminar™, a five-hour audio-CD course that teaches consumers how to choose between debt program options based on their financial situation. The course focuses on comprehensive instruction in do-it-yourself debt negotiation & settlement designed to save ,000s. Personal coaching and follow-up support is included. Achieves the same results as professional firms for a tiny fraction of the cost. http://www.zipdebt.com

watch cell phone Hot Deals Tektronix Power Supply 18V 5A 90W

Monday, November 26, 2012

Effective Method of Negotiation

What is Negotiation?

Negotiation is the interactive social process in which people engage, when they aim to reach an agreement with another party or parties on behalf of themselves.
Negotiation is primarily a common mean of securing one's expectations from others. It is a form of communication designed to reach an agreement when two or more parties have certain interests that are shared and certain others that are opposed.

- According to Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 1977-
Negotiation: To confer with another for the purpose of arranging some matters by mutual agreement; to discuss a matter with a view to settlement or compromise .

Effective Method of Negotiation

- Ginny Pearsom Bames sayes, Negotiation is a resolution of a disagreement using give and take within the context of a particular relationship. It involves sharing ideas and information and seeking a mutually acceptable outcome .

- The Pepperdine University of USA has developed an explanatory definition of negotiation:
Negotiation is a communication process used to put deals together or resolve conflicts. It is a voluntary, non-binding process in which the parties control the outcome as well as the procedures by which they will make an agreement. Because most parties place very few limitations on the negotiation process, it allows for a wide range of possible solutions maximizing the possibility of joint gains .

- According to Williams, Legal and Settlement 1983, Negotiation is a repetitive process that follows reasonably predictable patterns over time. Yet in legal disputes so much of the attorney's attention and energy are absorbed by the pre-trial procedure and the approach of the trial, that they fail to recognize the important identifiable patterns and dynamics of the negotiation process
- M Anstey explains core elements of negotiation as follows:
1. A verbal interactive process;
2. Involving two or more parties;
3. Who are seeking to reach agreement;
4. Over a problem or conflict of interest between them; and
5. In which they seek, as per as possible, to preserve their interests, but to adjust their views and positions in the joint effort to achieve an agreement.

Broadly speaking, negotiation is an interaction of influences. Such interactions, for example, include the process of resolving disputes, agreeing upon courses of action, bargaining for individual or collective or crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests. Negotiation is thus a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Characteristics of Negotiation:

o Negotiation involves two or more parties who need (or think they need) each others involvement achieving a desired outcome. There is a common interest that connects the parties.
o The parties start with different opinions or objectives. It is these differences that prevent agreement.
o The parties are willing to co-operate and communicate to meet their goals.
o The parties can mutually benefit or avoid harm by influencing each other.
o The parties realize that any other procedure will not produce desired outcome.
o The parties think that negotiation is the best way to resolve their differences (or at leas, a possible way)
o They also think that they may be able to persuade the party to modify their original position.
o Even if they do not get their ideal outcome, both retain the hope of an acceptable outcome.
o Each has some influence real or assumed over the others actions. If one party is completely powerless, negotiation will have little point for the other.
o The negotiation process itself involves interaction between people. This interaction might be in person, by telephone, letter etc. or it might use a combination, because it is personal, emotions and attitudes will always be important.

Conditions for Negotiation :

A variety of conditions can affect the success or failure of negotiations. The following conditions make success in negotiations more likely:

Identifiable parties who are willing to participate: The people or groups who have a stake in the outcome must be identifiable and willing to sit down at the bargaining table if productive negotiations are to occur. If a critical party is either absent or is not willing to commit to good faith bargaining, the potential for agreement will decline.

Interdependence: For productive negotiations to occur, the participants must be dependent upon each other to have their needs met or interests satisfied. The participants need either each other's assistance or restraint from negative action for their interests to be satisfied. If one party can get his/her needs met without the cooperation of the other, there will be little impetus to negotiate.

Readiness to negotiate: People must be ready to negotiate for dialogue to begin. When participants are not psychologically prepared to talk with the other parties, when adequate information is not available, or when a negotiation strategy has not been prepared, people may be reluctant to begin the process.

Means of influence or leverage: For people to reach an agreement over issues about which they disagree, they must have some means to influence the attitudes and/or behavior of other negotiators. Often influence is seen as the power to threaten or inflict pain or undesirable costs, but this is only one way to encourage another to change. Asking thought-provoking questions, providing needed information, seeking the advice of experts, appealing to influential associates of a party, exercising legitimate authority or providing rewards are all means of exerting influence in negotiations.
Agreement on some issues and interests: People must be able to agree upon some common issues and interests for progress to be made in negotiations. Generally, participants will have some issues and interests in common and others that are of concern to only one party. The number and importance of the common issues and interests influence whether negotiations occur and whether they terminate in agreement. Parties must have enough issues and interests in common to commit themselves to a joint decision-making process.

Will to settle: For negotiations to succeed, participants have to want to settle. If continuing a conflict is more important than settlement, then negotiations are doomed to failure. Often parties want to keep conflicts going to preserve a relationship (a negative one may be better than no relationship at all), to mobilize public opinion or support in their favor, or because the conflict relationship gives meaning to their life. These factors promote continued division and work against settlement. The negative consequences of not settling must be more significant and greater than those of settling for an agreement to be reached.

