Essay On Aussie Air Negotiations

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

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.

Summary: This was a multiparty negotiation, which involved 6 players all with very different negotiation styles. It was an exercise in which teams easily form a coalition. There were concessions about the value added each team would bring to the “table”, and my team in a situation of power saw how negatively the other teams reacted in name of fairness and how important was to share the pie.

Power is never linked to price, but always to value.” Power in negotiations can be perceived or real which affects the final negotiation outcome. Generally all disputants have some power to an extent which is used to achieve a favourable outcome. It is unlikely the power balance stays consistent, power shifts throughout the negotiation process. Knowing how the power works and how to use power to achieve desirable outcome is important for successful negotiations. The notion of parity in power is vital in relationships between the disputants. The parity in negotiation is when one party perceives that the other party can oppose any form of power with dissimilar or similar form of power (Lewicki and Saunders et al., 1997). Power parity means there will be a balance in power positioning to some extent. The two different objective powers involving in the bargaining process are power depending on the lack of dependence and role power (Staff, 2013). The first power parallels to a disputants BATNA (Best alternative to a negotiated agreement). Going into a negotiation with strong BATNA means the disputant is less dependent on the other parties in achieving the desired outcome compared to having a weaker alternative. The second power is linked with the positions, titles or roles which grant power simply because of the control or authority they possess. This is often found in hierarchical organisations. Apart from the objective powers there is possibility of

Air Canada has been in the business of air transport for an extended period of time. Due to the experience and the exposure of the carrier in the field, it has made a commendable progress through many strategies as well as customer proximity. One of the approaches taken by the airline involves the identification as well as an implementation of cost reduction initiatives in a bid to increase revenue from its operations (Air Canada, 2016). It is also attempting to connect with the existing carriers across the world to connect the current customers to the international world. This approach has been adopted to increase its competitive advantage over other existing airlines.

“Successful negotiation is not about getting to ‘yes’; it’s about mastering ‘no’ and understanding the path to an agreement is” (Christopher Voss). During the negotiation process, there are a lot of moving parts and personalities. In addition, hurt feelings can all too often get in the way. The bottom line of any negotiation is to reach a settlement that will mutually benefit both parties. It’s a challenging situation by which compromise or agreement is reached while attempting to avoid arguments and disputes.

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

My relationship is not good with the negotiator but it is not bad. It is good enough to where I will do work with her again if I absolutely have to or it will put my name out to high level costumers (such as the government). But on the other hand I will not enjoy working with her due to not having any visual concessions. During this negotiation labeled my concessions and got the response of someone who did not care. From this negotiation I learned to become

In this strategic analysis report I as senior manager of Jetstar have developed PESTEL analysis, SWOT analysis, competitive analysis, created new mission and value

Negotiation is one of the most common approaches used to make decisions and manage disputes. It is also the major building block for many other alternative dispute resolution procedures. According to Christopher W (2012), negotiation is the principal way that people redefine an old relationship that is not working to their satisfaction or establish a new relationship where none existed before. Because negotiation is such a common problem-solving process, it is in everyone 's interest to become familiar with negotiating dynamics and skills. This section is designed to identify what worked well and not well in the negotiation. In addition, to present strategies that generally makes the negotiation more efficient and improvement in the next

In chess you know the pieces but you can’t see into the other person’s mind. In negotiation you don’t necessarily know the ‘pieces’. You have to discover and develop your own pieces and find ways of uncovering your counterparts’.” The Essentials of Job Negotiations, (2011)

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.

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.

Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) solves the disputes through the bargaining process which is intended to support the increase in the salary with effective productivity. As the case states, primary legal challenge originated against the industrial act. Four diverse legislative structures over the time frame have been formed, yet there has additionally been a decent arrangement of progression both in the importance on business results and appropriate monetary results. In light of this underlying consistency, they have believed that it was valuable to consider monetary issues in the overall transformation effect of the move from mandatory negotiation since the year 1992. As Owen says, this agreement is not safe as it does not secure the document. Individuals ought to completely comprehend that Aurizon is not the slightest bit only another name for QRN; they are an altogether distinct that will give their specialists no quarter. It is important amid this battle that one is exceptionally watchful what they say to any piece of the administration component of Aurizon (Fair Work Act Review 2012).

According to Halpert et al.’s Path model, negotiation consists of different phases such as preparation, differentiation, exploration, and exchange. The preparation phase in our previous negotiation became an essential part that played a role of evaluation of both parties positions in our successful outcome.