The negotiations for a joint venture between Nora and Sakari have been taking place for over two years and 20 meetings. Meeting locations have varied, but have been held in both of the firm’s respective countries of Helsinki and KL. So far, the meetings sunk costs in promoting the JV between the two companies are estimated at RM3 million.
There are mutual benefits for a cooperative effort. The main benefit for Sakari would be to meet its strategy of expanding R&D centres in to South-east Asia which is a market of unexploited potential. They would be to meet this strategy if they gained access through Malaysia. Nora’s main benefit would be able to fulfill its TMB contract since its bid was reliant on providing “Sakari’s 4G LTE technology” (XX). Despite the benefits that would occur due to the agreement the negotiation efforts failed to reach a JV agreement between the two entities. Some of the major reasons for negotiation failure were due to difference in goals, negotiation and interaction styles, cultural differences and behaviors, and lack of trust.
GOALS, NEGOTIATION AND INTERACTION STYLES
Their approaches to negotiation and objectives were very different for each party. Nora went in with an integrative negotiation strategy since they had already won their bid based on using Sakari’s 4G technology and having a successful agreement would be important in fulfilling the contract with TGMXX. The were interested in creating a win-win situation. On the other-hand Sakari’s
Gina Blair represented a competitive-cooperative negotiation strategy which represented a middle ground, both combined in a style which was open minded but assertive. Gina had scheduled the telephone meeting between herself and Daniel Trent; therefore she had more knowledge about what was going to be discussed. As she had initiated the negotiation she had prepared well for the issues concerning her clients. She presented her negotiation in a logical structure, showing that she had prepared all the areas of concern which she intended to address. Her preparation allowed her to identify and prioritise her client’s concerns. She avoided small talk and was very direct, her approach was assertive and she projected confidence. She had a clear understanding of the issues which were of concern to her clients and had proposed
At the same time, I also realized that the negotiation partners are not always having the conflict interests during the negotiation. In this case, for some of the issues, we actually have the same goals. So baring this in mind, in the future negotiation case, I would first seek the common goals for both of us first to create a win-win situation.
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of Hauptman's and Zinnser's negotiating strategy. How effectively did Hauptman and Zinnser approach the negotiation?
1. Review text pages 137–139 in Chapter 4. These pages cover step 9 in the planning process, assessing the social context of negotiation.
Karin got all the important role players together at the beginning of the project and conducted a one day partnering workshop where all the major accounting heads of the different divisions, one member of each task group and key persons from each contractor were invited. The main purpose of the workshop was to improve team building amongst
Negotiation is a fundamental form of dispute resolution involving two or more parties (Michelle, M.2003). Negotiations can also take place in order to avoid any future disputes. It can be either an interpersonal or inter-group process. Negotiations can occur at international or corporate level and also at a personal level. Negotiations often involve give and take acknowledging that there is interdependence between the disputants to some extent to achieve the goal. This means that negotiations only arise when the goals cannot be achieved independently (Lewicki and Saunders et al., 1997). Interdependence means the both parties can influence the outcome for the other party and vice versa. The negotiations can be win-lose or win-win in nature.
1. How did you plan for the negotiation? Explain how you decided on a strategy?
The 2001-2002 failed Caxtalene joint venture negotiations between CLQ and Wyoff provide important lessons on how to avoid failure in the current negotiations over the proposed AD/CE JV at CLQ’s Rizhao complex. In the Caxtalene negotiations there were critical substantive differences which prevented the parties from even reaching a preliminary agreement on ownership structure. Wyoff and CLQ were at polar opposites on both the equity split and the terms of technology transfer, with Wyoff demanding 80% and CLQ not prepared to go over 50%, Wyoff anxious to limit any substantive technology transfer and wanted to charge a substantial licensing fee for any technology that was transferred and CLQ expecting a free transfer of technology as part of the JV agreement.
Looking at the parties involved in the negotiation, it was clear that each party would have agendas that would be in conflict with each other. For instance, the other ports in the region would like the highest compensation possible while Harborco would like the lowest compensation. Additionally, each party would also have a minimum threshold score that they would need from each outcome before they would support the project. Therefore, it is clear that this is an integrative negotiation which requires joint problem solving to achieve
In any negotiation, preparation is crucial; and having a set, outlined process to follow when preparing helps mitigate a potential oversight of any significant issues within the negotiation. Following a set process also helps one stay on task and in-line with what the important issues and factors are in a negotiation. In Bargaining for Advantage, G. Richard Shell provides a well-structured framework to follow in planning for a negotiation. For this reason, I used Shell’s negotiation preparation framework to plan for the negotiation between Rapid Printing Company (Rapid) and Scott Computers, Inc (Scott).
climate, strategy to use and at the same time knowing BATNA of both parties to
Both our approaches were directed towards addressing the issues with a collaborative spirit for the greatest benefit to both sides. We agreed that both sides wanted to establish a long term a relationship with each other and were willing to give genuine consideration to each other’s particular needs and interests. This experience has enabled me to reflect on my personal approach towards negotiation, as well as analyze my strengths and potential areas for improvement as a negotiator.
The lesson learned from this is that sometimes it is easier and faster reach a new market via joint venture, even though the profit will be less, but the company can save a lot of money in studying the new market trying to understand the new culture and how they purchase and also it can minimize the risk because there is a national brand supporting the new international brand, which gives confidence and security to the customers.
3. What are the interests of the key stakeholders in the terms of the Vacutainer-APG negotiations?
The very nature of a joint venture lends itself to competitive risks. Competitive risks include: (1) opportunistic behavior; (2) misrepresentation of competencies; (3) failures to make resources and capabilities available; (4) failure to make alliance investments. The TNK-BP joint venture must deal with opportunistic behavior. Labor laws designed to limit the number of foreign nationals in top positions in natural resource companies are being exploited by TNK-BP. The Russian shareholders of AAR are using the laws to limit the number of foreign managers and specialists working in Russia. The ultimate goal is to place more Russians into top positions and to use the leverage provided by that leadership to achieve AAR objectives. The main dispute revolves around whether TNK-BP should be allowed to expand outside Russia