Leadership and Negotiation: The Arthur Hangtough Case Analysis

This report analyzes the negotiation case of Arthur Hangtough, represented by Clare Contingency, against EMC. The negotiation centers on Hangtough's severance package amidst potential claims of age discrimination and sexual harassment. The analysis explores various negotiation strategies, including the initial offer, the use of the Disney technique, and the application of a closed-ended framework. It examines the importance of BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) and aspiration levels in determining the final severance amount. The report also discusses the legal principles of good faith and pre-termination costs, and the impact of time pressures on negotiation dynamics. The negotiation aimed at achieving a mutually agreeable settlement, with a focus on maintaining a positive relationship between the parties involved, while considering the potential legal implications of the termination.

1
A MATTER OF ARTHUR HANGTOUGH
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date

2
Introduction
In this negotiation , I am Clare Contingency, Attorney of Arthur Hangtough. who will be
facing the EMC attorneys. And fighting for Arthur Hangtough's rights., I noticed that Center
precisely pointed out that the “the last thing that he wants to have a heart-to-heart conversation
with Hangtough during the weekend.” Even though Center points out that he would be much
more satisfied if Hangtough receives a severance of six month or less . my strategy is to
immediately relieve Hangtough from the circumstances he is facing . It is important to further
note that both parties have differing narratives regarding the employment history of Arthur , as
well as different viewpoints regarding what ought to be done going forward . Therefore , the
most important thing to consider is whether it is possible to reconcile these two narratives (Flatt,
2012). Does the outcome somehow reflect one sided or both narratives ? Notably , each party has
a possible threat against the other : I understand that ,EMC has a potential sexual harassment
claim against Hangtough , and Hangtough has a possible age discrimination claims against EMC
among other stronger ones. What impact did the existence of the possible claims have on the
dynamics of the negotiations ? Whether or not they should be voiced clearly.
Discussion
When I met with EMC representative attorney , she made me create an offer for a
severance to which we initiated a negotiation . In order to settle the negotiation much quicker , I
instantly made an offer of $ 250,000 because I understood how bad Centers wants to evade the
meeting with Hangtough. I presume that my strategy is straightforward and successful because
we both agreed upon the $250,000 without any doubt .Even though we came into consensus , I
believe that negotiation abilities could be used much better . I have come to realize that the
specific negotiation is not challenging as I ought to have made it. In order to fine tune my

3
negotiation skills in the future , I ought to reconsider who I am fighting for and why I ought to
put more work .
Negotiation can be a challenging process because both factions are trying to work out
their differences .Therefore , it might be a challenge for the first time but as thing progress good
results can be attained while maintaining a positive relationship . However , this requires great
skills in order to be successful (Hughes, 2010). It is the goal of any negotiation that you try to
reach positive experience . In this case some individuals such as EMC corporation and Center
preferred embracing negotiations while other prefer avoiding such settings as possible . Such
differences distinguish between a good and a poor negotiator (Foster, & Fosh, 2010) . In my
negotiations I initially preferred to quickly avoid any other offer and reach a consensus .In order
to made a difference between a good and poor negotiation framework , it is important to ensure
that the negotiator does not have a “take or give” standpoint . Dür, & Mateo, (2010)indicates that
it is necessary to view a negotiation as a trade since it allows you to approach the other
representative aggressively . For instance , in my negotiations, I verbally point out that an offer
of $ 250,000, but took my response back since I clearly understood that I have the capacity of
offering a much lower severance .
The attorney to EMC corporation made an aggressive move and disregarded all the
lower severances I have offered since she understood that I is already will to offer a $
250,000.This is a clear indication that a great negotiator ought to have an aggressive behavior
where they won’t be manipulated by other aggressive negotiators . Dür, & Mateo, adds that ,
negotiations are not about making a win or a loose but about having a mutual agreement .
Therefore, it is important to make strategic negotiations and in good faith in order to maintain a
positive reputation of the business that you might be representing . It is important to have strong

4
communication in order to ensure that things are taken seriously and always end in good terms
since , as this allows for the involved parties to feel a collective sense of satisfaction with the
outcome .
In this case , it is important to note that both parties have the intentions to settle the issue
immediately , without revealing their hidden intentions. Both factions of the negotiation feel the
need to settle the termination immediately , without making any revelations to the other side
(Jones, 2014). This raises key questions regarding the effects of time pressures on the
negotiation. Each party has information regarding the other which the other party is not aware
of .The big question is when does one determine when , how and what to disclose ?
Applicable Strategies
At some points it is necessary to apply the legitimacy strategy in order to determine the
statements of the law regarding the minimum and the maximum severance amount reductions
from the initial offer (Craver, 2012). This is important in order to ensure that during the
negotiation process , the figures could be within the legal values and ensure that none of the
involved parties got a bigger share. This strategy also allowed for a strong control of the agenda .
If we consider raising a single issue at a time , the opponent might take control of the issues
aggressively , but if we present all our claims together , were able to keep control during the
entire negotiation (Lofaso, 2010).
Important Model for the negotiation
Disney Technique
This method is also known as the creative method that would help in creating a true
synergy and consider all the key collaborative options . An appropriate model for such is the
Disney model . This model is the most preferred as it allows great creativity and is particularly fit

