[Document title]

During a negotiation, it would be wise not to take anything personally. If you leave
personalities out of it, you will be able to see opportunities more objectively. - Brian Koslow

Introduction

On 22nd April 2017, a negotiation simulation was conducted to reflect the final stages of an
award agreement between management and union officials of an ice-cream manufacturing
company. The focus was to close the agreement with five outstanding workplace issues at
hand.

Our group consisted of four professionally diverse women, who had valuable inputs for
developing the strategy, and executing the negotiation as the union representatives in the
simulation activity. This report will critically analyse our teams approach to the negotiation
including preparation intention versus impact of specific moves using the bargaining mix
model. It will then illustrate the execution using the critical moments framework. Lastly, the
de-brief will demonstrate perceived satisfaction of the simulation outcomes, to highlight our
key insights regarding repeatable processes which can be utilised in future negotiations.

Negotiation Preparation and Approach

Prior to entering the negotiation, the team developed a blueprint about what aspects of the
negotiation were most important to us, and the principles which we would abide by to best
represent the union and its workers. The initial activities during the first weekend of class
allowed us to build a rapport and understand each others communication and negotiation
styles. This aided us to form basic work ethics and set up objectives for the simulation. The
negotiation planning tool along with the bargaining mix assisted in developing a
comprehensive strategy to approach the negotiation. (Guerilla negotiating, 1999) The
internal preparation meeting focused on prioritizing the key issues and ways to tackle each.
Since we approached an integrative negotiation, with multiple items in the mix, the team
decided to delink and prioritize the items to maximize value for the negotiation in entirety.
(Falcao, 2010). Appendix 1 illustrates our bargaining mix chart used during our
preparation.

We also explored the managements interests and principles whilst developing what-if
scenarios for each issue. (Thompson, 2009 ). A conscious intra-team negotiation and
BATNA bashing led to a unified position, and team cohesiveness while enunciating the
interests.

Shweta Sawanee 1
 [Document title]

Interestingly, research suggests that a natural extension of the rationality of inter-group

competition is intra-group competition and can be beneficial to the group by identifying
multiple avenues for value creation (Bornstein, 2016). Bornsteins (2016) work states that
outcomes for the group can be optimised if all members contribute to the discussion and in
doing so, maximises the groups security by identifying risks to a developed strategy,
thereby reducing surprises at the inter group stage of negotiation.

During preparation, we agreed on interchangeable roles of speaker listener and observers to

monitor the negotiation progress and identify emerging issues. This conscious roleplay
helped to identify the slip-ups and redirect the issues post break out periods of intra group
discussions.

Negotiation execution

Much of our negotiation success relies on our ability to influence what process parties
should follow. (Hron, York and Blazek, 2013) insert reference below

During the simulation, a basic outline of the process was pre-established with total time
allocated and the need to reach an agreement. However, defining and conducting the
process was left to the two parties to determine independently.

The start of the negotiation had a large impact on both the teams overall experience.
According to Kniveton (2004), the opening statement in a negotiation indicates either a
cooperative or a competitive attitude and acts as a crucial determinant of the pace and flow
of the entire process. In this case, a positive and collaborative opening statement by the
management team aided in putting us at ease and gave us the assurance that both teams
are aiming for a win-win situation. The team was content with the opening statement as it
was in sync with our prepared opening statement. Additionally agreeing to a clear and
organised negotiation structure and process from the start led to successful time
management and also built the pathway for mutual agreement. Both parties cordially set the
agenda and divided the negotiation in three sessions of 45 mins each along with 15 mins of
break-out sessions.

This shared move was important in setting the tone, confirming a mutual understanding and
agreement on process, and building a relationship through promoting interdependence.
(Falcao, 2010). One of the most common mistakes made in negotiations is to focus on
reconciling positions rather than interests. According to Fisher et.al (1991), reconciling
interests rather than positions works for two reasons. First, almost every interest has several
possible positions that could satisfy it. Second, a majority of times behind opposed positions
Shweta Sawanee 2
 [Document title]

lie shared or compatible interests in addition to any conflicting ones. Our team experienced
the second reason, when we learnt that even though our priority of employee stability and
managements need for flexibility sound contradicting, the underlying interests behind the
two are of complementary nature. The 1st break out session was pivotal to establish
unilateral-value-focused interests for both parties. It channeled our 2nd negotiation session
towards achieving maximum gain for highly relevant issues for both parties - the employee
wage increase and multi week cycle agreements.

