Analysis Essay - Writtern assignment PDF

Preview

Summary

Writtern assignment ...

Description

“New Recruit” Analysis Paper

OIDD 291/691 Prof.Shirit Kronzon Sam Xia

6.11.2019 A two-party multiple-issue negotiation involves two sides negotiating several issues simultaneously in order to seek an agreement that produces joint benefits. Two classmates and I participated in such role-play negotiation two class periods ago. Daniel and I as the recruiters were negotiating against Michael as the recruit. It was supposed to be a one verse one negotiation situation, but I teamed up with Michael due to the fact that the total number of classmates participating was odd. The outcome of our negotiation was ideal for not only my role as the recruiter, but also the total value created (Neale & Lys,2016, p.45) for both of the parties. Since Michael and I were able to work together, we decided to exchange our thoughts and be on the same strategic thinking before the negotiation begin. We observed that there are eight issues on the list that we need to negotiate, but the outcome options of each issue worth different values in terms of points to us. Thus, we made a ranking of issues based on the scale of the points. We ranked Moving Expense Coverage first because that’s the issue that can affect our points gain or lose the least and we are willing to make a compromise on it the most, whereas Salary was ranked the highest since it can minus us six thousand points with the worst option from the perspective of the recruiter. By the start of the negotiation, we had no clue which issues is distributive, integrative, or congruent (Neale & Lys,2016, p.48). But I intended to take the initiative of the circumstance and make a good anchoring point. Therefore, I chose an issue that’s mediocrely valued by us to start, and I was planning on to group this medium valued issue with the issue that can bring us the most possible points. I suggested we should discuss bonus to start. Our opponent immediately stated that a 10% bonus is suitable for him. This demonstrates that Bonus was most likely an integrative issue since the 10% option is not devastating for us. We then counteroffered 10 days of vacation in return of 10% bonus. Our opponent agreed, looking back to this agreement made, I think it was relatively successful since we grouped two integrative

issues together and increased joint gains. The rest of the negotiation was relatively slow in progress because we were haggling around. The pivotal turning point occurred when our opponent stated: “San Francisco would be best for me”. This allowed us to realized location was a compatible issue. We then took advantage of our opponent’s unawareness and treated it as a distributive issue. We pretended the offering of San Francisco was a huge compromise for us so that we were able to make demands of other issues. Fortunately, we were able to gain leverage by pretending job assignment was a distributive issue as well. One of the key factors that determined our negotiation outcome is that our opponent had the fixed-pie perception (Thompson, 2009, p.79) by assuming that the negotiation is a zero-sum game. Meaning that one party’s gain of an advantage over an issue is exactly equal to the losses of the other party. In our opponent’s point of view, we “made” concession by offering the optimal options of Division A and San Francisco to him, in which he ought to offer something in return. Our share of the pie was therefore enlarged. In other words, I believe the Bogey strategy (Lewicki & Hiam & Olander, 1996, Ch 6) was implemented by us. We pretended the action of choosing San Francisco and Division A is a great loss for ourselves, and we demanded compensation from our adversary. Fortunately, we were able to utilize this strategy because our opponent provided valuable information to us accidentally while we just inquired. However, there is a certain risk with the implantation of the Bogey tactic. If the counterpart is applying the same strategy, it would not be effective no progress will be during the negotiation. Another significant factor that resulted in our favorable outcome is that my partner and I did a good job on inquired other party’s interests and priorities (Thompson,2009, p82) while not giving out too much critical information about our goal. Exactly, as Thompson suggested in the passage, we asked our opponent about his preferences with regard to the negotiated issues and reached an integrative agreement. Not only the diagnostic questions allowed us to determine what our counterpart value the most, but also we can make integrative agreement offers based our priority.

The concepts of three types of issues can exist in multiple-issue negotiations allow me to fully understand the nature and dynamic of this particular negotiation exercise we completed. As well as the importance of understanding the other party’s interests before and during the negotiation. It is truly useful since we can identify which issues are integrative and make agreements that will increase shared benefits. The negotiation experience was similar to my prediction. Since it was a multiple-issue negotiation, I knew it was meant to be challenging and time-consuming to form an agreement. In my opinion, the strategy of ranking the importance of issues worked had some good impacts on the outcome of our negotiation. We were able to identify which issues are we willing to negotiation first and make steady progress. We used the time constraint as the normative leverage (Shell, 2014, p 44) because our opponent understood that we don’t have much time left and we were in a semi impasse. Our opponent suggested he could make a compromise on Location if we can meet his other demands, but obliviously we wanted to keep San Francisco and have him think that he is getting the best option for Location. Hence, we utilized the time constraint as our normative leverage and persuaded him to not to reopen the settled issues that favored our end because we did not have much time left and we need to make progress. If I had the chance to negotiation again over this scenario, there is one significant strategy that I believe is beneficial for forming a win-win outcome—making multiple offers of equivalent value simultaneously (Thompson, 2009, p.86). During the negotiation we had, we were often haggling or frustrated by our counterpart’s offer. In this multiple-issue negotiation, we could have offered our opponent several packaged proposals of equivalent value to us. By doing so, we are effectively providing our interests and priorities while seeking information about our adversary. Not to mention we are providing us many options to obtain our goal by devising offers that are all equal value to ourselves. The total outcome of our negotiation achieved Pareto-optimal frontier of agreement (Thompson,2009, p.77), a total score of 13200. The second highest total score is 12600. I believe the primary reason why ours differed from other

class members is that we were efficient in making integrative agreements. But based on the role of being recruiters, my partner and I came in second at a score of 9300 with the highest being 10600. Perhaps the other recruit had better competitive negotiation tactics applied. Throughout the negotiation, our counterpart seemed to be worrying about his points gain by always calculating. While we maintained a calm state and focus on the issues that can affect us the most. It is best to behave confidently throughout a negotiation in order to present a prepared image to the adversary.

Reference:  Lewicki, Roy J, Hiam, Alexander and Olander, Karen Think before you speak: the complete guide to strategic negotiation. J. Wiley, New York, 1996  Neale, Margaret Ann and Lys, Thomas, 1950-, (author.) Getting (more of) what you want : how the secrets of economics & psychology can help you negotiate anything in business & life. London Profile Books, 2016  Thompson, Leigh L The mind and heart of the negotiator (4th ed). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J, 2009  Shell, G. Richard Bargaining for advantage: negotiation strategies for reasonable people. Penguin Books, New York, 2014...