Final Group Negotiation Stimulation: Reflective Portfolio - Coursework Example

Final Group Negotiation Stimulation: Reflective Portfolio Submitted by: XXXXXXX Number: XXXXXX of XXXXXXX XXXXXX Subject: XXXXXX Subject Code: XXXXX Part 1: Observation and Reflection on the Three Negotiation Stimulations: The three negotiation stimulations that have been presented by the group include, a) The E – Negotiation case of Him and Her – Australia, b) E – Negotiation caseBeijing Fashion Manufacturing China and c) Fernet Brios. These cases have been separately dealt with to provide the most appropriate decisions and to assist with the negotiations. The first case that will be discussed here is that of the Hinchinbrook Islands. The island was having issues in terms of the negotiation between the tourism officers and the environmental officers for the introduction of a wide range of tourist to the island. The negotiation was one where the two parties had equally convincing and appropriate points and each of them deserved to win in terms of their discussions. The case requires a win – win theory to be applied (Jandt, 1987). The main reason being that the arguments from both ends are valid and both the arguments are pluralist in nature, i.e. the good of the island and its people is in the mind of both the parties. There is a very famous saying in negotiation, i.e. ‘those who don’t ask don’t get’. Hence each of the two negotiators have put forth their requirements. It is essential that the island does have a tourism available which will become a major income for the island and yet it is also essential that the beauty of the island is maintained. Hence the theory used here is the Win – win theory of negotiation (E. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds.)). The second case is that of Ferent Brios. The case involves the development of a contract between Ferent Brios and the Zijan Mining in China. The companies are required to decide how the final spilt will take place. The situation is one where the companies need to definitely utilise the BATNA Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement Theory and apply this before getting into the contract (Bazerman, Mannix, & Thompson, 1988). Using the BATNA will allow the companies to make a more reasonable and informed decision and will allow the companies to develop a contract which meets the needs of both parties and the best alternatives that are present to be used. The final case is that of car purchase. The case revolves around the negotiation between the purchaser and the seller of a used car and how the two need to resolve the issue. Here the case requires that both the purchaser of the car gets a good deal while the seller also gain enough from the car purchase. Here the negotiation theory needs to be applied for the negotiation to be successful among the two parties and so that both the parties involved get a reasonable and successful deal (Gibbons, 1992). Part 2: Team and Team Dynamics: The Final group preparation was worked on by the entire team. Each one of us has contributed to the team presentation to a great extent. The dynamics of our team has been extremely good with a strong unity among the entire team and a common goal that all of us worked towards. The team meeting were simple and every person in the team was given a chance to write out the various ideas or theories that they felt would be most appropriate for the case and once the team members brought in their ideas for the meeting, the ideas were discussed in the meeting. No ideas big or small were overlooked and everyone got a fair chance to participate in the meetings. It can be said that the team worked on the basis of the theory set down by Roger Fisher and William Ury, i.e. BATNA – Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. Before the work could be spilt out and each member expected to present something for the cases, the team sat down together and decided to use the BATNA theory (Spangler, 2003). This was simply because, we understand as negotiation students, that it is important while making a clear decision to have all the alternatives weighed out and making an informed decision. The BATNA proved to be very helpful for the team and the processes within the team worked out more effective and efficient manner as every member in the team was aware of what needs to be done and what the team expected out each member. This reduced any form of confusion or any form of undesired tension among all the members. Also, the use of this theory for the team meeting brought out the best in every member. Also if a member was unsure of how a particular theory works, the team worked together to make sure everyone was on the right page and each one understood all the theories. The teams worked in a very effective and efficient manner and each person was clear about the process being made in the case and also was clear with all the theories that have been discussed. This in some manners formed a revision for us and allowed us to concentrate on the parts that we were unsure of. This also helped improve the motivation and team working spirit among the members and brought out a different level of unity and dynamics among the team. There was also very clear communication among all members of the team and every member was required to contribute. This allowed pulling members who had issues with the subject and helping them gain the basic information required to assist them clear their queries. Part 3: Final Group Negotiation Stimulation: Part 4: Critical Analysis The final group Negotiation Stimulation was an overall success. The team showed great unity and every member contributed to a great extent in the teams. However, if the teams would have chosen different negotiation models, then the effectiveness and efficiency of the final stimulation would also be far better and more improved. The final group stimulation required a little more improvements in terms of the overall presentation. Although the dynamics of the group were excellent and the group worked well together to develop and gain the final stimulation, there were a few unhealthy discussions about the stimulation as well. These lead to a slight misunderstanding among members of the group. However over time this was resolved and the members worked in line with one another to reach the final goal. Also, the group was faced with a few issues where the members did not have a clear understanding of the various concepts like the Positive – Sum / Zero – Sum/ or Negative – Sum and in terms of Limits of Rationality (Bazerman, Mannix, & Thompson, 1988). This led to a number of confusions and the need for the members to spend time explaining the concepts and how the concepts could be used in the stimulation or in some cases why it was not used in the stimulation. The overall group Stimulation could also be improved if the win – win situation was adopted and the processes were developed based on these situations. The case was also one of Integrative Negotiation as the “parties are aiming to achieve maximum benefits by integrating their interests into an agreement while also competing to divide the value” (Luecke, 2005, p 51). It is very challenging to arrive at an accurate BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement), and this was underestimated while working together as a team. The key issue that was present in the Final Group Stimulation was the clear delegation of work to a set of members and a clear authoritative participation from the rest of the members (E. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds.)). Thus this case is a classic instance of multiparty negotiation and the three fundamental differences, namely the dynamic structure, group interactions and coalition, as discussed, have been applied leading to many possible outcomes (Luecke, 2005). The stimulation in some manners looked similar to the famous ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’. Prisoner’s Dilemma is a theory that has been developed to provide a non economic understanding of the ‘Game theory’. Here an example is taken to explain the dilemma. Two people, say A and B, are arrested for a crime which they have been suspected to have done jointly. Both A and B are questioned and interrogated separately. These are the below possibilities that they have: a) If neither A or B tell the court anything about the fraud, then the court will have enough evidence to sentence them both for one year imprisonment. b) If A or B were to confess then they would be given only three months of imprisonment but the other person would get up to ten years c) If both of them were to confess, then both would get three years of imprisonment. The figure below highlights the four choices and the effects of the decision that is made on each of the two prisoners. It is in this situation that the two prisoners are faced with a dilemma and are unsure of what they need to do to get the least amount of time in jail. This similar situation was clearly present and the negotiation was not very effective in this regard. References Bazerman, M. H., Mannix, E., & Thompson, L. (1988). Groups as mixed-motive negotiations. E. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds.). (n.d.). Advances in group processes: Theory and research: . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press , 195-216. Gibbons, R. (1992). Game Theory for Advanced Economists. Princeton University Press. Jandt, F. E. (1987). Win-Win Negotiating: Turning Conflict Into Agreement. Wiley Publications. Luecke, R. (2005). The Essentials of Negotiation. Society for Human Resource Management , Harvard Business School Press. Sloman, J., & Sutcliffe, M. (2004). Ecnomics for Business, Third Edition. London: Pearson Education Limited. Spangler, B. (2003, June). Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Retrieved November 24, 2009, from Beyond Intractability: http://www.beyondintractability.org/action/essay.jsp?id=26204&nid=1278 Read More