Leadership Management: Negotiation Case Study Report

This report analyzes a negotiation scenario involving a team leader and two team members, Mr. X and Ms. W, who are in conflict over task assignments and workload. The report explores the negotiation process, highlighting the importance of knowledge, interpersonal skills, and attitudes. It applies a 7-step negotiation framework, including communication, relationships, interests, options, legitimacy, commitment, and alternatives (BATNA), to understand the dynamics of the conflict. The analysis delves into the differing interests of the parties, the impact of legitimacy and fairness, and the significance of the working relationship. The Game Theory of negotiation is identified as the most applicable theory, explaining how the parties' decisions and strategies are interdependent. The report emphasizes the importance of understanding interests, exploring options, and making commitments to achieve a successful negotiation outcome. It also examines the role of communication and perceptions in influencing the negotiation process and the potential for conflict escalation.

NEGOTIATION
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
City/State
Date

Negotiation
Introduction
Negotiation refers to a technique through which individuals settle differences. It is a
process by which agreement or compromise is reached while avoiding conflict and argument
(Zohar, 2015, p.540). In any given conflict, people usually aim at attaining the best possible
result for their position. However, the principles of fairness, maintaining a relationship, and
seeking common advantage are the keys to a victorious result. The process of negotiation
incorporates a number of stages, namely preparation, discussion, clarification of goals,
negotiation towards a win-win outcome, agreement and implementation of a course of action
(Ademi, 2016, p.323). In business, negotiation is part of daily life and thus it is of utmost
importance to an organization’s success. Poor negotiation can ultimately cripple an organization
just as fast as losing important customers. Notably, in any given negotiation, the main elements
that are significant and likely to affect the final outcome of the negotiation are knowledge,
interpersonal skills, and attitudes (Yoshida, Dolan & Friston, 2008, e1000254).
As a team leader, I recently got into a negotiation with one of my followers regarding
team members’ roles and workload of a project assigned to us. Mr. X felt that he was being
assigned simple tasks compared to his other teammates, and wanted an exchange of the technical
task with Ms. W. The latter, on the other hand, felt that she was well-suited for the job and
therefore no switching would take place. Mr. X argued that since he was more qualified than Ms.
W, he deserved the specific task assigned to her. At the heat of the argument, Ms. W cited that
she would not be bullied or discriminated upon by Mr. X, simply because he did not believe Ms.
W to be competent enough as a female. Furthermore, Mr. X complained of being overwhelmed

with simpler tasks; he was assigned two tasks, while the rest of the team members were assigned
one. These two individuals had approached me in an effort to try and come to a fair solution.
This case is quite normal and an illustration of how easily interactions degenerate when
individuals lack awareness on what is happening behind the scenes in human influence,
negotiation, and interaction (Chuah, Hoffmann & Larner, 2014, p.1203). Moreover, there are
numerous situations where people negotiate, for instance teams seeking to deal with differences
and work effectively, two individuals seeking to establish or repair a romantic relationship, or
even a presidential candidate influencing public opinion (Curhan, Elfenbein & Eisenkraft, 2010,
p.691 ). The reason why people negotiate is because they want to make the other party lose,
solve an issue, to win, create additional problems, test boundaries, create more issues, or get
what they want. Others negotiate as a way of stalling for time or because they believe it to be a
ritual. In the case presented, Mr. X and Ms. W were negotiating to get what they wanted.
Discussion
Analytical framework or application of a theory explaining some elements of negotiation
There is no right way to organization of ideas, but some approaches seem to work better
than others for particular purposes. Frameworks are useful in negotiations because they help
individuals define their goals, prepare efficiently to reduce surprises, and identify and optimize
on opportunities (Andrea, 2013, p.376). Such frameworks should function at a basic human level
underneath gender or cultural distinctions, so that similar framework can be applied in different
contexts. The framework commonly used in negotiations is a 7-step framework constituting
Communication, Relationship, Interests, Options, Legitimacy, Commitment, and Alternatives
(Adam & Shirako, 2013, p.787). These elements were developed at the Harvard Negotiation
Project with the aim of meeting these criteria.