Unpredictability of outcome: People negotiate because they need something from another person. They also negotiate because the outcome of not negotiating is unpredictable. For example: If, by going to court, a person has a 50/50 chance of winning, s/he may decide to negotiate rather than take the risk of losing as a result of a judicial decision. Negotiation is more predictable than court because if negotiation is successful, the party will at least win something. Chances for a decisive and one-sided victory need to be unpredictable for parties to enter into negotiations.

A sense of urgency and deadline: Negotiations generally occur when there is pressure or it is urgent to reach a decision. Urgency may be imposed by either external or internal time constraints or by potential negative or positive consequences to a negotiation outcome. External constraints include: court dates, imminent executive or administrative decisions, or predictable changes in the environment. Internal constraints may be artificial deadlines selected by a negotiator to enhance the motivation of another to settle. For negotiations to be successful, the participants must jointly feel a sense of urgency and be aware that they are vulnerable to adverse action or loss of benefits if a timely decision is not reached.

No major psychological barriers to settlement: Strong expressed or unexpressed feelings about another party can sharply affect a person's psychological readiness to bargain. Psychological barriers to settlement must be lowered if successful negotiations are to occur.

Issues must be negotiable: For successful negotiation to occur, negotiators must believe that there are acceptable settlement options that are possible as a result of participation in the process. If it appears that negotiations will have only win/lose settlement possibilities and that a party's needs will not be met as a result of participation, parties will be reluctant to enter into dialogue.

Styles of Negotiation:

There are different styles of negotiation. Style of negotiation is also a strategy. In some occasions the style reflects the attitude of the party and an experienced negotiator can guess the result from such a conduct of the party as becomes evident by the style. Negotiation style is reflected in communication skills, interpersonal behavior of negotiators, language, voice tones, choices, listening power, non-verbal gestures and judgment. Generally there are three main styles of negotiation. A brief description is given below:

- Co-operative Style :

In this type of negotiation style, strategies which are typically used include the making of concessions, the sharing of information and the adoption of behaviors which are fair and reasonable. Thus a co-operative negotiator typically explains the reasons for her concessions and proposals and attempts to reconcile the parties' conflicting interests; her proposals are measured against standards which both parties can agree, such as the legal merits of the case and fairness between the parties.
The advantage of the co-operative style of negotiation is that it tends to produce fewer breakdowns in bargaining with subsequent recourse to litigation, and to produce more favorable outcomes for both parties. This leaves both clients and negotiators in a position where they can 'do business' again. However, the co-operative style is subject to certain difficulties in operation where the parties to the negotiation are unequal in wealth or power or where one party will not bargain for joint or mutual gain;

- Competitive Style :

Thus the competitive negotiator makes concessions reluctantly because they may 'weaken his position' through position loss or image loss. He tends to make high initial demands, few concessions and have a generally high level of aspiration for his client.
It is often suggested that this style leads practitioners into specific negotiation strategies, for example, never making the first offer, always attempting to conceal the client's true objectives always being the person who drafts the final offer; and the use of exaggeration, threat and bluff to create high levels of tension and pressure on the opponent. If used effectively these tactics cause the opposition side to lose confidence in there case and reduce their expectations of what can be obtained for there client It is therefore, an essentially manipulative approach, designed to intimidate the opposing side into accepting a negotiator's demands.

- Problem-solving Style:

A problem solving style to a dispute over access might be based on the assumption that whilst both parents want access to their children for some of the time, neither would, in practice, want access for the whole of the time. On this basis a negotiated settlement advantageous to all parties (including the children) may be effected.
The problem-solving style thus commence with both negotiators trying to ascertain the underlying needs of their clients. This can best be achieved through client interviews in which the lawyer explores with the client how he wants the dispute to be concluded in social, economic, ethical and psychological terms. Focusing on the actual (rather than the assumed) needs of clients leads to solutions often more complex and yet more satisfactory in terms of social justice than those which a court could order, or which could result form competitive negotiation.

The four basic tactics which Fisher and Ury describes as being essential to the process of problem solving negotiation are :
1. Separate the people from the problem; In the other words, separate the interpersonal relationship between the negotiators and their clients from the merits of the problem or conflict
2. Focus on interests not positions; that is, consider the interests of the clients so that is party's motives, goals and values are filly understood by each side
3. Generate a variety of options; for example, brainstorm to develop new ideas to meet the needs of the parties
4. Insist that the result of the negotiation be based on some objective standard that is, assess proposed outcomes against easily ascertainable standard base on objective criteria.

Basic structure of the negotiating process :

It is important to note that there are some basic structures of negotiation process. These structure increase the ability and skills of negotiator also helps to create successful environment for the effective negotiation. The most essential structure may be described as:

Agenda-setting:

Unless an agenda has been agreed in advance you will agree with the opposing lawyer the practical issues of how the negotiation will be conducted, what the agenda for the discussions will be, recorded and minute

Clarification of the facts:

A possible first is for you, or your opponent, to identify and agree the relevant available facts of the dispute and the law relating to those facts. This could then be followed by your identification of and agreement on, any missing or conflicting facts, or difference in documentation. At this point you cold seek to resolve such difference through further investigation, and through listening to and questioning the order side.

