BUSI-1632 Negotiation: Analyzing Case Studies - Park Row, Glastonbury

Verified

Added on 2024/07/04

AI Summary

This assignment presents three case studies focused on negotiation strategies: The Park Row Land Sale, Glastonbury Festival booking, and a Rail Dispute. The Park Row case examines distributive bargaining, focusing on strategies to maximize gains while selling land, including BATNA analysis and handling the dilemma of honesty. The Glastonbury Festival case explores integrative bargaining from the perspective of an agent negotiating a performance slot, emphasizing value creation and managing deception. The Rail Dispute case, though incomplete in the provided text, likely involves negotiation between a rail union and management. The assignment reflects on the application of negotiation theories and tactics in real-world scenarios, offering insights into effective negotiation practices. Desklib provides similar solved assignments for students.

The University of Greenwich
NEGOTIATION
MARK 1051
CASE 1: The Park Row Negotiation
CASE 2: Glastonbury Festival
CASE 3: Distributive bargaining
Name: Tran Tung Lam
University of Greenwich ID Number: 001362989
FPT Student ID Number: GBS210480
Module Code: BUSI-1632
Module Name: NEGOTIATION
Name: Vo Minh Vinh
Submission Date: March 26th 2024

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser

Table of Contents
CASE 1: The Park Row Negotiation ....................................................................................... 1
CASE 2: Glastonbury Festival ................................................................................................ 1
CASE 3: Distributive bargaining ............................................................................................ 1
Case 1: An illustrative reflection on the Park Row Land Sale from the perspective of the buyer 3
Appendix ........................................................................................................................ 5
Reference ........................................................................................................................ 5
Case 2: The Glasstonbury Festival Simulation Sai’s Agent ...................................................... 7
Reference ........................................................................................................................ 9
Case 3: The Rail Dispute General Secretary of The Rail Union .............................................. 11
Reference ...................................................................................................................... 13

Case 1: An illustrative reflection on the Park Row Land Sale from the
perspective of the buyer
The distributive negotiation simulation will focus on bargaining to sell the land. This is
a case of "distributive bargaining". This type of negotiation seeks to raise one party's interests
while reducing the interests of the other (Donohue & et al., 1996). I decided to move to
Scotland, so i have to sell my land and my house. Fortunately, my house had been sold. My
small piece of land, which was bought in 10 years ago worth £35,000, hasn’t sold yet because
the majority of people offered only £10,000. According to local sources, the neighbors at home
number 1 Park Row need to enlarge their property for building. My target point is to sell this
land for £100,000 or less as quickly as possible.
During negotiations, there may be "reduced communication" or "ambiguous issues"
among the four essential ideas, leading to a lack of correct information and rising conflicts
between the two parties (Thomas & et al., 2017). As a result, “win-win” agreements may not
be as effective as the "distributive bargaining" technique (Thomas & et al., 2017; Ramsay,
2004). Furthermore, to boost persuasion and minimize unsuccessful discussions, the
"countering" approach is explored to establish reserve needs (K. Zulauf & R.Wagner, 2023).
In negotiations, the best alternative to a BATNA- Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement
is the most advantageous alternative method that one side can pursue if the negotiation fails
and the expected agreement cannot be reached (Wheeler, 2002). Therefore, negotiators should
not accept agreements that fall short of their BATNA, which limits the scope of feasible
accords( Fisher et al.,2011). To maximize the chance of success in the negotiation and avoid
significant losses, my resistance point will be set at £25,000-£30,000 as a backup plan if
BATNA is pushed below £35,000- my weakness possition. However, I still need information
about my counterpart's BATNA. Many studies indicate that without disclosing such
knowledge, individuals would struggle to engage in integrative discussions and establish
integrative agreements (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). Negotiators must share information that
assists them to identify integrated agreements ( Beersma & De Dreu, 2002). The influence of
judgment bias varies depending on the source of uncertainty. When a deal entails substantial
uncertainty, the risk outweighs the potential to complete a transaction (William, 1998). During
the conversation, I found that she needed to buy property to enlarge the kitchen and the dining
room, but would not spend too much. Based on this, I could make an exact assessment and
estimate that the buyer's BATNA ranges from £40,000 to £70,000. Some literature claims that
compromises are the greatest strategy to avoid the risks associated with attaining advantages

