The Newtown school negotiation was without a doubt the most difficult negotiation that I have participated in this course. There was a wide variety of issues that needed to be addressed, each of which had a different form of value. Another aspect that brought challenges to this negotiation is the team aspect. This is the first time that I have truly got to participate in a team atmosphere due to absences in the class. If there were two things that I can take away from this negotiation it is that things that initially seemed irrelevant in the planning process may end up being a turning point in the negotiation, and things may be escalate in the negotiation even if good intentions are the plan.
When my group and I planned out what we would discuss we all assumed that wages and downsizing would be the biggest talking points. This is typically a large issue in most negotiations. However, we seemed to hit a stoppage when we reached the arbitration aspect of the negotiation. Things got fairly heated with this topic as was evidenced in the tone of the discussion. I feel that this was the case due to the fact this was the third or fourth topic that we discussed. I think that the emotions began to bubble up from before the topic was reached. I could tell that both sides, myself included, were getting frustrated with the other side. This than led to my second thing that I took away from this negotiation is the fact that things became mildly ill tempered. I feel that both sides did not want to go into this to situation with difficulty. However, as mentioned previously this was not the case. The further we went into the negotiation the more angry both sides seemed to be. The best way we felt to calm the tension was to take a break in the discussion. We had planned a five minute caucus at around a half hour in, however we ended up taking this early in hopes to come back with level heads. This seemed to be the best strategy as both sides began to listen to the other sides more and didn't try to "beat" the other side. We started to listen to each side and a deal was struck as time ran out.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Negotiating with teams
Last week we were assigned with the task of negotiating in teams. Unfortunately, due to absences I was forced to negotiate alone. Fortunately, our group had met the class before so I had some guidelines for what the team wanted. In the reading "How to Manage Your Negotiating Team" there is a section on aligning my teams interests. This was a challenging aspect with the Connecticut Valley Schools negotiation. The reading states that it is common to wrestle with internal conflicts. During the negotiation it was tempting to promote my own personal agenda. This can also be known as the principal agent theory. This theory states that it may be difficult for a person representing someone to act in the other parties best interest. Although it was tempting for me to do this, I stuck with the teams plans and negotiated with them in mind.
I feel that team negotiations are a good idea when the issues at hand are difficult in nature. It can be difficult to address every issue on the agenda which is when a partner is essential. Teammates may notice these issues that are missed and bring them up at the appropriate time. This can lead to a better deal for the team in the end. Team negotiations may also allow for subcommittees which focus on certain areas of the large scale issue. These subcommittee members are experts in the area they are assigned to and use this knowledge to negotiate a deal.
Team negotiations can also be negative in nature if the team is not well prepared. If a team member is in the process of negotiating a fellow team member may bring up an issue that was not addressed earlier. This can lead to the team getting weighed down with issues that are not relevant taking away from the larger scope. This can be a risky move that could determine the final deal to not be favorable.
I feel that team negotiations are a good idea when the issues at hand are difficult in nature. It can be difficult to address every issue on the agenda which is when a partner is essential. Teammates may notice these issues that are missed and bring them up at the appropriate time. This can lead to a better deal for the team in the end. Team negotiations may also allow for subcommittees which focus on certain areas of the large scale issue. These subcommittee members are experts in the area they are assigned to and use this knowledge to negotiate a deal.
Team negotiations can also be negative in nature if the team is not well prepared. If a team member is in the process of negotiating a fellow team member may bring up an issue that was not addressed earlier. This can lead to the team getting weighed down with issues that are not relevant taking away from the larger scope. This can be a risky move that could determine the final deal to not be favorable.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
The final offer reaction.
I will have to admit that when I first heard we were watching the movie "The Final Offer" I did not know what to expect. I was surprised to find it a fairly entertaining movie that pertained to a lot of the things that we have discussed in class. I feel that the way both parties initially approached this idea was with the dual concern model. Both parties seemed to want to complete the negotiation in a timely manner with a strong relationship still intact. However, this was not the case which led to a very nasty back and forth between both sides of the table.
General Motors wanted to introduce profit sharing to the Canadian branch of the UAW, which was a concept that was already adopted by the American branch of the union. The Canadians did not want this, and instead preferred annual cost of living raises over the life of the contract. They claimed this is what the majority of the union wanted and would not be able to get a contract ratified with profit sharing on the table.
