Sally Soprano

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;

· This case was a difficult one off the bat as it was our first case of team negotiation and there was also a gap in our walkaways. Sally claimed a walkaway of $40,000, but this was not realistic as it was clear that it was most important for Sally to get a role so that she can get back into her career. Lyric came out with an initial offer in the neighborhood of $15,000 and our counteroffer was $50,000. We were prepared to battle for our anchor as we believed that Lyric was desperate, however, we knew that we were desperate also. It soon became clear that Lyric really wanted Sally, but did not have the cash to pay her. Knowing this we immediately negotiated a future lead role for Sally. We continued to play with the numbers, but cash still was a problem. Therefore we offered to take on some of the risk and we agreed to split 50/50 all profits between 85-90% attendance. Lyric would have no risk before breaking even and Sally had the potential to get a nice payoff. This brought our number much closer together, but there was still a small gap. At this time we were able to get Sally a third lead role with the stipulation that her second lead role was profitable. Finally we agreed, on a sum of cash in the $30,000 range.

A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)

Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent

_5_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?

_5__Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs

_5__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?

_5__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?

_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?

_5__How well did I try understand the other person:

_5__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;

_5__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered

_5_The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints

_5__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)

_5__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs

_5__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position

_4__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement

_4__Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark

_5__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”

_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…

_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person

_5__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before

_5__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)

_4__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"

_2__Other factors: partner

General Conclusion:

This negotiation went about as well as we could have asked in terms of final agreement. Sally earned a decent salary, with potential for a lot more cash and up to two additional lead roles. Where this negotiation was lacking was in team chemistry. Although we came to this outcome, it was clear that my partner and I were not on the same page from the very beginning. We discussed our plan beforehand, but when it was time to execute things fell apart. My partner had difficulty with rapport and it soon felt like the other party was directing their negotiation to me, because my partner had difficulty expressing Sally’s desires. This became especially clear when we had to break our walkaway and come up with creative solutions. Even after meeting alone on two occasions to discuss strategy we still were not able to execute a team approach and it became a one person negotiation. Fortunately, there was plenty of creative value to be made and we did come to a good agreement.

Final Summary

Over the course of this class I feel I have become a fairly confident negotiator. From the first week on I achieved satisfactory results in my negotiation, not having to break my walkaway with the exception of the Soprano case and Wright plane. In both these cases the creative value that was not monetary was able to fill the gap. My past blogs and peer evaluations showed that I was able to create good rapport with my opponent and conveyed the image that I was negotiating for mutual benefit, which was true most of the time. The difficulty that I did have was in time control as my negotiations on a few occasions took longer than most of the class'. One reason for this is the lack of information in cases for creating value without having loose strings. Loose strings often caused good ideas to hit dead ends. Although, I ended up being successful I felt as though I had more difficulty in the later cases that were not monetary negotiations. I found it much easier to negotiate a dollar amount and support that amount with evidence or create value that would exceed the concessions given in breaking my walkaway. When there were multiple issues and multiple parties, as in the Mt. Sinai case, this was more difficult and we were forced to play the numbers game using a grid. Had this been a real negotiation without a point system, this would have been much more difficult. When negotiating with multiple parties I also felt that I was willing to give up more so that each party would have some gain, but this may have simply been a product of the situation in class. Lastly, in class we were always given fairly clear values for what our walkaways were. In any real negotiation I would have to come up with this myself and realize that this is not an easy task. I believe that valuing my target and walkaway will be one of the more difficult aspects of a negotiation and playing hardball given a circumstance with more on the line than pride and an opponent who is less willing to make a deal than my classmates will be difficult. In summary, although I feel like a strong negotiator in class, I am yet to see and slightly uncertain as to how a negotiation will go when there is something significant on the line and I am in an intimidating situation. Nevertheless, that day will come and I will draw upon the skills practiced in this class.

Halfway House

As this was a full class negotiation, with a number of parties and very little background information it went well. We were able to come to an agreement with which most parties were happy and most importantly, my party, the compliance team, got the results that we wanted, the halfway house was to house 60 residents. At first this seemed like an impossible task as the regulation calls for no more than 35 residents and the most vocal groups desired other uses of the school facility. With the support of the Directors the importance of housing the local mentally ill in the school became apparent to the property owners association, a particularly vocal group, and soon after the PTA. The most resistance was from the grey panthers who wanted their senior living center. As each group fought for their use of the school property it seemed like there was a way that everyone could get their piece of the pie. Unfortunately, the community had only agreed on 35 residents. The only leverage that the compliance team had to get the other 25 residents housed was that the facility was to be rebuilt by funds from the state department of rehabilitation. As the state department paid on a per patient basis, housing 60 patients would allow the highest payout and leave more funds to set up the other uses of the facility. Realizing how many uses this facility was to have there was agreement that 60 patients should be housed. At this point the compliance teams negotiation was finished and the remainder of the negotiation was ironing out details relating the division of hours between the senior/child activity center. Ultimately it was all resolved.