The disclosure of both parties interests early on, led to a transparent negotiation process
enabling our team to practice the planned collaborative conflict style throughout the large
part of the process. Conflict management styles not only influence the quality of agreement
in a negotiation but also play a substantial role in shaping up the whole negotiating
environment. According to the study conducted by Friedman et al (2000), integrative conflict
styles (such as collaborative) tend to result in lower task & relationship conflict reducing
overall levels of stress and increasing the likelihood of better results for both parties.

Part way through the negotiation during our 2 nd session, after we had reached a point where
our knowledge and strategy did not unfold as we had expected, emotions began to rise.
Almost every individual from both parties were talking across and at one another with no
clarity in discussion. Many resorting to positional stances, rather than considering options
and principles. Emotions can have widespread effect and Steinela, et al., (2008), purport
that behavior-oriented emotion elicited larger concessions than person-directed emotion.
Our negotiation was only momentarily behavioural and our focus was on general issues
discussion rather than personal attacks. This was one of the critical moments wherein on
realisation of an unruly situation led to instinctive maneuvering. We proactively initiated
options of mutual gains that helped us to achieve commitment and also probed both parties
to further discuss the ramifications to identify maximum mutual value. It is likely that keeping
away from personal attacks allowed for the conversation to be redirected to the topic at hand
without costing us a valuable business relationship.

After we established certain level of rapport with the counterparty which was apparent by the
body language and non-verbal cues. The behavior of counter party concurred with The
Behavioral Change Stairway Model (BCSM), developed by the FBIs Crisis Negotiation Unit,
which outlines the relationship-building process involving the negotiator and subject which
culminates in a peaceful settlement of the critical incident (Dalfonzo, 2002;

Shweta Sawanee 3
 [Document title]

Noesner & Webster, 1997; Webster, 1998a, 1998b). There was a moment of flux wherein
when the issue of back pay was raised and the counter party was surprised and unprepared
to discuss the matter. We decided to hold the problem on the white board and give them
time to discuss the issue within. Maintaining trust here was elusively important as there was
difference in power and we were committed toon maintaining an ongoing long-term
relationship. We managed to establish the legitimacy of the offer based on the current
market data with competitor prices and promoted that option presented on the table is based
on fairness rather than power. This helped us to negotiate independently of trust while
maintaining interdependence.

In the last lap of the negotiation, issue of contract agreement was discussed wherein our
counter party was trying to establish early commitments. Postponing the matter and focusing
on the crucial issues ,which demanded clarity ,bolstered our notion that committing late to
the substance reduced the opportunistic power moves and gave us time to analyze and
reflect on the option available (Falcao , 2010) . This also saved us from inadvertent
commitment to penitent-terms of contract.

During the entire negotiation we also utilized supplemental listening skills such as use of
effective pause , minimal encouragers to confirm attentiveness and asking open ended
questions to explore interests . These elements enhanced proved to be an important asset
in enhancing the effectiveness of active listening techniques used.

Interlinked with the necessity of maintaining an ongoing relationship with the other party on
conclusion of the negotiation is being able to trust the other party and have them trust us. Of
great discussion between our team members during preparation, execution and debrief was
how to manage information, when should information be divulged and how much of it,
should we use tactics to shield our true intent, or lay our cards on the table in the hope it
wouldnt be used against us? Our team is still not convinced we had to right answer at any
stage, but we did know that we trust in the professional relationship was vitally important.
Given trust was high in importance, our outpouring of emotion during the execution could
well have derailed us and the goodwill demonstrated to us as Liu & Wang (2010) found that

Shweta Sawanee 4
 [Document title]

anger influenced parties to negotiation towards distrust and compassion influenced parties
toward trust.

Based on our groundwork efforts, we worked well as a cohesive team. We were able to
support through non-verbal cues and assist each other when we were caught off guard or
lost for words during the negotiation process.

