PENDAHULUAN

Negosiasi atau perundingan adalah proses mencapai kepuasan bersama melalui

diskusi dan tawar menawar. Seseorang berunding untuk menyelesaikan perselisian,
mengubah perjanjian atau syaratsyarat, atau menilai komoditi atau jasa, atau permasalahan
yang lain. Agar perundingan berhasil, masing-masing pihak harus sungguh-sungguh
menginginkan persetujuan yang dapat ditindaklanjuti, dan sebagai perjanjian jangka panjang.
Karena tidak ada gunanya sebuah persetujuan apabila tidak dapat diterapkan atau
dilaksanakan. Apabila hal itu terjadi maka para perunding (negosiator) yang merupakan
wakil-wakil dari suatu pihak yang berkepentingan akan kehilangan kredibilitas dan wibawa.

Perunding harus melakukan beberapa fungsi yang membutuhkan ketrampilan. Mereka

harus dapat membuat rencana dan tujuan yang matang. Alasan yang berkaitan dengan setiap
pokok persoalan perundingan harus disiapkan seolaholah pihak lain tidak ada. Setiap
argument harus lengkap dan bila diperlukan harus disiapkan data pendukung yang valid/sah.
Perunding harus cukup luwes untuk memperdebatkan alasan-alasan dalam konteks dan sesuai
dengan prioritas yang akan dirundingkan dengan pihak lain. Perunding yang baik akan tahu
bagaimana menanggulangi konflik. Menganggap remeh suatu konflik akan menimbulkan
posisi kritis yang menuju ke pemenuhan tuntutan dan akhirnya menyerah.

Dengan kata lain bahwa negosiasi merupakan suatu proses yang dilakukan oleh dua
pihak/kelompok atau lebih dengan cara berunding untuk mencapai persetujuan yang sesuai
dengan karakteristik tertentu melalui beberapa tahapan yang saling bertentangan satu sama
lain.

ELEMEN-ELEMEN DALAM NEGOSIASI

Tanpa memperdulikan keadaan atau kelompok yang terlibat, negosiasi paling tidak
mempunyai 4 elemen, yaitu :
1. Ada beberapa perselisihan atau pertentangan.
2. Ada beberapa tahap saling ketergantungan diantara kelompok.
3. Situasinya harus kondusif untuk mendapatkan kesempatan berinteraksi. Itu artinya bahwa
setiap pihak/kelompok ingin tahu dan cenderung untuk saling mempengaruhi kelompok
lainnya.
4. Ada beberapa kemungkinan untuk sepakat.
 Jika elemen-elemen tersebut diatas tidak ada, maka tentu saja negosiasi tidak
mambawa hasil yang positif. Pada saat negosiasi tersebut berhasil, maka setiap kelompok
merasa diuntungkan dari hasil tersebut. Sebaliknya jika mereka gagal, maka konflik tersebut
akan meningkat.

The Harvard Negotiation Project) menyebutkan ada 7 elemen di dalam negosiasi, antara lain:
1. Hubungan

 Hubungan apa yang terjalin antar masing-masing pihak?

 Faktor apa yang menyebabkan terjadinya hubungan tersebut?
 Faktor-faktor apa yang turut andil dalam membuat status quo berkelanjutan?
 Faktor-faktor apa yang bisa memberikan kontribusi terhadap perubahan positif
atau negatif dalam status quo?

2. Komunikasi
Pentingnya berbagi informasi sebagai sarana kepentingan mengungkap dan
membantu pihak untuk mengeksplorasi masalah umum atau ancaman. Namun,
negosiator sering terhambat dalam peran mereka oleh kesalahan komunikasi yang
umum atauinefisiensi. Misalnya pihak dapat berkonsentrasi hanya pada respon
mereka sendiri dan melupakan untuk mendengarkan apa sisi lain katakan.
Mendengarkan menyediakan informasi penting tentang sisi lain dan menunjukkan
bahwa Anda sedang memperhatikan pikiran pihak lain, dan menghormati keprihatinan
mereka.
Untuk meningkatkan keterampilan komunikasi, Fisher dan Ury merekomendasikan
mendengarkan secara aktif. ini berarti mendengarkan "tidak frase respon, tapi untuk
memahami [pihak lain] karena mereka melihatsendiri "(Fisher dan Ury, 1981).
Mengajukan pertanyaan, parafrase tanpa selalu setuju, dan terus-menerus mengakui
apa yang dikatakan atau tidak adalah cara yang baik untuk menunjukkan bahwa Anda
mendengarkan aktif (Wondwosen, 2006).