(Crawford, 1982). On the other hand, when deciding whether to accept a BATNA rather than
make more concessions, a party must consider the negative risk (Conlon & et al., 1994;
Sheppard & et al., 1989). However, the impact of risk aversion and loss aversion on negotiating
techniques and outcomes are nearly identical for strategic and BATNA risk (Crawford, 1982;
Bottom, 1998). I stayed steady in recommending £100,000 for the first asking in order to let
buyer low-ball and give me time to contemplate my plan. Previously, some private information
concerning my property was exposed. She knew that no one had requested to buy that land in
ten years since the selling price was too expensive and it was unlikely that it could be resold to
anybody else. She offered £50,000, but I refused to compromise since the price was too low in
comparison to the market after ten years. This caused the conversation to devolve into a
situation in which the Dilemma of Honesty was triggered, resulting in rising dysfunction. The
Dilemma of Honesty is defined as a circumstance in which one of the parties is exposed to
information that may lead them to lose an advantage in negotiations, but vice versa (Chertkoff
& et al., 1977; Henderson & et al., 1989). To raise the value of my possessions, I claimed that
the new owner of the house I had sold would pay £80,000 for this plot of land. The true
objective of exploiting the anchoring effect is to entice the other party's doubt when the
negotiations lose credibility. Some authors of this study suggest that if building a cycle of trust
and reciprocity is not possible, a person has the right to engage in other immoral behavior (Dees
& Cramton, 1991-1995). Some writers of Henderson's negotiation study disagree with Deiss
and Clampton, arguing that if one party feels the other side is not honest, fair, and honest, they
should cease the negotiation and continue to trade with other parties, or not trade (1989). The
imprecise information and distrust created an imbalance in the discussions, as she repeatedly
decreased the price to £55,000, either paying instantly or no deal. This has put pressure on
efforts to reach an agreement on the ultimate price.
I've conceded about all i can give as £60,000, pending to a six-month installment
payment and a separately agreed-upon interest rate by both sides. However, completing the
transaction at a price near to my expectations makes me extremely satisfied. However, in the
long term, if the other party realizes how much I gained, it would harm the relationship and
trust.

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser

Appendix
Organising case 1 simulation: Park Row land (team work)
Reference
Beersma, B., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Integrative and distributive negotiation in
smallgroups: Effects of task structure, decision rule and social motive.Organizational Behavior
andHuman Decision Processes,87, 227–252.
Bottom, W.P. (1998) ‘Negotiator risk: Sources of uncertainty and the impact of reference
points on negotiated agreements’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2),
pp. 89–112. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2800.
Chertkoff, J.M., Sherman, S.J., Till, A. and Hammerle,G. 1977. `Reactions when the honesty
or dishonestyof the other bargainer is discovered'.Social Behaviorand Personality, 5:1, 21-31.

Crawford, V. P. (1982). Compulsory arbitration, arbitral risk, and negotiated settlements: A
casestudy in bargaining under imperfect information. Review of Economic Studies, 34, 69–82.
Donohue, W.A. and Roberto, A.J. (1996) ‘An empirical examination of three models of
integrative and Distributive Bargaining’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 7(3), pp.
209–229. doi:10.1108/eb022782.
Dees, J.G. and Cramton, P.C. 1991. `Shrewd bargaining on the moral frontier: toward a
theory ofmorality in practice'.Business Ethics Quarterly, 1:2,135-167.
Dees, J.G. and Cramton, P.C. 1995. `Deception andmutual trust: a reply to Strudler'.Business
EthicsQuarterly, 5:4, 823-832.
Henderson, A.R. 1989. `Business sales and acquisi-tions: the art of negotiation'.CMA - the Manage-
ment Accounting Magazine, 63:2, 32-37.
Fisher, R., Ury, W.L. and Patton, B. (2011), Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without
Giving in, Penguin Books, New York, NY
Henderson, A.R. 1989. `Business sales and acquisitions: the art of negotiation'.CMA - the
Manage-ment Accounting Magazine, 63:2, 32-37.
Ramsay, J. (2004), “Serendipity and the realpolitik of negotiations in supply chains”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 219-229.
Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993).Negotiation in social conflict. Buckingham,
England:Open University Press and Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Sheppard, B. H., Blumenfeld-Jones, K., & Roth, J. (1989). Informal third partyship: Studies
of everyday conflict intervention. In K. Kressel & D. G. Pruitt (Eds.), Mediation research (pp. 166–
189). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
Thomas, S., Eastman, J., Shepherd, C.D. and Denton, L.T. (2018). A comparative assessment
of win-win and win-lose negotiation strategy use on supply chain relational outcomes. The
International Journal of Logistics Management, [online] 29(1), pp.191–215.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlm-10-2016-0238.
Wheeler, M. (2002) Negotiation analysis: An introduction. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business
School Pub.
Zulauf, K. and Wagner, R. (2023). Countering Negotiation Power Asymmetries by Using the
Adjusted Winner Algorithm. Operations Research Forum, 4(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-
023-00206-7.

