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.

The activity that we did in class on Monday was very fun.  We spent the class negotiating a contract for a book company and a new author.  Before negotiating the deal I made sure that I looked over the point system on the back of the chart and got a feel for what I wanted to ask for.  During the negotiation I let the author tell me what she wanted, and then we tried to find a common ground.  My partner demanded a lot out of the deal, but I stood my ground to make sure that I could make as much money as I could for my company.  In regards to how many countries she wanted to release her book to as well as the number of book clubs that will adapt her book, I let her believe that I was complying with her needs, even though I was benefiting from the decision as well.  This way, when I wanted something more from the deal, I would be able to tell her that I had thus far complied with that she wanted.  Before reaching the final agreement, we had some difficulty figuring out how much the author should receive for the signing bonus and the advance.  She wanted both an advance as well as a signing bonus.  I told her that I was not going to be able to do that.  However she then wanted the maximum amount for the signing bonus since I said I was only giving her one or the other.  We both sat in silence for a little bit each of us hoping that the other would give in.  After about five minutes of silence she finally spoke and said that she would settle with no advance and a $20,000 signing bonus if I gave let her only produce 3 books.  I agreed to this because this is what I wanted to begin with. 

When analyzing the classes results for this negotiation, I was able to see where me and my partner fell in terms of creating value for us individually, as well as collectively.  I was pleased to see that I did pretty well with creating value for myself and my company (bestbooks).  In terms of creating value for me and my partner collectively, we didn't do so well.  If we had communicated more and found out our common interests we would have been able to help each other out hand in hand and possible maximize profit for the both of us.  Even though my partner and I were unable to create value for each other collectively, I was still pleased to see that I did well with creating value for myself.

Week of 2/1/2012

This week in class we did two negotiations exercises.  The exercise that we did today (2/1/2012) was very different from past exercises.  Before even participating in this exercise I found the content of the case to be very confusing.  This exercise was different because we weren't negotiating on a selling/buying price.  We had to really understand the detail of the case before even starting to negotiate.  In the Phillips Crawley case I played the role of Crawley.  I ended up compromising to what the Phillips representative wanted as soon as we got to meet.  I was under the impression that I needed to comply with the Phillips representative because a) it seemed that the issue that we were facing what my fault.  b) we were a team working under the same "umbrella" and regardless it didn't matter who was right or who was wrong because in the end both of our efforts are what makes the final product, which ultimately makes both of us money.  I felt that by some of the other teams going in and really looking to be competitive and do what was best from them really wasn't going to work out for them.  I did realize that I was a little bit taken advantage of in my particular negotiation.  I agreed to have my modules screened before they are delivered to the Phillips plant.  That was probably not the most cost effective way to settle this dispute.  This negotiation really taught me that there are a lot more things that we as business men and women will have to negotiate about other than a buying/selling price.  As well as that you really have to pay attention to every single detail on your end so that you are able to put up a better argument.

Exercise: 1/25/2012

1/25/2012

Today in class we did our first negotiation exercise.  The exercise was based on a car sale.  For this negotiation each of us played a specific role, one person was the seller and the other was the buyer.  I was the seller.  Each of us were given a scenario that told us which price we needed to either sell the car at or buy the car.  The negotiation was then to either sell the car at the highest price or buy the car at the lowest price. During my negotiation with a classmate, we went back and forth and could not come up with an agreement.  She wanted to buy my car for less than I would have received if I traded it in.  That wouldn't make sense to do and she wasn't willing to spend more so we decided that we weren't going to have a deal.  After the exercise we were able to see how each team did in the exercise and also, some students spoke about how they reached an agreement.  It shocked me to see some people buying the cars at a price they couldn't afford which meant that they were going to have to take a loan out for the car, as well as seeing people sell the car for lesser amount than they were going to get if they traded it in.
After the negotiation we learned a lot of valuable vocabulary words that linked in with the negotiation process.  Terms included: Reservation price which was defined as the highest price you were willing to spend or the most you are willing to spend.  Another term that we learned about was BATNA which is the best alternative to negotiated agreement.  To go more in depth with that it's the value of the deal that you will have if you reach no agreement.  For this exercise my BATNA would be to trade the car in for a potentially lesser value than selling it.  Anchoring was a term that really stood out to me.  The person who initiated the negotiation is usually anchoring the other party because they get the first say in the price.  I witnessed anchoring in this exercise because I felt anchored by my partner when she gave me a really low first offer for my car.  I immediately felt that I had to alter my counter offer because I almost felt embarrassed that for asking something too high.  Over all this negotiation was a good learned experience and I plan on using the things that I learned in this negotiation for future negotiations.