 Bagaimanakah kualitas komunikasi yang telah berlangsung dan sedang

berlangsung antar masing-masing pihak?
  Cara komunikasi seperti apa yang diterapkan (Contoh: tatap muka, tertulis,
internet, atau kehadiran pihak penengah).
 Apakah akibat dari cara berkomunikasi tersebut?
 Kesempatan apa yang ada untuk memperbaiki komunikasi?

3. Kepentingan
Datang untuk memahami kepentingan pihak lain mungkin tidak selalu begitu mudah.
Ada beberapa pihak yang mungkin memiliki alasan untuk ingin sengaja
menyembunyikan kepentingan yang mendasari mereka dalamsubyek tertentu, atau
kepentingan mereka mungkin sulit untuk menguraikan hanya karena mereka mungkin
beberapa. Ketika pihak yang terlibat tidak individu tetapi kelompok individu,
kompleksitas meningkat bahkan lebih. Dalam situasi ini pihak mungkin harus lihat
tidak hanya kelompok kepentingan, tetapi juga kepentingan masing-masing anggota.

 Apa saja kebutuhan, perhatian, tujuan, harapan, dan ketakutan yang

memotivasi masing-masing pihak?
 Apakah masing-masing pihak memiliki kepentingan yang sama?
 Kepentingan-kepentingan apa yang saling bertentangan?
 Bagaimana kepentingan yang bertentangan tersebut dapat direvisi?

4. Pilihan-pilihan
Untuk proses negosiasi sebagai mengidentifikasi kepentingan yang
mendasarinya. Membangkitkan pilihan melalui teknik seperti brainstorming-teknik
yang melibatkan mengundang semua pihak untuk ikut dalam setiap ide yang datang
ke pikiran tanpa mengkritik atau menolak ide-ide juga membantu Setelah pihak telah
mulai membangun hubungan dan bertukar informasi dalam rangka untuk
mendapatkan pemahaman yang lebih jelas dari kepentingan yang dipertaruhkan, para
pihak harus beralih ke tugas menghasilkan pilihan.
Dalam negosiasi, pilihannya adalah solusi yang mungkin untuk masalah yang
dibagi oleh dua atau lebih banyak pihak. Dalam tawar-menawar integratif, pilihan
merupakan cara yang mungkin pertemuan sebagai banyak kepentingan kedua belah
pihak 'mungkin. Sebagai contoh ketika dua orang (atau dua perusahaan atau dua
negara) terjebak dalam solusi atau pola kebiasaan berpikir, mereka mudah menjadi
 buta terhadap kemungkinan bahwa pemikiran kreatif sedikit mungkin
mengungkapkan pilihan. Karena proses mengidentifikasi pilihan, atau solusi yang
mungkin untuk masalah, mempromosikan pemikiran kreatif dan memperluas
kemampuan pemecahan masalah sangat penting untuk mendorong pemikiran kreatif
tentang masalah dan meningkatkan kemungkinan bahwa pihak terlibat akan
merumuskan "win-win" solusi.

 Bagaimana masing-masing pihak meren-canakan untuk memenuhi

kepentingan mereka?
 Pilihan terbaik apa yang dapat mencapai kepentingan kunci dari masing-
masing pihak?
 Bagaimana pilihan tersebut diperbaiki?
 Dinamika apa yang dapat memfasilitasi/ menghambat kemampuan masing-
masing pihak untuk mengakui dan membahas pilihan-pilihan yang ada?

