Introduction Test Post

Hello All Readers,

This is my first time attempting a blog, so bear with me as I work out the features.


The purpose of this blog is, as of right now, is to fulfill all requirements in my MGT450- Negotiation class at Shippensburg University. Who knows maybe it will stem off into some blog known far and wide. If so, then hello all future readers from the past!


Anyways,


Just a little about myself in the present. I am a Senior at Shippensburg University double-majoring in Marketing and Entrepreneurship. I bounced around a lot through my college years before I was finally able to find something that resonated with me. I tried everything from Communications to Criminal Justice to Business to Psychology and even to Culinary Arts. I tried my hand at the Culinary Institute of America a.k.a. CIA, to dabble in the artistry that is food. My grades and knife skills were great, but I found out quickly that I wanted to stick to cooking as an interest and fun thing to do when I do it.


I love incorporating humor into the things that I do, but mostly when necessary. I have a passion for entrepreneurship, so I will take that passion and pair it with the skills that I develop throughout my college career to my success.


That's all for now, because this is still just an intro/test post, so until next time enjoy this wonderful meme pasted below for your enjoyment.

Blog 1 - Tactics from Chapter 1.5 & 1.6

2 Negotiation Tactics from 1.5 and 1.6

After reading these sections, there were quite a few of techniques/ tactics that I have never heard of, but a lot that I would like to implement to my repertoire. 

One that interested me a lot was the quick close:

1. Quick Close

Over the years, for some reason, I have developed an interest in real estate. Usually people stay away from this industry because of legal issues, things they hear about, and just that fact that you can screw up really easily. You have one bad flip, and you're either sued or condemned. I feel that a lot of real estate agents utilize this technique a lot because of the nature of the industry. There's always "another interested party" and they always "have an offer on the place". It never fails. I feel that a lot of times that real estate agents try and use the quick close on people who are trying to buy a house. Often times the purchase of a house is drawn out, delayed, and brings both parties to a stalemate. It seems like the quick close is a remedy to this predicament. The sellers could propose to lower the price if the buyers just sign and get it over with. Pretty cool! 

The quick close would work in a lot of different circumstances. I feel like the weasley car salesmen use this all the time along with other underhanded tactics. I feel like I could've used this when I was trying to be the weasley used car salesman  in the class discussion. I was trying to sell my Pontiac Vibe and I could've created this sense of urgency to wrap it up with a quick close in no time. Since the case stated that I was going to be purchasing a new Acura the next day, I could have been honest and conveyed that information. That would've created a sense of urgency for me and maybe it would've been contagious in the fact that they would've gotten wrapped up in the urgency. Maybe if I simply split the difference and called it a day that they would've agreed to those terms. Not sure. It's all speculative a this point, but it's interesting to think about how the deal could've gone better (and by better I mean more in my favor).

2. Silence

To me, silence is one of the trickiest things to master when it comes to negotiation, public speaking, and general communication. Too much silence is awkward and too little of silence has the speaker consistently spewing words out like verbal diarrhea. Balance is seemingly impossible when it comes to silence. To those that can master it, I feel that it is a key skill in terms of negotiation. As stated in the book, "There must be a healthy balance of talk and silence. Whether we’re revealing too much or grating against the other party’s nerves by being too verbose, words can sometimes become our worst enemies. So successful negotiators know that silence is just as important as talking". Silence conveys that they negotiator is a confident, calm, disciplined, and a great listener. 

Silence would have provided useful in the used car sale simulation in class. It talked too much and disclosed information that, not only greatly hindered my portion of the negotiation, but undermined my credibility altogether. If I employed the silence tactic, I would have had the time to reflect on what I was going to say next while also listening to the other two members of the negotiating party. When they asked me the question of what I bought the Pontiac Vibe for when I "got it in 2008" I could've thought of a more intelligent answer than $12,000. Who the heck gets a new car form $12,000 then tries to sell it at $10,000 eight years later?! Dumb move by me. Oh well, I'm a rookie negotiator what can I say. Rookie mistake, but hopefully next time I'll remember to shut up and think of an answer that makes sense and sounds positive at the same time. Hopefully don't screw myself that badly when I try to negotiate something in the "real world". 

So those are two of the tactics that I wanted to talk about a little bit. I had fun looking through all of the tactics and hopefully I can internalize all of them, but I'll be content with a few. Well, until next time!

