Make up blog: week of 4/16/2012

The class week of 4/16/2012 we did another group negotiation.  Prior to this negotiation we watched a short video of a negotiation between an American business man and a Asian business man.  In the video you saw how the two parties wanted very different things in terms of a relationship.  After watching the video we were given a negotiation to do in groups that dealt with each group of 2 or 3 being a different country.  This way we were able to play the role of our country and see how different countries interact.
During the negotiation I along with Taylor played the role of the American.  As the American I wanted things to get finished quickly and I obviously wanted as much control as possible.  Despite my role, I knew that from prior negotiations we were going to have to give up some things in order to gain some value.  Unfortunately going into the negotiation we saw that it was next to impossible to log roll. 
Although our group did not get along and we had to caucus a few times, in the end the Americans got what they wanted. 
This was a very fun and different negotiation.  Seeing different points of view from what different countries valued was definitely different. 

Connecticut School District Negotiation Reflection

Today in class we reviewed the results of Monday's negotiation.  Going into the negotiation it was clear that despite our interests we were probably going to have to give something up.  Being the headmaster I wanted the pool because I felt that it would save us money in the long run and give us more of a return then most other projects.  After seeing our results I realized that I was almost cheated out of what I wanted.  The trustee's in our group got everything they wanted and then some.  Our group decided to create as much value as possible by not forgoing with the large projects like the pool and the heating system, but to tackle every other project.  Which meant that everyone would get something that was of interest to them.  I left the negotiation feeling happy about the deal that we had made because we got more out of it than I was expecting even though we didn't get the pool which was my number one priority.  It was clear to me after seeing the results that the trustee's did a good job at making me feel like I was getting a good deal despite my loss.  My realization of this tactic made me realize how beneficial it is to make someone feel like they are getting a good deal even if they may not be getting as good of a deal as you are.

Make up post from Thursday

Last week we read our part of the Connecticut Valley School negotiation.  During Thursday's class we were able to meet up with our team mate and were able to strategize for the negotiation that would take place on Monday.  For this particular negotiation my partner and I played the role of the Head Master.  During our time in class we were able to agree on what interests we had and what tactics we were going to take to the negotiation table on Monday.  Our case said that we wanted the pool, the buses, and the hockey rink.  We figured since the pool consumed most of our budget that we would have to do a lot of convincing.  We would tell the other members that by providing the students with a pool we would be saving the $35,000 a year for the rental of the pool and the transportation to and from the pool.  We would also make money on the pool because we could rent it out to other teams for $15,000 a year.

During the negotiation today in class we were presented with a list of interests from the trustees.  The list included 1) the buses 2) the rink and 3) the arts building.  When presenting both sides with our argument about the pool we were shut down and told that it would be a waste of money when we would hardly get a big return.  After my partner and I agreed we let the others argue because we were pretty much promised the other two things we were interested in.  The teachers told us that they wanted the heating system, because the heating system took up most of our budget.  During our negotiation we were faced with a letter from the dean of students about campus safety and were encouraged to use some of our money for the lights.  Without hesitation everyone in the group agreed.  In the end we decided that we could make the most out of this project and make everyone happy by doing all of the different projects except the pool and the heating system.  To reassure us that our projects would eventually get done we compiled a contract that said that the heating system would take priority next year and the pool the following year.  Even though I didn't get the pool I still got two other things that I wanted and we made the most out of the money we had so it benefitted everyone.

Prior to today's negotiation we were told to develop a negotiation checklist.  This check list helped us develop gain insight on what our needs were and develop a plan as well as try to predict what our opponents needs were. Below is my negotiations checklist

Role: Senior Engineer

A. About you

1) Over all Goal: My overall goal is to take as much time to design the product that that we trump our competitors with a superior product.  Another goal is for me to get training so that I am able to produce a portable JAC36 when the market is in need of the product.

2) What are the issues: Issues include time, and additional training

3) How important are each: It is important for me to take the time to produce a superior product. Producing the first product is my top priority.  Gaining more expertise in how to design portable products is second because I am focused on developing the first product. 

Rank Options:

Time: 70                                                     Seminar: 30

3 weeks 10% (7)                                       Yes 100% (30)

1 month 60% (42)                                      No 50% (15)

2 months 90% (63)                                    Replace my position 0% (0)

3 months 100% (70)

4) BATNA: Designing the modified version of the JAC36 and not being sent to the seminar to learn how to design the portable product.

5) I won't agree to not go through with the production because the President advised me that he wants to go through with production and sell the product.