The contribution of each team member is also pivotal in preparing the team to respond
because each team member provides different skills, attributes and perspectives to the
negotiation. In future, to improve our performance as a team we would like to spend more
time together to understand individual negotiating styles. Additionally, as our relationship
develops, our ability to perform as a group would likely also improve, making us more
effective as a negotiation team.

Moreover , we were also able to realise the value of the white boards during negotiation. For
example, when the expected complication of previous year benefits was raised we were
surprised and unprepared to discuss the matter. Applying Hrons technique (Hron, 2013) of
parking the problem on the whiteboard, we were able to move on with the negotiation,
create value on another interest and then return to the parked problem once we had
developed rapport with our counterparty. It also helped us to improve our BATNA by
weighing it against the counterpartys concerns (Fisher and Ury, 1981), Progressively, this
practice was continued to document key agreements during the negotiation. Visual
representation of our negotiation had a positive influence on our progress. During the
debriefing session, our counterparty acknowledged the effectiveness of this technique. As a
group, we agreed that for future negotiations, particularly those we anticipated may be
difficult, we would want to use a similar system as an aid in managing the negotiation
process.

During our debriefing with the management team, we realized neither of the two teams had
engaged in any form of tactics, however one of Cialdinis principles of influence reciprocity,
did play an unintentional role in the negotiation. According to Cialdini & Goldstein, (2000)
reciprocation recognizes the human tendency to feel indebted towards those who do
something for them particularly when its unexpected, amplifying the effect when the other
party initiates. In our case, our team felt we gave away more concessions than initially
planned to ensure the negotiation remained fair and just, after the management team
unexpectedly offered us a 40% productivity bonus. The lead and backup negotiators could

Shweta Sawanee 5
 [Document title]

then focus specifically on relationship and communication issues, prior to negotiating

substance with the other party. This delineation of roles and clarity of strategy assisted our
planning for the negotiation by ensuring that all team members understood how we wanted
the negotiation to progress, while providing a feedback medium via the observers to correct
our course as required during the negotiation. We also planned on maintain transparent
leadership. Transparently leading the communication process and setting up ground rules
helps to achieve value maximising outcome. (Falco, 2010, p. 91).

Debrief:

In identifying key repeatable processes through our debrief, our team recognised three
powerful insights we would adopt in future negotiations - the importance of an Opening
Statement, the setting of ground rules and an agenda, and the use of feedback and notes to
check our understanding of the other partys Interests.

The contribution of each team member is also pivotal in preparing the team to respond
because each team member provides different skills, attributes and perspectives to the
negotiation. In future, to improve our performance as a team we would like to spend more
time together to understand individual negotiating styles. Additionally, as our relationship
develops, our ability to perform as a group would likely also improve, making us more
effective as a negotiation team.

We realized there were a lot of sub issues for which we could have explored other hypothetical
scenarios . This might have helped to continually find room for improvements as we
approached the Pareto Frontier (Lin, 1998) of the negotiation. For future negotiations we Commented [KM1]: reference inserted
would Hence in the future, our team would spend more time on ensure a consistency in the Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt

understanding of the vital issues & interests and will indulge in a more deeply detailed plan of Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt

the possible what -if scenarios and we keep asking what else,(Harborne, 2011) so that we Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial

can keep our minds open to new possibilities when we entered the negotiation. ensuring a Formatted: Font color: Auto

consistency in the understanding of the vital issues & interests and will indulge in a more
deeply detailed plan of the possible hypothetical scenarios. We alsoThe team also aims to
conduct additional external research in the future such as seeking supporting laws and
legislations to further enhance the legitimacy of our arguments.

In identifying key repeatable processes through our debrief, our team recognised three Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, Font color: Auto
powerful insights we would adopt in future negotiations - the importance of an Opening Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt

Shweta Sawanee 6
 [Document title]

Statement, the setting of ground rules and an agenda, and the use of playback to check our
understanding of the other partys Interests.

