Deeport

Debriefing – Deeport (21st Oct 2006)

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;
I was successful. We reached an agreement on the third vote. All of the interested paries reached their own goals and that is why the negotiation was successful.

· who was satisfied (answer this before comparing walkaways or comparing information);
All of us were satisfied because all of us were satisfied with the final outcome.

· did either violate his/her walkaway; if so, why?
No one violated their walkaway and negotiated in good faith.

· if there was a gap in walkaways, how did you bridge (or try) the gap.
There was a gap initially (the first two voting rounds) and therefore we looked at ways where each interested could give a little concession to reach a solution that was beneficial for all.

· did we get near the “Pareto Frontier?” or …did we “leave money on the table”…where are we on the graph?
We did not leave any money on the table.

· Was there anything that surprised you about the negotiation
The surprising situation was the formation of alliances between different parties. The environmental league was ready to support the other ports in return for their support for a lighter industry or a medium industry in conjunction with the improvement of the ecology.

Negotiation Process: What was the process of negotiation- opening offers, sequences of offers, counteroffers, anchoring, initial offer, counteroffers? Did the other side start high/low? What effect did this have on the negotiation?
Our negotiation process started with the Deeport company proposing a package of offerings ( Medium Industry mix, Maintain and Repair Eco Impact, No Union Pref, A $3 Billion Loan, and no compensation to other ports). There was a discussion by various parties on aspects that were important to them. Deeport was posed questions and they answered them but did not commit on anything as such. I (Governor) tried to inform the company that concerns of the unions specifically initially and also pushed for heavy industries. After a brief discussion we took a vote and all were against the proposal except for Deeport. Again the Negotiation started and I again pushed for a higher union participation and a minimum of $ 2B loan with improving the co impact and a medium industry with no compensation to other ports. A lot of alliances were being formed and broken. A vote was taken and only other ports were opposed to the deal. We then went to a third round and we got a$300M compensation for the ports. We had reached an agreement on the third vote.


A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)
Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent
_5_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?
_5_Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs
_5__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?
_5__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?
_5__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?
_4__How well did I try understand the other person:
_5__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;
_5__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered
_4__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints
_5__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)
_4__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs
_5__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position
_5__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement
___Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark
_4__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”
_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…
_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person
_5__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before
_4__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)
_5__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"
_5__Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.


Did we use the Techniques of Principled Negotiation: (did the other party?)…If not, what blocked it?
· listen, be warm and friendly; avoid quarreling; ask questions, ask questions, ask questions, ask clarification, rephrase
· be open to persuasion
· be principled (“You want to pay….I need …Can you think of ways that is fairer than splitting
· turn the interaction from adversarial haggling into side-b-side solving of the problem of what is fair.

For Yourself: General Conclusion:
· In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;
In the areas that I felt I was less than totally successful was I should have used the opportunity before the negotiation started to speak with Deeport as we had the same interests and that would have made a big difference in understanding each other during the negotiation. I should have noticed the commonalities between our interests earlier in the negotiations.

· What were keys to the negotiation being successful or unsuccessful
The keys to the negotiation being successful were:
1. Exchange of Information
2. Working to arrive at a solution that would create the maximum value for each party

· What would you do differently if you were to do this same negotiation again
I will try and get all the parties talking more so that more information can be exchanged and mistrust about each other can be minimized.

· What did you learn about yourself? About negotiations what tendencies do you have in negotiation that you need to be careful about (too aggressive, too likely to quit searching for solutions once your; what do you feel you need to work on? What would you do differently next time?
I learnt that I need to work on my ability to form alliances and that means identifying not just the obvious alliances but also the ones that I can work on to make a viable proposal work.

· What did you learn in general?
As the negotiation progressed an interest facet of negotiation process came to the fore, the art of forming alliances and the If and then strategy being applied to those alliances. Alliances can be formed between the mostly unlikely of the parties given the situation and the circumstances are appropriate and that your bargaining advantage can be easily thrown out of sync.

