Negotiation Case Study Essay examples

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.

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.

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?

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

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

For the Texoil negotiation, I was in the role of the Service Station Owner. As such, my main objective was to sell the station and get the best possible agreement. My BATNA was $400,000, which represented an offer from British Petroleum and my resistance point was $413,000 after tax, which represented the cost of my trip. My target was $488,000, which included an additional $75,000 to help tie me over until I found a job upon my return. This resistance point represents a purely financial alternative. However, there were several other criteria or interests other than strictly financial which could have been satisfied through non-financial means. My underlying interest or reason for selling the station was

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.

During pre-negotiation, the goals at the Lambert team was to aim high and be aggressive, thus providing room to negotiation towards target goals: 1) stock ownership of 60/40 ≤ goal of 50/50; 2) provide one seat on the board ≤ goal to agree to

The Situation: I am trying to sell my 1998 Volkswagen Jetta GL so that I can put a down payment on a new Subaru I have already agreed to buy. In fact, I am supposed to go and pick up the new Subaru tomorrow morning. If I am unable to sell my Jetta by tomorrow, I will have to borrow the money for my down payment at prime plus 5% interest. Needless to say, I would like to sell the Jetta today for no less than $4,700, which is what I need to put a down payment on the Subaru. If I am unable to sell to the party I am negotiating with, the Subaru dealer said he would buy it for $4,400, but I think I can get more than that.

However, as there were many parties involved in the meeting, each party had its own interests and objectives that they wished to obtain from the negotiation and the deal. The five main issues that were negotiated between the six parties were Industry Mix, Ecological Impact,

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

Simply put resting at a conclusion after a negotiation may not necessarily be the ideal outcome unless cooperative is achieved by both parties. Bargaining in general could involve parents, friends, teachers, spouses, employers, and so on (Anderson, 2013). Likewise companies also negotiation contracts with one another or individuals involved within the companies.

To comprehensively evaluate the success of the negotiations, there has to be a panoramic range of measures to ensure favourable and/or fair outcomes on all fronts. ACME Engineering crafted measures to expand the definition of success, some of which I used to discover successes and failures in different aspects of the negotiations (Ertel 1999, pp. 60-62).