Myti-Pet Case Report

Gina Blair represented a competitive-cooperative negotiation strategy which represented a middle ground, both combined in a style which was open minded but assertive. Gina had scheduled the telephone meeting between herself and Daniel Trent; therefore she had more knowledge about what was going to be discussed. As she had initiated the negotiation she had prepared well for the issues concerning her clients. She presented her negotiation in a logical structure, showing that she had prepared all the areas of concern which she intended to address. Her preparation allowed her to identify and prioritise her client’s concerns. She avoided small talk and was very direct, her approach was assertive and she projected confidence. She had a clear understanding of the issues which were of concern to her clients and had proposed

To: Boss From: Re: American Dream Analysis Date 12/5/2014 Subject: Local Union P-9 vs Hormel Meat packing Company. Preparation is key when it comes to negotiating an agreement and a prefect example would be the Hormel Company vs the Local Union P-9 workers(meat packing). The Local Union and Hormel Company both were placed at the negotiation table due to wage cut and “unfair treatment” that was conducted by the management team. This disagreement caused the Local Union to rally up members from the meat packing department that influence the workers and workers from other factories to go on strike. During this negotiation both parties made a few mistakes that are costly and time consuming. Hormel Company

Our team approached this negotiation case in a very efficient way. Each of us had a very clearly job assignment. Two people took care of the calculation while the other two people were responsible for the negotiation. Thus we quickly built up a model and provided several options to our counterparts with different terms but same net value of the final bargaining agreement to our team.

Some of the negotiation tactics that I will take into consideration include focusing, depicting calm and patience, and staying in control (BĂEȘ, Camelia, et al. 148-49). Another important factor that I managed to do was to derive three essential preset goals that helped me in the entire negotiations process. The first goal was to focus on getting the lowest price possible by emphasizing on my least acceptable settlement. Every negotiation must have a bottom line, and among my goals was to research and find the bottom line of the deal before the negotiating process began. Thirdly, one of my important goals was to achieve profit and value for my money from the process of

I can confidently say that we had a winning strategy leading to a successful outcome. This is evident from the fact that we met the objectives that we laid out before the start of the negotiation. Also, I believe that the outcome was fair and satisfactory for both parties. Overall, we were well prepared for the negotiation. We planned the negotiation meticulously and worked it per the plan for the most part. All the team members were well prepared with the case details and understood their roles.

b) Historical Context: Does the context of the negotiations clarify the intentions and expectations of the parties?

What particular negotiation skills or strategies did your team use to try to achieve your goals? How effective do you think they were? What were your team goals? Did they change during the

As Senior Project Delivery Manager ( Lesley Smith) and my colleague were both senior staff for Energylink and well versed in GOC contracting practice and the regulations imposed by the Queensland government, we felt we obtained substantial knowledge about the case presented to us prior to our meeting with ZZZ, which gave us ability to plan for a mutually beneficial outcome for both Energylink and ZZZ. I understood the implications in regards to the current “notice of breach of tender” that was issued against me from ZZZ and what this may mean for Energylink moving into these negotiations. Our plan was to partake in an integrative bargaining agreement with ZZZ. We planned to establish rapport with ZZZ and try to make the negotiation pragmatic and logical. We decided to utilise referent power as tactic, as we had all been in the construction game for many years and most of us were already familiar with each other. Sometimes people assume the worst when there has been no wrong doing. Although Sam and I planned all stages of the conversation beforehand I do feel we could have spent a little more time working on the line of questioning we wanted to employ. It was agreed we would commence the conversation with open ended questions to hopefully get them to divulge their wants at the start, and then we would be in a more powerful and comfortable position to commence the negotiations. The tactic worked initially however as

First, you have to dissect both your position and your interests. Then, look at the sum of these parts relative to all the alternative options available. Pick the best option. Finally, do the reverse from your counterparts perspective. A well prepared negotiator looks at the whole picture.

1. Joe McDonald is the HR manager of ACME chemicals. His boss, Bill Jacobs, is concerned that the interactions between the various departments of the company are inconsistent and that there is too much competition between departments rather than cooperation. Bill has asked you about ways to improve the negotiations between business units. In your explanation to Bill, you need to explain the following: What are the three primary reasons that negotiations occur? What is the difference between bargaining and negotiation? Why must successful negotiations involve both tangible and intangible components? Do you think that ACME needs to pursue an integrative or a distributive approach to their

For example, it is pointed out that the Stericycle contract took 9 months to complete. What is ignored is that Stericycle has been under a class-action lawsuit in the state of Illinois for price-gouging, and this situation required the approval of our Assistant General Counsel, Hank Gerock to move forward as well as extensive collaboration with the Vendor Management Organization. This was not a simple approval, but required vetting with spend data, direct negotiation, and confrontation with Stericycle where PPD was at-risk in 14 individual binding contracts across its US sites. My direct negotiation greatly lowered the risk to PPD by directly engaging the Facility category’s highest non-construction, non-utility spend on three fronts: 1) eliminated the 5-year binding standard Stericycle term and reduced it to a 3-year term with “terminate for

When we negotiated the last 5 issues, such as, access to Korean markets, access to U.S. market and protection for your technology and so on, we both chosed the compromised options to obtain an integrative result. Both of us considered that the type of this negotiation is win-win. We quickly and smoothly come to an agreement of these issues because we thought the compromised options could bring profits

Planning for this negotiation was more difficult than the first negotiation in class. The first negotiation had a point system; therefore I knew what the maximum, minimum and average amount points were. Not only does the Texoil negotiation not have a point system, but there were two people on my side (sellers) and only one on the other side (buyer).

I planned for this negotiation by first identifying what my goals were, choosing an appropriate strategy than creating a planning document that incorporates all the aspects of negotiating demonstrated above.

The Pacific Oil Company went into negotiations with Reliant Manufacturing, and its goal was to sign a new long-term agreement. Pacific assumed that the new contract would be signed with no major obstacles, and that the principal point of negotiation would be price. Jean Fontaine, who is the marketing vice president for Pacific, went into a negotiation process with Reliant. Fontaine started the process three years before Reliant Manufacturing’s current contract was up, hoping to best his competition by offering Reliant a lower price and getting them to agree to a five year contract extension. Fontaine did not adequately research his