Deeport

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;

This was an interesting negotiation in that some parties had integrative interests whereas others had distributive ones and the party proposing the terms had completely distributive interests. My position was closely aligned with Deeport so this negotiation was relatively easy for me. Deeport was in support of most of my issues from the beginning and my role was mainly as a mediator between Deeport and the parties that had string feelings about environmental issues. Deeport did a very good job of keeping feelings about proposals secret. At no time did any other party know how close of how far away from their walkaway they were. The rest of the parties may have made a little mistake in being fairly open about their preferences and performing an integrative negotiation, leading to a proposal that all five groups would have supported. After the negotiation we found out that this was a proposal that Deeport could have accepted, but chose not to at that time. This did give them some info about how to please four out of the five parties and they were able to weed out the other ports receiving 4 out of 5 votes and getting favorable terms.

Negotiation Process:

Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent

_4_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?

_4__Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs

_5__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?

_4__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?

_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?

_4__How well did I try understand the other person:

_4__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;

_3__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered

_3_The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints

_4__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)

_--_Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs

_4__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position

_5__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement

_5__Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark

_5__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”

_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…

_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person

_4__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before

_5__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)

_3__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"

_--_Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.

For Yourself: General Conclusion:

My position in this was very easy please, so I didn’t have to do too much negotiating or creating alliances. I made loose alliances with the environmentalists and Fed DCR and supported their environmental initiatives and they supported the finance and union initiatives. If I was able to do this negotiation again I would have taken a more hardball approach for the union workers and created a stronger alliance there. Deeport did a good job of systematically offering a little bit more until they found the minimum that would create an agreement. They may have been lucky because their first offer was strong for my states economy. Therefore both the union and governor’s point totals were very high from the beginning and Deeport was able to shave points from other areas, not having to give in to more labor. I approached this negotiation from a integrative perspective and think that it may have been better knowing Deeport’s position to have been more ambitious in a distributive way.

Mt. Sinai

· General:

The negotiation started out like one would expect. We ran through all the issues that were going to be discussed and then came back to number one. I had Mason present the issue as the MMM was ‘his baby’ in order to get the discussion started. We presented our opinions and the pros and cons of this issue before taking a vote which revealed option 3 as the tentative winner. At the end we were going to confirm each decision so that there would be some leeway to satisfy parties who might not have got what they desired. We then started speaking about the second issue, but realized that with such a rigid framework no discussion could sway a member’s opinion on an issue and attempts to frame the negotiation were futile. We decided to simply lay our cards on the table and share our unacceptables and must haves. We made a chart and were careful to make sure that no party had an unacceptable option. This created some parties with many barely acceptables, who were slightly disappointed, but came to terms considering the way the numbers worked out.

Negotiation Process: What was the process of negotiation- opening offers, sequences of offers, counteroffers, anchoring, initial offer, counteroffers? Did the other side start really high/low? What effect did this have on the negotiation?

Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent

_5_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?

I had a strategy, but it was for a more formal negotiation…the numbers game won out.

_4__Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs

_5__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?

_4__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?

I expected this to be a more formal negotiation in which framing and creative options would be important in an outcome. Turned out to be a math problem, which I had not planned.

_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?

As CEO was able to lead the meeting from the beginning and was shaping the agenda, but it didn’t make sense to do it this way in the exercise.

_5__How well did I try understand the other person:

We were all very open with our positions

_5__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;

_--__Persuasion: Not very important in this negotiation. Came down to numbers

_5__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints

_--__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)

_--__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs

_5__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position

_5__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement

_5__Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark

_5__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”

_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…

_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person

_5__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before

_5__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)

_5__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"

General Conclusion:

As CEO I was excited and prepared to lead a discussion about the relevant issues. I had plans of how to frame the issues, who to have present various issues and how to appear as neutral as possible and achieve my goals. This was effective in the first issue which was discussed, negotiated and voted upon. However, given the structure of this negotiation, negotiating seemed too difficult considering the rigidity of each persons desires and the inability to invent options. Instead we decided to disclose all our information, set up a chart and solve the puzzle. When it came down to it, not much was learned from this negotiation, it really came down to a puzzle that we solved as a group.

