: Negotiation: Theory and Practice Individual Assignment Develop a case study of a recent negotiation you were involved in, observed as a stakeholder or supporter, or that you have studied from recent events or even from history (provide a short introduction describing the negotiation at the start of your paper). Your paper should then set up an analytical framework or apply a theory that explains some element of negotiation and use that framework to analyse the case. This paper asks you to ‘test’ or apply the framework or theory in what is to be an analytical case analysis. Your paper should build to convincing and well-drawn conclusions about both the framework/theory and the case. Table of Contents Background 2 Mistakes made during negotiation 3 Result 4 Using a different lens to look at the negotiation 4 The Negotiation phase 6 Conclusion 7 References 9 Appendix 10 1 “Negotiation is a process that happens whenever at least one person is trying to get another to do or not do something for him or her” (Falcao, 2010). Consciously or subconsciously, we are involved in negotiations almost daily without even realising it. The negotiation forming the basis of this paper is about the time when I had resigned from my previous company (Zomato Media Pvt. Ltd.), and the conversations that I was engaged in because of that. At the time, I didn’t realise how all the conversations I was having with my team lead and manager were in fact negotiations or a build up for a negotiation. The outcomes possibly would have been very different, if back then I had the negotiation insights I have now. Background I had joined the company as an entry level associate right after completing my undergraduate degree. The company was rapidly growing and expanding at the time and had recently ventured into provision of online ordering services from restaurants to the customers. It was this new department that I was a part of. In a short period, I had established a good reputation for myself in the eyes of my seniors and was made the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for my team lead and manager, accountable for the performance of my team. However, I was unhappy with my job profile; the responsibilities described at the time of the interview were very different from the actual day-to-day work duties. It felt like the responsibilities related with the role were glorified and an unrealistic job preview was given, which increasingly made me dissatisfied with my work life. My skills were being underutilised and unfortunately, I just did not see myself growing, neither personally nor professionally within this profile. Eventually, I decided to have a talk with my manager regarding the same to see if there were any options available (like switching to a different role or department) to improve the current state of affairs. I had an honest discussion about how I felt dissatisfied with the work I was doing and the lack of development opportunities, and concluded that if there was no way of addressing my concerns, then I would be left with no other option but to look for other opportunities elsewhere. Ultimately, when no efforts for resolving the issues were made, I decided that undertaking further studies would be a good option for both my personal and professional growth. 2 In the subsequent sections, I will discuss and analyse the events and conversations around my resignation and how those could have been more value creating for both parties had I known and understood the concepts of effective negotiation earlier. Mistakes made during negotiation 1. Focused more on positions rather than interests Most of the conversations I had with my team lead or manager were around how I was unhappy with the work I was doing and how I wanted a change of profile/role or department (as it wasn’t uncommon for employees to switch roles). On the other hand, their replies were always around how it just could not be done at the time. Both of us had conflicting positions and neither really got to the depth of the problem, which was to understand the ‘why behind the what’. Why was it that I wanted to change my profile, or why was I not allowed to switch roles within the organisation at the time. Such questions would have helped in getting closer to the actual issues and in better understanding each other’s problems and/or constraints. Thinking back on it now, maybe they were unable to allow role swapping because there was already high turnover within the team and it would have been possible at a later stage, once there was more stability. 2. Inability to separate the people from the problem I had previously engaged in conversations with my manager which centred around how I was dissatisfied with the work I was doing. I had openly and honestly discussed with him the issues I had, way before I had officially resigned. Back then, he had told me that ‘things were how they were and nothing could really be done’. So, later when I was called for a discussion with my team lead and manager about my resignation, I had a closed mindset. I had decided to firmly stand by my decision to resign and thought of the conversation as yet another information sharing session where I elicit the reasons behind my resignation, rather than a negotiation. I wasn’t actively listening to suggested options such as possibility of role swapping or even being considered for