· If this were a real case, what obstacles to joint problem-solving might you encounter; how would you overcome them?
If this were a real case the main issue would have come from the environmental league and the other ports. For environmental league they did not have legal basis to oppose to the port provided it was within the legal parameters. With respect to other ports there could have been a problem if there was no compensation paid to them because it was not legally binding. However, it would have meant spoilt relations with other state governors if no compensation were not paid. This could be avoided by balancing between parties and making them exchange information freely and understanding the real issues for each party. Concession from each party would be needed to arrive at a solution than can be of value to every party.

Wright Plane Case

Debriefing – Wright Plane Case (7th Oct 2006)

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;
We think we were successful overall. In fact, I feel the negotiation was more towards our favour. We were successful because we got a feeling that we were in a better than the other side. The other side seemed more desperate to have a deal than we were.

· who was satisfied (answer this before comparing walkaways or comparing information);
I think we were more satisfied because the negotiation went in our favour.

· did either violate his/her walkaway; if so, why?
No we did not violate our walkaway price.

· if there was a gap in walkaways, how did you bridge (or try) the gap.
There was a ZOPA so there was no gap.

· did we get near the “Pareto Frontier?” or …did we “leave money on the table”…where are we on the graph?
We did not leave money on the table. In fact, we were closer to our desired target that we had expected to be.

· was there anything that surprised you about the negotiation
I thought it was unusual the other side kept on trying to avoid a counter offer our anchor bid.

Negotiation Process: What was the process of negotiation- opening offers, sequences of offers, counteroffers, anchoring, initial offer, counteroffers? Did the other side start high/low? What effect did this have on the negotiation?
· We initiated the negotiation by first trying to intimidate them by reasoning that their plane was not worth much and that we might have to haul it away. After the initial discussions, ur strategy was to set the anchor first and set a low one. After it was apparent that they did not want to sell the engine alone, we initiated talks with a figure of $3,500 for the entire plane. They reasoned that their plane was worth $30,000 - $35,000. We then asked them if that included depreciation, but they were adamant in throwing out $30,000 as their initial offer. We then offered $4,000, however, they did not come down on their second offer and didn’t seem willing to negotiate. After some further conversations, they dropped their offer down to around $28,000. They then decided to throw the idea on the table of creating a partnership between our two parties in which we would do the repair work and pay them $22,000 and receive 50% ownership and be able to have “first dibs” on the plane when we wanted. That particular offer was not attractive to us, as we did not really need to go into partnership with them. However, after that offer, we decided on a new strategy and planned the following: our next offer was to be $5,500 to buy the plane outright, we then would make our next offer $6,500, our last strictly cash offer would be $7,000. Our first combination offer would entail, $7,000 plus the removal of the plane. We also added several options to this offer . Offer a. was to offer them a commission on work they sent to our garage and perhaps commission based structure on business they sent to our charter (Which never came up), offer b was to offer commission and have them discount Ads in their newspaper and finally offer c was the above but we would pay for the Ads. Our next two options would be to accept their offer of a partnership and then our final decision was to walk away. In the end our final offer was $9,600 including repairing their Ford explorer, we would also receive a full pg ad once a week and they would receive 20% commission on any business they sent our way as well as we would give them 20% off repairs we did on their newspaper trucks. The price also included the moving cost of the plane to our garage.


A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)
Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent
_4_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?
_4_Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs
_4__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?
_4__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?
_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?
_4__How well did I try understand the other person:
_3__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;
_4__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered
_3__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints
_3__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)
_5__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs
_3__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position
_5__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement
___Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark
_4__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”
_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…
_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person
_3__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before
_4__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)
_3__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"
_5__Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.


Did we use the Techniques of Principled Negotiation: (did the other party?)…If not, what blocked it?
· listen, be warm and friendly; avoid quarreling; ask questions, ask questions, ask questions, ask clarification, rephrase
· be open to persuasion
· be principled (“You want to pay….I need …Can you think of ways that is fairer than splitting
· turn the interaction from adversarial haggling into side-b-side solving of the problem of what is fair.

For Yourself: General Conclusion: In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;
I feel we could have been better coordinated as team. We were sometimes not on the same page (Could have been solved if we had more time to discuss the case together) Next time I would also look at exchanging more information.

· What were keys to the negotiation being successful or unsuccessful
The key to the negotiation being successful was that we approached it as a transaction situation and we perceived that we were in a better position so we send a message that we were in a strong position but we were ready to be flexible; we used our signaling leverage well.

