Case Analysis - Negotiations

To: Boss From: Re: American Dream Analysis Date 12/5/2014 Subject: Local Union P-9 vs Hormel Meat packing Company. Preparation is key when it comes to negotiating an agreement and a prefect example would be the Hormel Company vs the Local Union P-9 workers(meat packing). The Local Union and Hormel Company both were placed at the negotiation table due to wage cut and “unfair treatment” that was conducted by the management team. This disagreement caused the Local Union to rally up members from the meat packing department that influence the workers and workers from other factories to go on strike. During this negotiation both parties made a few mistakes that are costly and time consuming. Hormel Company

Pacific was not willing to walk away from Relient which I felt they had unreasonable request. .

This paper presents my reflections on the Negotiations: Strategy and practice coursework in the MBA program at Said Business School, University of Oxford. My paper will present various reflections on different themes of negotiation simulation undertaken by me during the course. This course has allowed investigating and reflecting on key drivers of negotiation techniques for me. I have learned that transparency and coalition are the core tenet of negotiation for me. For the purpose of this reflective exercise, I will conduct a comparative analysis of the process, dynamics and outcomes based on the themes such as negotiation styles, bargaining zones, power, emotion, coalitions, value claiming vs value creation etc. for the below-mentioned simulations:

It would seem that the types of negotiators each of our characters took on also had a fair part in the way the negotiations played out. Bhand (2010) discusses the four types of negotiators. I don’t believe we see all four of the negotiation types displayed in this negotiation, but rather that Fontaine and Gaudin share the same negotiation technique while Hauptmann, and Zinnser take on very different methods to the negotiating. Let’s start with Fontaine and Gaudin. From the first visit between Gaudin and Hauptmann in December to the combined visit of Fontaine and Gaudin in March, Lewiski (n.d.) points out the factors of the established relationship between Pacific Oil and Reliant Chemical, and the thought of Fontaine and Gaudin that the negotiations will be without any real problems. This thought process, and the way it continues to drive the negotiation going forward falls into Bhand’s definition of a negotiator low on task orientation but high on relationship orientation. “They have a mindset that if the relationship with the other negotiator is ‘good’ then it will be easy to negotiate…rarely disagreeing with the other party, they want to please the other party by agreeing to most demands” (2010). This behavior is displayed over and over again with Fontaine and Gaudin in that they do not disagree with any of the Reliant Chemical demands outright, but rather they

Power in the negotiations was very important. People have power when they have “the ability to bring about outcomes they desire” or “the ability to get things done the way they want them to be done” (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011). Both Greystar and Carmel had informational power. They had the expertise of two very tenured

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

The TexasAgs oil company case study gave us insights on different aspects of a negotiation that can happen in real world scenarios. It elegantly portrayed the importance of having a BATNA, setting target and restriction points, impact of the fluctuating markets on the ongoing negotiations, downside of the emotional behavior, importance of having a third party member or mediator in the negotiation. The case illustrates that the negotiations should be based assumptions as they may or may not be right. Having facts and understanding the other parties true objectives and goals are truly essential in negotiation. It is a typical example of how the current power on one side can dominate and take complete advantage of their position.

The Pacific Oil Company went into negotiations with Reliant Manufacturing, and its goal was to sign a more long-term agreement prior to the contract ending in three years. Pacific anticipated that the new contract would be signed with no major obstacles or changes, and that the dominant point of negotiation

“VCM is subjected to the process of polymerization, in which smaller molecules of vinyl chloride are chemically bonded together to form larger molecular chains and networks.” Pacific Oil's first major contract with the Reliant Corporation was in 1979. The contract between Pacific Oil and Reliant was a standard one for the industry and due to expire in December of 1982. The contract was negotiated by the purchasing managers in Europe then it was reported to the vice presidents in the states.

Perhaps Placido would have to find other suppliers that will meet the demands for a low cost, that would be an advantage for the company.

Span needs to carefully select which items it needs to negotiate fiercely and which ones it needs to concede. There must be balance; Span has to successfully renegotiate the current contract without the perception of being weak.

Weaknesses: In most cases, this is a short-term strategy used with the expectation that accommodation now will create an opportunity to achieve outcome goals in the future. This strategy should only be used when the outcome is not very important or if the primary objective is to improve the relationship. Unfortunately, for Pacific the outcome was important though the relationship wasn’t.

3. What are the interests of the key stakeholders in the terms of the Vacutainer-APG negotiations?

Kollbrunner and Li should expect these potential concerns and seek for opinions from Indivers, QQMF and the Chinese government before the negotiation. More importantly, they should have remained open for many rounds of negotiation before reaching the deal so as to clearly address to both parties' concern and reach for feasible win-win solutions.

LBN (Elisabeth Hayward) Contracts Manager and Jill Britton and its authorised officers have deliberately and maliciously prolonged the embargo process commenced since 04/12/2014 (see Appx 1) by unreasonably moving its goal post in their proposed Action plan, which contains unrealistic goals at the detriment of UPL but each time the actions were