Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds

2-4pm Role: Board of Education What outcome did you achieve in the Newtown School Dispute and how you can justify this outcome against your main interests and original goals (why you were there)? In answering, refer to the underlying interests as explained in the general brief and your role brief (Perhaps 700-1,000 words)

In the Newtown School dispute negotiation, I played the role of the Board of Education. I have personal interest and the interest of the board. At the Board of Education level, the two main interests are the quality of education and the balance of the budget. Before each team exchanged their opening offer, both team helped to balance the budget from a $1.9million deficit to a $1.6million surplus.

One of the outcomes achieved was that there was a decrease in student teacher ratio from 32.4 to 31.4 through the hiring of twelve teachers, who earned the average salary of $40,180 per annum. Hiring of teachers benefits the Teachers Union and the Board of Education, because it will decrease the workload of each teacher and also improve the quality of education. The Teachers Union feels accomplished by the outcome, because not only could they achieve zero layoffs, but the Board of Education will be hiring new experienced teachers. Teachers Union was able to satisfied the welfare of their teachers and also improve the quality of education. We took the principal challenge of a collaborative strategy (Hiam, 2010), where we ignored our initial position with the target of 35 students per teacher, and took an interest based approach. In our initial budget, hiring of new teachers is a conflict of our primary interests between the quality of education and the balancing of the budget. However, we were able to expand the pie enough to align both of our primary interests. I have learnt that our primary interest will lead to our goals, objectives and positions. However if two negotiating team can be integrative enough, the constraints of which leads to position of each team can change, therefore each teams interest can be satisfied (Lax and Sebenius, 2010). When I am going to negotiate in the future, I will take an interest base negotiation approach. I can abandon my position can focus on the interest of both parties and it will lead to a more superior outcome.

Teachers working day increased from 7 hours and 5 minutes to 7 hours and 45 minutes. The increase working hour of 40 minutes per day will help the teachers to be better prepared for class. Therefore increasing working hours helps both the Teachers Union and the Board of Education to improve

1|Page

Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds 2-4pm Role: Board of Education of the quality of education. In our initial team preparation, we all agreed that we should concede in students to teacher to trade it for an increase in working hours. Through packaging our deal, we were able to give what the teachers union would like and also satisfy our interest to improve the quality of education. Our initial target is a full 8 hours working day, however we recognise the claims of other party and we expected to change our opening offer in order to reach an agreement (Sheldon and John, 2007). Through the new town negotiation, I recognised the importance of a give and take negotiation methodology. The initial offer of two negotiating parties is usually opposing. If neither one of the parties move away from their initial offer, the negotiation will not continue any further. It is very useful to package multiple issues together, because each party can prioritise their interest and achieve a more satisfying result than if issues were negotiate individually. In my future multiple issues negotiation, I would bundle issues together to create one offer instead of fighting for positions in one single issue.

The initial budget surplus has generated to $1.6million, because we were able to cut down the cost of paper, decreasing maintenance cost through implementing school working bee and transport cost. Paper, which contributed to 46% of the increase in cost, has been replaced with modern technology. The modern technology, Note Slay, has achieved both of the Board of Educations underlying interest. The Note Slay will improve quality of education, because students will have everything in their one computing unit and information can be sent instantaneously by the teachers. Furthermore, the Note Slay has decrease the expenditure of the Board of Education which the Board can attribute to other areas where quality of education can be improved. Maintenance costs have been heavily reduced from $2.3million to $720,000. The saving of maintenance cost will come from school working bee, design and technology participation and detentions. Although the saving of maintenance cost occurred due to the cost being passed to student, teachers and parents, it has not affected the Board of Educations interests of strategic quality of education and balancing the budget. Similarly, there is an introduction of $0.70 per student per day, therefore $0.35 per trip. The introduction of transport fee serves the purpose of fund raising to balance budget and also helps the Board of Education to frame for an increase in local tax in the future. The introduction of transport fee will have an endowment effect on the parents, because they use to have a free transportation system 2|Page

Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds 2-4pm Role: Board of Education (Neale and Bazerman, 2010). Due to the endowment effect, the parents may value their free transportation more than the increase in local tax and therefore are willing to pay the increase in tax. The introduction of transportation cost will increase the budget without undermining the quality of education. All the cost reduction methods have not conflicted with the interest to improve the quality of education. When I negotiate in the future, one of the important thing is to well define my main interest and attempt to define the oppositions main interest, because during my negotiation we may able to find creative solutions to meet both parties interest.

The overall outcome is very satisfying for both parties, because both parties are able to meet their primary interest. At a personal level, there was no strike from the Teachers Union and therefore my personal interest of keeping my job is also satisfied. Throughout the process of negotiation, both teams were able to meet their interest, because both teams were mostly honest with one another and both teams took an integrative approach to the Newtown dispute. With an integrative approach, we were able to expand the pie and create a win-win situation.