Blog 3 - Negotiation Checklist for Live8 Negotiation

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post is using the negotiation checklist from the NEGOTIATION Readings, Exercises and Cases 6th edition book that my class is using. This checklist can be found on page 4 of http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1675&context=articles. The beginning portion of it states that the negotiation checklist is, "a systematic way to ensure you are well-prepared before your next negotiation".

The Live8 Negotiation basically involved two parties, Live8 Art Galleries and LiveAid. Live8 Art Galleries was a chain of art galleries located across Turkey. LiveAid is a brand of concerts to support natural and political disasters around the world. You purchased the domain rights to a site named www.live8.org and LiveAid wants to purchase/borrow it. I am negotiating as the owner of the Live8 Art Galleries.

A. About You
1. Goal- To strike a deal to lend/sell the domain to the LiveAid concerts
2. Issues- Money, time, who will control the website, timing of the deal is around busy summer months for galleries and also two weeks before the concert will take place
3. Helping the world is important but my part feels that these efforts are useless and no money actually goes to those who need it, having the site during the busy summer months is very important to me due to bringing in traffic to my galleries, the money is very important because I desperately need $1,700,000 to fund my three new gallery expansion plan, controlling the business and website is very important to me.

A. About You
   (a)
   -Money for expansion plan
   -Timing of opening new businesses
   -Control of business and website
   -Having the site during busy summer months
   (b)
   1st -Control of business and website
   2nd -Having the site during busy summer months
   3rd -Money for expansion plan
   4th -Timing of opening new businesses

   (c)
   (40 points) -Control of business and website
   (30 points) -Having the site during busy summer months
   (20 points) -Money for expansion plan
   (10 points) -Timing of opening new businesses
 
   (d)
   Settlements - Have at least 51% equity of my business to maintain primary shareholder.
   Share the site and have separate sections for both businesses.
   Realistically, I would give up the site for 2 weeks at most to maintain the site open during the          summer months.

   (e)
   51% equity - 70 points
   Share the site - 15 points
   2 weeks giving up the site - 15 points


4. BATNA - To make no deal with LiveAid and to fund the expansion plan with investors and banks through debt and equity deals. Not the best situation, but my business will still mostly be mine and I will just owe some money through debt.

5. I am not willing to take anything less than 51% equity to get from the investors and banks. I am not willing to completely give up my site for anything more than 2 weeks. If they offer a specific dollar amount, then I will have to consult this checklist

 
 B. About the Other Side

1. Each issue is important, but the fact that I cannot give up my site for more than 2 weeks and not be the primary shareholder is of utmost importance.

2. BATNA - Find other ways to market the concert

3. Resistance point - Spending too much on the site to where it would not be worth the marketing costs

4. My target is to keep full control of my business and the site with guaranteed traffic to my website post event because they will no longer have access to the site.

 C. The Situation

1. There is a 2 week deadline until the LiveAid concert begins. The LiveAid side I believe is more impatient due to the fact that they only have two weeks until the concert starts.

2. I believe the only fairness norm that applies is the need norm. I need to fund my expansion plan, and this would be the best source to gain funds from before turning to investors and the bank.

3. I want them to avoid asking me how much I need to fund my expansion. This will reveal my position and they will either decline to negotiate or offer much less. I will respond that I have a set budget that I must meet in order to fund my business.

D. The Relationship between Parties

1. I do not foresee any future consequences due to the fact that this will most likely be a one-time deal. This negotiation may be repetitive in its issues because the issues are clearly defined.

2a. I feel that I can trust the party because they seem to be in greater need than I. I know that they are a nonprofit organization and those tend to be ethically sound individuals.

2b. I believe that the other party has reasons to trust me and not to trust me. I have not lied to them, so they have no reason to not trust me from the beginning. Although, I am a new business entity to these people, so they could view me as solely profit-seeking.

3. I know that the other party tends to be submissive in issues and due to the time crunch, they may be more willing to pay more than they had initially planned.

4. The other party's authority is limited by their operational capabilities. They are nonprofit and need individuals to donate time or money.

5. Consult with the other party about the agenda.


Thank you again for tuning in to my content. It's still early in the life of this blog, but have faith! There will be more content to come and more interesting things to read about.

Thank you again


Bret Thomas

Blog 2 - Midwestern Contemporary Art

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post is about the Midwestern Contemporary Art (MCA) case study from the textbook. I am choosing to do part A and the discussion questions that follow. This dispute is between MCA's board chairman Peter Smith and the MCA. Peter Smith ended up leaving the MCA due to constant disagreements with the executive director Keith Schmidt about expansion choices for the MCA. There was "very critical financial situation" due to the fact that there was a $5 million pledge to the MCA that had not yet been honored.