5. Kriteria / Legitimasi
Ketika tawar-menawar posisi negosiator menciptakan situasi di mana satu sisi harus
mengakui posisi masing-masing agar negosiasi berhasil. Tawar-menawar posisional
adalah tawar-menawar di mana kedua belah pihak mengunci ke posisi tidak
kompatibel. Menurut Fisher dan Ury, hal ini dapat menyebabkan sebuah kontes
kehendak dan kepahitan kebuntuan . Misalnya, posisi penawar akhirnya dapat
mencapai solusi yang muncul untuk "membagi perbedaan "antara dua posisi mereka,
meskipun lebih rasional solusi itu akan cocok bagi kepentingan kedua belah pihak
yang lebih baik.
 Kriteria apakah yang dapat diterapkan oleh masing-masing pihak untuk
melegitimasi pandangan mereka?
 Kriteria apakah yang dimiliki oleh kedua belah pihak?
 Apakah ada kriteria yang sebaiknya diterapkan, namun pada kenyataannya
diabaikan?
 Apakah ada kriteria yang diterapkan, namun sebaiknya dihindari?

6. Alternatif
 Dalam rangka untuk menetapkan tujuan yang realistis, negosiator harus mulai
dengan dasar tertentu mempertimbangkan pertanyaan: di mana akan setiap sisi jika
kesepakatan tidak tercapai? Apa alternatif solusi yang tersedia untuk memenuhi
tujuan Anda jika Anda tidak bisa mengandalkan kerja sama dari pihak lain? Sebagai
lihat sebelumnya, perhatian terhadap alternatif merupakan fitur penting dari distributif
serta integratif berbasis pendekatan.
Namun, berbeda dengan penekanan yang ditempatkan pada konsep-konsep seperti
titik reservasi dan garis bawah dalam pendekatan posisional untuk tawar-menawar,
pendekatan integratif cenderung untuk mengambil pandangan yang sedikit lebih
bernuansa peran alternatif dalam negosiasi. Fisher dan Ury berpendapat bahwa sangat
penting bagi kedua belah pihak untuk mengetahui alternatif terbaik mereka untuk
perjanjian negosiasi atau Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) baik
sebelum dan di seluruh tahapan negosiasi.
 Apabila negosiasi di antara kedua belah pihak sudah ditinggalkan, solusi
alternatif apa yang masih dapat dilakukan oleh masing-masing pihak?
(BATNA = Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)
 Jika negosiasi di antara kedua belah pihak ditinggalkan, hal terburuk apa yang
bisa terjadi? (WATNA = Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement)

7. Komitmen

Sebuah penyelesaian yang dinegosiasikan hanya bertahan jika semua pihak

menghormati komitmen yang mereka membuat. Tentu saja, mereka yang gagal untuk
menindaklanjuti janji-janji mereka berdiri untuk menderita kerugian dari integritas,
tunduk pada kebencian dari sisi lain, dan risiko yang mereka mitra dalam negosiasi (dan
mungkin orang lain di luar kesepakatan itu juga jika kata reputasi mereka lolos) akan
menolak untuk berurusan dengan mereka di masa depan. Tidak ada pihak negosiasi harus
sengaja membuat komitmen bahwa mereka tidak berniat untuk menghormati.

Fisher dan Ertel (1995) berpendapat bahwa selama proses negosiasi, pihak harus
berpikir hati-hati tentang jenis komitmen mereka harus siap untuk membuat.

 Apakah mereka mampu menghormati mereka? Bagaimana luas harus menjadi

komitmen?
  Ketika akan masing-masing pihak diharapkan untuk membuat baik pada
mereka menjanjikan?
 Salah satu cara untuk membangun kepercayaan adalah untuk menciptakan
struktur komitmen yang dapat diimplementasikan secara bertahap. Pihak
mungkin lebih bersedia untuk membuat kesepakatan dengan lawan saat ada
kesempatan untuk menunjukkan bahwa masing-masing pihak menghormati
komitmen mereka bersama . Setelah kepercayaan rusak, bagaimana bisa
pulih?