· What would you do differently if you were to do this same negotiation again
I would try and be more open and ask more questions as well. I think we guarded a lot of information and that made negotiation a lot longer to complete. Next time I would therefore look at exchanging more information.

· What did you learn about yourself? About negotiations What tendencies do you have in negotiation that you need to be careful about (too aggressive, too likely to quit searching for solutions once your; What do you feel you need to work on? What would you do differently next time?
I feel that I can become condescending at times which is not good thing. I also don’t ask as many questions as I should which doe not help me to gain more insights into the other side. I would try and ask more questions and let the other side a more of the talking.

· What did you learn in general?
I learnt the importance of reading the situation correctly and how to respond to that situation in a correct manner. Additionally, I learnt how to respond and send messages out according to the position that I am in (e.g. Sending a firm message in a strong situation or flexible in a strong situation)

· If this were a real case, what obstacles to joint problem-solving might you encounter; how would you overcome them?
If this were, a real case maybe there would have been a problem with the way we went about exchanging information. Both the sides were very guarded about the information they wanted to divulge. In real life this could have let to a breakdown. We should have trusted each other more even though it was purely transactional in nature. To assist us an outside mediator could have been engaged who is known to both to overcome this suspicion between the two sides.

Welsh Water Case

Debriefing – Welsh Water (7th Oct 2006)

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;

We think we were successful overall. I felt that all the unions and management benefited from the negotiation. We were successful because priorities of the unions were the same which provided them the leverage while negotiating with the Management. Also, the different unions were ready to offer concessions for the over all gain.

· who was satisfied (answer this before comparing walkaways or comparing information);
I think everyone was satisfied with the outcome as all were much above their respective walkaway.

· did either violate his/her walkaway; if so, why?
No we did not violate our walkaway price.

· if there was a gap in walkaways, how did you bridge (or try) the gap.
There was a ZOPA so there was no gap.

· did we get near the “Pareto Frontier?” or …did we “leave money on the table”…where are we on the graph? We did not leave money on the table.

was there anything that surprised you about the negotiation

I thought it would be more distributive as a negotiation because the case suggested that the NUPE was anti NALGO. However, by focusing on problem at hand I believe we let go of our preconceived notions. Also, when the management tried to low ball us we were united in our negotiations and countered that effectively.

Negotiation Process: What was the process of negotiation- opening offers, sequences of offers, counteroffers, anchoring, initial offer, counteroffers? Did the other side start high/low? What effect did this have on the negotiation?
The opening was by Ben (Management). He offered us three options with caveats. He framed his argument that the management and the unions had to work together for future gains. He offered us a package that included the pay increase linked to CPI – 1% and assured us of a market position guarantee of 60%. He also said given the circumstances job security was not possible. The unions rejected the CPI linked wage increase and we pushed for a CPI + 4%. We also state that job security was important the unions. We went back and forth on the CPI linked pay and finally agreed on CPI+ 1% increase. The other two unions wanted to reduce work hours but were more inclined to work on a single scale pay basis, which was a major source of discontentment with the management. Therefore, the unions agreed to this. The management was ready pushing for a PWT schedule but the unions did not see eye to eye with the management on that one. We therefore pushed in the agenda for a profit sharing, with which the other two unions agreed. Also, as the other unions were happy to see us cooperating with them to work a solution we pushed in for a market position guarantee of 65% which the management relented because we were relying on standards and the management found it difficult to put down. Finally, these were the terms:
CPI + 1 *Single Pay Scale*Market Position Guarantee @ 65%
*Profit Sharing

A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)
Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent
_4_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?
_4_Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs
_4__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?
_4__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?
_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?
_4__How well did I try understand the other person:
_4__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;
_4__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered
_2__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints
_3__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)
_4__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs
_3__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position
_5__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement
___Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark
_4__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”
_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…
_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person
_5__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before
_4__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)
_4__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"
_5__Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.


Did we use the Techniques of Principled Negotiation: (did the other party?)…If not, what blocked it?
· listen, be warm and friendly; avoid quarreling; ask questions, ask questions, ask questions, ask clarification, rephrase
· be open to persuasion
· be principled (“You want to pay….I need …Can you think of ways that is fairer than splitting
· turn the interaction from adversarial haggling into side-b-side solving of the problem of what is fair.