Wright Plane

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;

The negotiation started off with a discussion of who each participant was and what our intentions in the negotiation were. It was friendly from the beginning. Our first offers had a wide gap with his first offer being $35000 with the plane fixed up and mine being $5000 with the plane as is. We continued to talk about how we might bridge this gap talking about various options to create value. We learned very on that it would make sense for me to trade service on Graham’s car for value in the plane. We also worked on ways that more value could come from his role as editor at the paper. After discussing these options for a little while we made our next round of offers. He came down to $25000 and I came up to $7000. This gap remained large and we continued to discuss ways that we could make value. Graham played down the need to have his car repaired saying that cash was more important to him. I continued to offer my car service and explained to him that if he was going to fix up the plane and sell it new, as a repairman I know that if he was quoted $15000-$18000 worth of repairs that means it really comes out to $20000. Our next round of offers I came up to $8000 and included the repairs if he would come down. He came down to $21000. We negotiated that I would have an article written about my new charter business and ads placed in the paper for both the garage and the charter airline, while I offered him the ability to use my plane on occasion for supervised recreational flying, as he no longer had a plane. My offer came up to $10000 and he came down to $17000. Graham was very reluctant to come down any lower than this, so we continued to try to make value. We came up with a number of creative scenarios about advertising and use of airplanes for the newspaper, but Graham was reluctant to make any commitments as he was unsure of the power he had to negotiate these things as an editor. We got closer to making a deal with our next bids coming to $12000 and $14000, both of us at our walkaway. We were able to bridge this gap by negotiating the use of my charter plane, when available, for reporting purposes for the newspaper which would include the airlines name in the caption. We agreed on $13000, with $12000 up front and $1000 a year later. I broke my walkaway by $1000, but the publicity that would be generated by the article, ads, and captions were definitely worth the extra $1000 and labor on the car.

A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)

Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent

_4_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?

_4__Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs

_5__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?

_4__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?

_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?

_4_How well did I try understand the other person:

_5__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;

_4__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered

_5_The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints

_5__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)

_5__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs

_5__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position

_4__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement

_4__Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark

_4__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”

_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…

_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person

_4__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before

_4__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)

_4_Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"

For Yourself: General Conclusion: In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;

The success of this negotiation came from the fact that we were both able look for mutual gain off the bat. It seemed clear that we were not going to be able to settle on a dollar amount without some other exchange of value, but with the wide spread in numbers I don’t know how this negotiation would have proceeded had this not been a class. I’m not sure what I would have done differently in this negotiation. We felt like our hands were tied, because we could not assign value to our creative pieces of value and thus had to put those ideas aside. I felt that I had the upper hand for most of the negotiation as I was below my walkaway and had negotiated lots of value for my businesses. Graham, however, was very reluctant to come down, because cash seemed like a large priority and, as said above, was not comfortable negotiating too much in relation to the newspaper, because his power was limited as an editor. I did, however, really want to make the deal, because even breaking the walkaway it was much more valuable to get the charter business up and running.

Law Books

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;

The negotiation began fairly bluntly with my opponent Dan Adams asking why my client wanted to sell the books. This caught me off guard a little bit, as I was hoping to initiate some small talk to learn about J&S. This put me back on my heals as I realized that I wasn’t as prepared as I would have liked to answer this direct a question, especially not being able to find out what info my opponent had from his case. Dan continued to ask me difficult questions uncovering that we were hoping to sell the books shortly and that we were shifting our focus away from Japanese commercial law. After a short conversation he made an initial offer of $1000. This was much lower than expected, and was so low that it was almost calming and that it was time to play. My first offer was planned to be $25000, but I bumped this to $30000 in response to the extremely low initial offer. Explaining that these books were increasing in value, had been hand selected, would be difficult to reacquire etc allowed me to shift this negotiation into a more offensive mode. We jockeyed back and forth discussing the value of the books and how hard the most valuable parts would be to acquire elsewhere. Dan also raised the possibility of splitting the books, which I said was not an option as they have their highest value together and there is another buyer that wants the whole set. Dan’s next offer was $7500, which was countered by my offer of $22500. Conversation continued on similar lines shifting more and more to the value of the collection, leaving behind the issue of having to sell them quickly. Offers went to $8500 and $15000, then $9000 and $12000, finishing at $9500, which Dan said was pretty much his BATNA if he was going to pay storage and then shipping. I did try to create some additional value by asking how much J&S had penetrated the Japanese market and that they were obviously truing to expand and there may be services that B&A could offer to help facilitate, however, we determined that we didn’t have enough info to make any concrete offers that would be accepted.

_5_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?

_4__Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs

_4_First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?

_4__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?

_4_Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?

_4__How well did I try understand the other person:

_4__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;

_5_Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered

_4__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints

_4_Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)

_4_Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs

_4_Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position

_3_Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement

_5_Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark

_4_Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”

_5_Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…

_5_Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person

_4_Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before

_4__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)

_5_Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"

_--_Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.

