My negotiation partner impressed me by setting the price at $33,000, and made me think that he had to charge us at $33,000. This increased my expected level of payment a lot. Before he gave the first offer, I was thinking that I want to use the $27,000 as the start point and ask for some discount based on this price. But my partner made me feel that the $33,000 was the final payment they were targeting by listed the detailed hour rate and the hours. Thus I was in a very passive position that I felt every argument I made was asking him for a favor to give me a discount.
Thus when my partner finally agreed to charge us at $27,000, I felt that I had a big win, and I agreed to bring him more projects in the future. When I came back to classroom and looked at other classmates’ outcomes, I realized that my price $27,000 was quite high, someone even settled at the price of $22,000. Then I started to think what mistake I did during this case. I believed that my major mistake was that I changed my mind too easily. When my partner made the first offer of $33,000, I just raised my own expected price from $22,000 to $27,000.
Because I told myself that it was impossible for me to convince my partner take the $22,000 offer. I could do it differently by letting myself made the first offer at $22,000, and stick to the point that I need to control the budget. Maybe in that case I can also influence my partner’s expected price. Also, I learned from this case that I could be more aggressive in the negotiation. Most of my friend told me that I am a very friendly people with mild personality, and I really hate to have conflict with other people. Thus during the negotiation, I usually don’t want to push people too hard and also don’t care the final price that much.
Thus I didn’t fight hard for my interest. But from my partners’ success negotiation strategy, I start to think that what if I throw out an offer that basically can let me partner walk away at the begin of the negotiation, although your partner may angry at your offer or even at you, but it may bring you a better outcome. New Recruit I did well by asking my negotiation partner as well as myself to organize the 8 issues into 3 categories: the issues we care most, the issues we care least and the issues in the middle at the beginning of the negotiation.
My initial plan was that for those issues that my partner care most, and I care least, we can go extreme, say let my partner get all the points and vice vesa. Fox example, my partner, the candidate said that he cared about moving expenses coverage very much, so I agreed to provide the 100% coverage, in exchange, the candidate agreed to take the Plan E insurance coverage. By doing this, we quickly got consensus on most of the issues and figured out there were some issues we had the same goal. Also, at the same time, I was impressed by my partners’ argument during the negotiation.
I knew that the salary was the major conflict issue between us. But since I did not have any other information to benchmark the salary, I actually was quite uncomfortable to argue the salary figure with my partner, because I don’t want to bluff my partner and he will find me dishonest later. But my partner just came up with several points that why my company should pay him higher, he mentioned that he had several other offers at hand and most importantly, he believed that his skill set was quite qualify with our job, he listed his strengths, how good team player he is, etc.
So he deserved a higher pay. After the case debrief, I realized that all the arguments that my partner used to argue for a higher pay were not come from the case materials, he basically made up all these information by himself. And I admit that it was quite useful during this negotiation because I increased the salary I’m willing to pay based on his arguments. From my partner’s argument, I realized that even in the real negotiation, you may lack some back-up data to support your arguments at sometime, and all you can do is to rationalize your argument.
It is not necessary to ask yourself to make up some fake data, but most important, how can you convince others use your logical and powerful argument. 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. Moms. Com
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. At the same time, our counterparts were also doing the same thing. Each one in their team had a dedicated assignment.
And most importantly, they did quite well on setting the goal clearly at the beginning that they want to collaborate with us to create the biggest pie. Thus, by setting this tone, our negotiation situation was more like a team based collaboration work to find the best interest for both sides instead of negotiating and fighting for better interest for different sides. I really liked the atmosphere created during this negotiation, that you felt you have your own teammates to support you and also you can sense the teamwork spirit from everyone’s effort.
However, I also had to admit that during this negotiation, our team made a unintended mistake by saying that we had a maximum run of 7 times instead of 8 runs. It is actually a miscommunication within our team because the people that delivered this message thought that we were allowed them to run under 8 times. Thus when the rest teammates found his mistake, we did not know how to fix it. Because first of all, we didn’t want to embarrass own teammate in front of our counterparts, secondly, we didn’t know if it’s his own strategy to set the maximum runs to 7 at that time.
And due to this miscommunication within the team, we didn’t get the best ideal net value for both teams. Overall, I like this team based negotiation experience very much. The key learning for me from this case is there are definitely many synergies when negotiate as a team. And the internal communication and collaboration skills are quite important. If I were in a real and serious negotiation situation, I believe the effort I would put within the team to align our negotiate strategy would be no less than the effort we put on our counterparts.
At the same time, I learned that since I am not an aggressive people, it actually good for me to team with some one who is more demanding than me. For example, our team first offered a price that I believe I would never offered if I negotiated alone. And because I was in a team at that time, I felt more confortable because you knew you have a whole team to support you. Given my personality, I think in the future, if I have to negotiate alone, I could seek for my colleague’s support/advice before to get a better outcome. Federated Science Fund
I played the role of Turbo in this case, and before we started to negotiate, my original tactic was that I first allied with one of my counterparts, once we had the alliance, it can increase our barging power dramatically. But I also tried to be a nice person, so I mentioned at the beginning of the negotiation that I preferred that all three of us all get the funding. My partners also thought in the same way. So we quickly rule out other options and focus on how to divide the total $480,000. Once we started to discuss the funding allocation, my partner Michael Petro really impressed me because of his innovative point.
He proposed to approach this negotiation case from a very different angle: we should act as moral citizens, thus we emphasize the importance of developing cancer and AIDS drugs to the entire world. Actually he played the rule of Stockman in this case, thus he could easily get the highest funding in our team. But he mentioned that since his company needed the funding least, and it mainly produced basic products, he believed it would be more meaningful if Turbo and United get the funding. After he set this tone, our negotiation was toward a new direction: how to protect Stockman’s interest if he gave us most of the funding.
And we came up with the idea of allowing Stockman to purchase our companies’ equity at a discounted price. Although we solved this case quite efficiently, I think I could do better and protect my own interest more in the discussion of how United and I would divide the funding. In this case, Unite and I each got $235,000, and we have the same equity sales terms with Stockman. We got this kind of equal result mainly because both my partner and I were try to be nice to each other and were also influenced by Stockman’s moral standard.
Thus even I knew that I actually in a better position to argue for and really wanted more funding, I didn’t do that because I didn’t want to be perceived as the only greedy person in my team. Thus I think since I am a person very easily be influenced by others, if I want to get a better outcome in the future, I should let my partners know my expectation at the beginning of the negotiation. From this case, the most meaningful learning for me is that I could think out of the box sometimes.
Also this case reminds me that even in the real business world, the economic interest may not be the only thing you need to consider. In this case, we talked about the big impact of cancer and AIDS drug research to the entire world. As I will do healthcare consulting job in China after graduation, I think it is particular useful for me. When I need to delivery any recommendation to my clients in the future project, I should not only thinking/talking about their financial gains/losses, but also keep in mind about the social impact of my recommendation.