the role of team lead and saw them as just another measure to retain me. I had no trust on them now and their word held no meaning to me. 3 3. Lose – Lose approach – Failure to think long term I had not fully considered the consequences of my decision – both, for me and the organisation. What seemed to have been a Win-Lose outcome back then (I felt like I had won somehow), in hindsight today, was clearly a Lose – Lose situation. The organisation was already experiencing high turnover especially within our department and losing another good employee would in no way have been a favourable outcome. For me, I could have not only gained more work experience but could have later secured potential part time roles in their international offices (such as in Sydney) when finally pursuing higher studies. If I had considered options for value creation, a mutually beneficial long-term relationship could have been formed and maintained. Result I served my notice period and left the organisation thereafter to pursue my post graduate studies. I didn’t burn any bridges while exiting the organisation but I did not really foster any long-term relations either. In no way did I strive towards options that could have created joint value and resulted in a win-win outcome. Using a different lens to look at the negotiation Being well equipped with the tools and techniques of negotiation, lets now look at an alternative approach to see what I could have done differently to reach a win-win outcome. Firstly, the importance of preparation before any negotiation cannot be emphasized enough. It is a component which is often given least importance when it deserves the highest priority. Hence, to start with, I should have taken the time out to clearly articulate my needs, anticipate the needs of the organisation or more specifically of my manager from me and tried to establish a zone of possible agreement (ZOPA). Identifying a ZOPA helps in avoiding the trap of reaching an agreement just for the sake of it (Shonk, 2016). The seven elements of negotiation would have been a handy framework for accomplishing this task. I have considered a few of them below. a) Interests I had the following interests- 4 • To have challenging work that helps in development and growth both personally and professionally • To have better work-life balance (12 hour shifts, 6 days a week was a bit excessive) • To pursue higher studies eventually and thus needed time for preparation; with the current work schedule, it was hard to find the time to prepare for exams like GMAT and IELTS Their interests would have been- • Retain talented employees especially when turnover rates were already very high • To ensure that the work carried out by their team doesn’t suffer due to lack of resources • Keeping employee morale and motivation high b) Alternatives For me the alternatives were- • Looking for opportunities in other organisations • Pursuing higher studies For them, the alternatives were- • To hire a new employee and get them to sign a contract/bond that ensures they stay with the organisation for a stipulated period to avoid similar problems c) Options I had the following options- • Work in the same department for a few more months with their commitment for provision of either more challenging work or a role switch in the future. In the meantime, I could have offered to train another employee in the work I did (if anyone wanted to switch to our department) • Take a short leave to prepare for and complete the application process and then resume working until the course starts. If things take a turn for the positive, possibly defer the higher studies offer for 6 months to a year Their options could have been- 5 • To tailor my role in a way that benefits both the parties • To offer an option to switch roles in the near future, if my skillset matched the other profile • Possibly providing part time work opportunities in a different country, if and when I decided to pursue further studies (could be contingent upon some factors) Just looking at these three elements, I can see the possibility of coming up with some fair resolutions and reaching a mutually beneficial agreement which if implemented correctly would not only help with trust building but also improve and foster long-term relations. Another mistake committed in the original negotiation was being too positional. Hence, discovering true interests is something I should have done more proactively. A schematic representation for discovering true interests has been presented in Appendix 1. During my conversations with the team lead or manager, I could have asked more probing questions around why there was absolutely no flexibility being offered in terms of roles, which otherwise was a common phenomenon, or why was it that we were being made to work such excessive hours when our contracts only mentioned 8-hour work days, 5 days a week. It is possible that these problems were only for a short-term and efforts were being made to overcome them. Maybe they wouldn’t have answered all the questions point blank but getting some explanation for why things were the way they were would have helped in understanding their viewpoint. The Negotiation phase From the insights gained through the elements of the seven elements framework and having identified possible true interests of the manager, I could have tried to create value for both of us. Capitalizing on differences During negotiations, differences between the two parties can often provide opportunities for value creation (Bazerman and Moore, 2009). By the process of logrolling, where trade- offs across issues are made, a value creating outcome can often be generated (Shonk, 2016). I could have postponed my plans for higher studies had I been presented with more challenging work at the office or other opportunities which made me feel like I was learning something worthwhile. 