I agree that the Canadian union should have fought for what the union truly wanted. I feel that if they would have settled for something just to achieve a quick resolution this would have led to a disgruntled workforce who in turn could decertify the union.
In the end, the union was able to achieve what it wanted after a hard fought battle. After this deal was struck the union ratified the contract, and a process was put into motion to break away from the UAW. This plan eventually came to fruition, and the Canadians were able to separate for the UAW. They were able to create their own union which still stands to this day.
General Motors wanted to introduce profit sharing to the Canadian branch of the UAW, which was a concept that was already adopted by the American branch of the union. The Canadians did not want this, and instead preferred annual cost of living raises over the life of the contract. They claimed this is what the majority of the union wanted and would not be able to get a contract ratified with profit sharing on the table.
I agree that the Canadian union should have fought for what the union truly wanted. I feel that if they would have settled for something just to achieve a quick resolution this would have led to a disgruntled workforce who in turn could decertify the union.
In the end, the union was able to achieve what it wanted after a hard fought battle. After this deal was struck the union ratified the contract, and a process was put into motion to break away from the UAW. This plan eventually came to fruition, and the Canadians were able to separate for the UAW. They were able to create their own union which still stands to this day.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Negotiating with emotion
On Tuesday 11/15 I will be participating in a mock labor negation for my Labor Relations course. This is a crucial aspect of the course worth a large portion of my final grade. It is important to utilize the skills that I have learned in our negotiation course so far in order to get the best deal. After reading over the article "Negotiating with Emotion" I hope to use the six steps listed in the section to achieve this goal.
1) How do I want to feel going into this negotiation?- I want to go into this negotiation with the right mindset. The book mentions that I should go into this task almost on edge which is how I will approach this. I say this in regards to my preparedness. If I can anticipate what the other party will offer I can be ready to counter it and throw the other party off guard. This in turn will keep my emotions at bay and will help me avoid irrational decisions.
2) Why? By achieving the goals listed above, I will be able to achieve the best outcome possible. This will lead to a better grade for my group and increase my confidence for the real world negotiation activity that I will be doing later this week.
3)What can I do beforehand to put myself in an ideal emotional state? I feel that the best way to put myself in this state is to prepare by knowing the key issues. I need to know what the key issues for my group will be and focus the majority of my time on them. If our group spends to much time trying reach agreements on the less critical issues, the critical ones may fall through the cracks. If I know what these issues are and how to prepare for them, this will put me in the best situation to do this.
4)What can throw off my balance during a negotiation? I feel that I can be thrown off balance if the other side uses the same strategy as myself. If I expect a negotiation to go a certain way and it does not, I may loose focus on the large scale issues. This could turn the table in the other sides favor which may be hard to recover from.
5) What can I do in the midst of a negotiation to gain my balance? The best way to gain the balance back on my side is to bring the focus back to the key issues. This will keep me from loosing focus and conceding on issues that should be the main focus of the negotiation.
6) How do I want to feel when I am finished? I want to feel that both sides were able to achieve something that they wanted. I feel the best way to deal with any negotiation is to have a win-win mentality. This will create a good attitude towards future negotiations. I also want to feel that I did the best for my group. This negotiation deals with more than one party and requires different parties to be happy. This can be achieved by a win-win strategy. As long as I can keep my emotions in check during this negotiation using these steps I can use emotion to my advantage.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Sources of Power
After reading section 2.8 I learned about where power can be derived from. I currently have an internship at Volvo CE. This, like many other jobs, has a strong use of structural power. In my internship I have a large deal of duties in which I am responsible for. However, at the end of the day I am still only an intern. When it comes to the structure within the organization I am towards the bottom of the list. I am not considered an employee so I do not get to receive employee benefits or have a say in work place decisions. This does not mean that what I do is not important, it simply means that I do not have the conventional form of power within the structure. I could not simply walk up to a blue collar full time worker and tell him or her what to do. Even though in some instances I may have a higher education than most of these workers, and do more internal business work I do not have the power to tell them what to do. At the same time, I can not tell a fellow intern what to do either. In regards to the environment of my department we are all on the same playing field. Regardless the amount of time that an intern has been in the position they do not have a higher rank or title above a less experienced intern. The book mentioned that is that in order to possess power one must simply be in the right place, by being in a position of authority, in a place to broker amount various subunits all regardless of an individuals characteristics. While sometimes I like to think that I have power at my internship, according to these facts I do not appear to have much power.