Evaluation and repositioning:

- You will next assess alternative solution in relation to the needs of both parties (co-operative problem solving style) or you will make strong counter proposals to your opponents position (competitive style)
- You will eliminate unworkable proposals (co-operative problem-solving style) or use a variety of negotiating tactics to enhance your position and discredit that of your opponent (confrontational style)
- You will generate new proposals (co-operative problem-solving style) or identify trade-offs and concessions (competitive style)
- You will consider ending the negotiation if the tradeoffs are too high for both parties (co-operative problem-solving style) or if the trade -offs are acceptable to your side although not to the other(competitive style)

Closing:
Finally you will need to find a way of closing the negotiation. The alternatives at this stage include:
- Adjourning to obtain further information, and instructions from your client
- Adjourning to report a final offer from the other side to your client and seek his instructions
- Reaching a final agreement as authorized by your client

If the outcome is successful and a settlement has been reached, you will need to check your understanding of the settlement with that of your opponent to make certain that you are in agreement. You must next decide how the settlement is going to be made legally enforceable (if it is), and who will draft the terms of any written settlement.

Review:

Throughout the whole of the process referred to above, it is helpful from time for the lawyers to review the stage that has been reached in the discussions. This is especially recommended if you appear to have reached a deadlock, or there is an uncomfortable silence. A review gives each side the opportunity to compare their original objective with that has been achieved so far and consider how the negotiation should proceed. This can lead to one or other of the negotiators stating a revised or more innovative position as a potential solution to the problem.

Stages of Negotiation:

Stage 1: Evaluate and Select a Strategy to Guide Problem Solving
o Assess various approaches or procedures--negotiation, facilitation, mediation, arbitration, court, etc.--available for problem solving.
o Select an approach.

Stage 2: Make Contact with Other Party or Parties
o Make initial contact(s) in person, by telephone, or by mail.
o Explain your desire to negotiate and coordinate approaches.
o Build rapport and expand relationship
o Build personal or organization's credibility.
o Promote commitment to the procedure.
o Educate and obtain input from the parties about the process that is to be used.

Stage 3: Collect and Analyze Background Information
o Collect and analyze relevant data about the people, dynamics and substance involved in the problem.
o Verify accuracy of data.
o Minimize the impact of inaccurate or unavailable data.
o Identify all parties' substantive, procedural and psychological interests.

Stage 4: Design a Detailed Plan for Negotiation
o Identify strategies and tactics that will enable the parties to move toward agreement.
o Identify tactics to respond to situations peculiar to the specific issues to be negotiated.

Stage 5: Build Trust and Cooperation
o Prepare psychologically to participate in negotiations on substantive issues. Develop a strategy to handle strong emotions.
o Check perceptions and minimize effects of stereotypes.
o Build recognition of the legitimacy of the parties and issues.
o Build trust.
o Clarify communications.

o Stage 6: Beginning the Negotiation Session
o Introduce all parties.
o Exchange statements which demonstrate willingness to listen, share ideas, show openness to reason and demonstrate desire to bargain in good faith.
o Establish guidelines for behavior.
o State mutual expectations for the negotiations.
o Describe history of problem and explain why there is a need for change or agreement.
o Identify interests and/or positions.

Stage 7: Define Issues and Set an Agenda
o Together identify broad topic areas of concern to people.
o Identify specific issues to be discussed.
o Frame issues in a non-judgmental neutral manner.
o Obtain an agreement on issues to be discussed.
o Determine the sequence to discuss issues.
o Take turns describing how you see the situation. Participants should be encouraged to tell their story in enough detail that all people understand the viewpoint presented.
o Use active listening, open-ended questions and focusing questions to gain additional information.

Stage 8: Uncover Hidden Interests
o Probe each issue either one at a time or together to identify interests, needs and concerns of the principal participants in the dispute.
o Define and elaborate interests so that all participants understand the needs of others as well as their own.

Stage 9: Generate Options for Settlement
o Develop awareness about the need for options from which to select or create the final settlement.
o Review needs of parties which relate to the issue.
o Generate criteria or objective standards that can guide settlement discussions.
o Look for agreements in principle.
o Consider breaking issue into smaller, more manageable issues and generating solutions for sub-issues.
o Generate options either individually or through joint discussions.
o Use one or more of the following procedures:
o Expand the pie so that benefits are increased for all parties.
o Alternate satisfaction so that each party has his/her interests satisfied but at different times.
o Trade items that are valued differently by parties.
o Look for integrative or win/win options.
o Brainstorm.
o Use trial and error generation of multiple solutions.
o Try silent generation in which each individual develops privately a list of options and then presents his/her ideas to other negotiators.
o Use a caucus to develop options.
o Conduct position/counter position option generation.
o Separate generation of possible solutions from evaluation.

Stage 10: Assess Options for Settlement
o Review the interests of the parties.
o Assess how interests can be met by available options.
o Assess the costs and benefits of selecting options.

Stage 11: Final Bargaining
o Final problem solving occurs when:
o One of the alternatives is selected.
o Incremental concessions are made and parties move closer together.
o Alternatives are combined or tailored into a superior solution.
o Package settlements are developed.
o Parties establish a procedural means to reach a substantive agreement.

