Appleton V. Baker

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;
In this negotiation, I partnered up with Joel to represent the Bakers and we negotiated with Kristine who represented the Appletons. We were able to reach an agreement of $9000.
· who was satisfied (answer this before comparing walkaways or comparing information);
I think that both sides were satisfied.
· did either violate his/her walkaway; if so, why?
I think Kristine violated her walkaway, but technically she didn't because her walkaway should have been what the client had told her.
· if there was a gap in walkaways, how did you bridge (or try) the gap
There was no gap, but we did talk about other options.
· did we get near the “Pareto Frontier?” or …did we “leave money on the table”…where are we on the graph?
I think we were on the frontier.
· was there anything that surprised you about the negotiation
It was not surprising, but I noticed that even though this is an imaginary situation, our emotions and nerves still get involved.

Negotiation Process: What was the process of negotiation- opening offers, sequences of offers, counteroffers, anchoring, initial offer, counteroffers? Did the other side start really high/low? What effect did this have on the negotiation?
Kristine offered first at 26k and we countered at 2k. We both talked and asked a lot of questions back and forth to try to justify our offers and discredit the others. I felt each offer was at an extreme end. If one of us had not made a high/low offer, the other person would have had an advantage.

A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)
Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent
_3_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?
_3__Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs
_5__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?
_3__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?
_4__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?
_3__How well did I try understand the other person:
_4__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;
_3__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered
_3__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints
_3__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)
_4__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs
_3__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position
_5__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement
_5__Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark
_5__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”
_4__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…
_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person
_5__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before
_4__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)
_4__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"
_4__Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.


Did we use the Techniques of Principled Negotiation: (did the other party?)…If not, what blocked it? yes
· listen, be warm and friendly; avoid quarreling; ask questions, ask questions, ask questions, ask clarification, rephrase I think we could have asked more questions
· be open to persuasion I was more interested in persuading than being persuaded
· be principled (“You want to pay….I need …Can you think of ways that is fairer than splitting
· turn the interaction from adversarial haggling into side-b-side solving of the problem of what is fair. We could have done better

For Yourself: General Conclusion: In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;
I think next time I am going to try to do more to find out where the other person is coming from, before and during the negotiation.
· What were keys to the negotiation being successful or unsuccessful I think with our ZOPA it was hard not to be successful.
· What would you do differently if you were to do this same negotiation again
Not much, research the other side a little more and think about why they want to sell.
· what did you learn about yourself? About negotiations What tendencies do you have in negotiation that you need to be careful about (too aggressive, too likely to quit searching for solutions once your; What do you feel you need to work on? What would you do differently next time? I have to make an effort to be assertive.
· What did you learn in general?If this were a real case, what obstacles to joint problem-solving might you encounter; how would you overcome them?
I learned that negotiating is a good skill to work on. I think a real case would intensify some of the emotions and feelings that were present in the case. I think I would try to be prepared with my homework so that I could be confident in my position and not be subject to the emotion.

January 9: Nature of Negotiation

The first negotiations class was very interesting. When Prof. Wertheim had some students participate in the nickel auction, my thoughts on the exercise completely changed. My initial thought about the exercise were based on some theories I had learned in other business and economics courses. I made the assumption that the other person would always outbid the previous person until they had no financial incentive to do so. I figured that the best way to do well would be to put the initial bid at 4 cents so that the other person had no incentive to bid higher. During the discussion I realized that I should not have assumed that the other person was always going to outbid the other. It was a little difficult for me to accept this at first. The professor explained that when two people are working something out there should never be money left on the table. That was when I really got a different perspective on the negotiation process. I realized that when you are negotiating you are working in your own best interests, but you are trying to come to an agreement that is acceptable to both sides. The point of the negotiation is to avoid having the other person just outbid you every time so that nobody makes any money.
The Elmtree negotiation was the next case that we went through as a class. This case seemed pretty straightforward. I found the process of determining your walkaway price, estimating the other party's walkaway price, and estimating a zone of possible agreement to be very logical and I can see that it is a very useful thing to do. I also found the discussion on whether to make the first offer or not to be interesting. I look forward to developing my negotiation skills in this class and cant wait to see what is in store for the rest of the semester.