For Yourself: General Conclusion: In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;

· What were keys to the negotiation being successful or unsuccessful

· What would you do differently if you were to do this same negotiation again

· what did you learn about yourself? About negotiations What tendencies do you have in negotiation that you need to be careful about (too aggressive, too likely to quit searching for solutions once your; What do you feel you need to work on? What would you do differently next time?

· What did you learn in general?

· If this were a real case, what obstacles to joint problem-solving might you encounter; how would you overcome them?

The keys for this negotiation to be successful was creating an environment where we were both trying to maximize benefits. For Dan that was getting the books (which at any price in his range was undervalue). For me that was getting the highest price. Since we were both working systematically to this goal constantly discussing and problem solving instead of being at odds, we were able to achieve our goal. I ended up selling the books near his BATNA because the framing of the conversation continually shifted towards value and price; away from my weaknesses. In this case I was potentially a little more aggressive than I would have been if I knew his BATNA was so low. I started off very high and although I made some big steps down, it took me a while to believe that Dan was approaching his BATNA. Knowing that I was above my walk-away early made the negotiation a little easier as well. In terms of barriers to an agreement there weren’t any except for my desire to get my client a fair price.

Negotiation 2

The outcome of the Appleton v. Baker negotiation was successful for both parties. It started with some small talk to feel out the environment around the negotiation since there was limited information in the case that was distributed. I, representing the Bakers, made the first offer of $9000, which in hindsight may have been too high. My rationale was that I would have more credibility making a fair offer with the knowledge that the land had been purchased for $7000 and had appreciated over the last 8 years. The Appletons representative made a counteroffer of $13000. Upon discussing this number I realized that my first bid was well above the Appleton's walk away price. I then took the standpoint that the Bakers were trying to be fair and didn't have very much flexibility in their offer, and that it was seeming more and more like the Appletons were desperate to get rid of the plot. My next offer was $9500, which was countered with $11000, and a settlement was ultimately made at $10000. As my target before the negotiation was $11000 and walkaway was $20000, I did well relative to these numbers but there was a wides ZOPA.

_4_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well? Estimated others too high.
_4__Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs
_5__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?
_4_How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?
_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?
_4__How well did I try understand the other person:
_4__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;
_5__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered
_4__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints
_4__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)
_4__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs
_4__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position. Did a fair amount of both. More towards asking questions.
_2__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement
_4__Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark
_5__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”
_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…
_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person
_5__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before
_5__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)
_4__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"

The key to success in this negotiation was conversation regarding the situation surrounding the Appletons' move. By talking about the situation I was able to learn that there was already a buyer for the Appleton home and the fact that the Appletons were approaching the Bakers meant that there was some desperation. Through discussion I was also able to get a sense of body language and tone (although I already knew my opponent) and how these changed throughout the negotiation. I also was able to gain trust and paint a picture that the Bakers didn't have much to offer as a teacher and bookkeeper, but were friendly neighbors who did had an interest in the plot, and were trying to make a fair offer. I convinced my opponent that I had limited flexibility beyond my initial offer -- only moving $1000. On the whole I think that I did a good job with the exception of setting my initial offer too high. I'm not sure how I would combat this. I think by making the initial offer I was able to get a good sense for where I stood, but this was a little too late. On the otherhand, with the high walkaway, a high initial offer by the Appletons may have thrown me off as well.

Negotiation 1

The nickel game poses some interesting questions. How does someone actually know that their opponent has best intentions, especially when it is unclear what the value of maintaining a good relationship is for unknown future games? It is clear that when everyone looks out for each others interests they can maximize their gain. This means, in seven turns in the in class game, 16 cents for the person who went first and 12 cents for the person who went second. The first group that played the game left some money on the table, but after feeling each other out gained trust, which is key to maximizing profits in this game and mutually they made more money. The second group had one player that approached the negotiation as a win-lose scenario and another who approached as a win-win. Although more money was left on the table the player with the win-lose approach returned a profit of 16 cents, the highest of everyone, while the win-win player only had a gain of about 8 cents, the lowest. Although everyone wins in win-win negotiations, how does one achieve a win-win negotiation when one is uncertain of the other party's motives and goals. The risk is high that if one party attempts to achieve mutual gains while one seeks personal gains the former will get the short end of the stick. A key to mutual acknowledgment of win-win negotiations is trust and this must be established through dialogue prior to entering into the substance of the negotiation. Other times reputations and personal relationships may be enough to establish trust, but not all situations lend themselves to this type of negotiations and parties may disagree about what type of negotiation is truly best for their mutual goals. In a world where there will always be a future negotiation there is little rationale for making the opponent lose or trust will be lost, there will be no future negotiations and the winner will be the ultimate loser.