Nottingham University Business School

Undergraduate Programmes

PURCHASING STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES

THE REFLECTIVE REPORT OF THE NEGOTIATION EXERCISE

Student Name: NGO MY NGAN LE

Student ID: 4237670

COPY 2

INTRODUCTION

1

The case indicates five negotiating issues that Boston team (my team) needs to put on the

bargaining table with Fresh Air, particularly they are gates, headquarter, transportation, training and

tax abatement. After discussion session, my team drew up a plan including favourable positions and

maximum positions for each issue. Maximum positions are results may put us into disadvantageous

conditions but we can compromise with Fresh Air. Our task is: Geogre Butter is the main negotiator

for all issues relating to gates, Eleanor Barnes for headquarter and transportation, Anvar Hamzayev

for tax abatement and I for training. Overall, actual results are quite far away from my team’ first

expectation. In my perspective, inadequate preparation combing with getting emotional leading

to tense atmosphere are main causes for unfavourable results. The rationale for presenting these

issues in my report is because they happened in both negotiating teams and for me; they

contributed to about 80% of my team’s negotiation failure. The report is structured as two parts

corresponding with two issues mentioned above. Each part has descriptions of conditions result in

issues combining with my own analysis about the rationale behind them and also recommendations

about what I and my teammates can do differently to have better results.

ISSUE 1- INADEQUATE PREPARATIONAlthough my team indicated favourable and maximum positions, in my viewpoint, our

preparation was still insufficient before we start to negotiate with Fresh Air. This inadequacy was

partly due to time constraints but the main reason was that my team did not truly put ourselves into

our partner’s shoes to understand their interests and propose a viable package. During the

negotiating process, my team many times felt surprised towards reactions from the partner for

our recommendations because we did not anticipate sufficiently their possible behaviour. This

leaded us to passive position and pushed our first expected results far away. Moreover, surprise

and confusion were also happened in Fresh Air’s team through the fact that they exposed their

interpersonal conflicts in front of my team when arguing three options proposed from us

regarding headquarter and incentive package.

To solve inadequate preparation issue, Burt, Dobler and Starling (2003, p.464) introduced the

use of a crib sheet as a powerful preparation tool for negotiations. Crib sheet includes the expected

agenda, negotiating issues with most favourable positions (maximum and minimum positions)

and compromise positions as well as the BATNA. Moreover, it also notes down behaviour that

negotiators should and should not do during the negotiation. Thanks to crib sheet, each

negotiating team member would have an official document to which they can refer, act, and the

most important thing is to direct negotiation around positions listed in the sheet . The following

figure is a sample crib sheet illustrating this recommendation. 2

Figure: A sample crib sheet (Burt, Dobler and Starling, 2003, p.465)

3

However, it is obvious that we cannot have a perfect preparation because nothing is

perfect. Sometimes the team needs to adjust its strategy. A recess is always an option but

managers do not prefer this way because they do not want signal a need to adjust strategy (Brett,

Friedman and Behfar, 2009). The alternatives are using gestures and postures that agreed

previously in the team or passing notes when team members sit together. If members sit apart, text

messaging may be a useful tool for intrateam communication.

ISSUE 2 – GETTING EMOTIONAL AND TENSE ATMOSTPHEREBrett, Friedman and Behfar ‘s article in 2009 warned negotiating teams that the biggest

challenge may come from their own side of the table. This is illustrated obviously from both sides in

our negotiating process. In the initial stage arguing about gates, due to uncontrollable emotions,

Geogre and Eleanor talked the same time; then in the second stage about headquarter and

incentive package, five members of Fresh Air team talked together. This made no one listen and

understand the whole points of others. At the end of the negotiation, when I discussed with my

friend who is in Fresh Air team, she told that her team mentioned about incentive package with 7M

and MIP for the headquarter location. If my team heard about that, we might agree because it not

only meets Fresh Air’s desire but also prevents us from the police’s protest due to cutting down their

financial support to give to Fresh Air. Thus, more than two people talking at the same time let us not

identify all the other’ interests but also made the negotiating atmosphere tense.