The parties’ basic needs, motivations, and wants are usually referred to as their Interests.
Individuals such as Mr. X and Ms. W negotiate because they are hoping to satisfy their
individual interests better through an agreement than they could otherwise (Cheng, Huang & Su,
2017, p.297). Success in negotiation is measured by how well a party’s interests are met. The
parties represented in the case scenario should understand that interests are not similar to
demands or positions that individuals normally argue for or stake out in negotiation. Between the
parties, interests can be differing, conflicting, or shared. In Mr. X’s and Ms. W’s case, their
interests were conflicting in that both parties wanted to feel justly treated (McClendon, 2010,
p.281). Most negotiators are usually shocked to realize this, resulting in them exploring why
their perceptions of justice differ.
Legitimacy or fairness is perhaps one of the most powerful of human motivations,
constituting of a special group of interests. In the case presented, Mr. X may be told that he has
the tasks to delegate to the rest of the team members, and that he has the authority to specify who
gets how much of the tasks. However, Mr. X is told that he will only get the tasks if he the other
team members are willing to accept the delegation (McClendon, 2009, p.55). Logically, a second
individual, in this case Ms. W, should be willing to accept any task, but for most individuals,
they would rather get nothing than approve a delegation that feels too unjust. The two parties in
the case scenario need to realize that the issues at stake in any given conflict are actually less
significant than the precedent set of future associations (Zohar, 2015, p.542).
The Relationship that a negotiator desires or has with other parties is considered to be a
third most significant variable in negotiation. Looking at the negotiation between Mr. X and Ms.
W, I felt that I had to weigh the impact on the result of this particular negotiation of the working
relationship between the two, in the course of the negotiation. The negotiation that was taking

place eventually became hostile and heated, and the chances of agreement drastically declined
(Ademi, 2016, p.323). Ms. W started raising her voice, prompting Mr. X to do the same. At this
point, no one was willing to listen to the other. Mr. X made accusations while pointing fingers at
Ms. W, who did not appreciate this as she felt that she was being scolded like a small child.
If a negotiator fails, s/he needs to think of the alternatives to agreement or probably
‘walkaway’ courses of action. These Alternatives must be courses of action that a negotiator can
implement without necessarily obtaining the consent of the other negotiator(s) (Yoshida, Dolan
& Friston, 2008, e1000254). They are also referred to as the negotiator’s Best Alternative To a
Negotiated Agreement, or BATNA.
As already indicated, the main reason why individuals negotiate a result that offers more
value than one’s BATNA. An Option is a possible agreement or pieces of a possible agreement
upon which a negotiator might most likely agree (Chuah, Hoffmann & Larner, 2014, p.1210).
Additionally, an option creates value in negotiation by capitalizing on the satisfaction of shared
interests, or by exploiting distinctions in interests. At the time of negotiation between Mr. X and
Ms. W., I already had some BATNA, even though I had not figured out exactly what it was or
was not very attractive. For instance, I could have opted to do nothing and leave the two parties
to their fate, or I could have stood firm and asked them to be content with their respectively
assigned tasks.
The main reason why individuals negotiate is, of course, to seek a result that will offer
more value than a person’s BATNA, enough more to justify the investment of effort and time in
the negotiation process (Curhan, Elfenbein & Eisenkraft, 2010, p.701). An Option is a possible
agreement or piece of potential agreement upon which a negotiator might possibly agree
(Andrea, 2013, p.380). This can incorporate applicable terms and conditions, contingencies,