Hence in the future, our team would spend more time on ensuring a consistency in the Formatted: Font color: Auto
understanding of the vital issues & interests and will indulge in a more deeply detailed plan Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt, Line spacing: 1.5
lines, Adjust space between Latin and Asian text,
of the possible hypothetical scenarios. The team also aims to conduct additional external Adjust space between Asian text and numbers
research in the future such as seeking supporting laws and legislations to further enhance
the legitimacy of our arguments.

In identifying key repeatable processes through our debrief, our team recognised three Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, Font color: Auto
powerful insights we would adopt in future negotiations - the importance of an Opening
Statement, the setting of ground rules and an agenda, and the use of playback to check our
understanding of the other partys Interests.

During our debriefing with the management team, we realized neither of the two teams had Formatted: Font color: Auto
engaged in any form of tactics, however one of Cialdinis principles of influence reciprocity,
did play an unintentional role in the negotiation. According to Cialdini & Goldstein, (2000)
reciprocation recognizes the human tendency to feel indebted towards those who do
something for them particularly when its unexpected, amplifying the effect when the other
party initiates. In our case, our team felt we gave away more concessions than initially
planned to ensure the negotiation remained fair and just, after the management team
unexpectedly offered us a 40% productivity bonus.

MoreoverIn addition , we were also able to realiseappreciate the value of the white boards
during negotiation. For example this method helped us to improve our BATNA for multi week
cycle issue by weighing it against the counterpartys concerns (Fisher and Ury, 1981),
ProgressivelyGradually , this practice was continued to document key agreements and
package solutions during the negotiation. During the debriefing session, our counterparty
acknowledgedagreed on the effectiveness of this technique. As a group, we agreed that for
future negotiations, particularly those we anticipated may be difficult, we would want to use a
similar system as an aid in managing the negotiation process.

Interestingly, During debrief with the management team, we realized neither of the two
teams had engaged in any form of tactics, however one of Cialdini principles of influence
reciprocity, did play an unintentional role in the negotiation. According to Cialdini &
Goldstein, (2000) reciprocation recognizes the human tendency to feel indebted towards
those who do something for them particularly when its unexpected, amplifying the effect
Shweta Sawanee 7
 [Document title]

when the other party initiates. In our case, our team felt we gave away more concessions
than initially planned to ensure that the negotiation remained fair and just, after the
management team unexpectedly offered us a 40% productivity bonus.

One of great discussion between our team members during debrief was how did we
manage information, when should information be divulged and how much of it, should we
use tactics to shield our true intent, or lay our cards on the table in the hope it wouldnt be
used against us? We agreed that information is often conveyed in a code that evolves during
negotiation. People answer questions with other questions or with incomplete statements; to
influence the others perceptions, however, they must establish some points effectively and
convincingly. Our team is still not convinced we had the right answer , but we did know that
we trust in the professional relationship was vitally important. Given trust was high in
importance, our outpouring of emotion during the execution could well have derailed us and
the goodwill demonstrated to us as Liu & Wang (2010) found that anger influenced parties to
negotiation towards distrust and compassion influenced parties toward trust.

Another key learning outcome from the negotiation simulation was the importance of taking
a break to review the progress (Harinck, 2011). The adjournment provided an opportunity to
regroup, remove some pollution from the negotiation and analyse what was going well in the
negotiation and what needed to be addressed to improve our performance. A specific
example arose during the simulation in which one of our observers noted that while we were
focused on developing our relationship with our counterparty by understanding their needs,
we were neglecting to share our interests with them and also listed out certain distractions
faced by the team during the process.

In terms of the flared emotions we recognized that for certain issues that we invested
directly in outside options influenced how entitled they feel in the current negotiation.

So when faced with the dilemma to forgo options that we invested time and money in
creating, there was a feeling as though we wasted resources. This perceived loss creates a

desire for a counterbalancing gain. Thus, it is likely to trigger a sense of entitlement:

the feeling that we deserve a favorable outcome in the current negotiation. The observer in
the team brought out this point we realized the foregone alternatives are influencing

our behavior. We decided that rather than using aggressive strategies to reach a better
deal for our team its better to remain vigilant about negotiating in good faith and

Shweta Sawanee 8
 [Document title]

reciprocating goodwill, we should be able to emerge from the shadow cast by additional time
investments. This was one of the important key lesson that will help us to negotiate better in
future while being mindful un-intended consequences of strengthening our additional
investments that might derail us from the true-intent.A specific example arose early on
during the 1st session of our negotiation in which one of our observers noted that while we
were focused on developing our relationship with the mangement team by understanding
their needs and interests we were neglecting to share our interests with them.