Discussion Questions for Part (A)

1. Is Peter Smith micromanaging Keith Schmidt? 
I feel that to a certain extent, yes, Peter Smith is micromanaging Keith Schmidt. The roles of board chairman and executive director should be much more defined. The role ambiguity proves a difficult situation for Peter and Keith. Who has more decision power than the other? Peter challenged Keith during a quoted meeting. Keith wanted rent rent extra office space and hire more staff, but Peter challenged Keith's idea. Maybe Peter's claim was just. Maybe Keith needed to be  micromanaged during some issues. It seems like Smith is much more conservative than Schmidt in terms of financial issues, which could be good or bad.

2. What type of conflict are they experiencing? 
Smith and Schmidt are experiencing interpersonal conflicts in terms of risk and being conservative. Smith likes to play it safe and avoid risk and have many backup plans. He also is much more conservative. Schmidt on the other hand, prefers some risk and to reach his defined goals. There could be an age difference here.

3. What can an organization do structurally to reduce conflict resulting from role ambiguity?
An organization can attempt to reduce this type of conflict from role ambiguity by having clearly defined roles with including the amount of decision power and who has the final say. If there was a clear decision structure or flow chart, then this conflict could have been prevented. Stating that the board of trustees has the final say would have reduced this conflict. Consistent communication could have also reduced the conflict in this situation. Clearly defined and widely accepted goals help to align the position of all members in an organization.

Another way to reduce this type of conflict is to not be under such strict financial constraints. This is difficult for many organizations, but the unneeded stress and burden of the fragile financial situation  created much tension for all parties.

4. How should Peter Smith react when his advice is not followed by the board? 
Peter should not act upset when he doesn't get his way. This belittles or eliminates any respect that the members of the organization may have had for him. It shows himself as weak and unwilling to participate when things don't go his way. Holding a grudge shows that a person is difficult to work with and may prevent future relationships both personal and professional. Perhaps Smith can request a more clearly defined role to clarify what he should and should not be doing.

5. How are the roles of board chairman and an executive director different in an organization such as the MCA?
I did some research to get a clear definition of these types of roles.
Board Chairman - (1) Legal Oversight, (2) Management Oversight, (3) Financial Oversight, (4) Program Oversight. "The board of directors provides oversight and guidance to the executive director and the nonprofit’s other staff members. The board ensures that the organization stays aligned with its mission and values in addition to complying with all federal and state laws."1

Executive Director - (1) Staff Management. (2) Development and Management of Policies and Programs (3) Staff Liaison to the Board of Directors. "The executive director is more involved than the board in the day-to-day operations of the organization"1.


These roles sound similar, but when their duties are presented, their roles cover different aspects of the organization. Executive Directors focus on the short-term, day-to-day operations while the Board Chairman focus more in the long term plans and goals of the organization.

Well, that's it for me everyone. I appreciate you all stopping by and if you are new to my blog, then welcome! Stay tuned for more negotiation topics to come.

Thank you

Bret Thomas





Sources:

1. http://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-board-vs-executive-director/

Blog 6 - Reading 2.4 - Untapped Power: Emotions in Negotiation

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post is about utilizing emotions in negotiations. The reading for this week is section 2.4 in our textbook.

There are many concepts brought forth in this section, and some of them I am guilty of doing.

The authors first propose that "Emotions Can Obstruct a Negotiated Agreement". I agree with this statement and I have been guilty of it once before. I remember when I was selling my first truck. I'll never forget the 2003 Forest Green Ford Ranger that barely fit just me inside. The thing was a piece of crap, but it was my first vehicle ever and I was emotionally attached to it. When we were negotiating the price that we were selling it at, I took a personal hit when anyone low-balled my original offer. I was young and didn't know that my next car would be even better than my current vehicle.

I may have missed some great opportunities to sell my truck, but due to my emotions I was unable to see these opportunities for their true value. The authors support my claim by stating, "revelation of emotions can open us up to being manipulated". My own emotions manipulated me out of seeing these great deals. I feel that the authors are mostly talking about manipulation in the other direction. Towards bad or less preferred outcomes. When I received those low-ball offers, I would flinch with surprise and astonishment. You could say that I had a great poker face when I played with my friends. If only. Anyway, this would immediately give away my position and throw out all strategy that I could have had in sealing the deal with getting rid of that piece of crap Ford. I'll put a link to it in the bottom. It was a nice truck, but man did it have its mechanical problems.

