Summary: Get Your Head In The Game

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.

December 9th , GM of Reds publicly announced he will take over contract of Griffey, “ bring him home “ as he completed a month of negotiations with the Seattle Mariners GM just to bring Griffey on the team and trade a few other players from Cincinnati Reds to Seattle Mariners. For the contract negotiation ‘communication’ is the link that was used to negotiate the issue/argument whether it is face-to-face offer , on the telephone or in writing. The type of negotiation in the case was not just between two people. Each offer involved several members from both parties, the Seattle Mariners and Cincinnati Reds.

In hindsight, my opening offer was not conducive to a collaborative strategy. As discussed in class, the initial offer should be as high as possible without harming credibility. Knowing all the facts of the negotiation now, my $1,100 offer could have predisposed Harrison to be prepared to walk away. In choosing my opening price, I should have tried to consider the other party’s circumstances and access to information. As discussed in class, I could have also tried to justify the opening price with various add-on benefits, creating room for small wins and rational for concessions.

Propose a negotiating outcome for each of the possible negotiations that could occur in this scenario and defend your responses. Negotiations between:

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.

When entering into contract negotiations, the objective of each side is to obtain a contract of greatest benefit to their organization. This desirable outcome never happens by chance; it is always the result of careful planning. A critical part of this planning is understainding the role of power. This includes determining who possesses the power in bargaining, and establishing strategies to bargain with individuals who have more power than you. This power is needed to obtain the advantage in negotiating which will increase the likelihood of obtaining the goal (Lewicki, Saunders & Barry, 2011). Once in the heat of negotiation, it can be too late to try to catch-up on planning which failed to occur before the negotiation process began.

“Baseball is like church,” Leo Durocher once said, “many attend, few understand.” Nearly everyone agrees that baseball is America’s pastime but not nearly everyone understands it or it’s intricate parts; the same can be said for negotiation. The art of negotiation transcends any one topic or area. From our very beginnings as a country when we scored what went down as one of the greatest deals in history, the Louisiana Purchase, and later what may be known as the worst deal ever, the Boston Red Sox trading Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees. Contract negotiation has evolved immensely since the sport’s inception in 1839.

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.

Having read on Fisher’s and Ury’s “positional bargaining” section in Getting to Yes, I attempted to use the alternative approach described as the “principled approach” (Fisher and Ury, 11). I was able to effectively practice most of the relevant categories except for the “invent options for mutual gains” part, as I did not “develop multiple options to choose from” (Fisher and Ury, 13). I instead only chose from one set option—the 8.5 million dollars—and left it at that, assuming that if I were to push for anything lower that Charlotte would for some reason regret letting me go below the 10 million dollars limit I assumed she had as well. Therefore, I was naively happy with the 8.5 million dollar deal that we had, as I was not aware until after that I could have gone as low as 3.5 million dollars.

Fisher, R & Ury, W. (1983). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. New York:

“Instead of approaching the problem in a competitive as distributive bargaining (claiming value only for one), the integrative negotiation the parties adopt an attitude aimed at solving the problem and seek a favorable outcome for both” (Business Blog Review, 2011).

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.

Attached please find both the Professional Discussion Paper and Presentation. I took into consideration your comments regarding my topic for the project paper and presentation, and have chosen an entirely different topic which is “Negotiations Strengths and weakness.” Please if you would review the attached I feel as though it’s ready for submission pending your suggestion and approval. Thank you for the kind words regarding our loss it is greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

1) Was this a Distributive or Integrative negotiation?- was it the optimum approach and why or why not.

I would point out the underlying aim of the session and the objective that each of the parties seek. In this way, I would show that each of us wants the same aims, i.e. to come to some solution equally favorable for each of the parties and that this session is intent on pleasing each. It will be focused on gain for all rather than conflict.