Case 2: The Glasstonbury Festival Simulation Sai’s Agent
The approaching negotiation simulation with the Glastonbury Organising
Committee will involve a complicated combination of “integrative bargaining”. This
scenario emphasizes adding value and exploring reciprocal advantages for both sides.
In addition, this allegation is based on Sai's desire to get a performance spot at the
famous Glastonbury Festival, which offers not only financial gain but also considerable
exposure and solidifies her development of a professional profile. I was the manager
representing Sai, and my job was to negotiate arrangements that would benefit both
Sai's professional progression and my career and financial interests. At the core of this
dispute is the matter of booking Sai for a performance at the Glastonbury Festival. This
includes not just negotiating the performance cost, but also other important
considerations including the performance slot, stage arrangements, promotional
commitments, and any prospective post-event opportunities. Each of these factors is
critical to increasing Sai's exposure and using this platform to advance her career in the
music industry. Understanding the subtle differences between views and interests will
be critical in navigating this discussion, to achieve a collaborative strategy that
recognizes and aligns both sides' aims for mutual gains at first.
The discussions between Sai's management agency and the Glastonbury
organizing committee were not just about getting Sai to perform at the highest possible
pay, but also about establishing ideal circumstances and conditions for her. Combined
with Sai's objectives, Glastonbury organizers might attract new audiences while
maintaining the festival's pioneering status, which benefits both sides. “Integrative
bargaining” promotes learning and knowledge of both sides' primary interests in order
to find the best solution for each (Fisher & et al., 2011). These tactics encourage the
development of new value and the discovery of mutual advantages, rather than focusing
exclusively on allocating limited resources, as in distributive negotiations (Mnookin &
et al., 2000). Our BATNA for the demonstration was £157,000, which is equivalent to
14 points. Sai will be able to sign contracts with other festival organizers. However,
Glastonbury represents a significant potential for Sai's career and social standing. The
amount of points obtained determines the outcome of the simulated negotiating

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser

situation; each party's unique achievable score is 50. However, doing this would require
driving the opposing side to an extremely low/negative score. We placed our trust in
hollow promises and invisible opportunities from the organization. On our end, artist
Sai's representative agency will evaluate the other party's "Deception" situation and
apply it to the discussion because it has a big impact on the negotiation process and
outcomes (Joseph, 2022). The organizer promised to widely report in the media and
attract many participants, and announced: "Your work will be seen by big companies
and media organizations in the music industry”. The negotiation became competitive,
the score was considerably different, and Sai was disadvantaged when the Glastonbury
organizers used the "lie by commission" as one of the “deception” tactics to magnify
the event, diverting attention away from uniting Sai's interests when we proposed "Main
stage performance" (Roger & et al., 2017). This difficulty raises the issue of honesty
and trust, as we mistakenly divulged that the actual cost of the smaller Aviarore Festival
will exceed £157,000. As a result, we lost our negotiating advantage. Furthermore, the
organizers' future perks and pledges serve as an "anchoring effect" to entice us into
dropping the price below the £142,000 - £146,999 level, resulting in a loss of 3 points
because commitment is too interesting. The term "honesty dilemma" refers to instances
in which exposing facts may result in losing a negotiation advantage, and vice versa
(Lewicki & et al., 2015). To keep a good attitude during the negotiation process, the
“dilemma of trust” must be carefully considered and skillfully managed (Lewicki & et
al., 2015). Throughout the discussion, there appeared to be numerous issues that
developed when we adopted a solution based on the "duel concern" model, but the
organizers made it difficult to use the "win-lose" strategy. Our objective is to persuade
them to reach an "integrative bargaining" arrangement that combines both parties'
common interests resulting in a "win-win" settlement.
After trying to reach an agreement, we discovered that the organizers prioritize
pricing. Therefore, we used the "logroll" method to eliminate some unneeded vocalist
advantages and cut the performance price from £157,000 to £147,000, with important
bonuses such as "Main stage performance, Backstage Meet & Greet fans, social media
campaign and another benefit". Logroll is viewed as a trade-off strategy for sacrificing
personal rewards in exchange for broader benefits including relationships, future