I struggled with revealing my emotions in a lot of important and unimportant negotiations. I can even remember a few interviews in which I dumbly showed a reaction to something someone said. Somehow I still got the job, but I realize that I struggled with the idea for a while.

I also realize that I could have used these emotions to my benefit. I could have received a great offer on my truck and made a reaction of surprise. A look that would say, "You're offering me that low, wow what a cheapskate" without verbally stating anything. I could have used my emotions to  "amplify motivation" in my negotiations.

I understand that eliminating emotion entirely from a negotiation is an unwise and rather impossible thing to do. Emotions can have consequences, but they can also provide great benefit. Humans are strange emotional creatures, and many may be turned off if you show no emotion in a conversation. Talking, negotiating, and even interviewing an emotionless robot is fun for nobody. Be creative and use emotions to your benefit in a negotiation. As challenging as it may be, emotions can be used with a sense of finesse to strategically maximize your value in a negotiation situation.

Thank you everyone for the read. I appreciate every single view that I get. Once again stay tuned for next week and some great academic negotiation content.

Thanks again,
Bret Thomas

Blog 7 - Pros and Cons of Negotiating.......as a Team!

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post is about the pros and cons of negotiating as a team with reference to our readings. This week's readings are about Negotiating Teams (how appropriate for this topic). Negotiating in teams can have its benefits, but also its hindrances and I will discuss them below.

Pros

• You have a support system readily available to back up your side.

Within reading 3.12 of the text, the authors discuss the idea that you can help assure your own success with a coalition. The authors present the idea that a coalition, "can fortify an inherently fragile design, keep it strong and viable throughout your negotiations process, and provide a uniquely formidable lever in structuring your success". This basically states that as fragile your side or a proposal may be, you have a strong support system that can be leveraged to support your claims.

• When you lack knowledge, skills, and experience, a team can provide that with more members.

Shortly after reading 3.12 I found section 3.13. This is not in the required readings, but I found that it supports my point. The authors state that, "gathering a team can be a smarter choice than trying to go it alone" and " teams are more effective than individuals in many situations". The old saying goes that two heads are better than one, and in certain negotiations this could still be true. Some negotiations are better alone such as a bartering with an individual and some salary negotiations, but others would have a great benefit to have a team on their side.

For example, in our in-class negotiations, if there was an opportunity to form a coalition with another person, then we would take that opportunity. Typically, there was a member of that team that knew much more than I, and they were able to provide a great rebuttal to a point that was brought up that I had no idea how to answer.

The authors even have a neat table with some guidelines at the end of section 3:

3 Guidelines for Teams Facing Negotiations
1. When choosing teams, diversity of experience should trump friendship.
2. Debate substantive differences and defuse personality issues.
3. Assign roles, brainstorm possible scenarios, and choose a decision rule.

Cons

• Sensitive information has greater potential to be leaked when discussed with a team

The authors have a whole section in section 3.12 about sensitive information. It states:

In all coalition meetings, it’s wise to prepare for disclosed information to find its way into the media within 24 hours. If you have any information that is highly sensitive to public exposure, a coalition meeting is probably not the best place to disclose it.

This generally states that the more people in the negotiation, the greater potential for information to leak out to the general public.  So if anyone is planning on discussing any information about Project Scorpio (gaming console announced for holiday of 2017), don't plan on doing it with a lot of people.

• Coalitions are imperfect and fragile in their design

Also within section 3.12 the authors state this very idea within their text:

Coalitions are by their natures bound only by a few mutual objectives, and because individuals possess many interests and complex motives, it can be difficult to predict when unity has begun to weaken. Never depend upon a coalition to sustain cohesion. They have a habit of disintegrating at precisely the most personally vulnerable moment. If you know this at the outset, you can better prepare for the eventuality.

Coalitions are formed almost as quickly as they are broken. Conflicts in positions and personal interests can interfere with the direction of a coalition. It is almost a guarantee that a coalition that has formed will at some point or another dissipate and cease to exist. For this reason, coalitions can be tricky and untrustworthy. If they are recognized as fragile, imperfect things, then it could be beneficial for all members.

Well, that's it for this week, Tune in next week for some great negotiation content. Thanks again for the read!

Sincerely,
Bret Thomas

Blog 9 - Labor Unions

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post is about labor unions and their function, how they were present in The Final Offer, and their membership dwindling in the manufacturing industry.

What is a labor/trade union?

Labor or trade unions basically are, "an organization of workers dedicated to protecting members' interests and improving wages, hours and working conditions for all"1. These organizations then work as a democracy and appoint leaders who operate in the unions best interest. At least that is how they SHOULD operate. With conflicting positions and interests sometimes the union leaders operate in their own best interest then in the interest of the unions interest second.