I have had power in previous jobs however. Before I worked at Volvo I worked at Texas Roadhouse where I had a great deal of power. This fit more into situational and and personal traits. I thrived in this environment because the more skills that someone had, the more power they were granted. I never became a manager at this position due to my school schedules but I was able to dictate decisions about when and what position i worked. I was able to this by my personality and built a strong relationship with the owner of the business. This allowed me to position myself within a position of power. It has been very interesting to experience both of these types of power.
I have had power in previous jobs however. Before I worked at Volvo I worked at Texas Roadhouse where I had a great deal of power. This fit more into situational and and personal traits. I thrived in this environment because the more skills that someone had, the more power they were granted. I never became a manager at this position due to my school schedules but I was able to dictate decisions about when and what position i worked. I was able to this by my personality and built a strong relationship with the owner of the business. This allowed me to position myself within a position of power. It has been very interesting to experience both of these types of power.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Women Don't Ask
After reading the article "Women Don't Ask" there were a lot of facts that i knew. However, i did not know the reason as to why these numbers occurred. Statistics have been thrown around in quite a few of my business classes, and even the recent presidential election that women tend to earn last. I was fairly surprised to find that it is mostly because they simply don't seem to be asking. I found it very interesting when the survey was conducted in regards to paying students to play Boggle. The monetary amount was so little in retrospect. The fact that both men and women complained about the situation, men seemed to be the only ones who said something about it. This appears to happen in everyday life which can lead to major differences life time in pay.
I think that it is hard to negotiate for a job offer. I feel like has always been a taboo thing to do is to talk about money that your future employer is planning on paying you. I feel that I may come off as to greedy and may have the offer revoked. As i have a few job opportunities lined up upon graduation I hope that i will be offered the starting salary that I am looking for. If not, I hope that i can use the tactics and skills that I have learned and will learn from this class to receive a fair competitive salary.
I think that it is hard to negotiate for a job offer. I feel like has always been a taboo thing to do is to talk about money that your future employer is planning on paying you. I feel that I may come off as to greedy and may have the offer revoked. As i have a few job opportunities lined up upon graduation I hope that i will be offered the starting salary that I am looking for. If not, I hope that i can use the tactics and skills that I have learned and will learn from this class to receive a fair competitive salary.
Sunday, October 9, 2016
3 schools of negotiation ethics
When reading over the three schools of ethics I felt that I associated into the "its all a game poker ethics school". Before I began this course I thought that I would never have fell into this school. I fell that I would fall into the "do the right thing school". During my first negotiation, I felt that if I did not get the exact deal that I wanted I lost. This was a bit of a rush, playing the negotiation as a game. When using this school, deception is key in order to gain the best possible outcome. When reading the synopsis of this school it is mentioned that bluffing is a part of this game. It is also mentioned that both sides may very well use this ideology. When I am in a negotiation I have the tendency to think that the other side is bluffing. This can either harm or help my negotiation. If I assume that everyone is bluffing I may be able to catch my opponent off guard and be able to find a more favorable deal. On the other hand, if I continue to try and catch people in a bluff I may miss out on key areas of the negotiation.
Like the poker school, I believe in the rule of law. I would not find it ethical to lie about things that may cause my counterpart harm. I find it perfectly ethical to bluff about price and other aspects in this regard. If it was something that may cause my counterpart physical or emotional harm I would be truthful. This school of ethics makes the negotiation more fun in my opinion and may lead to better results. I feel that this is the most useful as well in terms of the real world. I think that i will continue to use this approach in my future negotiations in both class, and the real world.
Like the poker school, I believe in the rule of law. I would not find it ethical to lie about things that may cause my counterpart harm. I find it perfectly ethical to bluff about price and other aspects in this regard. If it was something that may cause my counterpart physical or emotional harm I would be truthful. This school of ethics makes the negotiation more fun in my opinion and may lead to better results. I feel that this is the most useful as well in terms of the real world. I think that i will continue to use this approach in my future negotiations in both class, and the real world.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Live 8 Negotiation using negotiation checklist
When i read over the "Live 8" case I knew i was going to have my work cut out of for me. This is not an easy case to argue due to the fact that my company, and the company I was negotiating against both dealt with the humanitarian aspect. I thought that because I had the product in question I would have the upper hand in the situation. I tried to follow the negotiation check list in order to outline how to approach the negotiation.