For Yourself: General Conclusion:
· In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;
The areas in which we were less successful entailed were planning our multi-part union negotiation prior to negotiating. Perhaps if we had a little more time, we may have been better prepared. However, out of the three parties that were negotiating, the union that represented the blue collar workers (NUPE) did not receive the minimum amount of points needed and ultimately went on strike and were left on their own. If we had created a strategic alliance prior to beginning the negotiation, than perhaps all three unions would have been stronger and had a more positive outcome.

· What were keys to the negotiation being successful or unsuccessful
The key to the negotiation being successful was that we approached it as a balanced concern situation and we also knew that we would need to be flexible.

· What would you do differently if you were to do this same negotiation again
As mentioned earlier, the three unions were not acting totally together. Therefore, it was imperative that we work together next time and would suggest creating a partnership or strategic alliance where we act together and if one of the unions did not receive what they wanted then the other two would then walkaway. By acting as one, the other side would not have much opportunity to manipulate each of the unions individually. The blue collar workers were the most expendable out of the three unions, but they needed us more than we needed them. However, having all three unions working together, would have benefited the three unions and made for a stronger negotiation.

· What did you learn about yourself? About negotiations What tendencies do you have in negotiation that you need to be careful about (too aggressive, too likely to quit searching for solutions once your; What do you feel you need to work on? What would you do differently next time?
I learnt that I could learn from the other team members if I let exchange of information flow. I also have to watch out for my aggressive nature.

· What did you learn in general?
I learnt the importance of reading the situation correctly and placing it in context if the situational matrix, thus, helping me deal with the situation in a correct manner. I learnt that even though a negotiation might involve many parties the key to success is exchange of information can greatly increase your leverage as a team.

· If this were a real case, what obstacles to joint problem-solving might you encounter; how would you overcome them?
The problem I foresee on a negotiation like this there could be mistrust toward a union like NALGO from other unions. They might think that we have a hidden agenda and that could be a problem. Therefore, it is important to build trust into the relationship so that we on the negotiation table we speak the same language and are aware of each others priorities. Also, it is possible that the unions have divergent priorities which could be a cause of disagreement. This can again be sorted out by exchange of information and understanding the other sides interests are linked to our interests and vice versa.

Mediation

Debrief for Mediation Class on 28th Oct 2006

We did three mediation cases. Each one of us was a mediator once. I was one of the aggrieved parties in the process for the first two times. The chance to be a mediator in the end therefore gave me a chance to eliminate some of the mistakes the other two had made as mediators. I found that summarizing, paraphrasing and active listening were really important to follow. Additionally, I found that asking open ended questions, taking notes was equally important because it gave me an opportunity to get to the crux of the matter more quickly.

The private sessions were extremely helpful because they helped gain insight into the motives that lay behind the grievances. The private sessions also gave the parties to talk to me more openly. I also used this time to build their trust in me and to make them feel that I was impartial and was here to help both teams to come to an amicable solution.

However, when I started the mediation process I found it hard to keep my opinions to my self; I knew the facts from both sides and that made this task difficult. Another difficult aspect was to decipher when the argument was going out of context and break it and when not to intervene because that would have meant blocking exchange of information between the two parties. Looking back I realize I was not totally above the mediation process and at times did provide a lot of opinions.

After going through the process thrice I realize it was a good experience to because sooner or later in my career I will probably have to mediate between two employees or a similar situation and this experience should stand me in good stead.

Lyric Opera Case

Debriefing – Lyric Opera Case (30 Sep 2006)

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;
We started by negotiating at two different ends of the spectrum. We started at the lower end and the other side started at the very high end with our respective opening bids. I think we were successful given the situation but we could have done better. We were successful because besides the odds both sides realized that we will have to make a lot of concessions due to our need for each other.

Who was satisfied (answer this before comparing walkaways or comparing information);
Both teams were satisfied as nobody violated their walkaway prices.

· did either violate his/her walkaway; if so, why?
No we did not violate our walkaway price.

· if there was a gap in walkaways, how did you bridge (or try) the gap.
There was a gap in the ZOPA so we had to come to agreement on terms other than the salary. We had to negotiate for certain extras as part of the package.