These unions then operating as a "bargaining unit"1. A bargaining unit "is a group represented by a union for dealing with an employer. This group of workers must either be voluntarily recognized by their employer, or a majority of workers in the bargaining unit must vote for representation"1.  The union then leverages its decisions based on the collective interest of the union members. There then becomes the issue of the agency problem in these types of organizations.

My source also states, "it is legal for employers to try to persuade employees not to unionize. However, it is illegal for an employer to prevent employees from unionizing through threats, violence, and other coercive action. It is also illegal for unions to use lies or threats of violence to intimidate employees into joining"1. This actually happened to me when I was hired at Lowe's a few years ago. When they brought me in for the first couple weeks (felt like months) of new employee training, they had us watch various videos about safety and take quizzes how to operate machines and whatnot. WELL, mixed in with these necessary trainings was a video about Unions. I thought, "That's odd, I didn't think a retail store would encourage me to join a union". Boy was I wrong. It almost felt like a propaganda video on how bad and evil labor unions are. They didn't threaten me in any way, but I was "strongly advised" against joining ANY kind of labor union for ANY reason. Odd experience, but very true.

My opinion about labor/trade unions...

I don't have too much of an opinion on labor unions. I am still fairly young and have not had any experience with labor unions (except for that propaganda video fed to me by Lowe's). Conceptually, they seem like a great thing for specific groups of people such as teachers, manufacturing employees, and trade-specific types of workers. These workers have the option to join an entity that will govern any problems you have and will operate with your best wishes in mind? Sounds like a no-brainer right? Well, yes and no. Conceptually it sounds like a great idea, but that doesn't always transfer well in practice. The agency problem plays a huge role in unions in practice. Nowadays, one cannot always trust other to govern in their best interest. How do they know my best interest? Most of the time they don't. Or at least I think. I'm not sure. My family is filled with teachers and a few other public service folks and not one of them were in a union. Would it have worked in their benefit? I can't answer that question. I simply don't know. Like I said, conceptually, labor unions sound great, but I simply don't know if I can trust an agent to think in the interest of millions of workers.

The Final Offer

Now to relate this to The Final Offer documentary. For those who don't know, this documentary was about the 1984 contract negotiations in Canada between the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) and General Motors (GM). Out of this negotiation, Canada broke from the UAW and formed the Canadian Auto Workers Union (CAW). If you haven't seen it, it's an interesting topic and you should check it out at some point. I'll post a link to it below for those who may be interested2.

If you wish to see the film, then skip this following paragraph...

In The Final Offer, the labor union functioned as an entity to negotiate the contract with GM. GM  was looking to change the Canadian GM plant worker's pay. They already successfully completed this in the Michigan GM plant, so the Canadian plant was just another cog in the wheel. The workers ended up striking and as they deemed it, "all hell broke loose". I feel that the UAW, especially Bob White, operated in the worker's best interest. He didn't prevent a strike, but he stuck true to himself and the values of the UAW and was viewed as a Canadian hero after everything was said and done. As far as GM goes, I think they were operating more in their best interest as a company, not as a union. They sought profits over people.

Manufacturing Union membership dwindling?

Yes you heard that right. Union membership has been following a trend away from manufacturing and more towards service. I feel that the rapid growth in technology is replacing these manufacturing jobs entirely. Less jobs mean less physical workers and that means less members in a union3. I have posted a link in my sources that shows the trend in the decline of trade unions and rise in others. 

Last year [in 2014], the two groups with the highest unionization levels were protective service occupations (such as police officers, firefighters and security guards) and education, training and library occupations, both at 35.3%.

Most of these occupations are in the public sector, and these members feel the need to be represented by a labor/trade union. It's an interesting site, check it out when you get a chance.

Well, that's it for this week! Again I appreciate you stopping by and giving my content a view and a read. Come back next week for some more negotiation content.

Thank you,

Bret Thomas

Sources:

1  https://www.unionplus.org/about/labor-unions/how-do-unions-work

2  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjJp63qwm8A

3  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/27/union-membership/

 

Blog 10 - Reflection on the Fall 2016 Semester (LAST BLOG)

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post is the last blog post of the semester! Sad to say that it went by fast, but I've had fun doing these posts and delving into various negotiation topics. This week's blog post is a reflection on the semester and what I've learned overall. I also need to discuss the most valuable concept from the semester.

