Heated business disputes demand thorough negotiation since it is vital to reach a specific goal and receive benefits. As seen from the case study, Local 190 was in an uncomfortable position as a result of the proposal and implementation of a wage reduction strategy in 1983 by the Deloitte plant of Adam Baxter’s Company (ABC). This occurred because of the poor economic condition of the industry in which the firm operates. Hence my team decided we need to change the situation, and our goal was to make a deal with Baxter’s company. Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, competing firms in the same industry have suffered losses, with some cutting their employees’ wages and others ceasing operations. Therefore, we wanted to ensure that these issues are covered during the negotiation.
Provided we knew the case and the union’s position, we were prepared to negotiate the deal. As a result, our team was ready to give evidence on each matter throughout all the rounds. In addition, active listening was our main tactic; since we intended to make a deal with Baxter’s company, it was indispensable to listen to their terms. Some of the strategies we learned from the course material worked well. For example, several of our strategies, which are mostly taken from the class lectures, manuals, and articles, including low level, evasion, use of silence, good cop-bad cop, and taking one’s time, really helped us encourage our colleagues to make their information public, convince them, and achieve a favorable outcome (Steers & ‎ Osland, 2019).
The offering was amongst our best strategies because it could provide the opposing side with numerous options they did not consider before the debates. Finally, and most importantly, there was a trustful bond between the two parties, which helped reach an agreement (Steers & ‎ Osland, 2019). Especially, because the first round started with a high level of trust, the rest of the rounds went quite smooth.
The strategies and tactics used in the course of all three rounds were quite efficient since the agreement was entirely satisfactory for both parties. I think our team was confident about each piece of evidence used to reach a compromise. Given the high level of trust used as the primary strategy in the first round, we had to stick with it, as it was slightly undermined over the following rounds. Because of the mutual interest that appeared at the beginning, I can state the first round was successful. Although, the second round had sort of a distributive nature since it pivotally concerned the establishment of the wage. Therefore, it was complex to base it upon a proper level of trust. Hence, in this round, we should have been more compromising to receive more benefits. In this round, we had a defensive position since we had to protect the Me-Too-Clause because the management team used it to reduce workers’ wages. Therefore, we started negotiating powers and rights instead of focusing on the issues.
The third round showed that by putting the barbed wires across Baxter’s factory, we lost mutual trust and tried to pretend we were genuinely interested in their offers. Yet, we had to avoid discussing the solution to some problems to re-establish interest to benefit the employees and raise their wages. As a result, we implemented a collaborative approach and weight all the advantages and disadvantages that contribute to the decision-making. I think our team should have focused on mutual interests rather than powers in the final round.
The power distribution was unequal between the two teams. During negotiation, ABC was more potent regarding each issue, including employee layoff, increase in wages, and moving the plant. The main factor conditioning the lack of power for Local 190 was that the plant could still exist without their control. In our negotiation, we tried to convince ABC to compromise our interests while they were claiming their own. It is evident that ABC’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) was more effective than ours; hence, the opponents’ control was unavoidable. It also should be noted that in the actual negotiation, Local 190 was not supported by the larger unions, which caused a reduction in their power. Therefore, in our simulated negotiation, power played a significant role in reaching an agreement. We had to concede to receive benefits.
As far as it concerns reading the opposing group, I think we did not have any difficulties; yet, there were moments of slight misconceptions. I think at first we had a mutual interest in each other’s plans and goals which let us get on well. Yet, when our bond was slightly undermined, it was complicated to reconnect to fulfill the set objective. To my mind, the opponents were generally happy with the outcomes because they utterly reached their goals. In addition, I think they were content with the fact that our team conceded at some point, and they could take advantage of it. Nevertheless, I consider the outcomes of the negotiations to be successful because we received what we claimed even though there were complications in solving specific issues such as plant and employee moving. However, I suppose we could have argued more to receive additional benefits from ABC.
In my opinion, dyadic negotiation brings out a lot more questions for further discussion, which typically creates more complexities in the decision-making process. Besides, dyadic communication has a shade of personal context because its primary goal is to share views and build a relationship; therefore, it sometimes dismisses the professional context targeted at goal fulfillment. When two or more people are in the group, it is advantageous in a way that it allows for considering different perspectives on the issue and finding the most appropriate. Even though we encountered numerous inconsistencies during these negotiations, I think it was more efficient in terms of solving the problem and reaching an agreement because the dyadic approach presumes carrying out a subjective opinion. What is more, I believe it is easier to find a strategy for one opposing team instead of trying to do it for one person. In general, group negotiations are better in terms of solving a set of business issues rather than focusing on a particular problem.
Our team’s primary challenge was the error that we made when negotiating the wages in the second round. We tried to claim as much value as possible, but we had to back down because ABC had much power. Hence, our team lost control over the situation and had to diminish the demands. We were also on the verge of launching a strike but realized it would not be worth it. I think we overestimated our abilities at this point since we could lose a big deal with Baxter’s company. This is called overconfidence, which has been implemented by threatening a strike, which will only do more harm to our side, as the union members will suffer. In addition, ABC did want to comply with Local 190’s requirements which was a challenge for our team. They also set relatively low wages, which contradicted our expectations. Besides, I believe the most challenging was to regain trust from ABC because we wanted an agreement.
I think the first round created a solid ground for the following ones since we managed to establish mutual trust with the ABC representatives. The first negotiation was based upon a common interest, which partially influenced the next rounds; yet, it has also caused controversies. The cornerstone of power distribution was wage bargaining. In the second round, ABC could have decided not to comply with the requirements of the union. Therefore, this also influenced the opportunity to dismiss and replace all employees after the contract’s expiration. These events caused Local 190 to trigger a strike which would affect further interrelations. This almost resulted in a negative impact on the company’s operations. Yet, we managed to find common ground and reached an agreement despite several obstacles in the third round.
Each team member contributed equally to the negotiation. I cannot say one person was better than the other since it was a group negotiation, and altogether we have achieved the set objectives. Notably, each team member was thoroughly prepared to provide specific evidence and respond to the opponents’ questions. I think the main factor that contributed to the success of the deal was our determination and willingness to negotiate despite numerous impediments. I guess at some point we were confused by the opposing group’s decisions. Yet, we managed to regain confidence in the final round and respond to their requests in a determinative manner instead of viewing them as a severe impediment. However, we could have been more confident when discussing the incentive pays and plant moving because we did not receive each benefit we claimed. In general, I can evaluate the level of our performance as decent as we reached almost every goal even though we had to concede at some points.
The opposing team was successful during each round due to their persistence. In the course of the first negotiations, they demonstrated a genuine interest in the worrying issues, which was appealing to our team since we intended to collaborate with them. What I also admired is the way they found the argument for each of our pieces of evidence presented during all rounds. The second round of negotiation was marked by their interest in taking control over wage raises. This made them influential over us within the following rounds. Moreover, I believe that their debating skills are excellent since most of the decisions made and the results obtained were due to their negotiating power. Overall, our opponents were powerful and competitive because they demonstrated a decent level of negotiation skills and strategies. I believe it would be interesting to negotiate some other business dealings with them and collaborate in I future.
Reference
Steers, R., & ‎ Osland, J. (2019). Management across cultures: Challenges, strategies, and skills. Cambridge University Press.