collaboration, and improved reputation and status (Tajima & et al., 2001). We made
concessions on Sai's performance costs in exchange for additional benefits in the present
and the future. This also satisfied and persuaded the organizers of the acceptable price
to agree. From compromise, "win-win" has evolved into "intangible". "Intangibles"
cannot be quantified directly, which include factors such as values, and beliefs (Lewicki
& et al., 2015). The “Socratic” method of proposing hypothetical dilemmas is the key
to resolving both parties' conflicts of common interests (Blondell & Ruby, 2002). This
technique allows me to offer a crucial question: "Does reducing artists' rights and paying
lower performance costs reflect their artistic value?" (Thomas et al., 1994). Due to the
indirect assessment reflecting factors that affect the event's reputation and success, both
sides must identify the flaws in their viewpoints before making more informed
decisions. Consequently, our overall score is 32, with a bargain of £147,000 that
includes the same privileges as the offer except "sole dressing room and luxury car to
pick up artist".
Negotiations can sometimes become difficult owing to disagreements or must be
unwillingly accepted. However, compromise made both parties happy. The lesson of
this future discussion is to realize the need of prioritizing the republic's interests and
seeking complete solutions. It also provides an opportunity for a better knowledge of
negotiation models such as "mutual conflict" and "comprehensive bargaining", as well
as the importance of adopting strategies such as "log rolling" and "Socratic methods"
Resolve disagreements and establish a final agreement.
Reference
Blondell, Ruby. 2002. The Play of Character in Plato’s Dialogues. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chappelow, J. (2020).Pareto efficiency examples and production possibility frontier,
Investopedia. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pareto-efficiency.asp (Accessed:
26 March 2024).
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without
Giving in. New York, NY: Penguin.

Gaspar, J.P., Methasani, R. and Schweitzer, M.E. (2022). Deception in negotiations: Insights
and opportunities. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, p.101436.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101436.
Gaspar JP, Methasani R, Schweitzer M (2019). Fifty shades of deception: characteristics and
consequences of lying in negotiations. Acad Manag Perspect 2019, 33:62–81.
Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M. and Barry, B. (2015) Essentials of Negotiation. 16th edn. New
York, NY: McGraw Education.
Mnookin, R.H., Peppet, S.R. and Tulumello, A.S. (2004). Beyond winning: Negotiating to
create value in deals and disputes. Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts London: Belknap.
Rogers, T., Zeckhauser, R., Gino, F., Norton, M.I. and Schweitzer, M.E. (2017). Artful
paltering: The risks and rewards of using truthful statements to mislead others. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 112(3), pp.456–473. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000081.
Thomas C, Brickhouse, and Nicholas D. Smith (1994). Plato’s Socrates. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Tajima, M. and Fraser, N.M. (2001). Logrolling Procedure for Multi-Issue Negotiation.
Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(3), pp.217–235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011262625052.
Thomas C, Brickhouse, and Nicholas D. Smith (1994). Plato’s Socrates. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Tajima, M. and Fraser, N.M. (2001). Logrolling Procedure for Multi-Issue Negotiation.
Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(3), pp.217–235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011262625052.