This semester has been an interesting one. I never thought that I would be able to negotiate well enough to compete with my peers and other members of society. In the very beginning of the class and even before the class, I considered myself a weak negotiator. I called myself a pushover and sided with the other party quite quickly. I hadn't had to do very many negotiations before, but the few that I have done have shown this consistency.

This semester has helped me become more of an informed and adamant negotiator. I have seen myself develop through the in-class negotiations from selling the Pontiac Vibe negotiation to finishing with representing Tokyo Saki in the Bacchus Winery negotiation. I went from repeating myself and sounding overly salesy to standing my ground and using various strategies to successfully complete a negotiation.

I think learning about the Dual-Concern model (Appendix A) really helped me to visualize how to go about negotiations. Shortly after learning about the dual concern model, we learned about log rolling and the Pareto Frontier. I think that these two topics are of the most value to me from the course. Ironic enough that both of these concepts revolve around value.

Log rolling is about making concessions and exchanges in a negotiation. Offers are structured in which one must concede on items which are lower priority in order to get those which are higher priority1. I attempted to use this in many of my in-class negotiations. Some worked and some didn't, but thankfully I think that I have grasped this concept.

Another concept of extreme value is the Pareto Frontier (Appendix B). Although I do not understand the complex mathematics behind Pareto Efficiency, the general concept of value maximization is invaluable. This concept states that "Pareto optimal solutions are outcomes such that no other agreement can be found that increases the benefit to one party without decreasing the benefit to the other party" (Raiffa, 1968)2. Pareto solutions maximize value for both parties. No other solution could have greater value without decreasing the value for another party.

Well everyone, it's been real. Like I said, I've enjoyed doing these blogs and am sad that they are coming to a close. It's the end of the semester and I won't be creating any more blogs. But hey.....maybe I'll start to pick up this blogging thing as a hobby. Who knows!

Thanks again for being a reader of my content,
Bret Thomas




Sources
1 http://changingminds.org/disciplines/negotiation/tactics/log_rolling.htm
2 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.516.988&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Appendices
Appendix (A)

Appendix (B)

Blog 8 - Two Things That I Learned from our Team Negotiation

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post is about 2 things that I learned from our Team Negotiation about the Newtown Schools Dispute. It's funny because I kept reading the title at Newton, which is a town close to my hometown as I was growing up called Newton, NJ, so that messed me up for a little while.

Anyway, this negotiation was a team negotiation that involved two parties on behalf of the school. The parties involved were the board of education and the teacher's union. Each party had their own distinct goals, but each party sought to provide the best place possible for students to learn in. Interests were aligned between the two parties in the fact that the teachers wanted to teach and the board of education also wanted the teachers to teach.

This negotiation proved to be more complex than any other negotiation that we have done yet due to the multiple, lengthy, complicated issues that were to be discussed. The issues were:
1. Reduction in Staff
2. Work Load
3. Evaluation of Teachers
4. Salary
5. Binding arbitration of grievances
6. Benefits

Each of these sections even had between 2 and 7 subsections. By no means did any of us think that this negotiation would be quick and everyone would leave totally satisfied.

One major thing I learned from this negotiation was how to separate my own personal feelings from the situation when acting as an agent for a party. My father was a high school teacher for 35+ years, and it proved to be quite difficult to see eye-to-eye with all of the board of education demands. The board of education was mostly concerned with budget cuts while sounding politically correct through each decision. When it came to many of the issues I found a great deal of difficulty in agreeing with the board's decisions, but I had to represent them and find some logical way to back them up. As one could imagine, this negotiation became quickly heated due to the structure of some of the proposals. It was actually quite refreshing to see this kind of passion from students that I thought were not into the whole role playing negotiation idea.

Another major thing that I learned from this negotiation is what binding arbitration of grievances is. Just kidding! Well, I did learn what binding arbitration of grievances is, but that's not the MAJOR thing that I learned.

The MAJOR thing that I took home from this negotiation was the application of log rolling. We had discussed the concept of log rolling throughout class and it was brought up in other negotiations. In this negotiation however, both teams attempted to apply log rolling to this negotiation and somehow try to maximize value. I see where it worked for some and not for others because it can prove a very difficult thing to do. Once we found a log roller or two, we finally made some ground with the negotiation and some trust and respect was gained for both parties involved. For the rest of the negotiations in class, I will try to have a better eye in finding the log rollers and try to create the maximum value for all parties. That's the ideal situation, but we will see when we get to those negotiations.