B. The Other Side

1) From reading the case and understanding the different positions within the company it is obvious that finance wants cheap cost, sales wants fast production, R&D wants more time.

2) The best alternative to the other side would probably be for finance to spend a little more money than they were expecting, sales to have to wait a little longer to sell the product to the market, and R&D to not be able to spend as much time as they initially planned.

3) The resistance point would be to not produce the product at all.. We all would probably agree that we have to come to an agreement and produce and sell the product because the president wants us to.

4) The target is to work together as a team and recognize that we are all a part of the same company and we all want to benefit the company with any new innovation.

C. The Situation

1) The deadlines that exist probably go with sales; the president wants the product to go to the market ASAP.

2) Fairness norms include reminding everyone of our skills and let them know that we are on the same team.

3) I want to avoid being asked to produce a portable product because that will require more training for me.

D. The Relationship between the Parties

1) The negotiation could end up being repetitive if the demand for portable products goes up and we then need to produce them.

2)  a. I can trust the other parties because we are a part of the same company

   b. The other parties should recognize that we are on the same team and should trust that I am doing what is best for all of us.

3) I don't know what the other parties’ tactics are.

"Final Offer" Reflection

This week in class we watched a movie titled "Final Offer."  The movie was a documentary about the Canadian Union and GM deciding on a contract. Bob Smith, who was the head of the Canadian Union had to speak on behalf of the workers Union to get the workers the deal that they were fighting for.  GM wanted the workers to not have an increase in pay but to provide them with profit sharing.  The workers were not interested in profit sharing because even though they could potentially see more money in their pay checks, GM could have a bad month and the workers wouldn't be able to make as much moeny.  The lack of payment stability was the deciding factor for the workers not to accept a deal involving profit sharing.  The Union also wanted the Cost of Living Allowance to increase. 
GM was not willing to accomodate the Union on these demands, which resulted in the workers going on a strike.  Bob White had to communicate throughout the whole strike with Owen Beiber, who was the head of the US Union for GM.  It was a struggle for Bob White to have to constantly turn to Owen Beiber before making any decisions. During the strike GM threatened to eliminate the workers jobs and hire new employees to make the Union comply with their demands.  Bob White wasn't budging and decided to continue the strike even though Owen Beiber wanted them to settle a deal for fear that the Candadian strike would affect profits for the American Union workers. 
On the 8th day of the strike GM decided to give the Union most of what they were asking for.  Bob White was extremely excited that he was going to be able to put this strike to rest and get the Union back for work.  When Bob presented the offer to the board of Union workers, everyone wanted a better deal.  Bob White kept his composure while listening to the members say that they were not interested in taking the deal.  Bob ended up fighting with one of his fellow board members for saying that he did not think of the well being of the group as a whole.  In the end of the workers and GM closed the deal.  Bob White took the initiative to stand up for the workers and stay on strike even though it would have cost the workers some money, because he knew that GM would eventually crack.  Since GM was losing more money than the workers were GM could not afford to keep the workers on strike.

Week of 2/27/2012

This week in class we participated in a group negotiation.  For this negotiation I was apart of the board of educators.  I felt that we did not have enough time as a group to prepare.  The group preparation is a negotiation within itself.  When actually negotiating I noticed that preparation would have been appreciated for us as well as the other group.  I saw the other group struggling because they weren't on the same page. 
To start off the negotiation, we decided to share our interests with the other group in exchange for their interest.  We were hoping that we could log roll the whole process and give a little to them if they gave a little to us.  In the beginning the teachers let us know that if they were not happy with what we had to say then they would strike.  We let them know that there was no way to settle this dispute.  We are ultimately here for the kids.  We made the teachers aware that if they did strike we would eventually end back at the negotiation table and the only people we would be hurting was the kids.  I felt that this was a great tool because it allowed our negotiation to be as unaggressive as possible. 
In the end I felt that we as the board ended up with a deal that met our needs.  I felt that the teachers also ended with a deal that met their needs.  I believed that we created value for each side and we were able to build a relationship.

Week of 2/21/2012

For the week of 2/21/2012 we learned a lot about the advantages and disadvantages of integrated bargaining and distributive bargaining.  With the case on MLB we saw examples of both types of bargaining. For our in class case we watched two groups negotiate in front of the class. For the class case dealing with a job contract negotiation we saw many bad examples of people using distributive bargaining to get what they want. Demands were thrown out by the job candidate. Using a distributive bargaining technique in this situation could ultimately hurt the relationship of the two parties. A recommendation would be to use integrative bargaining to find out each party's needs and give and take to expand the pie. It would have also allowed both sides to build a better relationship with each other.