Neil Davies

1/30/2014
Comms 336

Negotiation analysis
The situation that I was given for this negotiation assignment was the role of
P.W. Roland, a production manager for the San Jose Mercury News. During this
negotiation my assigned goal was to find a way to attain three-thousand oranges
which were considered to be extremely rare. The problem that was given was that I
would be in competition for these oranges with a competing company that wished
to use these same oranges for medicinal purposes. For me to successfully navigate
this assignment I decided that I would need to learn the goals of my competitor,
potentially re-evaluate and change my initial goals, and use strategic techniques to
negotiate and successfully attain the oranges while saving my company the
maximum amount of money.
When starting this role-play scenario I initially read the prompt and jumped to
many conclusions that I later found to be wrong. The first of which was noticing that
the green paper (my paper) said nothing about the competitions need for these
oranges. It stated that their doctor, Dr. Jones, had developed a synthetic chemical
for curing and preventing Rudosen, however, it said nothing specific about needing
these oranges for her research. This lack of information on my part lead me to my
first goal, which was to find out IF the other team did in fact need these oranges,
and what exactly where they needed for.

When I met with my two other classmates to begin negotiations, we started

by clarifying the specific needs that we each had. The first thing I asked was what
they specifically needed the oranges for because my paper did not expressly state
it. I learned that they did in fact need them; however, I learned that they only
needed the juice of the oranges while I, on the other hand, only needed the skins of
the oranges. This quickly got my mind working, setting new goals and looking for
new ways that our two different groups could collaborate and compromise.
One of my personal goals of this negotiation activity was to use something
known as the anchoring technique. Anchoring is a cognitive bias that explains a
human tendency to focus too much on already given information. The anchoring
effect was a theory first described by two Palestinian mathematic-psychologists,
Amon Tversky and Daniel Kahnmen. The theory, in terms of negotiation, explains
that by giving a set of information first, or making the initial offering, ensures that
all other negotiations rotate around that first number, thus you are anchoring a
price or idea in the mind of your competition. So for example if I wish to sell a car
for $50,000 and someone else wants to buy it for only $20,000, if Im the first to say
$50,000 then the negotiations will stay relatively close to my price rather than
theirs, and vice-versa.
What this meant for me and my goals, was that I had the desire to set a very
low price in negotiations, as well as be the first one to make an offer, so that the
competition would now be dealing closer to my terms rather than theirs. However,
once we talked and realized one anothers goals it became clear that it wasnt going
to be a simple decision of haggling over a price.

What put me at an advantage was that my two negotiating competitors didnt

quite understand the prompt. They seemed to be under the impression that I had
the oranges they wanted and that they had to go through me to get them. So from
the beginning they started making me offers to buy oranges that I didnt have.
Once we clarified we were able to get underway and fully begin our negotiations.
The solution that I achieved was different from my earlier goals, but also
better in several ways. We came to the understanding that I only needed the orange
peels, and they only needed the orange juice. So we struck a deal that I would buy
the oranges myself, peel them, and then sell them everything except for the peels
for $18,000. In exchange for this generous price for them, they explained that they
would attribute me and my organization in the development and research of this
Rudosen cure. This seemed like a good deal to me because now my company would
be receiving good PR.
However, while the good PR would be a plus, the part that I was most proud
of was that I basically eliminated my competition from this bidding war. In this
scenario we are two competing companies vying for the same product. By entering
into an agreement with the competing company to sell them the oranges after I buy
them means that I could now buy the oranges for whatever price that I want. In the
scenario description we were told that the oranges would be sold to the highest
bidder. This arrangement made me the sole bidder, which meant that I could now
buy the oranges for a price of $2,000 and make a $16,000 profit for my company
when I sell the oranges to the medical researches. And on top of that I would be
buying the oranges first, which meant that I would get the first and best selection of
oranges for my companys needs.

This solution very much differed from my earlier goals. My earlier goals did
not take into account the fact that each organization would have separate uses for
the oranges, and be able to divide up the parts for our individual needs. Initially my
goals were to low-ball the competition and try to get them on a lower price;
however, once we discussed our organizations goals and needs we both understood
that it wasnt as simple as haggling over a singular price.
When looking at the fisher handout I began to circle negotiation tactics that I
wanted to try and ones that I wanted to avoid. I looked at the soft side and the hard
side, picking and choosing what attributes/tactics seemed best. On the soft side I
felt that I should be willing to change positions easily, make offers, search for the
single answer, and most importantly, understand that the goal is agreement. I also
felt that I should avoid trusting others, believing that the participants are friends,
and disclosing my bottom line. In the hard column I felt I should distrust others,
mislead as to my bottom line, and make sure that I remember that my participants
are my adversaries. There were several traits that I felt to avoid such as making
threats and demand concessions as a condition of the relationship.
When looking at the Fisher handout, I primarily focused on my personal
strengths and weaknesses. I knew that I can be too trusting of a person and that I
want to compromise and collaborate. I also knew that I am bad at putting pressure
on my competition and being tough competition. So the benefit of the Fisher
handout for me was that I was able to recognize my bad habits and focus on trying
to change them.
Overall this exercise gave me the opportunity to work on my negotiation
tactics, specifically the ones where I felt I was weakest. While I may not have

achieved all of my personal goals while negotiating, such as holding firm on a price
or mistrusting the competition, I was still able to achieve my more important goals
and feel that I came out on top of my competition. I learned that one needs to be
fluid in their goals and achievements, especially in terms of negotiation, and that
coming to a mutually beneficial solution doesnt mean that I have failed as a
negotiator. Thanks to this exercise I will be more prepared the next time I negotiate.