As for real life, I like to think that I will maximize value for everyone, if I can then great, but I really am only concerned with numero uno. Myself. Everyone's selfish, so what. If I can bring home more money for my family in AN ETHICAL way, then I will. Unfortunately it will be at the cost of another party. So for future reference I am saying it right now, sorry future negotiating party. I apologize for taking away some of your value for my own. Don't worry, my intentions were fair and just (I hope and like to think that they will be).

Well, that wraps it up for this week. I appreciate you all for tuning back in to my content! Thanks again! See you all for next week's post.

Blog 5 - Reading 4.1: Women Don't Ask

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post is about a reading in our text 4.1: Women Don't Ask. I'd like to remind the reader that I did not write the article and that I am just analyzing it. I'd like to start off by saying I hope not to offend anybody with my writing, but if you have a different view on the idea please let me know in the comments section below.

The reading started off with one of the authors of the text, Linda, flashing back to when she was director of the PhD program at her school. A group of female graduate students came in and were wondering why the males were teaching classes and the females were stuck being teaching assistants to other faculty members. Linda is agrees of the unfairness of this and brings it to the associate dean who handles teaching assignments. The associate dean states, "“I try to find teaching opportunities for any student who approaches me with a good idea for a course, the ability to teach, and a reasonable offer about what it will cost,” he explained. “More men ask. The women just don’t ask.”

“More men ask. The women just don’t ask.”

This statement really took Linda back and she was yearning for a reason why it's true. The reading states something farther down that could explain this reasoning almost seamlessly.

Unfortunately, however, in our largely male-defined work culture, women’s strategies can often be misinterpreted and can leave them operating from a position of weakness. And in many cases, the only way to get something is to ask for it directly.

 Knowing this statement, this semi-explains the reason why more men ask than women ask. While negotiating for many is uncomfortable, women are the minority gender is this "male-defined work culture". Starting a negotiation is already uncomfortable enough, so this prevents many women from asking for things.

It also could be that many, men AND women, assume that things are non-negotiable. I could take an educated guess and say that this happens a lot in salary negotiations. For example, I was making minimum wage at a deli job in NJ for about 3 years. I left that job and sought employment elsewhere for a better wage. I applied to the local Lowe's Home Improvement thinking that they would solve my wage problem. After the interviews and everything, they brought me back in to confirm the job a few days later. They presented me papers that were terms of employment types of papers. At my old job, I was making $7.25 an hour, then shortly $8.25 an hour. When I was finished looking at the papers, I saw my new hourly wage. $11.40 an hour. You can only imagine my excitement when I saw a double digit in the dollar amount. I thought "man if I was surviving on $7.25 an hour, then I'll be rich with $11.40!". I tried to hold in my excitement when HR asked me, "Will this wage be OK for you?".  I tried my hardest to play it cool and only say, "Yes this should be fine".

I was 20 years old an $11.40 was great for me. I got to pay my bills and have a little extra to pay off my car and save some. The only problem is that I did not know that this would be negotiable. Could I have negotiated for more? Perhaps. I was in the mindset that I needed a job and anything better than $9 an hour will do. One would say that my reservation salary was $9 and my bargaining surplus was $2.40 an hour($11.40 minus $9).

In relation to class negotiations, I cannot recall many instances where a specific female backed down in a negotiation. I have noticed that many had weak arguments or no arguments at all in the beginning of the semester, but are growing into more experienced negotiators as these weeks go by.

Any of these instances, assuming things are non-negotiable and failing to start a negotiation, are missed opportunities. Becoming more comfortable and informing oneself about a negotiation would be greatly beneficial to that individual. Had I know that I could have negotiated for a higher wage at Lowe's then who knows, maybe I'd be driving a Ferrari by now (just kidding).


Well thank you yet again for the read. I appreciate every single view and read that I get on these blog posts. Tune in next week for more riveting negotiating topics.

Blog 4 - The Three Schools of Bargaining Ethics

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post revolves around the Three Schools of Bargaining Ethics (as if you couldn't have guessed that by the title) from the NEGOTIATION Readings, Exercises and Cases 6th edition book that my class is using. This text presents three different schools of bargaining ethics and they all differ at some degree from one to the other. I will be discussing what these schools of thought are and I will be examining which school of thought, if any, that I fit best into.

1. The “It’s a Game” Poker School

   The overarching concept with the Poker School of ethics is sitting right within the name itself. "It's a Game", but with certain rules. Conduct within these rules is ethical and vice versa. This school of ethics was founded in the 1960s by Albert Z. Carr, who was a former consultant for President Harry Truman. Within this school, it is argued that bargaining and poker are NOT one in the same. An integral part of this school of ethics is that "deception is essential to effectively play in both arenas".

