Week 4 Negotiation
CONNECTICUT VALLEY SCHOOL
This case was the first experience working in teams. It was also the first time negotiating with three parties.
I had the role of trustee in this case. During the pre-negotiation preparation arriving at a consensus on the
method of calculation of productivity index and the ranked results ate a big chunk of the time. However at the
end we were able to solve that issues and come up with a preferred rank based on completion of the most projects
within the available budget. We also, being the trustees, wanted to listen to the ideas and concerns of the
the headmaster and the faculty budget committee before voluteering our positions.
The headmaster started out by stating his positions. I think that set the tone for an emotional/positional
type of negotiation. Hardly any time were spend trying to determine the interests behind the positions.
I think this was the trend of the whole negotiation. We had different views about the benefits to the school and how they
could be arrived at. What was also contested was the different standards that were being used to measure good business success.
However, in the end, however, we were able to get a solution that everyone was comfortable with. How did we do this?
We used the blackboard to write down the numbers so that we can clarify our thinking and help everyone understand.
That way we were able to clarify misconceptions. We sought to understand the positions. Then we wrote down the options
and we all agreed that we should get more for our the money. There were two options that allowed 4 projects to be
completed. We were able to select one of them by creating options so that the item that was not satisfied would be
satisfied in the near future. So in the end, common interests helped us agree. Another feature that helped was that we took
a break. After the break we really sat down and tried to find a common solution. It worked like magic and everything
started to fall into place. We had the options on the board and were able to select the best one for everyone in a just
a few minutes.
We could have clarified the roles within our team. We did not designate a leader, or spokesperson. This should have been
done. We could also have created different roles for everyone else. I think that the negotiation was took positional in nature.
It was like everyone wanted to clarify what they thought was best before exploring the underlying reasons. I think it is always
best to explore the interests first or else negotiators would always try to support their positions and lock themselves more
and more into it.
In the end we choose 2,4,5 and 6. We choose the hockey rink roof, heating system, fine arts building and women's locker room.
The feedback that we gave was that the headmaster did do calculations and vigorously presented them with the calculations but did not inquire about our interests and could improve on his estimates. The faculty was very vocal about their cause and why they wanted it and showed the benefits but they did not take into account how their positions were connected with their interests. We received that feedback that we listened and asked questions to try to understand.
READINGS
Based on the reading of Case Study 2 - Pacific Oil Company (POC), it appears that a major problem was that they did not
prepare for the negotiation. They made assumptions that Reliant would accept their offers. After repeated revelations
about their differing positions, POC should have "seen the light" and at least sit down and do some more preparation.
But they did not and continued to be surprised, if not shocked, but the growing grocery list. They certainly did not
try to find out interests. The negotiation appeared to be positional. It also seems that the former contract was a win-lose
contract in POC favor and seemed to have no choice but to accept. Market changes allowed them to try to shift a new contract
more in their favor or at least, make it fair. These are my initial thoughts on the case.
This case was the first experience working in teams. It was also the first time negotiating with three parties.
I had the role of trustee in this case. During the pre-negotiation preparation arriving at a consensus on the
method of calculation of productivity index and the ranked results ate a big chunk of the time. However at the
end we were able to solve that issues and come up with a preferred rank based on completion of the most projects
within the available budget. We also, being the trustees, wanted to listen to the ideas and concerns of the
the headmaster and the faculty budget committee before voluteering our positions.
The headmaster started out by stating his positions. I think that set the tone for an emotional/positional
type of negotiation. Hardly any time were spend trying to determine the interests behind the positions.
I think this was the trend of the whole negotiation. We had different views about the benefits to the school and how they
could be arrived at. What was also contested was the different standards that were being used to measure good business success.
However, in the end, however, we were able to get a solution that everyone was comfortable with. How did we do this?
We used the blackboard to write down the numbers so that we can clarify our thinking and help everyone understand.
That way we were able to clarify misconceptions. We sought to understand the positions. Then we wrote down the options
and we all agreed that we should get more for our the money. There were two options that allowed 4 projects to be
completed. We were able to select one of them by creating options so that the item that was not satisfied would be
satisfied in the near future. So in the end, common interests helped us agree. Another feature that helped was that we took
a break. After the break we really sat down and tried to find a common solution. It worked like magic and everything
started to fall into place. We had the options on the board and were able to select the best one for everyone in a just
a few minutes.
We could have clarified the roles within our team. We did not designate a leader, or spokesperson. This should have been
done. We could also have created different roles for everyone else. I think that the negotiation was took positional in nature.
It was like everyone wanted to clarify what they thought was best before exploring the underlying reasons. I think it is always
best to explore the interests first or else negotiators would always try to support their positions and lock themselves more
and more into it.
In the end we choose 2,4,5 and 6. We choose the hockey rink roof, heating system, fine arts building and women's locker room.
The feedback that we gave was that the headmaster did do calculations and vigorously presented them with the calculations but did not inquire about our interests and could improve on his estimates. The faculty was very vocal about their cause and why they wanted it and showed the benefits but they did not take into account how their positions were connected with their interests. We received that feedback that we listened and asked questions to try to understand.
READINGS
Based on the reading of Case Study 2 - Pacific Oil Company (POC), it appears that a major problem was that they did not
prepare for the negotiation. They made assumptions that Reliant would accept their offers. After repeated revelations
about their differing positions, POC should have "seen the light" and at least sit down and do some more preparation.
But they did not and continued to be surprised, if not shocked, but the growing grocery list. They certainly did not
try to find out interests. The negotiation appeared to be positional. It also seems that the former contract was a win-lose
contract in POC favor and seemed to have no choice but to accept. Market changes allowed them to try to shift a new contract
more in their favor or at least, make it fair. These are my initial thoughts on the case.