· did we get near the “Pareto Frontier?” or …did we “leave money on the table”…where are we on the graph?
We did not leave any money on the table.

· was there anything that surprised you about the negotiation
Even though we set the anchor Ben was extremely aggressive in his counter oofer. We thought the other side would be in a desperate situation but it did not seem so as the negotiation continued.

Negotiation Process: What was the process of negotiation- opening offers, sequences of offers, counteroffers, anchoring, initial offer, counteroffers? Did the other side start high/low? What effect did this have on the negotiation?
The process to start with was quite integrative with both sides laying out their priorities and what their limitation were. However, in between we reached an impasse with both sides not agreeing with each other. We set the anchor at 16,000 and then Ben came back with a bid of 65K plus 5% of gate. We said that was too high and said that was way off industry norms . We countered with 19 K + future consulting option with us. He said the base was too low,that was not possible and he wanted us to counter bid against ourselves which we did not . He offered 55K + 5 % of gate and wanted to discuss the details of the consulting project. We said we could do 24k but no gate collection. He said 45 K + 5% of the gate + details to be worked out for consulting project. We offered him 26 K and at this point the negotiation kind of stalled. He said he wanted to negotiate the consulting offer specifically in order for him to move forward, which we said we could not as that was separate and we could work that after this deal would come through. Finally, we agreed to the offer of 26K and the consulting work which would be based on if she gets an average of 90% capacity over the performance. The consulting would last for 5 years and Sally would be involved in the marketing campaigns deeply.

A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)
Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent
_4_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?
_3_Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs
_4__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?
_3__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?
_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?
_4__How well did I try understand the other person:
_4__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;
_4__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered
_3__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints
_3__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)
_5__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs
_4__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position
_4__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement
___Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark
_3__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”
_4__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…
_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person
_4__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before
_2__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)
_4__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"
_5__Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.


Did we use the Techniques of Principled Negotiation: (did the other party?)…If not, what blocked it?
· listen, be warm and friendly; avoid quarreling; ask questions, ask questions, ask questions, ask clarification, rephrase
· be open to persuasion
· be principled (“You want to pay….I need …Can you think of ways that is fairer than splitting
· turn the interaction from adversarial haggling into side-b-side solving of the problem of what is fair.

For Yourself: General Conclusion: In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;
I did try to build a rapport from the beginning. I felt I was not as focused on my financials, which was important. I thought the other side would be desperate which I should not assume and of I do then I should be prepared to deal with behaviours that do not portray that.

· What were keys to the negotiation being successful or unsuccessful
The key to the negotiation in this situation was to give make concessions based on the other person’s response to it and not showing total desperation but at the same time work to solve the problem.

· What would you do differently if you were to do this same negotiation again
I would share risks if the other team is asking for too many concessions.
· what did you learn about yourself? About negotiations What tendencies do you have in negotiation that you need to be careful about (too aggressive, too likely to quit searching for solutions once your; What do you feel you need to work on? What would you do differently next time?
I learnt that I have to keep my cool even though it can be tough to do so. I feel I need to be more patient in long negotiations and focus on the end result.

· What did you learn in general?
I learnt that norm of reciprocity is a two street that needs to be tested initially and continuously through out the negotiation applicable only between two parties that are committed to solving the problem. In addition, the framing of the argument is very important and we tried to frame the argument in a way that we wanted a good working relationship thereby not showing our desperation for getting Sally for the role.

· If this were a real case, what obstacles to joint problem-solving might you encounter; how would you overcome them?
If this was real case we would have to consider the interests of the third party on whose behalf we are negotiating and the terms and conditions that we agree on might not be agreeable to them. We might need to refer to them .Additionally there is a possibility that we reach an impasses during negotiation itself due to no ZOPA.

Law Book Case

Debriefing – Law Book Case (23 Sep 2006)

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;
We first tried to build a rapport before we even started speaking about books. We were successful because we reached an agreement even though it seemed like a difficult task.

· who was satisfied (answer this before comparing walkaways or comparing information);
We both were satisfied. We both felt we had achieved what we had set out to achieve without burning bridges. We did not treat the negotiation as a transaction.