Pareto principle use of what if scenarios should have been much more

Hypothesis building and trade off of sub points would have created a better insight.

Finally There were numerous surprises and opportunities for learning at all stages of the
activity, and only on reflection and the provision of feedback with the management team
were we able to draw out import presentation of our negotiation outcomes with the rest of
union groups, we were able to compare our own result rather than being happy with the
result on its own merit and were satisfied that our negotiation had created value for the
counterparty beyond the prescribed interests. This is partly because we were operating at
the consciously skilled level in the competency ladder (Adams, 2011).

On the other hand, our review of the other Union teams negotiated agreement inclined
towards an agreement that had focused on winning the negotiation for the union group as
opposed to capitalizing on value for both parties. This was borne out in the subsequent
voting on the best deals in which ours was viewed as one of the worst options; whereas,
the deal that cost management the most appeared to have been considered the best deal
overall for union and the worst for the management. This result appeared incongruent with
the key theme of the course that negotiation should be about creatin---g value for both
parties (making the pie bigger) rather than focusing on grabbing the largest share of the pie
(choosing a win-lose strategy. In similar vein, Research on equity theory in groups and
negotiations concurs that people expect outputs to be commensurate with inputs (Equity
theory, Adams, 1963). However, pervasive biases cloud peoples perceptions of the relative
inputs and outputs of themselves and others

CConclusion

Shweta Sawanee 9
 [Document title]

In conclusion, the simulation exercise was an insightful learning to appreciate that

recognizing opportunities to grow the pie of value through mutually beneficial tradeoffs among
issues is an asset in complex negotiations. This activity not only helped use to test the potential
negotiating skills and analyze using feedback in a safe environment but also helped us to
grasp the finite details of emotional and communication tools that will empower us to lead the
conversation effectively. We agree that the process of negotiating is complex and multi-
faceted; we will continue to learn and practise this process during our lifetime.

1
Shweta Sawanee
0
 [Document title]

Reference List

References

Adams, L., 2011. Learning a new skill is easier said than done. Gordon Training
International. [Credits its employee Noel Burch for creating the model in the late 1970s]

Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of abnormal and social
psychology, 67(5), 422-436.

Bornstein, G., 2016. Intergroup conflict: individual, group, and collective interests.
Personality and social psychology review, 7(2), pp. 129-145.

Cialdini, R. and Goldstein, N. (2002). The Science and Practice of Persuasion. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 43(2), pp.40-50.

Dalfonzo, V. (2002). National crisis negotiation course. Quantico, VA7 FBI Academy

Falco, H., 2010. Value Negotiation. How to finally get the win-win right. 1st ed. Singapore:
Pearson Education South Asia.

1
Shweta Sawanee
1
 [Document title]

Falcao, 2010. Anticipate the Critical Moments. In: Value Negotiation - How to finally get the
Win Win right. Singapore: Prentice Hall, pp. 89-90.

Falcao, 2010. Value Negotation - How to finally get the Win-Win Right. In: Singapore:
Prentice Hall, pp. 18-19.

Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in

. 1st ed. Boston Houghton Mifflin. m

Fisher, R., Patton, B. and Ury, W. (1991). Focus on Interests, Not Positions in Getting to Yes
Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. 2nd ed. New York: Penguin Books, Chapter 3.

Friedman, R, Tidd, S, Currall, S, & Tsai, J 2000, What Goes Around Comes Around: The
Impact Of Personal Conflict Style On Work Conflict And Stress, International Journal Of
Conflict Management, 11, 1, p. 32, Academic Search Premier.

Halevy, N., 2008. Team negotiation: Social, epistemic, economic, and psychological
consequences of subgroup conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), pp.
1687-1702.