How did the questions of individual differences (see e.g. textbook ch. 15), team dynamics and constituencies influence this negotiation as it played out? In answering, refer to your own involvement, that of your team and also the other sides. (Perhaps 1,500-1,800 words) Individuals have their different personalities and abilities, which can influence the outcome of the negotiation. During the initial team planning stage, I feel that Mike played the role of a stabilizer, because he would agree to the ideas that Venora and I have thought of without any objections. Furthermore, Mike is very extraverted and he is high in agreeableness. The two personality dimensions are a sign of a stabilizer. Stabilizer has the trait of sharing too much information and agreeing on too many issues. When Venora brought up the idea of transportation fee in our team planning, Mike immediately agreed. However I disapprove of this idea, because I feel that I have an interest to keep my client, therefore the parents happy. If the transportation cost is to be implemented, parents will be unhappy, because they will have to pay for something that was once free. The Transportation cost can only be justified if the generated fund was able to dramatically improve the quality of education. When negotiating strategy in our own team, I feel that the

3|Page

Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds 2-4pm Role: Board of Education stabilizer can give their view without causing any damage to the teams negotiation. However, I feel that the stabilizer can be very damaging during a team negotiation if they were the spokesman, because the stabilizer will agree to most of the suggestions from the counter party immediately without their teammates input and approval (Colosi, 1983). When I brought up the topic of exchanging teachers aid with student teachers help to reduce the cost, Peter quickly changed the subject to transportation without giving an answer to my idea. After Mike heard Peters idea to generate money through transport, he quickly agreed. I feel that the stabilizer has decreased the teams bargaining mix every time he agrees to the opposing teams demand without any concession in return. The stabilizer can damage the negotiation, because the team can no longer take his concessions back without damaging the teams reputation. If the Teachers Union wants to charge a transportation fee to generate $1million in revenue, I would agree if only Teachers Union is happy to accept the replacement of teachers aid with student teachers help. When we replace teachers aid with student teachers help, we could potentially save another $1million in cost, which will be used to benefit the interest of the Teachers Union. I on the other hand believe I played the role of a nonstabilizer, because I tend to always reject the initial offers made by the other team. A nonstabilizer acted as an obstacle, which slowed down the process of the negotiation. Furthermore a nonstabilizer values position more than interest and therefore embarks on a distributive approach rather than an integrative approach.

If I ever encounter another team base negotiation, we will appoint either a nonstabilizer or a quasimediator to play the role of the spokesman, because the team will not easily concede on their bargaining mix. When we encounter tactic of changing the subject (Nierenberg and Calero, 2010), we need to stop the person from skipping the issue and focus on that particular issue. We could also bundle issues together such that the person cannot skip their unfavorable issues without skipping their important issues. I will try to not to play the role of a nonstabilizer in an integrative bargain, because I believe I am potentially undermining the possibility of a good negotiation. Each individual have different personality traits and abilities, we need to organize each member with particular role, which will maximize the potential gain of the team. 4|Page

Student name: Michael Chen Course Code: MGMT3721 Class: Weds 2-4pm

Student number: 3219269 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Role: Board of Education

Later when I tried to re-address the issue of replacing Teachers Aid with free student teacher help, I framed it such that teachers will not be affected at all with their welfare or the quality of education. I tried to cut the cost for compliance (Lewicki et al, 2010) and be able to expand the resource pie by over $1million. It is beneficial for the Teachers Union and for the Board of Education. However Deb, who played the role of Teachers Union, completely disapproved of this idea, even when Peter and Roberta showed interest in this idea. Due to the disapproval of one constituent, the whole Teachers Union team rejected a potential cost saving idea. Therefore Deb has demonstrated that during a collaborative negotiation, not only do each team need to satisfy the underlying interest, but we need to satisfy the interests of the constitutes on the negotiation table. Furthermore, Deb demonstrated that negative view from one out of three constitutes can influence the whole negotiation, however the reverse did not apply. After the negotiation, I was able to find that Deb had a personal connection with teachers aid. Debs failure to depersonalise the problem (Lewicki et al, 2010) reduce the pie expanding process. Malhotra and Bazerman (2010) proposed that if negotiator continued to investigate even after the deals appears to be lost, the negotiator may find useful information about the constraint of the other side.

When I encounter a dead lock on a great deal, I will investigate the details further to find out the reason why the other party objects to this idea. In the case for Deb, if I were able to find out her personal attachment during the negotiation, I would inform her that the quality of the education for the disabled children would not be compromised. We can suggest having a primary and a secondary school, where one class is created especially for all the disabled children in the district to reduce cost.