A. About You
1. What is your overall goal? My overall goal for this negotiation was to either have the website sold for a price high enough to cover the cost for my companies expansion into Europe, or have a strong advertising force with the deal to help secure a investor for the funds.
2. What are the Issues? The issues at hand have to deal with the domain name live8.org. My company currently owns that domain name and the the concert series that saw success in the 1980's, live aid, is putting on another concert with the name that both our companies share Live 8. Live 8 wants access to our domain to help promote the concert series, but we disagree with the way they go about aid. We feel that people need to take responsibility for their own actions and should not be reliant on wide scale aid. I am also worried that by allowing access to the website Live 8 will be widely associated with the concert series, and creating issues in the future.
3. How important is each issue to you? These issues are very important to us. When people mistake our company for the other we are very eager to point out the difference and correct the person.
a) Issues: The domain name live8.org, the companies, while in the similar field, are two different entities, we believe people should take responsible for their own actions, and we worry that if given access to the domain name live8.org the larger entity will be the name associated and not our own.
b) Ranking: 1: The companies represent different ideologies
2: The concert series will be more associated with the name Live 8 and not ourselves
3: The actual domain name itself
c) 1=45
2=35
3=20
d) 1: This issue is difficult to work around, due to the fact that i would be asking Live 8 to change their entire business model. The best case scenario for this is for them to change the overall practice of the business which is not ideal
2: This issue is more manageable to obtain. In order for the domain named to be relinquished there will have to be some sort of notice of our company in order to get our name to the estimated billions of people expected to be watching the concerts in all medias.
3: This issue, while important, is the least valuable to me. There are many ways to work around this issue. With simply changing the wording from "Live 8" to Live eight" this is not the most ideal outcome, but a manageable one to handle.
e) 1=45
2=40
3=15
f) The scores increase if all aspects are achieved at an ideal level
g) When I negotiated with Bart, I tried to keep this scoring system in my mind. This helped me remember which aspects that i found were the most important.
4. What is my BATNA? I think that my BATNA would be the fact that if I can not reach a deal, that i can simply just keep operating my business at the same capacity that I have been. After all, they are the ones that approached me
5. What is your resistance point? I think my resistance point is if i settled for less than Paid to create the domain name, or if that the other company would not advertise my company.
B. About the Other Side.
1. How important is each issue to them? I feel that my biggest issue ,in dealing with the different forms of charity, is a non issue for them. They view this as we are on the same side, and therefore should not have to even consider this as an issue. I also think that my second issue is not that important to them. The more publicity that they get the better. If there name is the one associated with this deal, that would greatly benefit them. The third issue however, I feel is their biggest concern. The whole reason this negotiation even occurred, is due to the fact that they want our domain name. I feel that they would want to achieve this by acquiring for as little as possible.
2. What is their BATNA? I feel that their BATNA would be pursuing the two domain names that they already have. It was disclosed me the two on going issues that were occurring, and that would probably be the best alternative if they could not receive our domain name.
3. What is their resistance point? I feel like there resistance point would be buying the domain name for the price in which my firm needs for its international ventures. I don't think that they would want to pay more than the domain name is worth.
4. What is your target? I feel like my target would be somewhere where both of our needs are being met. One in which we are not just giving them the rights to our domain name, but at the same time not trying to make a profit of the venture either.
C. The Situation.
1. What deadlines exist? Who is more impatient? The other party is far more impatient. My firm already has the product in question. We have no real urgency to get a deal done. The deadline exists for the other party.
2. What fairness norms or reference points apply? The fact that both of our firms strive on helping our fellow man we both are not seeking out a big day over this.
3. What topics or questions do you want to avoid. I want to avoid talking about how much i originally paid for the domain name. Although 20,000 dollars was a lot for my firm, i would expect more if I was selling the name in which someone would see success with.
D. The relationship between the Parties
1. Will negotiations be repetitive? The negotiation will be consist of one session. We will try to resolve the issue at hand with one sit-down.