· did either violate his/her walkaway; if so, why?
No we did not violate our walkaway price.

· if there was a gap in walkaways, how did you bridge (or try) the gap.
There was a ZOPA so there was no gap.

· did we get near the “Pareto Frontier?” or …did we “leave money on the table”…where are we on the graph?
We did not leave money on the table.

· was there anything that surprised you about the negotiation
I thought that I would Anchor the negotiation but Sara instead went ahead. I had to adjust my strategy.

Negotiation Process: What was the process of negotiation- opening offers, sequences of offers, counteroffers, anchoring, initial offer, counteroffers? Did the other side start high/low? What effect did this have on the negotiation?
Sara (buyer) opened the negotiation with the first offer that was below my target ($5500). Then I made a counter offer of what I had already decided on in my strategy ($15000 without shipping). She said that it was high for her. She then gave me another offer ($ 6k -7 k) and then I countered that offer by bettering my previous offer ($13k without shipping). This as well, she found high and informed that since they were a new company they could not afford to spend so much. I gave another offer thereby bidding against myself ($12 k with shipping).Then she quoted $7000 and then I gave her an option of using our library space when they come to DC and we would refer clients to them because relationships are important in the end. Finally, we agreed to 9000 including shipping. The low offer initially in a way made me think if I should follow my decided first offer.

A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)
Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent
_3_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?
_4_Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs
_4__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?
_4__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?
_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?
_4__How well did I try understand the other person:
_4__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;
_4__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered
_3__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints
_4__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)
_5__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs
_3__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position
_2__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement
___Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark
_3__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”
_4__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…
_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person
_5__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before
_2__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)
_5__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"
_5__Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.


Did we use the Techniques of Principled Negotiation: (did the other party?)…If not, what blocked it?
· listen, be warm and friendly; avoid quarreling; ask questions, ask questions, ask questions, ask clarification, rephrase
· be open to persuasion
· be principled (“You want to pay….I need …Can you think of ways that is fairer than splitting
· turn the interaction from adversarial haggling into side-b-side solving of the problem of what is fair.

For Yourself: General Conclusion: In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;
I thought I was not as good an active listener. Next time I would like to improve upon this aspect which will help me to get more information about the other person. I learnt that setting the anchor is very important and becomes easier and is a physiological advantage.

· What were keys to the negotiation being successful or unsuccessful
The key to the negotiation being successful was the problem solving approach that both of us took and that worked beyond just price, which was the distributive factor. We worked toward building a relationship.

· What would you do differently if you were to do this same negotiation again
I would not keep my walkaway so high because there was a huge chance that there would have been no ZOPA.

· what did you learn about yourself? About negotiations What tendencies do you have in negotiation that you need to be careful about (too aggressive, too likely to quit searching for solutions once your; What do you feel you need to work on? What would you do differently next time?
I learned that I could be effective if I am not afraid of setting higher standards for myself and am not scared of failure. In addition, winning is not the goal but a mutually beneficial agreement is better than going into a negotiation and treating it as a transaction. I have a tendency to smirk and laugh at the other person’s offer, which can be rude which I should avoid. I would probably be a more active listener, which I feel I did not do as much in this negotiation.

· What did you learn in general?
I learnt the importance of building rapport; relationship building. I learnt that I should at all times be aware of my BATNA and accordingly take risks. I learnt that in any negotiation I should try to move toward integrative negotiation.

· If this were a real case, what obstacles to joint problem-solving might you encounter; how would you overcome them?
If this were a real case I might encounter problems of implementing some of the things that were part of the add ons that were thrown in and I might have to go back to the headquarters to get those approved before I can agree to those. In addition, my walk away that I had put down was way up which could me in a difficult spot. I would in future be more realistic but still have an aim that is high but is justifiable.

Glazer

Debriefing – Glazer (14th Oct 2006)

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;
We were successful in the first round but the second round of negotiations led to an impasse. The management and we (the union) in the second round of negotiations had different walkaways and there was a gap.

· who was satisfied (answer this before comparing walkaways or comparing information);
In the first round, we were satisfied as we did get most of our terms agreed by the management. However, in the second round of negotiations none of the sides was happy, as there was no solution that was worked out.

