Developing A Successful Negotiating Style

Gina Blair and Daniel Trent cooperate and collaborate to achieve a common objective throughout their negotiation. A cooperative negotiation style is demonstrated as they combine their points of view regarding their clients concerns with outcomes to effectively solve the issues raised. The main focus of the negotiation is to reach an agreement rather than a continuous dispute. Accordingly, the conflicting objectives were resolved by compromises and solutions but forward by both Gina and Daniel. The negotiation style used between Gina and Daniel is described as principled negotiation where both parties jointly attack the problems arising to achieve a compromise.

Our team approached this negotiation case in a very efficient way. Each of us had a very clearly job assignment. Two people took care of the calculation while the other two people were responsible for the negotiation. Thus we quickly built up a model and provided several options to our counterparts with different terms but same net value of the final bargaining agreement to our team.

Negotiations are a part of daily life whether we are aware of them occurring or not. In everything that we do there are preferred end results and the end results are likely to affect more than one person. The goal in this however, is to ensure that all parties are equally benefited from the actions and reactions that occur to create that end result. While some dealings are done in a more subtle manner without a great deal of negotiation per say there are other situations that would warrant more vocalized mutually acceptable compromises. The purpose of this paper will be to effectively explain a situation of which required negotiation on the part of both parties that almost all of us have endured and that would be the process of buying a

Identify the strengths and weaknesses of Hauptman's and Zinnser's negotiating strategy. How effectively did Hauptman and Zinnser approach the negotiation?

In Energetics meets Generex negotiation, I was acting as a Chief Operating Officer (COO) for Energetics Corporation and my opponent and my classmate Chace Eskam was acting as a COO of Generex Corporation. In this deal, as a COO I was supposed to sell the Wind energy division of the Energetics to Generex. Energetics Corporation was in desperate need of cash due to bankruptcy. Another hurdle was that I could not sell three different locations of Wind plants individually. My company needed cash within three months with no additional terms added to this deal. My another best alternative was to sell all the assets of Wind Energy division to generate some cash if deal with Generex fails in this negotiation. Our negotiation went on for 15-20 minutes during class time and deal was set in $247 millions. My opponent Chace was very tough in this negotiation to deal. He was very prepared with facts and numbers before he came to the table. My opponent asked me lot questions such as the depreciation of the property, equipment’s life, taxes etc. After having lot of discussion we ultimately came to the conclusion that Generex will pay Energetics $247 million right away in cash to purchase Wind Energy division from Energetics.

1. How did you plan for the negotiation? Explain how you decided on a strategy?

What surprised me the most about our behavior was how well we collaborated. At the beginning of the negotiation, I usually spend a bit of time trying to assess how the other party will negotiate (compete, collaborate, or subordinate). From the beginning of the negotiation, it was very clear that Texoil valued our relationship, was very interested in me coming back to work for them, was concerned about my wife, and was interested in my future plans. This created the right tone for collaborating. This created a basis of trust and openness, which led to creative options, which would not have been possible if one party decided to negotiate competitively. Both parties did a good job of asking questions to delve at the underlying interests, which allowed for give and take, and enabled each side to put forth proposals which could be openly considered. If the tone of the negotiation had been different, I think the Negotiator’s Dilemma might have prevented information from coming out and prevented interests to surface, and thus prevented creative solutions.

The negotiation between Joe and Leigh had elements of distributive bargaining, but their relationship and the outcome of the negotiation were important to both parties, thus, this negotiation also had collaborative bargaining characteristics (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2010). When using this strategy, the objective is to maximize your outcome on the substantive issues while enhancing the quality of the relationship with the other party (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2011). In a job offer negotiation between two familiar parties, it is important to find a mutually satisfying solution to also enhance business performance.

Consistent with our bargaining strategy, we would also like to work on building a trusting relationship with management in order to get the most out of integrative bargaining. We can do this over the course of the next several months by holding meetings with them to gauge where their interests lay. Through attitudinal bargaining we can lay the ground work for open and transparent dialogue about our objectives. These bonds increase the likelihood that integrative bargaining will succeed and reduce the likelihood of an

In our recent negotiation, my partner Dave and I assumed the roles of Alan Hacker, a computer software developer, and Alan Hacker’s lawyer. Being the lawyer in the negotiation my objective was to avoid litigation with my client’s partner Stanley Star and to aid in the continuation of my client’s co-owned company HackerStar. In addition, I would assist Hacker in coming to an agreement that would be satisfying for him both personally and financially. I felt that Dave and I presented a reasonable argument on Hacker’s behalf and, since I was able to apply some of our class readings during the process, I was overall pleased with the outcome.

For the corporation that has acquired another company, merged with another company, or been acquired by another company, evaluate the strategy that led to the merger or acquisition to determine whether or not this merger or acquisition was a wise choice. Justify your opinion.

Prepare responses to the questions below after viewing the Negotiation Strategy and Tactics Tutorial in this week's lecture. In drafting your answers to the questions, make sure that you apply course concepts in your answers.

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).

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.

When I compared with other cases I could see how we negotiated in a less stressful way and did focus on the problem and not on positions. And I think we learnt a lot of things for the following cases that ended up more open and with a focus on the problem.