F. Scott Collaborative Leverage

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.

I invested a significant amount of time to prepare for the Byrnes, Byrnes & Townsend negotiation meeting. I represented Mrs. Townsend, the plaintiff in this case and I chose co-operative strategies and tactics for this negotiation exercise. For me to address the liability and evaluate the case, I had to divide the facts in four categories: weaknesses and strengths of the opponent, weaknesses and strengths of my case. From the class discussions, I learned that the success of the negotiation directly depends on the preparation stage, therefore, I carefully assessed the obtained information, evaluated interests of both parties, set out substantive, intangible, and procedural goals, developed mine and my opponent`s BATNA, set the limits, and implemented negotiation strategy and tactics.

1. How did you plan for the negotiation? Explain how you decided on a strategy?

All the interests can be summarized under “maximizing profits”. Without knowing their actual costs for each of the options, I can’t be a 100% sure of the priority of the issues, but I will need to gauge that based on the negotiations. With the given information, it looks like their issues are:

I assumed this was because Jamie disclosed the details of the offer I made her to Jack. Therefore, Jack was willing to accept less, in order to remain competitive with my offer. Because of the concept of scarcity caused by many people wanting the same thing (Bargaining for Advantage, pg. 179), I foresaw this happening, so when I reentered the negotiation, I asked to speak privately with Jack. Knowing that Jack felt pressured to drop his portion with Jamie because of me previous offer, I again tried to mention to him how I thought a three-way deal where funding was split equally and I conceded $10,000 of my share was a fair deal. I was hoping he would side with me when we reentered the negotiation because he would now understand the spiral effect that exists in this negotiation. However, because I knew I couldn’t rely on this I also mentioned the possibility that we could come to an agreement and I could better Jamie’s offer. I believe we reached a tentative agreement where I would receive $70,000 and he would receive $230,000. Again, I wish I could have persuade him to agree right then and there, but it seemed that he wanted to rejoin Jamie to further discuss the options. When all three of us we involved yet again, Jack had mentioned openly how it would be more beneficial to have an agreement with me, and this really caused an unexpected, but

In our recent negotiation, my partner Dave and I assumed the roles of Alan Hacker, a computer software developer, and Alan Hacker’s lawyer. Being the lawyer in the negotiation my objective was to avoid litigation with my client’s partner Stanley Star and to aid in the continuation of my client’s co-owned company HackerStar. In addition, I would assist Hacker in coming to an agreement that would be satisfying for him both personally and financially. I felt that Dave and I presented a reasonable argument on Hacker’s behalf and, since I was able to apply some of our class readings during the process, I was overall pleased with the outcome.

Getting to YES, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In is an excellent book that discusses the best methods of negotiation. The book is divided into three sections that include defining the problem, the method to solve it, and possible scenarios that may arise when using these methods. Each section is broken down into a series of chapters that is simple to navigate and outlines each of the ideas in a way that is easy for any reader to comprehend. There are also several real life explanations for each issue that make the concepts easier to apply and understand. These ideas are reflective of a method developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project called “principled negotiation”. This method combines the two ideas of soft and hard negotiation

In any negotiation, preparation is crucial; and having a set, outlined process to follow when preparing helps mitigate a potential oversight of any significant issues within the negotiation. Following a set process also helps one stay on task and in-line with what the important issues and factors are in a negotiation. In Bargaining for Advantage, G. Richard Shell provides a well-structured framework to follow in planning for a negotiation. For this reason, I used Shell’s negotiation preparation framework to plan for the negotiation between Rapid Printing Company (Rapid) and Scott Computers, Inc (Scott).

Negotiations are a part of daily life whether we are aware of them occurring or not. In everything that we do there are preferred end results and the end results are likely to affect more than one person. The goal in this however, is to ensure that all parties are equally benefited from the actions and reactions that occur to create that end result. While some dealings are done in a more subtle manner without a great deal of negotiation per say there are other situations that would warrant more vocalized mutually acceptable compromises. The purpose of this paper will be to effectively explain a situation of which required negotiation on the part of both parties that almost all of us have endured and that would be the process of buying a

In Energetics meets Generex negotiation, I was acting as a Chief Operating Officer (COO) for Energetics Corporation and my opponent and my classmate Chace Eskam was acting as a COO of Generex Corporation. In this deal, as a COO I was supposed to sell the Wind energy division of the Energetics to Generex. Energetics Corporation was in desperate need of cash due to bankruptcy. Another hurdle was that I could not sell three different locations of Wind plants individually. My company needed cash within three months with no additional terms added to this deal. My another best alternative was to sell all the assets of Wind Energy division to generate some cash if deal with Generex fails in this negotiation. Our negotiation went on for 15-20 minutes during class time and deal was set in $247 millions. My opponent Chace was very tough in this negotiation to deal. He was very prepared with facts and numbers before he came to the table. My opponent asked me lot questions such as the depreciation of the property, equipment’s life, taxes etc. After having lot of discussion we ultimately came to the conclusion that Generex will pay Energetics $247 million right away in cash to purchase Wind Energy division from Energetics.

For this negotiation I have three types of goals in place. My substantive goals are to negotiate a contract that will bring in $5.8m (target point 3) and to also secure future contracts with Knight. With

I would collaborate with the unit manager to design the team. We will select diverse champions with different backgrounds, experiences, skills and qualifications. After forming the team, using the similar assessment tools, I will assess the members. This is to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. I would provide the team with the clear idea about the project, purposes, activities included, goals and the timeline to achieve the goals. Depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the members, I will assign the job to the team. The purpose of the activities planned is to make sure the staff are in compliance with the existing policies and protocols of the unit. The team will do chart audits and tracking of the staff activities to ensure the

1) Was this a Distributive or Integrative negotiation?- was it the optimum approach and why or why not.

In this particular instance, from my perspective as the furniture manufacturer, I believe that negotiation would be the best means by which to solve the problem. By using negotiation, the furniture store and my manufacturing business may be able to reconcile and continue dealing with each other after we have resolved the issue. With negotiation, the tone is not very formal, outside legal counsel is not required, and the parties to negotiation set their own terms, making it more cost effective and quicker than other methods. By comparison, in the case of arbitration or litigation, the proceedings are far more formal and expensive, the process takes much longer, and in the case of litigation in particular, the decisions of a trial are

A corporate procedure ought to empower an organization, or one or a greater amount of its specialty units, to perform one or a greater amount of the worth creation capacities at a lower expense or in a way that takes into account separation and a premium cost. Effective cross-functional teaming is indispensable to the accomplishment of an organization. Fruitful organizations have basic qualities in how its representatives execute on strategies. A typical attribute representatives at prosperous organizations have is the capacity to team up and function admirably with different workers in various divisions that they depend upon for backing or help to finish a typical objective or goal. Decision-making can be portrayed as a procedure of settling on a choice or choices, taking into account decisions made amongst two or even more contending course of activities. The 'Choice making ' additionally requires settling on a characterize decision between two or more alternatives course of action that are accessible. In each decision making, there is said to be a positive and negative result as future consequences.