Harborco Analysis
The Situation
As the lone representative of Harborco, I was thrust into a 15 on 1 situation in the board room. I knew that though I held much power in the case, it was imperative to make sure the groups did not side together against me. I began simply by discussing the importance of the project and how I wish to gain everyone's support. I focused on the least powerful groups at first, awarding them small victories in order to gain support.
With a small group of allies in my corner, I began negotiation with Daniel Kim who represented the FED. I knew this was the most important negotiation for Harborco and tried to smoothly approach the subject. I explained first the importance of the money needed and how it will
…show more content…
People fight so hard for their side, that they tend to turn stubborn and ignorant. Daniel Kim?s reaction to my request for 3 Billion dollars not only ruined the smooth flow of the negotiation but also changed my entire approach. I planed on chipping away, one group at a time until everyone was somewhat happy with the results. However with the FED?s unwillingness to properly negotiate the whole project seemed to be in jeopardy.
Daniel Kim explained that there is no point in even arguing about this and that he would refuse to give more than 1 Billion dollars. Even as other groups intervened and tried to offer solutions he would not budge. I all of a sudden had to jump onto the offense and attack Kim for being so stubborn and unwilling to listen. I said that if he wont even consider moving up from the 1 billion figure that this negotiation might as well stop right here.
I knew I would not take any less than 2 Billion and that he would not give a penny over 1 Billion. We were in a serious deadlock, one much similar to Hacker and Star. Both of us, refused to budge and threats started being thrown around. He said he had no problem not giving me anything in terms of funding, and I said that this project was not going to go through if he didn?t, and that the rest of the groups could blame the FED. If he was Hacker and I was Star, we would have started suing each other. The problem was that it seemed we both had strong BATNA?s and no reason for
1. What type of decision was the group instructed to reach (e.g. majority, consensus, authoritarian, etc.)
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
All group members enthusiastically partake in the leader’s arbitrations, and if conformity is impossible, a vote will be taken (Mc Caffery, 2004).
The process to start with was quite integrative with both sides laying out their priorities and what their limitation were. However, in between we reached an impasse with both sides not agreeing with each other. We set the anchor at 16,000 and then Anna came back with a bid of 65K plus 5% of gate. We said that was too high and said that was way off industry norms. We countered with 19 K. She said the base was too low, that was not possible and he wanted us to counter bid against ourselves, which we did not. She offered 55K + 5 % of gate. We said we could do 24k but no gate collection. She said 45 K + 5% of the gate. We offered him 26 K and at this point the negotiation kind of stalled. The Opera really wanted Sally for the role and Sally really needed a job as she was
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?
|As a consensus organizer it is important to look for those individuals in the community that are trusted, respected and able to take on the |
The next three issues we negotiated were editorial control, preproduction budget, and post production schedule. Again we logrolled with the issues and came to an agreeable decision. The outcome of the negotiation of this particular bundle was evenly distributed. I felt that the director was willing to collaborate with me on these issues. I wanted the entire negotiation to follow the concept of the integrative negotiation process by setting the tone of the negotiation as a win-win. Reflecting on how the negotiation was going to this point I felt that I may have conceded on more of the issues than the director, but the hope was that the director would concede on the issues that were important to me. I felt I was sensitive to the director’s
People- Pat Olafson is a local investor and real estate developer. In comparison to Sandy, Pat has been very financially successful. Their relationship seems to be multi-layered. Pat plays the role of bank, landlord, and client to Sandy and WoodCrafters. While not illegal, or even immoral, allowing one person, or entity, to have so much control over your business life isn’t the wisest decision. In addition, the combination of Pat’s success and Sandy’s hardships seems to have caused Sandy to be jealous of Pat’s success. It would be in Sandy’s best interest to recognize that his perception of Pat bears no significance on this negotiation. Sandy would be best served by leaving his perceptions behind and keeping his emotions in check.
I assumed this was because Jamie disclosed the details of the offer I made her to Jack. Therefore, Jack was willing to accept less, in order to remain competitive with my offer. Because of the concept of scarcity caused by many people wanting the same thing (Bargaining for Advantage, pg. 179), I foresaw this happening, so when I reentered the negotiation, I asked to speak privately with Jack. Knowing that Jack felt pressured to drop his portion with Jamie because of me previous offer, I again tried to mention to him how I thought a three-way deal where funding was split equally and I conceded $10,000 of my share was a fair deal. I was hoping he would side with me when we reentered the negotiation because he would now understand the spiral effect that exists in this negotiation. However, because I knew I couldn’t rely on this I also mentioned the possibility that we could come to an agreement and I could better Jamie’s offer. I believe we reached a tentative agreement where I would receive $70,000 and he would receive $230,000. Again, I wish I could have persuade him to agree right then and there, but it seemed that he wanted to rejoin Jamie to further discuss the options. When all three of us we involved yet again, Jack had mentioned openly how it would be more beneficial to have an agreement with me, and this really caused an unexpected, but
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 first problem that I envision is for the meeting to get off topic, because when there’s many people is easier for this to happen. Additionally, it will be hard to listen and this can create frustration when parties are not able to speak when they wish. However, another problem could be that Harborco would not be willing to compensate other ports because they have initially agreed not to. A last problem that I envision is deciding the industry mix which can highly affect the other ports. It can severely damage the other ports if no industry is excluded. On the other hand, my conflict strategy is integrative negotiation, because I want to maintain good relationship with other parties in case the project is accepted. I anticipate that Harborco conflict strategy is integrative negotiation as well, because they want votes that are in favor of their project and therefore will be willing to adjust to their interests in order to create a mutual gain agreement. One of the tactics I will use is to gather my thoughts before speaking because there are many parties involve and don’t want to look bad. Another tactic I will use is to talk fist to the parties that are not in favor of the project such as The Environmental League. The last tactic I will use is to be in favor with the ecological impact even though the other ports don’t care about
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.
* This negotiation was an important one from a career point of view as it involves a salary negotiation for an existing job. I have never been in a situation where I have actually negotiated a salary for a person working under me, so it was a good experience for me. I was playing the role of Pat Lynch, V.P. of marketing for Rapid Leatherhead Goods Company. There are 4 main product lines which comprise the major portion of the company’s online sales. A new director for marketing was hired two years ago for mail order sales. He has done a good job with three lines, but the fourth line, which was a problem even before he joined, is still a problem and there has not been an increase in sales for that product. It is the company’s