Essay on Pacific Oil Company

By studying the situation, I don't believe the 2 sides concerned ever had a deal. In the situation, the sides reached a deal just

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

In this case it seems that were given all the conditions for establishing consideration, but if we look more closely at the details of the case we will realize that there were

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

This paper will describe the problem that Pacific Oil Company faced as it reopened negotiations with Reliant Chemical Company in early 1985. Secondly I will identify and evaluate the styles and effectiveness of Messrs, Fonatine, Guadin, Hauptmann, and Zinnser as negotiations in this case. Finally I will outline what Frank Kelsey recommend to Jean Fontaine at the end of the case? Why?

1. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of Fontaine's and Gaudin's negotiating strategy in their deliberations with Reliant Chemical Company.

It would seem that the types of negotiators each of our characters took on also had a fair part in the way the negotiations played out. Bhand (2010) discusses the four types of negotiators. I don’t believe we see all four of the negotiation types displayed in this negotiation, but rather that Fontaine and Gaudin share the same negotiation technique while Hauptmann, and Zinnser take on very different methods to the negotiating. Let’s start with Fontaine and Gaudin. From the first visit between Gaudin and Hauptmann in December to the combined visit of Fontaine and Gaudin in March, Lewiski (n.d.) points out the factors of the established relationship between Pacific Oil and Reliant Chemical, and the thought of Fontaine and Gaudin that the negotiations will be without any real problems. This thought process, and the way it continues to drive the negotiation going forward falls into Bhand’s definition of a negotiator low on task orientation but high on relationship orientation. “They have a mindset that if the relationship with the other negotiator is ‘good’ then it will be easy to negotiate…rarely disagreeing with the other party, they want to please the other party by agreeing to most demands” (2010). This behavior is displayed over and over again with Fontaine and Gaudin in that they do not disagree with any of the Reliant Chemical demands outright, but rather they

Explain and describe what parts of the interaction employed effective listening and speaking in the negotiation.

The initial defense from warner should have come from the initial agreement, anticipating the Pfizer proposal and leaving no room to Pfizer to legal actions or hostile proposals. In my view, the standstill clause must have been reinforced by not allowing Pfizer any merge proposal even though, the third party proposals

Summary: This was a multiparty negotiation, which involved 6 players all with very different negotiation styles. It was an exercise in which teams easily form a coalition. There were concessions about the value added each team would bring to the “table”, and my team in a situation of power saw how negatively the other teams reacted in name of fairness and how important was to share the pie.

They represent Pacific Oil in one location, while decision impacting their negotiations are being made in another location, such as the decision to manufacture, or not manufacture, PVC. Fontaine and Gaudin might have engage in some of the decision making processes taking place within Pacific Oil. Another disadvantage for Fontaine and Gaudin was their negotiating locations. Their concern for time prevented them from setting up negotiations where they may have gained some power from perception in their own corporate environment. There were a number of ways for Pacific Oil to address the issue of their power imbalance with

A skilled negotiator spends enough amount of time in preparation and planning. In the preparation and planning of this negotiation I gathered all the positive points to my advantage and planned how to put them in a sequence so that my opponent could

We took a break to discuss issues amongst us and I explained my team about the pressure tactics. We went back and said sorry for the management and expressed our inability to get consent from the labors and said to the management that we hardly could convince the labors on the issue related to pay. According to Fisher, Ury, & Patton (2011) “Paradoxically, you strengthen your bargaining position by weakening your control over the situation.” (pg., 142). We asked the management of Southern Express to agree on our items 1, 2 and 3 In return we offered to agree to management’s 5, 6, and 7.

(Lewicki, 2010, p. 585) Fontaine and Gaudin did not prepared to negotiate the full contract. They did not anticipate nor prepare to resolve additional issues. Due to their inexperience, Fontaine and Gaudin were not the correct pairing to conduct the renegotiation, as well, they did not have decision making authority. They had to contact senior level management in order to reach a final agreement. This delay extended the negotiation timeline. Adding to the already stressful situation, the prospect of losing Reliant as a consistent client prosed a potential major issue, especially relating to supply as it would be difficult to identify another client to fill the former demand level. Also, Pacific senior leaders delayed their decision to expand into PVC products, over a year. This delay created uncertainty with the forecast for VCM and derivate products, which had a negative marketing impact for one of the top essential products. Also, contributing to the list of weaknesses, Fontaine’s definition of a successful negotiation differed from the corporate office, in that, he linked a successful negotiation outcome to keeping Reliant as a client by extending the current terms of the contract, solely. However, just as important, Fontaine neglected to take into account all the other potential issues or points of

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