Gestures adalah salah satu cara melalui mana pihak yang telah kehilangan integritas
dengan pihak lain karena masa lalu yang buruk-iman tindakan dapat mulai
mengkompensasi keluhan sebelumnya. Misalnya, pihak yang gagal untuk melakukan
pembayaran pada kewajiban kontraktual mungkin perlu untuk menawarkan uang muka
pada kontrak baru untuk meyakinkan mitra dagang buruk diperlakukan bahwa mereka
layak melakukan bisnis dengan di masa depan.

7 Elements of Negotiation

We all know that everyone negotiates. We all know that we have been negotiating since we were
babies, the difference now compared to then is that as a baby, our method of negotiating was crying
whereas hopefully now we have a few more tools in our mediator/negotiator toolbox. Every
negotiation, according to Roger Fisher of Harvard's Program on Negotiation, has seven
distinguishable elements that are interconnected. They are:

1. Interests
2. Alternatives
3. Relationship
4. Options
5. Legitimacy
6. Communication
7. Commitment
As a negotiator, during your preparation (remember how important preparing is?), you can use these
7 elements to create your game plan.
As a mediator, it is important to remember these as you can help the parties move forward, move
from positions to interests, and keeping the 7 in mind, it helps move from stalemates (among many
other positive uses).
Regardless of how you mediate or negotiate, the 7 elements are always present in negotiations. What
changes is the importance of one over the other. An example is having your interests met in a
particular negotiation might far outweigh the future relationship you will have with the other party
I am going to breakdown the 7 elements into separate posts by day as a way to get you to keep
coming back to my blog (wait, did I just think that or type it?!?).
Seriously, I am breaking it down element by element to keep the theme of my posts being quick
reads, but after the seventh one, I will make a posting having all seven in one place for easier future
references.
 INTERESTS
Negotiating based on interests has many positive attributes to it. But what does 'interests' mean?
         I want him to pay me
         I want the radio to stop being so loud
         I want my money back
Guess what? Those are positions- not interests. The above are what you want to accomplish. To
create a greater chance of a mutually beneficial agreement, negotiate on interests over positions.
When you negotiate on positions, both sides have a tendency to dig their heels in, get stuck in their
thoughts, spend most of the negotiation defending their position and attacking the others.
Interest based negotiating on the other hand creates more of a collaborative environment and
expands your options. By doing this, its creates a win-win opportunity compared to the combative me
versus you/win-lose situation.
Using the above listed examples of positions, possible interests behind them could include:
         I feel like I was cheated and disrespected
         I need my rest, I go to bed early because I work the early shift
         I paid for a service that I feel I did not get and I am frustrated
Your interests represent your needs, hopes and concerns.
Ok, now you know your interests, so you think you are done right? Wrong, you are only halfway there.
It is great you know your interests, but in order for the negotiation to get a successful outcome, the
agreement must be beneficial to both parties. So yes, you guessed it, you have to figure out the other
party's interests too.
Figuring out their interests provides you with many benefits. For one thing, it prepares you on how
they may or may not respond to your needs. Also, knowing their interests helps you find out what their
alternatives are.
Part Two: Alternatives
Figuring out your interests allows you to figure out your BATNA and WATNA.
It's ok if you are saying, "huh???"
BATNA and WATNA are acronyms for Best-Alternative-To-A-Negotiated-Agreement and Worst-
Alternative-To-A-Negotiated-Agreement. You compare your alternative to the possible agreement that
is on the table. You weigh your best alternative and worst alternative with the possible agreement and
find out what is best for you. Actually, and this is very important, you need to find out what is best
for you given the circumstances.
What do I mean? The agreement on the table might be better than your alternative, however in a
perfect world, your alternative might be better. Confused? Read Part 4 and I promise that Options will
explain it further.
You need to figure out what is best for you in the current situation by weighing it against your
alternatives to getting an agreement. Figuring out your alternatives is key to your preparations for the
negotiation.
Generally, you do not want to accept an agreement that is worse than your BATNA.
As is the case with finding interests, you also need to know your other party's alternatives. Just like
you will weigh your potential agreement against your alternative, they should do the same. If you are
the mediator, this actually goes for the negotiator too, and a party to the negotiation does not know