Harinck and De Dreu, F and C K W, 2011. .. When Does Taking a Break Help in
Negotiations? The Influence of Breaks and Social Motivation on Negotiation Processes and
Outcomes, Volume 4, Issue 1 February 2011 , Pages 3346.

(Harinck, 2011)

Hron and Blaek, F and S, 2013. Negotiation evolved. 1st ed. Australia: Hron Publishing
Australia.(Hron, 2013)

1
Shweta Sawanee
2
 [Document title]

J. C. Levinson, M. S. A. Smith, and O. R. Wilson, Guerrilla Negotiating (New York: John

Wiley, 1999), pp. 1516.

Kniveton, B. (2004). Teaching interpersonal skills: convincing the student of the need for an
extreme opening statement in negotiations. Journal of Vocational Education & Training,
56(3), pp.435-448.

Liu, M. & Wang, C., 2010. Explaining the Influence of Anger and Compassion on
Negotiators' Interaction Goals: An Assessment of Trust and Distrust as Two Distinct
Mediators. Communication Research, 37(4), p. 443.

Noesner, G. W., & Webster, M. (1997). Crisis intervention: Using active listening skills in
negotiations. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 66, pp13 18.

Oxford English Dictionary, 2003. Oxford English Dictionary. [Online]

Available at :
http://www.oed.com.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/view/Entry/125879?redirectedFrom=negotia
tion#eid

[Accessed 02 May 2017].

Putnam, L. (2010). Communication as Changing the Negotiation Game. Journal of Applied

Communication Research, 38(4), pp.325-335.

Sinaceur, M. & Tiedens, L. Z., 2006. Get mand and get more than even: When and why
anger expression is effective in negotiations. Journal of experimental social psychology,
42(3), pp. 314-322.

1
Shweta Sawanee
3
 [Document title]

Steinela, W., Kleefb, G. A. V. & Harincka, F., 2008. Are you talking to me?! Separating the
people from the problem when expressing emotions in negotiation. Journal of experimental
social psychology, 44(2), pp. 362-369.

Thompson. L. (2009) Preparation: What to Do Before Negotiation in The Mind and Heart of
the Negotiator, 4th ed., Pearson Education International, Chapter 2

Webster, M. (1998a). Active listening and beyond: Compliance strategies in crisis

negotiation. Unpublished manuscript. British Columbia: Centurion Consulting Services.

Webster, M. (1998b). Active listening and beyond: Problem solving in crisis negotiation.
Unpublished manuscript. British Columbia: Centurion Consulting Services

There were numerous surprises and opportunities for learning at all stages of the activity,
and only on reflection and the provision of feedback with the management team were we
able to draw out important lessons. During the presentation of our negotiation with the rest of
union groups, we were able to compare our own result rather than being happy with the
result on its own merit and were satisfied that our negotiation had created value for the
counterparty beyond the prescribed interests. This is partly because we were operating at
the consciously skilled level in the competency ladder (Adams, 2011).

On the other hand, our review of the other management teams negotiated agreement
inclined towards an agreement that had focussed on winning the negotiation for the union
group as opposed to maximising value for both parties. This was borne out in the
subsequent voting on the best deals in which ours was viewed as one of the worst options;
whereas, the deal that cost management the least appeared to have been considered the
best deal overall for union and the worst for the management. This result appeared
incongruent with the key theme of the course that negotiation should be about creatin---g
value for both parties (making the pie bigger) rather than focusing on grabbing the largest
share of the pie (choosing a win-lose strategy. In similar vein, Research on equity theory in
groups and negotiations has revealed that people expect outputs to be commensurate with
inputs (Equity theory, Adams, 1963). However, pervasive biases cloud peoples perceptions
of the relative inputs and outputs of themselves and others

1
Shweta Sawanee
4
 [Document title]

At the time, our group felt that our preparation was thorough, however because we acted as
a unified entity, rather than as individuals, it is likely that we missed opportunities to discover
alternate approaches, and explore holes in our strategy before entering inter party
negotiations. The risk of not entering into a more robust intra team negotiation was realised
only when we were at the table with the other party, and our unified front fractured
somewhat, and it became apparent that our understanding of our own intent was less than
clearly understood by all.

1
Shweta Sawanee
5