Paraphrase This Document

Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser

Case 3: The Rail Dispute General Secretary of The Rail Union
This simulation is an example of an "integrative negotiation of dispute" about railway
workers' salaries and working conditions, conducted between the union's General Secretary
and the lead negotiator on behalf of a consortium of railway corporations."integrative
negotiation of dispute" is the process by which the parties concerned try to settle a problem or
conflict (Sara & et al., 2021). The purpose of dispute resolution is to reach a "win-win"
agreement without the involvement of a third party or the judicial system (Benetti & et al.,
2021; Brett, 2007). In the integrative negotiating simulation, I play the role of the General
Secretary of The Rail Union, a trade union that represents 42% of railway workers out of
189,000. Our responsibilities include implementing union policy, managing its resources, and
negotiating with train company senior management on behalf of our members on matters
impacting them. In addition, to preserve a calm negotiation and foster work together, I will
strengthen the balance of shared interests on both sides and listen to the other side's viewpoints
before making compromises (Person & Stephan, 1998). I am critical to the relational end issue,
so the negotiation will provide space and not impose too much on both parties to address dual
concerns. If discussions fail, members voted 8-2 for the options of "action short of a strike" and
"strike action". Negotiations are based on points, thus mutual interests must be carefully
considered. If the amount of points relating to the interests is too large in comparison to the
opponent's, the final result will be a negative influence on the future and a strike that neither
parties want.
Regarding the two sides' overall predicament, railway workers are facing job cutbacks
and less favorable contracts from the government in particular and railway firms in general. In
addition, they must endure a salary freeze while inflation is rising. In contrast to the workers'
situation, the railway firm is under pressure to cut expenses and has an excess of manpower.
To overcome both problems, I used the "Logrolling" approach, which prioritizes multiple
concerns. In this scenario, the "logrolling" strategy involves both parties making a trade-off
between their interests to focus on establishing mutual advantages and limiting risks for both
(Taijima & et al, 2001). The greatest problem for our union is to cut the perfect railway
company by 12%. This will cause 22000 workers to lose their employment. However, certain
adverse information may be uncovered while employing the "collate" approach for "direct
evaluation" by the train company. The socialist method is skillfully used to hypothesize and
comprehend gaps in one's theory. "So, do you have the right to ensure that employees
immediately obtain new jobs during this difficult time?" This hypothetical inquiry gives us

with some critical facts for direct review, such as Covid-19 employee compensation issues and
other costs that cause major damage to the organization. On our union's side, the main difficulty
is the train company's anticipated 12% reductions. This causes severe harm, with 22,000
workers losing their employment. However, when employing the "Socrates" technique to carry
out the "direct assessment" stage, I discovered some negative information regarding the train
firm. The "Socrates" approach was effectively used to make assumptions and identify
weaknesses in their ideas ( Blondell & Ruby, 2002). I asked, "So does your side guarantee that
after layoffs and salary cuts, workers will be able to manage personal expenses and get a new
job immediately at this difficult time?". This question allows us to immediately examine certain
critical facts by using “direct assessment”, such as: COVID-19 has produced problems with
worker payments and large losses for businesses in other expenditures due to inflation growing
by 12% pay increase since 2010 (trích). I accept worker attrition and a 5% reduction in
exchange for an 8% pay increase. Throughout the debate, the train company representative was
asked to give more perks for workers for my side to be eligible for a 7% pay increase, as
opposed to the existing 12% market increase. If "interaction is voluntary," the amount of
compromise that both parties accept involves preserving the connection and fostering the
cooperative partnership. "Interaction is voluntary" without any pressure or compulsion from
either party That helps establish a constructive climate for reaching an agreement or resolving
problems (Lewicki, n.d.). In terms of ethical considerations, the firm restricts communication
when "direct assessment" is unethical. The train business drove the barrier to a climax when it
stole internal union information about a planned strike, posing a major challenge to make
concessions and limiting the possibility for bargaining. Situations involving a lack of
compromise and agreement result in negativity connected to issues of honesty and trust
(Lewicki et al., 2015). They did not trust me and advocated reducing workers' "condition"
provisions arbitrarily and inappropriately. I contemplated utilizing the "concessions" strategy
to make concessions to the opposing party and accept advantages in the form of "tangibles"
(Schneider, 2005). Magnified disparities between the two sides are too great; my side
constantly wants to give in since I understand the train company's dilemma, while their side
has an aggressive mindset that wants to "win-lose," resulting in disadvantages, misconceptions
and bias (Hatfield, 2010).
On the union side, I nearly lost the agreement, which resulted in a massive walkout that
placed pressure on all sides. However, the discussions proceeded well, and my side was able
to persuade the train firm to agree to a "dual concern" solution. My side was impatient and used
personal intimidation tactics to exert pressure on the discussions. However, with patience and