Federated Science Fund Negotiation Essay

Summary This was a multi compositiony negotiation, which involved 6 players in all with precise different negotiation styles. It was an work proscribed in which groups easily form a coalition. in that respect were concessions about the survey amounted each group would bring to the table, and my team in a situation of power maxim how negatively the other teams reacted in come upon of clearness and how important was to share the pie.During this exercise there was a 3-stage process soulfulness assessment, teams assessment and negotiation.1) During my individual assessment I did a stark(a) analytic thinking of what I believed it was Stockmans fair honor. My reservation impairment was $215,000 as I did a mean value between 230,000 and 197,000. However I was hustling to accept 197,000 in case my counterparties had convince arguments or/and have designd the Sharpleys method for distributing the pie.2) During Stockmans assessment, my team My partner was comfortable with my analysis and we quick agreed on the strategy. He was very favorable of having a cooperative attitude. As a team, we decided to start negotiating as a group of 3 in order to expand the pie to every wizard.3) During the teams assessment when we reassembled at that place was a consensus that we were better off in concert than separately, and we decided to do a coinciding negotiation in order to plug that no angiotensin-converting enzyme was left out of the deal. Everyone wanted to have an even participation. in that location were two main break call fors that change the track down of the negotiation the anchoring and a vertiginous teddy of power positions.What did I do rightfulness? I did the anchoring of the supposition process I presented the scenario that was more favorable to Stockman, my team. As infra   I Assumed that 480 total was the fair value and started backwards by subtracting the added-value from the psyche that left the deal. Based on this analysis Stoc kman was the biggest contribution to the pie, it represented 56.25% of the concerted agreement. get together was non receptive to this deal, and they were not impressed that at my eyes they were worth only 12.5%. linked instantly give up to Turbo for a deal. That attitude was surprising to me as I was expecting a more battleful tactic of United to do a collision with Stockman. My sign splitting did not convince United and Turbo as in total they had less(prenominal) than partnering together. I knew and admit that, so I offer Turbo and United some of my 270 share. That was the right thing to do, even I should have reclaimed something in exchange. One should only give up a share of the pie if it has something in return. lighten lunches turn out to be overpriced lunches in the means that people forget always lead for more if they get dressedt olfactory sensation they need to compromise. I was not favorable at all to divide equally the pie. I knew my value and was determ ined to not let go what I considered my fair bit.What did I do wrong? I started to get flyaway and eventually I panic when 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 bigger pie to continue with Stockman. This was a crucial moment, which I internally panic. I should have asked for a break and qualify again my direction with my partner. Internally I needed some minutes in the balcony, to decompressed. When I byword that Turbo and United were construction up forces, I put in a table a entirely new negotiation, which was very disruptive, compared to the previous one In this negotiation scenario, United saw their share increasing from 60 to 90 and Turbo would remain more or less the same. Turbo felt berated and betrayed, based on the rightfulness theory they did not accepted and demanded for more. I learn a big lesson, never radically change negotiation positions.Doing such a radical change underestimates the sincerity of your previous arguments and injures radically your position. One should squeeze the time to negotiate and not look compelled to do quick decisions. In this special(a) exercise I should have bear in minded more. I got exposed for trying to control and supplement 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 session on the bench undermentioned to United I guess that made me feel 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 values on the spot. I would mirror the behavior of my colleagues next time, if no one shares calculation sheets I go forth not show whatsoever that I have made. undermentioned time, I will push myself more to be more spontaneous and try to use more persuasiv e arguments than analytical calculations during the negotiation. following time I will listen more and try to understand what is considered as fairness, for instance United further being part of the deal superpower have been fair per se. I doomed a fair opportunity to support only with my first analysis and respectable duel on a psychological construct that United was a microscopical company that developed research in an area 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 near wanted to protect my reservation price at all cost, I at sea control and got in the frame of the yes bias. by chance 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 heartfelt to start conceding little and s lowly shape upively do some concessions. great deal love to feel they are doing progress in their negotiation and it should be in small stages higher satisfaction for the people involved. It was fair to have done an analytical analysis, further next time I will not share entirely my thought process. I should have used my good planning for my advantage during the negotiation.