deliberate ambiguities or omissions, and procedures; anything the parties involved might agree
on that might assist in satisfying their respective interests. The most basic kind of option,
particularly in the case presented, is a trade. Value is created by an exchange of something that
one has that s/he values less than they do for something another individual has that s/he values
more (Adam & Shirako, 2013, p.794). However, the option would not work or satisfy Ms. W
because she does not value the option being offered to her by Mr. X.
A Commitment is an offer, demand, promise, or agreement by one or more parties, and
any formalization of that particular agreement (Cheng, Huang & Su, 2017, p.298). This kind of
offer is usually signaled by words such as ‘We agree’, ‘I promise not to….’, or ‘I demand’….
(McClendon, 2010, p.281). A commitment can take place at any point during the negotiation
process and incorporate anything from a minor procedural point to a complete agreement. Mr. X
and Ms. W were yet to come to a commitment at the time of the negotiation.
The last step, Communication, is whereby parties discuss and deal with the preceding
six steps of negotiation (McClendon, 2009, p.78). As already indicated, there are various ways of
approaching the negotiation process, and many have predictable effects on the possible results.
In the 7-step model, the question of who the parties are is included under interests and left
undeveloped. People tend to look at their interests and those of others whose interests might
allow for the most attractive options for them. Additionally, perceptions are definitely a
significant aspect of relationship and legitimacy, as well as interest. Notably, emotional
neediness is considered to be a critical aspect of how negotiators evaluate their interests and
communicate about their relative attractiveness of their BATNAs (Zohar, 2015, p. 545). As long
as extra useful ideas can fit within the main framework, people can meet their objectives without
necessarily losing the usefulness of having a basic negotiation framework. Up to the moment of

heated argument and accusations, Mr. X and Ms. W had a good working relationship and were
honest about most things. However, following how discriminatory Mr. X was towards Ms. W,
the latter lost a lot of respect towards Mr. X. She was at a loss of words considering their past
relationship. It is no wonder the negotiation escalated to a heated argument. At the start of the
negotiation process between these two individuals, their personal or vested interests were quite
different. For instance, Mr. X expected to be given technical tasks because he believed himself to
be quite competent in handling such jobs. On the other hand, Ms. W. was quite content with
being assigned technical tasks because it made her feel more trusted and competent to carry out
the task.
An applicable negotiation theory to the case presented
A theory is similar to a map that describes a limited geographic region from a particular,
functional perspective. By defining comprehensive issues in a logical manner and identifying the
right questions to ask in advocating for a specific objective, a theory provides similar advantage
for its user. The basis of negotiation theory includes Game theory, negotiation analysis,
behavioral decision making, and decision analysis (Ademi, 2016, p.323). The most applicable
theory in the case between Mr. X and Ms. W would be the Game Theory of negotiation.
Developed in the 1940s by Oskar Morgenstern and John von Neumann, this theory bases an
anticipated result on the interaction between two individuals’ decisions. Here, the success of one
party’s chosen decision or strategy is determined by the decision or strategy of the other person,
and vice versa (Yoshida, Dolan & Friston, 2008, e1000254). The Game theory of negotiation is a
demonstration of why two ‘logical’ individuals may not opt to cooperate effectively despite
having the knowledge that doing so would be in their best interests.

It is not uncommon for a negotiation to take the direction where one or both parties opt
for the result of greater self-interest. Referring to the case scenario presented, Mr. X was
obviously choosing an option that would best fit him. Notably, no one negotiation is similar and
even though the Game theory suggests acceptance of a scenario that is mutually beneficial, that
does not mean that procurement should embrace an offer that will be of less advantage to them
or their organization (Chuah, Hoffmann & Larner, 2014, p.1211). Better outcomes will be
achieved through application of common sense.
The Game theory is generally a mathematical study of decision making, strategy and
conflict in social situations. It is an explanation of how individuals interact in key decision
making processes (Curhan, Elfenbein & Eisenkraft, 2010, p.708). Within the theory is a game
referred to as the Prisoner’s Dilemma where two individuals are arrested, incarcerated and given
a date for trial. Each prisoner is approached in turn and presented with an offer that if they
confess against the other individual in crime, all charges will be dropped and used as proof to
convict the other, who would get a maximum of twenty years (Andrea, 2013, p.396). If the
prisoner stays silent and his partner confesses, this prisoner will be convicted and get twenty
years where he will eventually be set free. If both prisoners confess, they will be convicted but
only get five years in prison (Adam & Shirako, 2013, p.797). If both prisoners choose to stay
silent, then they will both be convicted and get a year in prison.
The prisoner’s dilemma in this theory is that each of their fate relies on the other’s
actions. If they confess individuals, the options are better than if they both confess. Selfishness
should not be among the assumptions of Game Theory, especially since it is usually assumed that
each prisoner in the game only values their own wellbeing (Cheng, Huang & Su, 2017, p.320).
With regards to the case scenario presented, Mr. X is somewhat selfish because he is only