Stage 12: Achieving Formal Settlement
o Agreement may be a written memorandum of understanding or a legal contract.
o Identify "what ifs" and conduct problem solving to overcome blocks.
o Establish an evaluation and monitoring procedure.
o Formalize the settlement and create enforcement and commitment mechanisms.
o Judicial review

Influencing factors of Negotiation :
There are some influencing factors or elements of negotiation which are essential and plays vital role in making effective negotiation. A short description is given below:
- Negotiator: Negotiation process is influenced by various factors. The first such factor is the skill and ability of negotiator, his character and credibility. Another ability, which is a major factor in negotiation, is that the negotiator should keep control over the process. A negotiator should review the progress of the negotiation process; time and again endeavor to build bridges between the parties. He or She should try to create a positive attitude towards agreement. A great deal of skill and experience are necessary to control the entire process of negotiation, which can be gained by keen observation of strategies adopted by other parties, past experience and studying the best negotiation processes in the contemporary world.
- Parties: Parties are a major influence on the negotiation process. The parties, their interests and the way they react and respond decide the process. Parties to a dispute have their own mindset when they come to a negotiation table.
- Selection of the team: The team of negotiation should be selected basing on case and circumstances, so that each member contributes towards achieving the goal with productive working.
- Place of negotiation: Sometimes the place of negotiation matters. Unfamiliar surroundings may cause stress to the opposite party in comparison to a familiar place.

- Layout of the room: The layout of the room has an influence on the conduct of the negotiation to some extent. Ideally the layout should be chosen taking into consideration the circumstance in which the parties operate. For example, if the negotiation in with regard to any industrial dispute, negotiators should ensure that the distance between the parties is not too much. The seating arrangements should be such so as to encourage a relaxed mood. The design of layout should reflect attitudes and perceptions and issues being discussed in negotiation.
- Psychology in negotiating: Psychology of the negotiators, as well as the parties plays an important role in the activity of negotiation. The people involved in the process work with different attitudes, approaches and activities. According to Maslows' 'Need Hierarchy Theory', behavior of people is influenced by their needs. People's needs are classified by him into:
1. Physical and survival needs;
2. Security and safety needs;
3. Social needs;
4. Ego needs;
5. Self realization needs.

Effective Negotiation Skills :
The key to effective negotiation is clear communication. Communication involves three important skills: Speaking, Listening and understanding. You can't have one skill work without the others--for example, you can't have good understanding without good listening and speaking. Negotiation is most effective when people are able to clearly identify and discuss their sources of disagreement and misunderstanding.

Speaking:
Negotiation begins with a clear, concise explanation of the problem as each person sees it. Facts and feelings are presented in a rational manner from the individual's perspective, using "I" statements. Communication between people will go more smoothly when statements such as "I become very upset when you "are used rather than more aggressive statements such as "You make me mad when you," which blames the other person and puts him or her in a defensive position. Shared concerns rather than individual issues remain the focus of discussion throughout negotiation. The negotiation process will be most effective when people take time to think through what they will say. When possible, plan ahead to meet at a time and place convenient to everyone. A quiet, neutral spot where there are few distractions or interruptions is perfect for open discussion.

Listening:
Listening is an active process of concentrating all of one's attention on the other person. Encouraging the other person to share thoughts and feelings, giving feedback on what has been heard, and maintaining eye contact are skills that show you are interested in understanding what he or she has to say. It is always helpful to simply ask, "I understood you to say Am I correct in this?" or "I hear you saying that you are that how you feel?" Active listening assures the other person that he or she is heard, accepted and respected. The ability to listen actively supports open, ongoing negotiation. Thinking ahead or anticipating the course of the discussion is distractions that interfere with listening. Poor attention and listening can lead to misunderstandings, inappropriate solutions and continuing conflict.

Understanding:
Before two sides can look for solutions; a common understanding must be reached. If two people do not understand each other's problems and concerns, then the process of negotiation will either be broken off or will end with solutions that do not work. Active listening encourages understanding. It is important to pay close attention to what someone says as well as to how he or she behaves. Body language, including facial expressions, hand gestures and degree of eye contact, can provide clues about the other person's thoughts and feelings. Observations, however, are shaped as much by the observer as by the person being observed. It is good practice never to assume to understand the other person without first asking, "Did I hear you correctly?" or "I have noticed that you appear" or "I sense you are under strain. Do you want to talk about this?" and "I'd like to hear from you about how you are feeling" are all good examples of statements that encourage communication and better understanding between people.

Best Negotiation Tips :

Generally negotiation depends on the ability, skill, technique and knowledge of negotiator. The tips of the negotiation are varies from negotiator to negotiator. Some best negotiation tips with example are given below:

- Be willing to negotiate in the first place:
Some people are too shy to talk about money. Others think it's rude or demeaning. And in many cases they're right. However, when it comes to doing a deal - and we all have to sometimes - being unwilling to engage in "money-talk" can be a very expensive business. There are a lot of experienced negotiators out there. If you're buying a house or a car, or taking a new job, you can be sure you'll have to deal with such a person. If they can see you're timid about the whole business, many will take advantage of that fact. You also shouldn't be shy about turning something that may not immediately appear to be a negotiation into one. If I'm buying a few expensive things from the same store, I'll often ask them to throw something in for free or reduce the price. Just because there's no sign saying you can do that, doesn't mean you can't. Often, simply by asking for something extra I'll get a better deal
- Don't get emotionally involved:
One big mistake many amateur negotiators make is to become too emotionally attached to winning. They shout, threaten and demand to get their way. This is all counter-productive. Most deals are only possible if both people feel they're getting something out of it. If the person across the table feels attacked, or doesn't like you, they probably won't back down. Many people hate bullies, and will be more willing to walk away from a transaction if it involves one. Keep calm, patient and friendly, even if the other person starts losing their cool. Make sure you leave any pride or ego at the door. You are more likely to do well that way.
- Don't get suckered by the "rules" trick:
When someone sends me a contract to sign, if there's something on there I don't like, I'll cross it out. I'm also happy to write things I want added in if I think they should be there. Sometimes, the other party will come back to me and say "You're not allowed to make changes to our contracts like that". Oh really? Since I'm the one signing the thing, I'll make any changes I want, thank you very much. There's no law that says they're the only one allowed to add things to a contract. If they're not happy with my changes, let me know and we can work it out, but don't simply tell me I don't have permission. This highlights a common tactic used by experienced negotiators such as real estate agents, employment agents, car salespeople and the like. They know many people are sticklers about following rules. So they'll make up official sounding pronouncements and insist that "this is the way it's done" or "you're not allowed to do that". If someone starts trying to box you in by adding rules to the deal, ask them to provide proof that such rules really exist.
- Never be the first person to name a figure:
This is an expensive lesson to have to learn, but a good one. I do a lot of contract work, and one of the first questions I'm usually asked is "What's your hourly rate?" This is a high pressure question, and I often found myself blurting out a figure that was lower than what I really wanted. These days, I've learned the importance of getting the other person to say a number first. Now, I respond to that question by asking "What's the budget for this contract?" Often, I'm surprised to discover they're offering me a better deal than I thought they were.

- Ask for more than you expect to get:
Once the other person's given their figure, even if it's much better than you expected, say something like "I think you'll have to do better than that". Don't be arrogant or aggressive. Just say it calmly. When they enquire about your expectations, ask for more than you expect to get. Few people will walk away from a deal once it's commenced, and you can let the other person feel as if they're winning by lowering your "unrealistic expectations" a bit at a time.
- Just giving the impression that you're willing to walk away can do wonders for getting a better deal. Always play the reluctant buyer or seller.

Effective Method of Negotiation
Check For The New Release in Health, Fitness & Dieting Category of Books NOW!
Check What Are The Top Cooking Books in Last 90 Days Best Cheap Deal!
Check For Cookbooks Best Sellers 2012 Discount OFFER!
Check for Top 100 Most Popular Books People Are Buying Daily Price Update!
Check For 100 New Release & BestSeller Books For Your Collection

Mahbubur Rahman Nazmi

Bachelor of Law (continuing) Assistant Editor, Students Law Review (SLR) Publication Secretary, Law Students' Forum (LSF) ASA University Bangladesh (ASAUB) Dhaka, Bangladesh-1207

mobile phone watches Cheap Dispenser Kit For Liquid Detergent Buy Shure Pg14 Pg30 Wireless Headset System K7

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Writing an RFP (Request for Proposal)

A while back, a potential client provided me with some general details of the writing work he wanted me to do for his company. Then he asked me to send him a proposal.

Proposal?! I panicked as I tried to confirm with him what he meant by that since I had never done one before, at least not as a freelancer.

I must've not really wanted to pursue this opportunity since I didn't bother to do research or follow up with the company after submitting a contract instead of a proposal. A little time passed, I came across an article on writing RFPs (Request for Proposal). Ding! The light bulb went on. This guy verbally gave me his RFP and wanted a written response.

Writing an RFP (Request for Proposal)

When a company needs a project to be completed by a contractor or outside source, they write a RFP. This is a formal document describing the project, how the contract companies should respond, how the proposals will be reviewed, and contact information. Often, the company documents the submission guidelines to make it easier for them to compare responses. There are no specific standards or guidelines for creating the RFP, but government agencies usually strict standards they follow when conducting the proposal process.

Outside companies read the RFP and write a proposal (a bid) explaining how they can best provide and meet those needs. When writing the proposal, the company should closely follow the guidelines established in the RFP to avoid being removed from consideration for the potential project.

A typical proposal contains:

Executive summary - summary of the entire proposal Statement of need - why project is necessary Project description - How project will be implemented and evaluated Organization information Project schedule Budget Conclusion

My situation was an informal version of all this. The client gave me a high level overview of what I might do for him. If I knew then what I know now, I would've written up a description of the client's needs and how I would complete the work in meeting those needs.

Small businesses would likely do a proposal in between the one I got and the complex government required ones. Most small businesses will be prompted to write a proposal when approaching a client. The client may ask you to submit a proposal outlining what you can do for them. In this case, write a proposal including the elements of a typical proposal and keep it short and to the point especially if the client is not a large company.

There are examples of RFPs and responses peppered throughout the Web, but which one you can learn from depends on the type of work involved. A proposal can be two pages or as big as a book. Rely on your favorite search engine and do the research to create an unbeatable proposal.