Long story short, a good deal of shrouding the truth is involved with the Poker School of Ethics. Here's how the authors portray it: 

      Someone opens, and then people take turns proposing terms to each other. Arguments supporting your preferred terms are allowed. You can play or pass in each round. The goal is to get the other side to agree to terms that are as close as possible to your last proposal.

Are both sides bluffing? Maybe, maybe not.....but who knows because it's all a game! The authors then argue three potential problems with the Poker School.

    A). "First, the Poker School presumes that everyone treats bargaining as a game. Unfortunately, it is an empirical fact that people disagree on this. For a start, neither the idealists nor the pragmatists (more on these next) think bargaining is a game. This problem does not deter the Poker School, which holds that the rules permit its members to play even when the other party disagrees about this premise."

   B). "Second, everyone is supposed to know the rules cold. But this is impossible, given that legal rules are applied differently in different industries and regions of the world."

   C). "Finally, the law is far from certain even within a single jurisdiction. So you often need a sharp lawyer to help you decide what to do."

2. The "Do the Right Thing Even If It Hurts" Idealist School

   The Idealist school backs one of the 10 Commandments that states, "Thou shall not bear false witness". Hence, you should not lie. Idealists do not rule out deception entirely in a negotiation. Say for example that someone assumes you have something that you don't, but they never directly ask you about it. You are not expected to clarify the fact that they assume to be true. Idealists are allowed to decline to answer questions though, but they are usually uncomfortable moments. 

The Idealist School counteracts the Poker School entirely in thinking that negotiations are a "game". To Idealists, negotiations are NOT games. Negotiations are thought of as a serious, consequential act of communication. All are responsible for their actions, with possible consequences to follow.

The BIG problem with the Idealist School is sort of obvious. Anyone who strictly follows this school and all of its practices and standards can make it difficult to proceed in a discussion. Idealists also provide the grounds to be exploited by members who do not follow the same school of ethics. 

I like to think of these Idealists as Pinocchio. They cannot tell a lie, but they can still deceive in a way.

3. The "What Goes Around Comes Around" Pragmatist School

This school has some original pieces to it, but it does draw some aspects from the Idealist and Poker Schools. Deception is a necessary piece of the Pragmatist School, but it does not prefer to use misleading and overt lies if there is a practical alternative. Uniquely, Pragmatists are concerned with any potential effects on present and future relationships. Credibility is also a key aspect because both are concerned with their working relationships and protecting their reputations in a market or community. 

Pragmatists will lie a bit more often than idealists will. To enlighten this topic with an example from the book, a pragmatist will use lying and deception in a specific way. For example:

      A pragmatic car salesman considers it highly unethical to lie about anything large or small relating to the mechanical condition of a used car he is selling. But this same salesman might not have a problem saying “My manager won’t let me sell this car for less than $10,000” even though he knows the manager would sell the car for $9,500.

Again, long story short, Pragmatists are looser with the truth than Idealists, but consequences are in mind and reputations are at stake. Pragmatists do use a "so-called blocking technique". Which is basically stating "I don't know" to a question that you clearly know the answer to, but stating the answer won't move the negotiation in your favor. Idealists in this situation would either decline to answer the question, or try to change the topic.

Now, where do I fit in these three schools of bargaining ethics?

Well, there is what I would like to think and there is what I truly am. 

What I would LIKE to think is that I'm some tough as nails negotiator who doesn't give a damn and thinks of the whole thing as a game. I don't care about my reputation or lying or anything. I can rebuild if I need to, but I don't care.

That's NOT the reality of the situation.

What I think that I am is more on the side of a Pragmatist. I'm not afraid to use the blocking technique and state "I don't know" rather than avoid the question altogether like an Idealist. I somewhat think of the negotiation as a back-and-forth game, but I value reputations and credibility. I begin with the end game in mind. What I mean by this is that I am forward-thinking in terms of future business relationships. If I know that this is a one time negotiation and I will never see this person in any desired market, then I think that I stick to my guns more as in the Poker School. Most of the time, I value the relationship that I have or that I could form with the other negotiator, so I am looser with the truth, but do not flat out lie. That's not who I am. I like to think that I do not set myself up for great exploitation. But I still have a lot of work to do as a negotiator.

Thanks for reading!

I appreciate you sticking through and reading my blog post. Hopefully I provided some sort of assistance in your personal insight into the world of negotiations! 

Until next week!