5
for circumstances where both parties tend to choose the most applicable negotiation strategy.
Both Center and Hangtough have a better opportunity for their negotiations if they share
authentic information . It also allows the opportunity to create a parallel thinking with
Hangtough and generate ideas , critiques as well as action plans . Mnookin, Robert (2010)
indicates that , the technique is closely comparable to De Bono’s method of the six Thinking
Hats .The only variation is that in the Disney technique the sequence can be considered as
constant , while the other technique is applicable in any appropriate order.
Covenant of Good Faith
If EMC corporation terminates Hangtough’s contract seemingly to avoid paying out his
pensions , that is a strong foundation for a wrongful termination claim . It is clear that Mr.
Hangtough has worked for the company for many years and the claims leveled against him just
came slightly before his retirement . This termination might be considered as a violation of the
good faith for the long relationship between Mr. Hang tough and his employer . Therefore , I feel
the need to present the issues through a method know and Blanketing . This method is applicable
in a number of objectives . Since the issues leveled against EMC corporation have tangible
evidence , it is stronger to present them together in the hope of accomplishing a faster concession
from the other party .
Applicable Principles
The most appropriate principle for this case is a closed-ended and restrictive framework
(Homsey, 2010). In this framework I intend to ensure that question to EMC attorney are simply
the ones that he can respond with a simple yes or no . This will mainly focus on the allegations
such as financial misconduct , the conflict of interests among other vulnerable perspectives. This
would further reveal a lot about the allegations of EMCs side . It is important to note that the

6
EMC president is still concerned about Hangtough due to the possibility of his involvement in a
conflicting commercial business, his failure to meet the required performance objectives as well
as the recent sexual harassment charges filed against him . With such an extreme offer ,
Hangtough would simply be attacked as he further insists that there should be no legal hedging
during the negotiations (Coleman, 2015) .
Deal Objectives
Park, et al., (2010) point out that , the emphasis of many negotiators lies on the price
during the entire negotiation. As it is evident from this case , this negotiation predominantly lies
in the severance amount , but this is only one of the multiple components of the value
portion .Thus it is important to consider that price a value are two different matters in this case
and thus it is important to establish a strong deal objective for this negotiation . The most
important element is solely a strong BATNA. In addition to this ,I incorporates an Aspiration
base framework. In this framework it could be ideally and realistically settle the agreement . My
aspiration base ranges between $ 150,000-$160,000 of the severance amount while at the same
time allowing Center to work harder and figure out other creative means that can be used for
further negotiations.
Various studies have shown that , negotiators ought to enter into a negotiation with a
positive standpoint . Nevertheless , the initial severance amount is not realistic and thus led to
some aggressive disagreements. Individuals with unrealistically high aspirations often tend to
utilize an opening offer that is too high , that might lead to disruptive conduct from the other side
(Judge, 2010). This implies that , even though my initial severance amount of $ 250, 000 seem to
be high , it is necessary is a disruptive mechanism.

7
BATNA
The agreed BATNA for this case is that not all parties could be impressed with their
needs not being fully granted . Nevertheless, after a comprehensive negotiation , a figure of $
160,000 which is not the initial offer ($ 250,000) ,for both parties has to be approved in order to
break the deadlock. This figure is the best for both parties to settle on though there is a promise
for a much lesser severance amount .What is the best way of determining BATNA for this
negotiation agreement ? First it is necessary to understand the circumstances of the case for both
factions (Baum, 2013). Then consider my position and the position of Hangtough. The next step
is to consider the parts relative to all other alternative options available and consider the best
option. It is also important to consider the reverse from the point of Hangtough (Coleman, 2015).
This is how a well-prepared negotiator captures the entire image of the case
Another option is : Retaining Hangtough’s retirement benefits while another option is to
pay Hangtough based on the court terms . However , Hangtough rejected all these offers .
Therefore , the best alternative that would be utilized at this moment is reducing the severance
amount to a range of $150,000- $160,000. According to Zahariadis, (2017) there is a number of
factors that one ought to consider One of the most important factors to consider in this case
include:
Cost
As earlier discussed , parties to an employment tribunal claim that they often wish to
make refences to an offer having been by one of the parties and rejected by the other in terms of
the costs (Craver, 2013). In my case , I sought to argue that EMC corporations acted on
unreasonable grounds to terminate Hangtough’s benefits , as all the claims were not proven

