Federated Science Fund Negotiation
Session 8
Federated Science Fund
Role: Stockman
Stockman: $220,000
Turbo: $190,000
United: $70,000
Summary: This was a multiparty negotiation, which involved 6 players all with very different negotiation styles. It was an exercise in which teams easily form a coalition. There were concessions about the value added each team would bring to the “table”, and my team in a situation of power saw how negatively the other teams reacted in name of fairness and how important was to share the pie.
During this exercise there was a 3-stage process: individual assessment, team’s assessment and negotiation.
1) During my individual assessment: I did a thorough analysis of what I believed it was Stockman’s fair value. My reservation price was $215,000 as I did a mean value between 230,000 and 197,000. However I was prepared to accept 197,000 in case my counterparties had convincing arguments or/and have used the Sharpley’s method for distributing the pie.
2) During Stockman’s assessment, my team: My partner was comfortable with my analysis and we rapidly agreed on the strategy. He was very favorable of having a cooperative attitude. As a team, we decided to start negotiating as a group of 3 in order to expand the pie to everyone.
3) During the teams’ assessment when we reassembled: There was a consensus that we were better off together than separately, and we decided to do a simultaneous negotiation in order to guarantee that no one was left out of the deal. Everyone wanted to have an even participation. There were two main breakpoints that change the course of the negotiation: the anchoring and a vertiginous switching of power positions.
What did I do right?
- I did the anchoring of the thought process; I presented the scenario that was more favorable to Stockman, my team. As below: - I Assumed that 480 total was the fair value and started backwards by subtracting the added-value from the person that left the deal. Based on this analysis
Federated Science Fund
Role: Stockman
Stockman: $220,000
Turbo: $190,000
United: $70,000
Summary: This was a multiparty negotiation, which involved 6 players all with very different negotiation styles. It was an exercise in which teams easily form a coalition. There were concessions about the value added each team would bring to the “table”, and my team in a situation of power saw how negatively the other teams reacted in name of fairness and how important was to share the pie.
During this exercise there was a 3-stage process: individual assessment, team’s assessment and negotiation.
1) During my individual assessment: I did a thorough analysis of what I believed it was Stockman’s fair value. My reservation price was $215,000 as I did a mean value between 230,000 and 197,000. However I was prepared to accept 197,000 in case my counterparties had convincing arguments or/and have used the Sharpley’s method for distributing the pie.
2) During Stockman’s assessment, my team: My partner was comfortable with my analysis and we rapidly agreed on the strategy. He was very favorable of having a cooperative attitude. As a team, we decided to start negotiating as a group of 3 in order to expand the pie to everyone.
3) During the teams’ assessment when we reassembled: There was a consensus that we were better off together than separately, and we decided to do a simultaneous negotiation in order to guarantee that no one was left out of the deal. Everyone wanted to have an even participation. There were two main breakpoints that change the course of the negotiation: the anchoring and a vertiginous switching of power positions.
What did I do right?
- I did the anchoring of the thought process; I presented the scenario that was more favorable to Stockman, my team. As below: - I Assumed that 480 total was the fair value and started backwards by subtracting the added-value from the person that left the deal. Based on this analysis