2. a) Can you trust the other Party? Although I do not know the other party, I have no reason to distrust him.
b) Does the other party trust you? I feel that the other party would feel the same way as I feel about them.
3. What do you know about the other parties styles and tactics? I know very little about the other parties styles and tactics. This will equal a challenging debate.
4. What are the limits to the other parties authority? From what i can infer, I do not see any limits to the other parties authority, other than financial limitations.
5. There were not other party members in which to consult the above issues with.
A. About You
1. What is your overall goal? My overall goal for this negotiation was to either have the website sold for a price high enough to cover the cost for my companies expansion into Europe, or have a strong advertising force with the deal to help secure a investor for the funds.
2. What are the Issues? The issues at hand have to deal with the domain name live8.org. My company currently owns that domain name and the the concert series that saw success in the 1980's, live aid, is putting on another concert with the name that both our companies share Live 8. Live 8 wants access to our domain to help promote the concert series, but we disagree with the way they go about aid. We feel that people need to take responsibility for their own actions and should not be reliant on wide scale aid. I am also worried that by allowing access to the website Live 8 will be widely associated with the concert series, and creating issues in the future.
3. How important is each issue to you? These issues are very important to us. When people mistake our company for the other we are very eager to point out the difference and correct the person.
a) Issues: The domain name live8.org, the companies, while in the similar field, are two different entities, we believe people should take responsible for their own actions, and we worry that if given access to the domain name live8.org the larger entity will be the name associated and not our own.
b) Ranking: 1: The companies represent different ideologies
2: The concert series will be more associated with the name Live 8 and not ourselves
3: The actual domain name itself
c) 1=45
2=35
3=20
d) 1: This issue is difficult to work around, due to the fact that i would be asking Live 8 to change their entire business model. The best case scenario for this is for them to change the overall practice of the business which is not ideal
2: This issue is more manageable to obtain. In order for the domain named to be relinquished there will have to be some sort of notice of our company in order to get our name to the estimated billions of people expected to be watching the concerts in all medias.
3: This issue, while important, is the least valuable to me. There are many ways to work around this issue. With simply changing the wording from "Live 8" to Live eight" this is not the most ideal outcome, but a manageable one to handle.
e) 1=45
2=40
3=15
f) The scores increase if all aspects are achieved at an ideal level
g) When I negotiated with Bart, I tried to keep this scoring system in my mind. This helped me remember which aspects that i found were the most important.
4. What is my BATNA? I think that my BATNA would be the fact that if I can not reach a deal, that i can simply just keep operating my business at the same capacity that I have been. After all, they are the ones that approached me
5. What is your resistance point? I think my resistance point is if i settled for less than Paid to create the domain name, or if that the other company would not advertise my company.
B. About the Other Side.
1. How important is each issue to them? I feel that my biggest issue ,in dealing with the different forms of charity, is a non issue for them. They view this as we are on the same side, and therefore should not have to even consider this as an issue. I also think that my second issue is not that important to them. The more publicity that they get the better. If there name is the one associated with this deal, that would greatly benefit them. The third issue however, I feel is their biggest concern. The whole reason this negotiation even occurred, is due to the fact that they want our domain name. I feel that they would want to achieve this by acquiring for as little as possible.
2. What is their BATNA? I feel that their BATNA would be pursuing the two domain names that they already have. It was disclosed me the two on going issues that were occurring, and that would probably be the best alternative if they could not receive our domain name.
3. What is their resistance point? I feel like there resistance point would be buying the domain name for the price in which my firm needs for its international ventures. I don't think that they would want to pay more than the domain name is worth.
4. What is your target? I feel like my target would be somewhere where both of our needs are being met. One in which we are not just giving them the rights to our domain name, but at the same time not trying to make a profit of the venture either.
C. The Situation.
1. What deadlines exist? Who is more impatient? The other party is far more impatient. My firm already has the product in question. We have no real urgency to get a deal done. The deadline exists for the other party.
2. What fairness norms or reference points apply? The fact that both of our firms strive on helping our fellow man we both are not seeking out a big day over this.
3. What topics or questions do you want to avoid. I want to avoid talking about how much i originally paid for the domain name. Although 20,000 dollars was a lot for my firm, i would expect more if I was selling the name in which someone would see success with.
D. The relationship between the Parties
1. Will negotiations be repetitive? The negotiation will be consist of one session. We will try to resolve the issue at hand with one sit-down.
