In this case, for some of the issues, we actually have the same goals. I should have asked for a break and set again my direction with my partner.
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.
United instantly turn to Turbo for a deal. But my partner just came up with several points that why Federated science fund negotiation 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.
Negotiation I played Chris Rudolph in this case, and did well in this negotiation by not only focusing on the final price, but also on the extra agreement of letting Lama provided high quality work to our company. 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.
Doing such a radical change underestimates the seriousness of your previous arguments and injures radically your position. 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.
That attitude was surprising to me as I was expecting a more aggressive tactic of United to do a collision with Stockman.
Based on this analysis Stockman was the biggest contribution to the pie, it represented I believed that my major mistake was that I changed my mind too easily. 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.
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. Turbo felt berated and betrayed, based on the equity theory they did not accepted and demanded for more. 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.
That was the right thing to do, however I should have reclaimed something in exchange.
Maybe I am not as much of a risk taker as I thought I was. I knew and acknowledged that, so I offer Turbo and United some of my share. United in the midst of an angry Turbo, took advantage and ask for a bigger pie to continue with Stockman. So he deserved a higher pay.
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.
I knew my value and was determined to not let go what I considered my fair bit. At the same time, I also realized that the negotiation partners are not always having the conflict interests during 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.View Notes - Class _5 from FINANCE at New Life University.
Collaboration, Conflict & Negotiation Class 5: Power, Persuasion & Coalitions (Federated Science Fund) Preparation for Multi-Party Team%(11). Essays - largest database of quality sample essays and research papers on Federated Science Fund Negotiation.
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.
Summary: This was a multiparty negotiation, which involved 6 players all with very different negotiation styles. It was an exercise in which teams easily form a coalition.
Federated Science Negotiation Challenge 1. You have 20 minutes to prepare the case on your own. 2. You will have 10 minutes to plan further with a.
Summary: This was a multiparty negotiation, which involved 6 players all with very different negotiation styles. It was an exercise in which teams easily form a coalition. There were concessions about the value added each team would bring to the “table”, and my team in a situation of power saw.Download