8
through the required legal processes . According to Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013,
section 111 A(5) indicates that , introduction of pre-termination negotiations cannot prevent the
parties from rejecting offers made during the process on the grounds of const applications (
McLaughlin, & McLaughlin, 2010).
Pre-termination cost
Notably , pre-termination cost , termination lawsuits, particularly in some California
districts have shown that , early termination clauses in consideration of all the key damages is
very important . Consumers of this law with the California jurisdiction have more resources than
most, especially against security companies such as ADT , Bank of America among others .the
law provides to types of termination fee as employed by a huge number of service providers .
This includes fees such as flat fee ETF as well as the percentage ETF. In most cases , a flat fee as
one recommended in Hangtough’s case comprises of the need of a payment of thousands of
dollars in order to end an employment contract (McCloskey, 2010). Therefore , I have to
consider some early percentage-based termination fees based on the damages caused on Mr.
Hangtough .
In these fees , EMC corporation has to pay a pro-rated fee based on the amount of time
left on Hangtough . It is also important to consider all the termination clauses as well as the
termination fees in the same instance. Prior to making aggressive reforms of the initial offer of
$250,000 by Hangtough, it is important to consider all the best alternative , which in this case is
important to consider Center cases . This can be considered as the most affordable amount by
Center . In addition to this , considering center’s capabilities it can be considered as the most
feasible option . In order to ensure the relevance amount remains and a good amount , it is

9
important to consider the option of partnering with Putman as a key stakeholder in this
negotiation (McCloskey, 2010).
While employing this option it is important to consider that Hangtough has serious
allegation regarding financial misappropriation , while both Hirdman and Center have different
standpoints about Arthur’s employment history. As a result, they both have differing opinions
regarding what ought to be done with him going forwards (McMahon, 2010). Therefore , the best
strategy is to consider a way of reconciling the two narratives in order to ensure that the outcome
does not reflect a single narrative .That being said , I consider individuals values of the involved
parties and values separately. I have the interest of the Hangtough first while at the same time
weighing in on the key values of his actions . Therefore, it is important to separate the person
from the problem and engage on the basis of individual grounds at the negotiation process. This
allows to see that Hangtough actions , particularly the sexual assaults against him are worth
during the negotiations and attaches to his position thus bargaining accordingly (Creighton, &
Stewart, 2010).
Another important factor to consider is the impact such decision might have to the
negotiation . It is already evident that EMC corporation has already resisted our high severance
amount thus having an immediate negative influence and that would be approximately $ 150,000
- $ 160,000 down from the initial $ 250,000.Since we have agreed to reduce the figures to a
value slightly below the initial offer that is almost the quoted value of the EMC corporation.
Thus, they have to concede and accept the offer . It is also necessary to compromise on some of
Hangtough’s stands as having hardline stand which might lead to Hangtough losing his
retirement benefit or not getting a favorable offer . We eventually settled for a $ 170,000 , which
would be reviewed in a period of six months depending on the developments of his case. As

10
earlier indicated , it is important to consider the need to win over some of the key stakeholders
prior to moving forward with such kind of decisions . Lai, Hsiangchu (2010)
In considering the financial situations surrounding the case , and based on the list of
considerations that Center has provided me with . I believe that a range of $150,000-200,000 is a
great price . Therefore , it is would be necessary for Center to consider eliminating any conflict
of interests of the other commercial venture and pay off Hangtough. The entire process is
interested in coming into an agreement with the fact that would eliminate all the conflict of
interest exhibited by both factions (Craver, 2010). As the Hangtough representative , in do not
have to apply EMCs’ circumstances as leverage , as they seem to think that our big focus is
directed to our request for a high severance amount but we don’t . There are sufficient pluses
with the property itself as well as the venture that makes huge conflict of interest on Hangtough’s
side (Roney, 2011) .
. It would be much easier to get a better position by sourcing for more money rather than
one single amount on each separate negotiation . For example, I could consider Hangtough’s and
Centers satisfactory price and I can consider a number of assets as a way of considering new
options. Ahn, Sutherland, & Bednarek, (2010) indicates that such options can be considered by a
negotiator not on the grounds of safety , but rather as a leverage point during a negotiation. Even
though the alternative options of Hangtough ought to , in theory be straightforward , the efforts
to understand the best alternative that represent Center BATNA might not be that well invested
(Foster, & Fosh, 2010). Therefore , it would be necessary to ensure that the options are realistic
as possible with proper investment of the earlier indicated options will frequently be
incorporated that might fail on any of these criteria (Baum, 2013) . Ahn, Sutherland, &
Bednarek, further point out that most managers overestimate their BATNA while at the same

11
time investing too little time into understanding the key options . This might lead to a poor
decision making as well as negotiation outcomes .

12
Conclusion
While the negotiations revolved around a value-based framework , there is a great need
not to focus only for the settlement in the traditional sense . Increasing our respect for differed
views contrary to our rivals helped in living with such differences while at the same time making
the right decisions . However ,when we focused more on value-based conversations , it is
possible that we could not be able to resolve the disagreement yet we can strive to understand the
circumstances of both parties so that we can more easily get to an amicable solution.
Negotiations are common whenever a person wants get to an amicable solution . It is important
for both parties to give up their hardlines and assist in reaching a common position . In order to
have a successful negotiation , both factions ought to be in a capacity to listen to the opinions of
the opponents and be ready to give up some interests after carrying out a comprehensive bargain.
It is important to note that If we have the opportunity to execute this exercise again , I would
provide a much lesser offer of severance than what Hangtough is willing to pay . It is important
to note that Hangtough has reached an age where he start preparing to retire because . Since he is
already getting a pension , it might be considered detrimental to begin with a much lesser
severance offer.