Writing an RFP (Request for Proposal)
Check For The New Release in Health, Fitness & Dieting Category of Books NOW!
Check What Are The Top Cooking Books in Last 90 Days Best Cheap Deal!
Check For Cookbooks Best Sellers 2012 Discount OFFER!
Check for Top 100 Most Popular Books People Are Buying Daily Price Update!
Check For 100 New Release & BestSeller Books For Your Collection

Meryl K. Evans, Content Maven, is Editor-in-Chief of eNewsletter Journal and The Remediator Security Digest. She's a slave to a MarketingProfs weekly column and a Web design reference guide at InformIT. She is the author of the popular e-report, How to Start a Business Blog and Build Traffic. Visit her site at http://www.meryl.net/blog/ for free newsletters, articles, and tips.

watch cell phone Low Price Mmf Industries Tamper Evident Cash Bags Cheap Maxell Cleaning Tape Sdlt 1 S4 Discounted Discounted Bronze Finish Lion Fountain

Monday, November 19, 2012

Letter of Credit - Negotiation

Negotiation means the standard procedures that bank performs which includes checking of the documents and giving value to the seller. The issuing bank may issue the LC available by negotiation with a nominated bank or it may allow the LC to be freely negotiated with any bank. In the first case, the beneficiary, that is the seller, has to present the documents only to that bank, which is the nominated bank. Nevertheless, the nominated bank is not bound to negotiate if it has not undertaken a separate payment obligation to the seller.

The nominated bank may simply refuse to negotiate the documents drawn under the LC. This is because, by having been nominated by the issuing bank, it does not constitute and undertaking to negotiate. If, however, the nominated bank has added its confirmation to the LC at the request of the issuing bank, thereby undertaking a separate payment obligation to the seller, then it has to honour its undertaking and pay for the documents drawn under the LC if they are in order.

LC which does not nominate any bank is normally available for negotiation with any bank in the country of the seller which is willing to negotiate the documents. There are 4 types of negotiation practiced by banks around the world. They are:

Letter of Credit - Negotiation

1. Negotiation without recourse
2. Negotiation with recourse
3. Negotiation against indemnity
4. Negotiation under reserve

A seller may present his documents drawn under LC directly to either:

a) The issuing Bank (bank that issues the LC) or
b) The confirming bank (bank that adds its confirmation at the request of the issuing bank) or
c) To his own bank.

If the seller chooses to present the documents directly either to the ISSUING BANK or to the CONFIRMING BANK, these banks make payment WITHOUT RECOURSE to him. Meaning, the payment that has been paid to the seller shall not in any way become claimable by these banks in the event the documents are found not in order after making such payment.

These banks cannot have recourse to the seller because by issuing or confirming the LC, they have taken upon themselves the risk that the party from whom reimbursement is to be obtained may become insolvent.

Letter of Credit - Negotiation
Check For The New Release in Health, Fitness & Dieting Category of Books NOW!
Check What Are The Top Cooking Books in Last 90 Days Best Cheap Deal!
Check For Cookbooks Best Sellers 2012 Discount OFFER!
Check for Top 100 Most Popular Books People Are Buying Daily Price Update!
Check For 100 New Release & BestSeller Books For Your Collection

Wan Nawawi Hassan is a former lecturer/facilitator with a number of commercial banks in Malaysia. You can visit his blog at http://infodagang2u.blogspot.com

watches cell phone Discount Cardone 60 3104 Remanufactured Cv Axle Buy Shure Pg14 Pg30 Wireless Headset System K7 Cheap Maxell Cleaning Tape Sdlt 1 S4

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Negotiation Success is in the Planning

The drama and theatrics one sees during conflict and confrontations easily leads one to believe that negotiation success lies in persuasiveness, eloquence, and clever maneuvering. What good court room drama would be without these critical factors for entertainment? While these elements may be the enjoyable part for some negotiators, and certainly are the entertaining portions for observers, they are not the keys to negotiation success.

This next quote was so important in "Essentials of Negotiation" by Lewicki, Saunders, Barry, and Minton that the authors italicized it. I point this out because I want you to pay attention to this closely, "The foundation for success in negotiation is not in the game playing or the dramatics. The dominant force for success in negotiation is in the planning that takes place prior to the dialogue." Yes, the tactics used during negotiations are important, and success is also influenced by how you react to the other side and implement your own negotiation strategy. However, the foundation for success is preparation.

There are many ways one can prepare for negotiation, and no one way will be perfect for everyone. By sharing different strategies, I hope you can absorb what is useful for your negotiation style and decide what planning steps are needed for the negotiations you partake in.

Negotiation Success is in the Planning

In the "Essentials of Negotiation" the authors set forth ten areas to focus on during effective planning for both distributive and integrative negotiations. I want to briefly share and comment on the ten areas for you to consider:

1. Defining the Issues. Analyze the overall situation and define the issues to be discussed. The more detailed, the better.

2. Assembling the Issues and Defining the Bargaining Mix. Assemble the issues that have been defined into a comprehensive list. The combination of lists from each side of the negotiation determines the bargaining mix. Large bargaining mixes allow for many possible components and arrangements for settlement. However, large bargaining mixes can also lengthen negotiations because of the many possible combinations to consider. Therefore, the issues must be prioritized.

3. Defining Your Interests. After you have defined the issues, you should define the underlying interests and needs. Remember, positions are what a negotiator wants. Interests are why you want them. Asking "why" questions will help define interests.

4. Knowing Your Limits and Alternatives. Limits are the point where you stop the negotiation rather than continue. Settlements beyond this point are not acceptable. You need to know your walkaway point. Alternatives are other deals you could achieve and still meet your needs. The better alternatives you have, the more power you have during negotiations.

5. Setting Targets and Openings. The target point is where you realistically expect to achieve a settlement. You can determine your target by asking what outcome you would be comfortable with, or at what point would you be satisfied. The opening bid or asking price usually represents the best deal you can hope to achieve. One must be cautious in inflating opening bids to the point where they become self-defeating because they are too unrealistic.