considering his own interests and not those of Ms. W. Both parties are faced with the dilemma of
accepting what is currently being offered in terms of task delegations; should they give in and
accept what they have been offered, or should they stick to what they believe and fight to have
what they want?
The Game theory is not normally linked to everyday life since it is best known for being
an instrument of Cold War military generals who calculated the optimal scale of nuclear
deterrents (McClendon, 2010, p.281). However, as most economists and mathematicians have
discovered, this theory can be applied in everyday life, particularly in negotiation processes. This
theory tends to characterize settings and describe each reaction and action as the moves of a
game. Experts then work their way backwards from winning positions to the beginning of the
game, analyzing how good results can be attained and bad ones avoided (McClendon, 2009,
p.80). They then come up with dominant strategies whose results are autonomous of how the
other parties act. For the case scenario presented, an expert negotiator would look for the best
possible strategy or alternative that would suit both Mr. X and Ms. W. Overall, the Game theory
finds the best strategy for an individual, giving a specific playing arena.
As already indicated, Mr. X feels that he is being underestimated in terms of his
competence, while Ms. W is being discriminated upon for being a female whose tasks are more
technical than Mr. X’s. As a negotiator, game theory tells me which setting should be established
so that both parties will do the right thing (Zohar, 2015, 540 - 548). By choosing which
information to reveal, to whom and when, and by instituting how one party responds to certain
offers and actions, s/he will be changing the rules of an interaction. In turn, they will set the
incentives for the other. One party’s rules can make the other party reveal their genuine
intentions, encourage cooperation, and drive the interaction towards the best possible outcome

(Ademi, 2016, p.323). Before taking part in game theory, parties need to know if the other
parties are negotiation for a one-time, long-term, or short-term benefit. One should not assume
that they should always negotiate for long term benefits, such as is the case with Mr. X.
Conclusion
Conclusively, given that there are differences in knowledge, skills, personalities, and
contexts, every negotiation is somewhat special, and there is no right way to negotiate.
Additionally, since negotiation is also unpredictable, it should not concentrate on just one target
script. Instead, a suitable technique of preparation should assist negotiators to predict and deal
with any number of eventualities. The paper has also discussed the Game Theory in relation to
the 7-step negotiation framework and the case scenario presented of Mr. X and Ms. W. Game
theory principles that tend to work well in one context could potentially be disastrous in another.
This is perhaps why misunderstanding of what relationship each party wants occurs a lot,
especially across cultures.

Reference List
Adam, H., & Shirako, A. (2013) Not all anger is created equal: The impact of the expresser’s
culture on the social effects of anger in negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
98, No. 5, pp. 785 – 798.
Ademi, N. (2016) Negotiation and management. Int J Econ Manag Sci, 5, pp. 323.
Andrea, C. (2013) A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes. International
Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 374 – 398.
Cheng, J., Huang, Y., & Su, Y. (2017) Relationality in negotiations: A systematic review and
propositions for future research. International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 28,
Issue 3, pp. 295 – 321.
Chuah, S., Hoffmann, R., & Larner, J. (2014) Chinese values and negotiation behavior: A
bargaining experiment. International Business Review, 23(6), pp.1203 – 1211.
Curhan, J.R., Elfenbein, H.A., & Eisenkraft, N. (2010) The objective value of subjective value:
A multi-round negotiation study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 3,
pp. 690 – 709.
McClendon, B. (2009) Make it happen: Negotiating effectively using timeless values. Western
Carolina University, USA.
McClendon, B. (2010) The art of negotiation: What the twenty-first century business student
should know. Journal of Legal Studies Education, volume 271.
Yoshida, W., Dolan, R.J., & Friston, K.J. (2008) Game theory of mind. PLoS Comput Biol,
4(12), e1000254.
Zohar, I. (2015). ‘The art of negotiation’ leadership skills required for negotiation in time of
crisis. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 209, pp. 540 – 548.