· did either violate his/her walkaway; if so, why?
No we did not violate our walkaway. We did discuss our limitations as part of information exchange.

· if there was a gap in walkaways, how did you bridge (or try) the gap.
There was a gap in the walkway in the second round of negotiations. We tried to convince the management that we had not had wage hike in three years while the management tried to convince us that increase in wages would be disastrous.

· did we get near the “Pareto Frontier?” or …did we “leave money on the table”…where are we on the graph?
We did leave some money on the table due to the second round of talks failing(the post settlement talks for wage revisions) We lost on an opportunity to understand the real concerns of the management and those were linked to our concerns.

· Was there anything that surprised you about the negotiation
I was surprised by the fact that it is sp difficult to say No and walkaway. There was escalation of commitment after the first round which made it difficult to walk away.

Negotiation Process: What was the process of negotiation- opening offers, sequences of offers, counteroffers, anchoring, initial offer, counteroffers? Did the other side start high/low? What effect did this have on the negotiation?
Three issues were most important for us. First, the plant should be in Medina. Second, the job security and third, was wage increase. The management was therefore was reluctant on all the issues because it wanted to move out of Medina. Their argument was that the way the industry was proceeding it would be difficult to sustain the current efficiencies. They said the only way they could have the pant stay in Medina the workers will have to give up the autonomy and the bonus system. The conditions were laid out clearly with the supporting argument based on standards. We challenged this standard because of the information on productivity that we had possession of. The incentives were leading to the distributive negotiation till the time we decided to introduce other options that could be worked. We looked at the problem jointly with the management as us and the management would have had a lot to lose. Our BATNA was a strike or no jobs. Therefore it became an If and Then negotiation with both sides conceding to certain demands of the other side to find a solution.

A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)
Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent
_5_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?
_4_Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs
_4__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?
_4__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?
_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?
_3__How well did I try understand the other person:
_4__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;
_4__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered
_2__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints
_3__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)
_4__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs
_3__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position
_5__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement
___Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark
_4__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”
_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…
_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person
_5__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before
_4__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)
_4__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"
_5__Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.


Did we use the Techniques of Principled Negotiation: (did the other party?)…If not, what blocked it?
· listen, be warm and friendly; avoid quarreling; ask questions, ask questions, ask questions, ask clarification, rephrase
· be open to persuasion
· be principled (“You want to pay….I need …Can you think of ways that is fairer than splitting
· turn the interaction from adversarial haggling into side-b-side solving of the problem of what is fair.

For Yourself: General Conclusion:
· In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;
I felt that we pushed our way forward more than working integratively on the problem. We were form but a times used the stonewall tactics that led to some frustration in the negotiation process. I will try and not use these tactics as this can clearly stall the negotiation process or slow it down.

· What were keys to the negotiation being successful or unsuccessful
The keys to a successful negotiation process is to keep work towards an joint problem solving.

· What would you do differently if you were to do this same negotiation again
I would not use the stone wall tactic but genuinely try and understand the limitations of the other side which can help build trust in a high stakes negotiation like this one.

· What did you learn about yourself? About negotiations What tendencies do you have in negotiation that you need to be careful about (too aggressive, too likely to quit searching for solutions once your; What do you feel you need to work on? What would you do differently next time?
I learnt that it is difficult for me to walk away from a negotiation and I have this tendendcy to escalate my commitment.

· What did you learn in general?
There are times when one has to walk away but it can be more difficult to do so and that different perception on a matter can lead to disagreements. Also, if we d o not step into the other persons shoes it becomes all the more difficult to understand that difference.

· If this were a real case, what obstacles to joint problem-solving might you encounter; how would you overcome them?
In a real life situation, one of the main problems would be due to no wages that could to distributive negotiation. The salaries were not raised in five years even during the time company was doing well and this resulted in lost trust with unions. The management should try to include other variable like taking are of education of the children of the workers. It would help to increase the pie to offset the distributive nature of the negotiation.

Deeport

Debriefing – Deeport (21st Oct 2006)

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;
I was successful. We reached an agreement on the third vote. All of the interested paries reached their own goals and that is why the negotiation was successful.

· who was satisfied (answer this before comparing walkaways or comparing information);
All of us were satisfied because all of us were satisfied with the final outcome.

