Federated Science Fund Negotiation Essay

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.

What surprised me the most about our behavior was how well we collaborated. At the beginning of the negotiation, I usually spend a bit of time trying to assess how the other party will negotiate (compete, collaborate, or subordinate). From the beginning of the negotiation, it was very clear that Texoil valued our relationship, was very interested in me coming back to work for them, was concerned about my wife, and was interested in my future plans. This created the right tone for collaborating. This created a basis of trust and openness, which led to creative options, which would not have been possible if one party decided to negotiate competitively. Both parties did a good job of asking questions to delve at the underlying interests, which allowed for give and take, and enabled each side to put forth proposals which could be openly considered. If the tone of the negotiation had been different, I think the Negotiator’s Dilemma might have prevented information from coming out and prevented interests to surface, and thus prevented creative solutions.

Going into this negotiation as the VP of operations my goal was to primarily succeed in buying the restaurant. Prior to starting the negotiation, i identified several certain non monetary concessions that could be made to sweeten the deal such as paying a percentage of travel expenses, and also allowing the restaurant owner

Some of the things that my partner was incredibly good at, was creating and claiming value, and anchoring. Right from the start of the negotiation she began to create value by mentioning that her project would normally take a year to finish, and continued to do so across the entire negotiation. She began by anchoring at her Aspiration Point, which was ten weeks. I made the mistake of not re-anchoring correctly. After she did this, I mistakenly said I would allow her two weeks to finish her project, when I should have said something like "unfortunately we will have to appoint someone else to your project" to start off. I think the reason I made this mistake was because I was trying too hard to maintain a relationship and I gave into allowing her to finish her project and this led me to become somewhat of a soft-bargainer.

I believe that the negotiations worked well with all of the parties involved, and made sure to include terms from all parties as well. All parties have their own beliefs and needs, I think if everyone can remember to take in account everyone else’s beliefs and needs, and also remember to be respectful that even with only some of your needs being met you can accomplish your goals and feel good about the decisions.

Simply there had been very little preparation and further there was no best alternative (BATNA), which are vital before any type of negotiations begin to avoid an unfavorable negotiation. This could have been rectified by utilizing “10 Point Plan Before Negotiation” and devoting an ample amount of time for preparation to items such as goals, interests, strategy, BATNA, research, tactics-actions and roleplaying. The end result is one that has looked at both sides of the negotiation and the issues. The BATNA would have answered critical questions before accepting any deal during a

Once the company outlined what they have to offer, the discussion switched to how we can best

But you decided to volunteer more information when you've already settled the negotiation under 7 minutes. You should have gotten out while you were ahead. After you made her an additional offer on the shares you provided her additional info that perhaps you should have withheld. Understanding that she was volunteering her services you could have politely declined and wished her good luck. It was good that you pushed back around 10:30 and asked her what her plans were. You said a little under $40 and then a little under $50 (you went higher). It seems like you were prepared so well that you stuck too much to your plan. Even though the negotiation was over you still played the role that you strategized and it may have hurt you a little. Next time be more conscious and improvise during negotiation. All in all, you got her to go early and so that was a

Negotiations are a part of everyday life and are unavoidable but learning how to negotiate effectively, is a fundamental skill. Getting to Yes discusses ways in which to become a better negotiator and how to deal with opponents who choose to play “hardball”. The book also discards the concept of “hard” or “soft” negotiations and elects to focus on negotiations that are mutually advantageous. Getting to Yes outlines four methods to better negotiation; separate the people from the problem, focus on interests, not positions, invent options for mutual gain, and insist on using objective criteria. Throughout the collective bargaining simulation, I believe a minimum of three out of the four methods from Getting to Yes aided the bargaining process as it unfolded in the simulation. Firstly, I believe separating people from the problem was vital to coming to a mutual agreement. Secondly, our positions in the collective bargaining simulation were decided upon however, our interests are what we needed to focus on. Thirdly, it was important to recognize that we were not seeking a “win-lose” situation and that there were options to resolve our issues. While it is true that no negotiation method can completely overcome power imbalances, Getting to Yes taught us that there are ways to protect the weaker party against a meagre agreement in order to make the most out of our assets. Below, I will reflect on the ways in which the outcome of the collective bargaining simulation related to the

My greatest strengths of these negotiations were my ability to ease tensions in the room, when necessary, and the level of preparation I had done. I was very confident on the issues I was responsible for which allowed me to talk on the matters as much as possible. Also, due to this level of preparation, especially doing the additional readings, I could help my other team members on their issues. The additional readings were quintessential in helping our team develop our strategic approach and got us out of a couple of very tight

The negotiation started with setting some ground rules and high level expectations in order to achieve something together. We agreed that neither of us would abruptly walk out of the negotiation until both sides had

Our final negotiation simulation was based on signing of a construction contract between two companies named NIDO Gas/Petroleum and JGC Philippines. My group was allocated the role of JGC Philippines, a reputed construction contractor in Philippines and our opposite team played as NIDO Gas. We all divided different roles and responsibilities to make this negotiation session a professional one. My role was to perform as an HR Manager/Operational Manager. My other team members played as CEO, CFO and Technical Manager. To start with a negotiation process with other team it involved an effective communication and participation of all the team members. First of all we all greeted each other and exchanged our business cards. Each team member introduced themselves in a very friendly manner to other group members. After a

be amicable on several occasions to try and get to a win-win solution I finally

Recognizing and strategically using leverage, since we had the upper hand in this negotiation based upon the valuation results, we completely played our leverage from the beginning by

A continuous process, I assessed the various conflict styles, as well as how each individual role conflict style would interact with the styles of the other parties involved (which I will expand on in the next section). It was important for me to also assess my own style in relation to my role and any predetermined bias (considering my individual background) that I might have. This meant that my own environmentally conscious views could not influence the way in which I negotiated when representing the Irrigators group, as they were pushing for things such as more water to produce food and crops. Being aware of this helped me assert my interests when the other parties would try to sway for other options (which happened often). There were only a few cases where I built coalitions with Pat and Chi. Aside from that, the coalition forming and grouping happened more amongst the others. Because of my directing type behavior in this negotiation, I believe that I was able to advocate more vocally than the others at times