At beginning of negotiation, the Teachers Union informed us that workload is their most important interest after layoff and salary is one of the least important issues to them. Teachers Union initially requested student to teacher ratio to be 30, therefore hiring at least 30 new teachers. The Teachers Union gave an outcome frame, where they were only concern with the specific student to teacher ratio. The outcome frame led our team to believe that they were being distributive (Lewicki et al, 2010). On the other 5|Page

Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds 2-4pm Role: Board of Education hand, the Board of Education gave an aspiration frame where we concern with the welfare of the teachers and at the same time concern about the quality of education (Lewicki et al, 2010). The Teachers Union was very delighted when we agreed to their opening offer. However, they were shocked once they knew the total cost of hiring 30 new quality teachers is $1.2million. The difference types of frame have caused conflict and Peter immediately opposes the hiring of new quality teachers. Venora and I immediately sense bogey, because Peter had the same facial expression when I was bogeyed in a previous negotiation. Bogey is when the negotiator pretends issue of little importance to them, where in fact it is quite important (Lewicki et al, 2010). At that point, the Teachers Union have changed their strategy from integrative bargaining to distributive bargaining. Teachers Union had difficult time of reopening their initial offer for their most important issue without any criticism for our team. Once the Teachers Union informed that their priority list changed, I made a committed in abandoning the deal if the Teachers Union team continued to be dishonest and play any distributive tactics. Both team initial agreed that Newtown negotiation is an integrative bargaining opportunity. If the Teachers Union decide to change their tactic from integrative to distributive it will demonstrate that they are not trust worthy and therefore the agreement might not be effective. The commitment was made, because I believe that the endowment effect from the $1.5 million surplus will make the Teachers Union team to make concessions and settle quickly (Neale and Bazerman, 2010). Furthermore, the commitment was made near deadline, which made the Teachers Union team to compromise some of their issues.

I have learnt that different type of frames can show the underlying intension of team, whether they take a distributive or integrative negotiation approach. Different type of frames can also cause conflict and the conflict can be solved when both teams frame is aligned. During the process of an integrative negotiation, the negotiation parties involved should not practice distributive tactics. If one team tries to play hardball tactic that occurs in a distributive bargain in an integrative negotiation, trust can be lost during the negotiation. Furthermore, hardball tactics can easily be indentified each negotiation party and it will have a negative influence on the negotiation process. If I start with one type of negotiation, I will keep the same distributive or integrative style throughout the negotiation. I have also learnt that if a commitment is 6|Page

Student name: Michael Chen Student number: 3219269 Course Code: MGMT3721 Tutor: Krishna Dermawan Class: Weds 2-4pm Role: Board of Education made prior to the deadline of the negotiation, the each team are more likely to compromise their own goal and achieve an agreement.

Individual differences through personalities and abilities can influence the function of each teams dynamic which ultimately influence the outcome of the negotiation. By understanding each constitute of the team, we can co ordinate the team negotiation better. If we can understand the interests of the opposing team and their constitute, we will be able to influence and generate a more integrative outcome which will satisfy each party. Reference 1. Colosi, T. (1983) A Core Model of Negotiations, American Behavioral Scientist, 27(2): 229-253. 2. Hiam, A., Lewicki, R.J., Olander, K.W. (2010) Implementing a Collaborative Strategy, Reading 1.8 in Lewicki et al. (eds), Negotiation: Reading: 80-96. 3. Lax, D.A. and Sebenius, J.K. (2010) Solve Joint Problems to Create and Claim Value, Reading 1.9 in Lewicki et al. (eds), Negotiation: Reading: 97-111. 4. Lewicki et al. (2010) Negotiation, 6th edn, ch2. 5. Lewicki et al. (2010) Negotiation, 6th edn, ch3. 6. Lewicki et al. (2010) Negotiation, 6th edn, ch5. 7. Malhotra, D. And Bazerman, M.H. (2010) Investigative Negoitation, Reading 6.7 in Lewicki et al. (eds), Negotiation: Reading: 435-442. 8. Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. (2010) Negotiating Rationally: The Power and Impact of the Negotiators Frame, Reading 2.1 in Lewicki et al. (eds), Negotiation: Reading: 115-124. 9. Nierenberg, G.H. and Calero, H.H. (2010) Effecitve Negotiating Techniques: From Selecting Strategies to Side-Stepping Impasses and Assumptions, Reading 1.5 in Lewicki et al. (eds), Negotiation: Reading: 48-64. 10. Sheldon, P. And Khon, N. (2007) AWAs and individual Bargaining in the Era of WorkChoices: A Critical evaluation using negotiation theory, Economic and Labour Relations Review, 18(1): 115-142.

7|Page