their alternative- help them! Yes, help them. As the mediator, you want to make sure your parties are
informed.
There is a big a difference between giving advice and making sure they are aware of what will or will
not happen if there is an agreement or lack of one. Raising awareness of the party's alternatives,
especially in stalemates can help generate movement.
 As the other party/negotiator, a great way to get the other party/negotiator to move towards a possible
agreement is to get them to see that their alternative to an agreement will leave them worse off than
the offer on the table.
Part 3: Relationship
You have your interests figured out as well as your alternative. Both are two very important tasks to
take care of during your preparations, as well as to remember during the negotiation. An important
question to ask yourself before you begin your negotiation is, "How important is the relationship I have
with the other party/negotiator/group they are representing?"
The value, or lack, of the relationship should determine such things like how hard will you press
certain issues, how tough of a stand will you take, will you be more attacking or submissive, etc?
If the relationship will not exist after the negotiation concludes, you might not care how they feel or
really be all to concerned with their emotions, right? Well, not really. Although you might not care as
much compared to wanting to keep a relationship ongoing, I would still advise someone not to go into
the negotiation 'guns blazing'.
The first reason is personal. Maybe I might not care all to much what the other party thinks of me, but
I do care what I think of me.
Huh?
What I mean is I have control over me and only me in the negotiation. I do not want to resort to name
calling or an all-out offensive attack because that is not how I negotiate.
Additionally, consider your reputation. You might never interact with this person or group again, but
keep in mind they might talk to other people in your field or market. When someone says, "your
reputation precedes you," you don't want it to be for being a hothead, do you?
Losing the battle might help you win the war. Ok, first I really dislike referring to any mediation or
negotiation to war, so this is a rarity but it fits. If maintaining the relationship is more important than
this particular issue/conflict you are having, is it really worth damaging, possibly beyond the point of
fixing? This is a very important question to ask yourself.
As a mediator, it is important to ask the parties how important the relationship is. By doing so you are
playing the crucial role of reality testing to get them to consider the choices they might make and the
future implications it will have.
Part 4: Options
You are now past the early stages of the negotiation/mediation. It is now time to generate some
movement. When each side has expressed their interests, next you look at options. Options are the
full spectrum of possible agreements. When brainstorming options, keep in mind that each option
should meet the needs of both parties- not just you! Let me mention a couple of key points to
generating options:
         Create first, evaluate second. List all options first, not leaving anything out. After all possible options
have been listed, then go over each and determine if they meet each party’s needs.
         Write them down on paper or a board without giving credit to who said what. This helps move in the
collaborative direction instead of confrontation. I find it useful to use the 'mind map' method to listing
options. It is simple- you put the issue in the middle of the paper, and then draw out branches for each
possible option. Some study somewhere says this helps the mind be creative... who knows, but it
works for me.
         Looking at options helps move away from the idea that there are only two options- i win or he/she
wins. You are expanding the pie (of options) here.
Exploring options is key to mediation and negotiation. The simple reason is the parties get the
satisfaction that they are taking ownership of the issue(s) and have a direct say in how it can possibly
be resolved. It has been said many times the process and method of handling the dispute is equally
important to the participants as the issue itself.
Part 5: Legitimacy
How do you prove your offer or options are fair? How do you prove the other side's offer is not fair?
finding a neutral, external standard defines the legitimacy of the offers being made.
 Ask yourself, how would such a deal be viewed by a third party?
If it is a money situation, is charging 9% the usual accepted rate? If it is a contract dispute, is it a
commonly accepted practice to expect a deposit back? In the community mediation setting, do you
expect the 3 year old child upstairs to stop moving, let alone running?
As a mediator, it helps at times being experienced, perhaps even a expert in the field you are
mediating in. Although you are not determining the outcome, it could provide you insight into what
open ended type questions to ask.
As the negotiator, knowing accepted standards will help solidify your offers, possibly lessen theirs,
and even create a new option(s).