· did either violate his/her walkaway; if so, why?
No one violated their walkaway and negotiated in good faith.

· if there was a gap in walkaways, how did you bridge (or try) the gap.
There was a gap initially (the first two voting rounds) and therefore we looked at ways where each interested could give a little concession to reach a solution that was beneficial for all.

· did we get near the “Pareto Frontier?” or …did we “leave money on the table”…where are we on the graph?
We did not leave any money on the table.

· Was there anything that surprised you about the negotiation
The surprising situation was the formation of alliances between different parties. The environmental league was ready to support the other ports in return for their support for a lighter industry or a medium industry in conjunction with the improvement of the ecology.

Negotiation Process: What was the process of negotiation- opening offers, sequences of offers, counteroffers, anchoring, initial offer, counteroffers? Did the other side start high/low? What effect did this have on the negotiation?
Our negotiation process started with the Deeport company proposing a package of offerings ( Medium Industry mix, Maintain and Repair Eco Impact, No Union Pref, A $3 Billion Loan, and no compensation to other ports). There was a discussion by various parties on aspects that were important to them. Deeport was posed questions and they answered them but did not commit on anything as such. I (Governor) tried to inform the company that concerns of the unions specifically initially and also pushed for heavy industries. After a brief discussion we took a vote and all were against the proposal except for Deeport. Again the Negotiation started and I again pushed for a higher union participation and a minimum of $ 2B loan with improving the co impact and a medium industry with no compensation to other ports. A lot of alliances were being formed and broken. A vote was taken and only other ports were opposed to the deal. We then went to a third round and we got a$300M compensation for the ports. We had reached an agreement on the third vote.


A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)
Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent
_5_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?
_5_Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs
_5__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?
_5__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?
_5__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?
_4__How well did I try understand the other person:
_5__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;
_5__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered
_4__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints
_5__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)
_4__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs
_5__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position
_5__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement
___Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark
_4__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”
_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…
_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person
_5__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before
_4__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)
_5__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"
_5__Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.


Did we use the Techniques of Principled Negotiation: (did the other party?)…If not, what blocked it?
· listen, be warm and friendly; avoid quarreling; ask questions, ask questions, ask questions, ask clarification, rephrase
· be open to persuasion
· be principled (“You want to pay….I need …Can you think of ways that is fairer than splitting
· turn the interaction from adversarial haggling into side-b-side solving of the problem of what is fair.

For Yourself: General Conclusion:
· In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;
In the areas that I felt I was less than totally successful was I should have used the opportunity before the negotiation started to speak with Deeport as we had the same interests and that would have made a big difference in understanding each other during the negotiation. I should have noticed the commonalities between our interests earlier in the negotiations.

· What were keys to the negotiation being successful or unsuccessful
The keys to the negotiation being successful were:
1. Exchange of Information
2. Working to arrive at a solution that would create the maximum value for each party

· What would you do differently if you were to do this same negotiation again
I will try and get all the parties talking more so that more information can be exchanged and mistrust about each other can be minimized.

· What did you learn about yourself? About negotiations what tendencies do you have in negotiation that you need to be careful about (too aggressive, too likely to quit searching for solutions once your; what do you feel you need to work on? What would you do differently next time?
I learnt that I need to work on my ability to form alliances and that means identifying not just the obvious alliances but also the ones that I can work on to make a viable proposal work.

· What did you learn in general?
As the negotiation progressed an interest facet of negotiation process came to the fore, the art of forming alliances and the If and then strategy being applied to those alliances. Alliances can be formed between the mostly unlikely of the parties given the situation and the circumstances are appropriate and that your bargaining advantage can be easily thrown out of sync.

· If this were a real case, what obstacles to joint problem-solving might you encounter; how would you overcome them?
If this were a real case the main issue would have come from the environmental league and the other ports. For environmental league they did not have legal basis to oppose to the port provided it was within the legal parameters. With respect to other ports there could have been a problem if there was no compensation paid to them because it was not legally binding. However, it would have meant spoilt relations with other state governors if no compensation were not paid. This could be avoided by balancing between parties and making them exchange information freely and understanding the real issues for each party. Concession from each party would be needed to arrive at a solution than can be of value to every party.