Moreover, it cannot be denied that my teammates- Geogre and Eleanor got too emotional and

then became irrationally intransigent toward the other side. The most obvious evidence for this was

when Fresh Air threatened us by repeating again and again that San Francisco offered them 8M for

incentive package, Geogre reacted irrationally and without discussing with the whole time that

Boston would also offer 8M. Furthermore, he also flashbacked by a threat that Fresh Air had to

choose among three options:1) BWTC + 5 M for tax and training 2) Downtown + 8M up to their

division or 3) nothing. Eleanor also advocated with Geogre’s opinion and showed a challenging

behaviour to the other side. These undisciplined behaviours escalated tense atmosphere of the

negotiation. According to Mangione (2010), tense atmosphere creates negative emotions for all

negotiators and as a result, no agreement or committed an unworkable plan is likely to happen. In

our case, tense atmosphere leaded us to a relatively unworkable plan with a lot of risks:

First, we agreed with Fresh Air to allow them to use two gates in terminal E and then from

Year 3 four gates in terminal C, which surely causes huge anger from the other LCC

FlyTron, negative publicity about both Logan Airport and Boston as well as damages

Boston’s reputation to future partners who intend to invest to the city. 4

Second, about headquarter and incentive package, despite reaching an agreement that Fresh

Air will use downtown building as expected, we had to trade off 8M incentive package which

may lead to the police’s protest.

The next section is recommendations to reduce getting emotional and tense atmosphere in

negotiations. Burt, Dobler and Starling (2003, p.463) proposed that successful negotiators often take

to a lot of time on developing a suitable agenda before sitting down at the table. The suitable

agenda sequences negotiating issues based on their probable ease of agreement . Thanks to this,

an atmosphere of cooperation and momentum can develop that may facilitate the solving the more

difficult issues. To apply in our case, issues about gates should be discussed after ones about

headquarter because gates at the airport are likely a more sensitive and important issue for an airline

compared to headquarter location. In the negotiation, our instructor decided which team starts first

by tossing the coin; however, in the future, my team should actively begin to assure the sequence

of negotiation following our intention. The next suggestion to solve the issue is assigning suitable

roles for team members. Fisher, Ury and Patton in their book” Getting to Yes” published in 1991

stated that a wise agreement in collaborative negotiations results from identifying basic interests,

mutually satisfying options and fair standards. Thus, the lead negotiator, who does most of the

important talking, should be changed to one who is calm, enables to encourage Fresh Air talk more

about their interests and uses positive statements. For me, Anvar instead of Geogre is a suitable

candidate for a lead negotiator of my team because he is the calmest and also has an ability to make

others share more about themselves. This conclusion was based on my team conversation about life

in Nottingham during our break. Regarding to the final criteria of a lead negotiator, Burt, Dobler and

Starling (2003, p.469) discussed that when negotiators use positive statements showing their

sympathy for the partner’s viewpoint even though the negotiator disagrees with it, the partner is

more likely to consider the negotiator’s viewpoint objectively. Thus, my team could response to the

threat from Fresh Air by wiser turns like “naming” tactic proposed by Kolb (2004). Particularly,

the writer recommended we could apply this tactic by replying that “ You and I both know that will

mean more work for you”, then showing Boston’s advantages like young , well-educated and cheap

labour which Fresh Air really desires for their business; and especially less LCC competition than is

found in the other finalist cities. However, naming tactic is categorized as a restorative turn,

which may put the other party on the defensive. Thus, a participative turn like “diverting” should

be put into consideration. According to Kolb (2004), participative turns shift the focus to the

problem itself, treat with the other party as a partner not an opponent and open up the dialogue in

ways that restorative turns are not likely to do. In particular, my team could divert the threat from

Fresh Air party by replying “We know things are tight, but we want to explore some other ideas with

5

you”. Overall, using separately or combining restorative and participative turns are possible ways

for us to cope with threats wisely and break negotiation deadlocks.

CONCLUSIONOverall, inadequate preparation as well as getting emotional leading to tense atmosphere was

roots for unfavourable outcomes of the negotiation. Based on analysis and suggestions presented

above, steps to avoid these issues and have a more favourable negotiation can be generalised as

follows:

1) Prepare a good crib sheet with a suitable agenda, a clear description of favourable and

compromise positions as well as desirable behaviours.

2) Assign suitable roles for team members

3) Use both restorative and participative turns to react the partner’s moves (prior to participative

turns)

4) Use a recess or more secret methods like tacit gestures and postures, note passing and text

messaging when the team needs to adjust the strategy.

REFERENCESBrett, J., Friedman, R. and Behfar, K. (2009). How to manage your negotiating team. Harvard

Business Review, 87(9), pp.105-109.6

Burt, D., Starling, S. and Dobler, D. (2003). World class supply management. Boston: McGraw-

Hill/Irwin.

Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books.

Kolb, D. (2004). Staying in the Game or Changing It: An Analysis of Moves and Turns in

Negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 20(2), pp.253-268.

Mangione, C. (2010). Negotiation Strategies: Ask for it!. 1st ed. [ebook] Available at:

http://dgsomdiversity.ucla.edu/workfiles/lectures/Mangione-Negotiation-May2010.pdf

[Accessed 3 Dec. 2014].

(Word count: 1634)

7