Part 6: Communication
I if had a personal mantra, it would be Communication, Understanding, Peace. For people to
understand each other (no, i do not necessarily mean agree), there has to be a clear line of
communication, that goes in each direction equally.
If you want more misunderstandings in life, don't communicate... with anyone.
How else are we to understand each other, with all our beautiful differences, ranging from language to
size to skin color, without communicating? It is impossible. Without communication and
understanding, it is not possible to get peace. What I mean by peace is not the absence of violence or
negative conflict but rather genuine peace- the kind that is built on the very first two words of the
mantra- communication and understanding.
Communication in negotiation/mediation is one of your greatest tools. Depending on how you use it, it
could be your best or worst tool. Communication ranges from what you say, how you say it, body
movements, positioning, what you do not say, when and how you do not move and gestures.
The type of communication style you use greatly determines your negotiation style. Some quick tips
for communicating effectively are:
         Speak on your on behalf, not for others and assume what they feel/think.
         Use "I" statements, "I feel frustrated when you missed the deadline because I then have to slow
production down and stay later." Call me crazy, but I think it will much work better compared to saying
something like, "You are lazy and never meet deadlines."
         Listen actively. Don't just wait for them to finish to get your counter-point in, but rather use empathy
while the other is talking to try and fully understand their point of view.
         Show you are listening. simple nodding might work.
         Be relaxed. being stiff and rigid in posture can send the wrong message to the other party that you
are not being open minded and not really giving them your attention.
         it is fine to take notes, but do not scribble and write while looking down the entire time the other
person is speaking.
         Summarize and reflect. Remember, being a part of the process most times is equally important as the
issues. Everyone wants to be able to speak and know that they are being heard. You can accomplish
this by using such phrases as, "what it sounds like you are saying is..." and, "you seem angry
because..."
         Open ended questions. Using them is the best way to get more information, make sure you
understand them, clarify the issues, and also as a way to deflect attacks.
Many books have been written on communication techniques and tips in negotiation and mediation. I
highly suggest if you want to improve you communication style, you engage in further reading on this
important topic.
Part 7: Commitment
Mission accomplished. As a negotiator, you closed a deal and you are better off. As the mediator, you
helped both sides explore the issues and then find a suitable, acceptable option.
The last part of the of the seven elements should not be passed over or forgotten just because you
are at the finish line or even feel you have already crossed it. Making sure the agreement reached is
realistic and that both sides can keep their end of it is crucial to the process. If there is not a legitimate
 chance of either of the parties being able to be committed, they will just end up back at the mediation
table or even in court.
The best example I can give is a mediation between a debt collection agency and the person who
owes the debt. If the person owing the debt agrees to pay $1,000 a month to the agency, but also has
to pay $800 in rent and takes in $1,800 a month in salary that would mean the person has no money
left to eat... or do anything else for that matter!
What do you do as the mediator? A good tool out of the 'mediator's toolbox' to use can be reality
testing. Ask questions such as:
         "Is this something you think you can stick with?"
         "Given the situation, do you think that can be done?"
         "Can you afford this on your salary?"
         "Only you know if you can stick with this plan, what do you think?"
         "Do you want to take a little time to think about it?"
The questions can also be asked to the other party as well:
         "Is this something you think he/she can commit to?"
         "What will happen if they do not hold up their end of the deal?"
These questions can help slow down or pause the negotiation to help everyone take a breath to see if
the terms are something that each can stick with.
Remember, commitments are not only what people will do, but it can also state what they won't do.
Making sure both sides can commit to the agreement ensures that the time and effort everyone has
dedicated to the mediation is not wasted by agreeing to something that is not realistic.

SUMBER LAIN :

http://www.geoffsharp.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Seven-Elements-of-Successful-
Negotiation.pdf

https://hms.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/assets/Sites/Ombuds/files/HMS.HHSD_.HSP
H_.OmbudsOffice.SEVEN%20ELEMENTS%20OF%20EFFECTIVE
%20NEGOTIATIONS.pdf