6. Assessing My Constituents. When negotiating in a professional context, there are most likely many constituents to the negotiation. Things to consider include the direct actors, the opposite actors, indirect actors, interested observers, and environmental factors.

7. Analyzing the Other Party. Meeting with the other side allows you to learn what issues are important to them. Things to consider include their current resources, interests, and needs. In addition, consider their objectives, alternatives, negotiation style, authority, and likely strategy and tactics.

8. What Strategy Do I want to Pursue? Most likely you are always determining your strategy, and have been all along the planning stages. However, remember not to confuse strategy with tactics. Determine if your engagement strategy will be Competition (Distributive Bargaining), Collaboration (Integrative Negotiation), or Accommodative Negotiation.

9. How Will I Present the Issues to the Other Party? You should present your case clearly and provide ample supporting facts and arguments. You will also want to refute the other party's arguments with your own counterarguments. There are many ways to do this, and during your preparation you should determine how best to present your issues.

10. What Protocol Needs to Be Followed in This Negotiation? The elements of protocol or process that should be considered include the agenda, the location of the negotiation, the time period of negotiation, other parties who may be involved in the negotiation, what might be done if the negotiation fails, and how will the parties keep track of what is agreed to? In most cases, it is best to discuss the procedural issues before the major substantive issues are raised.

There are many different planning templates. Each emphasizes different elements in different sequences. These ten areas represent what the authors of "Essentials of Negotiation" believe to be the most important steps in the planning process. There is more to each of these areas than I had space to describe in this column. However, if you consider each of these ten areas during your planning, you will be well prepared for the challenges you will face during negotiations.

Negotiation Success is in the Planning
Check For The New Release in Health, Fitness & Dieting Category of Books NOW!
Check What Are The Top Cooking Books in Last 90 Days Best Cheap Deal!
Check For Cookbooks Best Sellers 2012 Discount OFFER!
Check for Top 100 Most Popular Books People Are Buying Daily Price Update!
Check For 100 New Release & BestSeller Books For Your Collection

Alain Burrese, J.D. is a mediator/attorney with Bennett Law Office P.C. and an author/speaker through his own company Burrese Enterprises Inc. He writes and speaks about a variety of topics focusing on the business areas of negotiation and success principles as well as self-defense and safety topics. He is the author of Hard-Won Wisdom From the School of Hard Knocks, several instructional dvds, and numerous articles. You can find out more about Alain Burrese at his websites http://www.burrese.com or http://www.bennettlawofficepc.com

mobile phone watches Cheap Whatman Polycap Tf 150 Ptfe Capsule Filter Hot Deals Tektronix Power Supply 18V 5A 90W

Monday, November 12, 2012

Cultural Differences Between East and West in the Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations

Culture mainly includes four aspects which greatly influence the cross-cultural business negotiation, they are: language and non-language behaviors, customs, way of thinking and values.

First of all is the difference in language and non-language behaviors. Chinese people are particular about etiquette since the ancient times. Take Chinese and Americans for example, when hearing about others' praise, Chinese people usually use self-depreciatory expression to show their modest. Chinese people are sure to use appellations in conversations. Americans stress equality. The younger generation can call the elder or boss directly by his or her name. To others' praise, Americans will be grateful and accept it. There is also a big difference in non-language behaviors. For example, the behavior of gazing at someone, Chinese people use it to show curiosity or surprise while Americans think it is impolite.

Second is the difference in the customs. Customs mainly include some social activities. Chinese people care much of their face in daily life and work, they care much about their images in other people' eyes and are afraid of being laughed at, discussed and misunderstood. Americans are much more practical, they don't care much about what others think about them, they don't ask about others' age, earnings, marriage which they think is invading others' privacy when they are associating with others. Americans like to express their idea directly while Chinese people choose a more tactful way and so on.

Cultural Differences Between East and West in the Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations

The third difference is in the way of thinking. The difference was embodied in the opposite of the overall thinking and individual thinking. Chinese culture lays particular emphasis on overall thinking which is to observe and think about things on the earth in an overall view, to analyze problems from the whole part, to attach importance on the overall function, complicated relationship and operating process of things, not the internal structure of things. Americans lay particular emphasis on individual thinking which split a complex thing into simple essential factors, then study one by one.

Forth, they work differently in values. The differences in values between east and west lie in the opposite of collectivism and individualism. The core of Chinese people' value is collectivism which thinks that harmonious relationship between people is the foundation of the society. So, Chinese people constantly hold the view of peacefulness is prized and pay special attention to some specially designated group's interests or value. The core of western culture values is individualism, which is the philosophy of individual is most important. The main content of individualism is to believe in the value of individuals, pay much importance to self-freedom and emphasize individual self-control and self-development.