2. a) Can you trust the other Party? Although I do not know the other party, I have no reason to distrust him.
b) Does the other party trust you? I feel that the other party would feel the same way as I feel about them.
3. What do you know about the other parties styles and tactics? I know very little about the other parties styles and tactics. This will equal a challenging debate.
4. What are the limits to the other parties authority? From what i can infer, I do not see any limits to the other parties authority, other than financial limitations.
5. There were not other party members in which to consult the above issues with.
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Midwestern Contemporary Art
The case of Midwestern Contemporary Art (MCA) is a turbulent one to say the least. The issue at hand is between the Board Chairman Peter Smith and MCA's Executive Director Keith Schmidt. Smith wants to keep the same strategy that the museum has used for the past ten plus years. This is a conservative approach to keep the books at steady pace without the need to be aggressive. Schmidt on the other hand, feels that this approach is to conservative and wants to expand the business by building a new building on the Seaside to help generate more revenue. This overall heated debate has begun to boil over as other members of the board can see the tensions between the two parties. There are two approaches that can help ease this tension for this negation process. The first technique is the dual concern approach which has four different outcomes depending on how the situation unfolds. The second technique that could be used is the interests, rights and power technique which focuses on those three concepts and who controls those areas to help reach an agreement.
When it comes to Peter Smith I feel that the dual concern model should be the strategy of choice in this situation. This issue is a tricky one as it deals with two people of significant power in an organization. Both are concerned with the overall prosperity and efficiency of the museum moving forward. This creates an issue by Smith viewing the situation as something he needs to win. I feel like there may be more emphasis on the outcome of this situation and significantly less on the relationship at hand. This creates the very dangerous situation of "win or lose at all cost". This ensures that someone will not be happy at the end of the process. This is shown in this case because Smith was so frustrated with the situation and not being able to get his way that he left the museum and was replaced on the board. If Smith would have spent more time focusing on the relationship and the outcome, both parties could have achieved the important "win-win" situation which could have helped avoid this less than satisfying outcome.
Schmidt, like Smith, should have also approached the dual concern model. I feel that this is the golden standard that everyone should try to achieve in all negotiation. It seems that Schmidt was trying to follow the interests, rights and power model which is especially difficult to find favorable results when someone has seniority and higher position. By Schmidt thinking that he had the higher power, and that he had the overall interests of MCA on his side he was very headstrong on his idea of expanding the business. He later found out that he did have the interests of the board as they voted in favor of his proposal leaving Smith frustrated, which led to his departure from the organization all together. Even though this could be considered a "win" for Schmidt it was a loss for the organization as a whole. They lost an experienced and hard working chairman of the board because Schmidt, like Smith, approached the situation as "win or lost at all costs". If both parties would have been collaborative with the situation, this could have had a much more successful outcome for both parties.
When it comes to Peter Smith I feel that the dual concern model should be the strategy of choice in this situation. This issue is a tricky one as it deals with two people of significant power in an organization. Both are concerned with the overall prosperity and efficiency of the museum moving forward. This creates an issue by Smith viewing the situation as something he needs to win. I feel like there may be more emphasis on the outcome of this situation and significantly less on the relationship at hand. This creates the very dangerous situation of "win or lose at all cost". This ensures that someone will not be happy at the end of the process. This is shown in this case because Smith was so frustrated with the situation and not being able to get his way that he left the museum and was replaced on the board. If Smith would have spent more time focusing on the relationship and the outcome, both parties could have achieved the important "win-win" situation which could have helped avoid this less than satisfying outcome.
Schmidt, like Smith, should have also approached the dual concern model. I feel that this is the golden standard that everyone should try to achieve in all negotiation. It seems that Schmidt was trying to follow the interests, rights and power model which is especially difficult to find favorable results when someone has seniority and higher position. By Schmidt thinking that he had the higher power, and that he had the overall interests of MCA on his side he was very headstrong on his idea of expanding the business. He later found out that he did have the interests of the board as they voted in favor of his proposal leaving Smith frustrated, which led to his departure from the organization all together. Even though this could be considered a "win" for Schmidt it was a loss for the organization as a whole. They lost an experienced and hard working chairman of the board because Schmidt, like Smith, approached the situation as "win or lost at all costs". If both parties would have been collaborative with the situation, this could have had a much more successful outcome for both parties.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
1.5 and 1.6 Tactics
After reading the vast options that are at ones disposal when negotiation the two that struck me the most were silence and incremental.
