Bargaining for Business Success

BS28426-M

Module Tutor: J.Ramsay

Part One

Reflection of Role-Play Negotiation

Word Count:1,015

Part Two

Negotiation case-study analysis:
Pacific Oil Company

Word Count:1,076

Award Title: MGM (2003-2004)

Student: Hao Chen (Colin)

Registration Number: 03904301

19/05/2004

Reflection of Role-Play Negotiation

Our role-play negotiation team has five members. Negotiator plays the key role during the negotiation process whereas others tend to be observer or calculator instead of analyst or summariser due to the passive and reticent performance throughout the whole negotiation. Theoretically speaking, channelling all communication through a team spokesperson reduces the inadvertent revelation of information (Roy J. Lewicki, 2003). In addition to reducing the number of people who can actively reveal information, this allows other members of the negotiating team to observe and listen carefully to what the other party is saying so they can detect clues and pieces of information about the other party’s position. However, as a newly formed team, learning to work or collaborate together effectively is uneasy. Collaborative learning as the basis for effective organizational team building requires a level of personal familiarity, intimacy and trust, allowing team members to listen to one another with respect and understanding (Bright,1998). But, for most newly formed teams, achieving this level of personal interaction and team harmonisation are not an easy or a natural process and sometimes it could be problematic. There are too many factors affect a new team; we need time to build harmonization and to use individual diversity effectively.

When contributing to a team, I am quick to see advantage of new opportunities and take it, especially during distributive negotiation, also I try to sense each possible alternative and concession from the other party since I don’t want to face temporary unpopularity if it leads to worthwhile results in the end. But, the negotiation should be well prepared, structured and controlled, otherwise I feel not at ease. More preparatory works like role allocation and discoursing order should be well arranged beforehand to avoid unnecessary nervous occurred from disorder of individual role, which brought negative influence for the whole negotiation overall. Also, it should avoid being dominated by one ‘Shaper’ (Belbin’s nine team roles,1996) and other members seem to be aloof about the issues, which lead to perform passively and reticently. Furthermore, sometimes, I should listen comprehensively instead of be selective listening or hear what I interested and used value judgments to evaluate the source of messages since I am apt to get too caught up in ideas that occur to me and so lose track of what is happening. When involved in a project with other people, I am always ready to back a good suggestion in the common interest. But I need to enhance my vigilant ability to prevent careless mistakes and omissions being made. Nevertheless, I can find a line of arguments to refute unsound propositions every now and then.

Reviewing the ES478 negotiation role play, our opponent’s main tactic is snow job or kitchen sink (Roy J. Lewicki, 2003) through presenting much information about many different items, thus becomes difficult for us to detect which items are really important. At the beginning, they gave us a shock-opening offer that astonished our team member. Theoretic analysis indicates that negotiators who make exaggerated opening offers get higher settlements than do those who make low or modest opening offer (Roy J.Lewicki, 2003). First, it gives our opponent room for movement and therefore allows their time to learn about our team’s priorities. Second, an exaggerated opening offer acts as a metamessage and may create, in their mind, the impression that there is a long way to go before a reasonable settlement will be achieved; we felt that more concessions that originally intended may have to be made to bridge the difference between the two opening positions, as a result, we have been wrong in estimating their resistance point. However, in the real negotiation situation, such opening offer could be summarily rejected by the other party and communicates an attitude of toughness that may be harmful to long-term relationships. In addition, opening stance can’t be belligerence to attacking the positions, offers. In response, the other party may mirror the initial stance. Thus, moderateness and understanding position is better, even if the attitude is not mirrored, the other’s response is likely to be constrained by such a moderate opening stance as let’s be reasonable people who can solve this problem to our mutual satisfaction. Also, during the distributive part of the role-play negotiation, they successfully adopt selective presentation to lead us to form the desired impression of their resistance point or to open up new possibilities for agreement that are more favourable to them than those that currently exist. Nevertheless, we play well in displaying emotional reaction to facts, proposals and possible outcomes through which to provide information about what is important to them.

Join now!

As to the language we used, I think our team can perform better if we ask value-free, informational questions to find out what our counterpart’s underlying needs are. Next, avoid judgmental styles of questioning, even though my first instinct is to use them since if not put these questions appropriately will help or hinder the obtaining responses. For example, during the role-play negotiation, I am not satisfied with the order they offer and asked instantaneously “How did you ever think you could get that order?” Actually, I put them on the defensive. But if I say, “I’m not sure ...

This is a preview of the whole essay