6 Package creation Often in negotiations, there are multiple issues which are up for discussion. It is therefore beneficial to bundle up the conflict resolution offers in packages or to create multiple packages so that comparisons between them can be made readily and trade-offs can be creatively discussed to address the issues being faced (Negotiations.com, n.d.). If the interest of the manager was to retain me because the turnover was high but he was also willing to shift me to a different department, then I could have offered him an option of training another employee (or a new hire) until he finalised on the formalities required to move me. Simultaneously, I would have assured him that I am willing to complete all tasks and duties required of me and that I would be happy to move back if there are more challenging work projects available for me at a later stage. Use of contingency contracts My manager and team lead had tried to convince me to stay by telling me that I was an invaluable asset to them and that they were willing to go out of their way in order to make me stay. They told me that they were considering to promote me to the position of team lead a month or two down the line and asked me not to quit because there were opportunities for growth. They had also hinted towards allowing me to switch roles. But because of their indifferent attitude to my concerns in the past, I did not really trust them to deliver on whatever commitments they would have made at that time. As a way of protection against the risk of them not staying true to their word, I could have prompted them to put some contingency contracts in place (Shonk, 2016). If they were negotiating in good faith, they would not have had any problems with such a proposition. On the other hand, to make things more fair for everyone, they could have put in a clause too such as ‘If you clear the interview/test for a particular profile then you can move to that role’. Conclusion Having looked at the negotiation through a different lens, I now see the potential for minimizing if not eliminating the asymmetry of information by using the seven elements frameworks and techniques of thorough planning and investigation of true interests by asking probing questions. Sharing of these interests would have helped to efficiently manage not only the content but also the process and relation during the negotiation which in turn would hopefully have led to the pursuit for joint value. It is important to remember though that in 7 order to reach agreements collaboratively, the negotiating parties should have some trust on each other. It is only then that exchange of information will take place. In my case, the lack of trust on the manager and therefore the organisation led me to discount any counter offers presented to me. There were options of creating a win-win outcome which I just didn’t realise earlier. Often, negotiations contain potential for integrative agreements which can lead to mutually beneficial solutions but are seldom achieved (Moran and Ritov, 2007). This necessitates the need to learn and continually improve on negotiation skills. 8 References 1. Bazerman, M. and Moore, D. (2009). Judgment in managerial decision making. 7th ed. Wiley. 2. Falcao, H. (2010). Value negotiation. 1st ed. Singapore: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education South Asia. 3. Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes. 1st ed. New York, NY: Penguin. 4. Moran, S. and Ritov, I. (2007). Experience in integrative negotiations: What needs to be learned?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), pp.77-90. 5. Negotiations.com. (n.d.). Value Creation in Negotiations | Negotiation Experts. [online] Available at: http://www.negotiations.com/articles/value-creation/ [Accessed 16 May 2017]. 6. Shonk, K. (2016). Contingency Contracts in Business Negotiations: Agreeing to Disagree. [online] PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Available at: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/contingency-contracts-in-business-negotiations-agreeing-to-disagree/ [Accessed 18 May 2017]. 7. Shonk, K. (2016). How to Find the ZOPA in Business Negotiations. [online] PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Available at: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/how-to-find-the-zopa-in-business-negotiations/ [Accessed 17 May 2017]. 8. Shonk, K. (2016). Value Creation in Negotiation. [online] PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Available at: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/value-creation-in-negotiation/ [Accessed 17 May 2017]. 9 Appendix Appendix 1 – Identifying true interests (Adapted from MGSM Handouts) 5. Do 1. Ask something 'interest with the based' information questions 4. Ask more 'interest 2. Listen based' Actively questions 3. Probe for more detail 10