Negotiation tactics—a guide for staff


Published by a UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ Practice Management expert
Precedents

Negotiation tactics—a guide for staff


Published by a UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ Practice Management expert

Precedents
imgtext

Negotiation tactics—a guide for staff

Other party’s behaviourExampleHow to counter
Controlling the agendaRefusing to let other people have a say. Dominating proceedings—refer back to the agenda and agreed timeframes
—ask questions directed at others to draw in their views
—agree a time slot for each person to put their case uninterrupted
Aggressive behaviourShouting, swearing, finger pointing, using intimidation tactics—suggest a break to allow tempers to cool
—highlight the inappropriate
Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom

Popular documents

Identifying learning needs

Identifying learning needsThis Practice Note provides guidance on identifying learning needs and covers:•what a learning need is•individual learning needs•organisational learning needs•learning needs analysis (LNA) reportsFor guidance on identifying initial learning and development (L&D) priorities

Scotland—the process for applying for sequestration

Scotland—the process for applying for sequestrationSequestration in Scotland is the legal process by which an insolvent debtor’s estate is gathered in, realised and then distributed among their creditors by a trustee appointed for that purpose. The process requires that a formal award of

Micklefield clauses

Micklefield clausesWhat is a Micklefield clause?It is common for employee share plans to provide that, on termination of employment (or when an employee is given or receives notice of termination of employment), subsisting share awards will be forfeited and subsisting share options will lapse.It is

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a