Federated Science Fund Negotiation Essay

Summary This was a multiparty dialogue, which involved 6 players totally with very different dialog styles. It was an turn in which squads easily form a coalition. at that place were concessions ab come forth the place added each team would consider to the table, and my team in a power of power adage how negatively the other teams reacted in name of fairness and how important was to sh be the pie.During this fare there was a 3-stage process individual assessment, teams assessment and negotiation.1) During my individual assessment I did a thorough analysis of what I believed it was stock raisers fair value. My arriere pensee price was $215,000 as I did a mean value surrounded by 230,000 and 197,000. However I was prepared to accept 197,000 in case my counterparties had convincing arguments or/and break intent the Sharpleys method for distributing the pie.2) During stock raisers assessment, my team My partner was comfortable with my analysis and we rapidly concord on t he strategy. He was very favorable of having a cooperative attitude. As a team, we decided to puzzle negotiating as a group of 3 in come out to expand the pie to everyone.3) During the teams assessment when we reassembled There was a consensus that we were better off together than separately, and we decided to do a simultaneous negotiation in order to guarantee that no one was left out of the deal. Everyone cute to have an even participation. There were 2 main breakpoints that switch the course of the negotiation the anchoring and a vertiginous switching of power positions.What did I do right? I did the anchoring of the thought process I presented the scenario that was much favorable to Stockman, my team. As below I Assumed that 480 total was the fair value and started rearward by subtracting the added-value from the person that left the deal. Based on this analysis Stockman was the biggest contribution to the pie, it represented 56.25% of the concerted agreement. join wa s not receptive to this deal, and they were not strike that at my eyes they were worth wholly 12.5%. unify instantly turn to Turbo for a deal. That attitude was affect to me as I was expecting a more than rough tactic of get together to do a conflict with Stockman. My initial splitting did not convince linked and Turbo as in total they had less than partnering together. I knew and acknowledged that, so I offer Turbo and United some of my 270 dispense. That was the right thing to do, however I should have reclaimed something in ex pitch. One should only give up a share of the pie if it has something in return. Free lunches turn out to be pricy lunches in the means that people give of all cartridge clip ask for more if they dont aspect they need to compromise. I was not favorable at all to divide equally the pie. I knew my value and was determined to not let go what I considered my fair bit.What did I do wrong? I started to get nervous and eventually I consternation wh en I realized that Turbo was starting to be more interested to negotiate with United. United in the midst of an angry Turbo, took advantage and ask for a big pie to continue with Stockman. This was a crucial moment, which I internally panic. I should have asked for a break and located again my direction with my partner. Internally I require some minutes in the balcony, to decompressed. When I saw that Turbo and United were building up forces, I regularise in a table a totally new negotiation, which was very disruptive, compared to the previous one In this negotiation scenario, United saw their share change magnitude from 60 to 90 and Turbo would remain more or less the same. Turbo felt berated and betrayed, based on the honor theory they did not accepted and demanded for more. I gain vigor a big lesson, never radically change negotiation positions.Doing such a radical change underestimates the seriousness of your previous arguments and injures radically your position. One should perplex the time to negotiate and not notion compelled to do quick decisions. In this particular exercise I should have listened more. I got exposed for emphasizeing to program line and leverage my position of power. Nevertheless, I managed to do a deal still within my initial reservation price.What would I like to do different? My Stockman partner was sitting on the bench contiguous to United I guess that made me opinion in a certain point of the negotiation isolated. Adding to that, I was the only one in the negotiation with calculations and without my phone to add up and do the recalculation of the value on the spot. I would mirror the behavior of my colleagues bordering time, if no one shares calculation sheets I will not show any that I have made. Next time, I will push myself more to be more spontaneous and try to use more persuasive arguments than analytical calculations during the negotiation. Next time I will listen more and try to understand what is consid ered as fairness, for instance United just being part of the deal top executive have been fair per se. I lost a adept opportunity to stay only with my stolon analysis and just duel on a psychological construct that United was a lowly company that developed research in an demesne that was not Stockmans main interest, so being part of the deal for United was already a bonus. (I had a better relationship with Turbo). At the end of the negotiation I just wanted to protect my reservation price at all cost, I lost control and got in the spew of the yes bias. Maybe I am not as much of a risk taker as I thought I was. Next time, I will get in line with the intentions of my counterparty and announce my intentions and which are the concessions that I think are reasonable. It is always well(p) to start conceding little and slowly increasingly do some concessions. People love to feel they are doing progress in their negotiation and it should be gradual higher satisfaction for the peopl e involved. It was good to have done an analytical analysis, however bordering time I will not share entirely my thought process. I should have apply my good planning for my advantage during the negotiation.