Silence in negotiation is when one party does not speak often during the negotiation process, and forces the other party to speak more often. I know from personal experience that I have not been very successful with this tactic. I am the type of person who likes to be in control, so if someone is not talking I will feel that I need to say something in order to keep the process moving. This can fall right into a trap that the other party has laid. I may give critical information to the other party that can help create some type of leverage in the negotiation. For example, if I am trying to buy a car and I let the seller know how badly I need the car the seller may raise the price with my desperation in the open. On the other hand, this could also work in my favor as a buyer, because the seller may think I am not that interested in the car and may try to sell the car for a cheaper price in order to make a sale. This may also cause a problem for both parties if both implement the same strategy. This could lead to a stale mate that could cause the negotiation to not be completed.
The other tactic that I would to try in a negotiation is incremental. This tactic is used to settle one issue at a time. I think that this is important in a negotiation, because this will help insure that all key issues are being addressed. I feel like in the heat of a negotiation a lot of things will try to be negotiated at once, leading to key issues being missed. I feel like this would be helpful in a negotiation with major key issues. For example if I was buying a house with structural issues. I feel like if I tried to negotiate the terms for a basement leak at the same time I am trying to settle on an over price for the house one or other could impact my decision making. This idea seems to be the best way to keep focused on the issues at hand, and will help with a better all negotiation. I feel like this tactic would benefit both parties due to the fact that all issues can be addressed by both parties during the negotiation. The best way to accomplish this, in my opinion, is to write down all aspects that you feel that need to be part of the negotiation so that strategy is effective.
Silence in negotiation is when one party does not speak often during the negotiation process, and forces the other party to speak more often. I know from personal experience that I have not been very successful with this tactic. I am the type of person who likes to be in control, so if someone is not talking I will feel that I need to say something in order to keep the process moving. This can fall right into a trap that the other party has laid. I may give critical information to the other party that can help create some type of leverage in the negotiation. For example, if I am trying to buy a car and I let the seller know how badly I need the car the seller may raise the price with my desperation in the open. On the other hand, this could also work in my favor as a buyer, because the seller may think I am not that interested in the car and may try to sell the car for a cheaper price in order to make a sale. This may also cause a problem for both parties if both implement the same strategy. This could lead to a stale mate that could cause the negotiation to not be completed.
The other tactic that I would to try in a negotiation is incremental. This tactic is used to settle one issue at a time. I think that this is important in a negotiation, because this will help insure that all key issues are being addressed. I feel like in the heat of a negotiation a lot of things will try to be negotiated at once, leading to key issues being missed. I feel like this would be helpful in a negotiation with major key issues. For example if I was buying a house with structural issues. I feel like if I tried to negotiate the terms for a basement leak at the same time I am trying to settle on an over price for the house one or other could impact my decision making. This idea seems to be the best way to keep focused on the issues at hand, and will help with a better all negotiation. I feel like this tactic would benefit both parties due to the fact that all issues can be addressed by both parties during the negotiation. The best way to accomplish this, in my opinion, is to write down all aspects that you feel that need to be part of the negotiation so that strategy is effective.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Introduction for negotiation
My name Jacob Shatzer, and I am a second semester senior scheduled to graduate at the end of this semester. I am Human Resource Management major and I am taking negotiation as a major elective. I am 25 years old and live in Chambersburg PA. I am a non traditional student in the fact that I did not go to college directly out of high school and took some time to figure out what I actually wanted to do with my life. I am very thankful that i made this choice, because I am confident that I am in the area of study that truly interests me. I am currently an intern at Volvo Construction Equipment in Shippensburg PA. I work in the Core Values Department, which has helped me learn the daily operations of a large scale company. I have been interested in taking this course since my first semester at Shippensburg. The whole concept is very interesting to me. Negotiation is something that I have never excelled in. I feel like this class will be very beneficial to many aspects in life. As i approach the "real world" there will be many aspects of life that will need to be negotiated from starting salaries all the way to negotiating a price for my first house. I feel that this class will help aid this process. I look forward to learning all these skills and having a great semester!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)