Cultural Differences Between East and West in the Cross-Cultural Business Negotiations
Check For The New Release in Health, Fitness & Dieting Category of Books NOW!
Check What Are The Top Cooking Books in Last 90 Days Best Cheap Deal!
Check For Cookbooks Best Sellers 2012 Discount OFFER!
Check for Top 100 Most Popular Books People Are Buying Daily Price Update!
Check For 100 New Release & BestSeller Books For Your Collection

This UGG outlet sells all kinds of UGGs [http://www.canadaugg.ca] in cheap, now the latest UGG designs are on sale now, please click in to buy with confidence.

cell phone watches Discounted Discounted Bronze Finish Lion Fountain Cheap Maxell Cleaning Tape Sdlt 1 S4 Hot Deals Tektronix Power Supply 18V 5A 90W

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Negotiation Strategy Vs Tactics

I have spent over twenty-five years now studying, practicing, and teaching martial arts. This includes time spent in the United States Army and living in Japan and Korea studying martial arts there. Two important concepts that I have studied, taught, and written about in a martial or military format are equally important when teaching negotiation. These concepts are strategy and tactics. Sometimes I see people mistakenly using one term when they actually mean the other. In this short article, I want to describe the differences between strategy and tactics as well as illustrate the relationship between the two.

Strategy

Strategy is the overall, big picture, plan, which includes goals or desired outcomes. In the military, strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, or all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Another definition would be a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result. A well known strategy used by the Allies in WWII was that of strategic bombing in Europe. The Army Air Corps' strategic bombing doctrine was based on the theory that a bombing force could pound the adversary until its industrial base was destroyed, and with it, its ability and will to wage war. While this example helps illustrate the concept of strategy, it is unfortunate that many of us have probably encountered negotiators that worked from a very similar strategic doctrine.

Negotiation Strategy Vs Tactics

Strategic negotiation is simply the act of devising and carrying out a well thought out plan to achieve your desired outcomes. Often, it is your plan to convince another party to give you something that you want and on your terms. The first thing you must determine when developing a negotiation strategy is what do you really want? What is the purpose of the negotiation? Do you want to purchase a house or commercial building? Do you want a raise in your salary? Do you want to settle a matter that is being litigated? Once you know what you want, and have devised a strategy, you can implement the tactics that will help you achieve your desired outcome.

When one is developing strategy, it is often easier to break your planning into phases. Here is a simple model used with martial arts and warfare that you will notice fits with negotiating equally well:

1. Identify your strategic objectives
2. Collect intelligence
3. Plan for environment
4. Program for engagement

Tactics

Tactics are simply the means by which you carry out your strategy. In the military tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat, more specifically, it is the military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy. In our example above with the Army Air Corps, the tight formations employed by the bombers to make the best use of the bombers' heavy armament and prevent German fighters from singling out and swarming on lone planes is an example of a tactic used to help carry out the strategy. Another tactic was the employment of high altitude bombing when low level bombing proved to vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire.

One must be very careful not to focus upon activity, means, or tactics at the expense of accomplishment, achieving goals, or desired outcomes. Above all else, obtaining one's objectives in negotiations should be paramount. Of course, the tactics, activities or means we use should always be appropriate and ethical, but we must remember they are merely the ways to attain desired outcomes. Examples of negotiation tactics include things such as:

1. Giving ultimatums
2. Nibbling
3. Shocked or surprised looks
4. Good cop/Bad cop
5. Walk away

There are many tactics people use while negotiating. There is nothing wrong with using certain tactics to carry out your strategy and obtain your objectives. It is not necessarily unethical, deceptive, or unscrupulous to use negotiating tactics, even though some may want you to believe this. Yes, some tactics may be unethical, and as I stated above, we should always be appropriate and ethical, but there is nothing wrong with being competitive.

No, I have not forgotten the Principled Negotiation strategy taught by Fisher and Ury in "Getting To Yes." However, I also realize that sometimes we will be in competitive negotiations, and knowing various tactics can give us the edge. As an attorney, I realize some clients hire an attorney to be their pit bull, and while win-win might be the ideal, some of these clients only care about a win in their column. Practically speaking, we attorneys must deliver for our clients if we want to stay in business. In other fields of business, you run across competitive barganing as well, and knowing tactics may be quite beneficial. Additionally, knowing various negotiation tactics, and the counterattacks, prepare us for when others use them against us.

Conclusion

Strategy and tactics are concepts as old as conflict itself. By understanding the differences and relationships between the two, the successful negotiator can better plan and implement the strategies and tactics to reach specific desired outcomes. There is a reason so many successful business people study the ancient military classics such as "The Art of War" and "The Book of Five Rings." There is a reason why so many successful business people play strategic military games such as Go and Chess. The lessons learned from military sources, especially strategy and tactics, can easily be adapted to help us be better business people, better litigators, and better negotiators.

Negotiation Strategy Vs Tactics
Check For The New Release in Health, Fitness & Dieting Category of Books NOW!
Check What Are The Top Cooking Books in Last 90 Days Best Cheap Deal!
Check For Cookbooks Best Sellers 2012 Discount OFFER!
Check for Top 100 Most Popular Books People Are Buying Daily Price Update!
Check For 100 New Release & BestSeller Books For Your Collection

Alain Burrese, J.D. is a mediator/attorney with Bennett Law Office P.C. and an author/speaker through his own company Burrese Enterprises Inc. He writes and speaks about a variety of topics focusing on the business areas of negotiation and success principles as well as self-defense and safety topics. He is the author of Hard-Won Wisdom From the School of Hard Knocks, several instructional dvds, and numerous articles. You can find out more about Alain Burrese at his websites http://www.burrese.com or http://www.bennettlawofficepc.com

watches mobile phone Cheap Maxell Cleaning Tape Sdlt 1 S4 Discounted Discounted Bronze Finish Lion Fountain Discount Cardone 60 3104 Remanufactured Cv Axle