In the “Cascade Manor” dialogue I played the function of co-chief metropolis contriver. I was portion of a squad, partnered with the other co-chief metropolis contriver and the city’s fiscal manager. It was our undertaking to negociate a trade with a development corporation who wanted to construct a residential lodging community to regenerate the historic territory of our metropolis. We devised a scheme on how we would open and negociate on the issues. Using this scheme we were able to hold to a trade with the developers. and walk off with a ample sum of the “pie”. This case study paper will look at how offering multiple bundle trades help the negotiant claim resources, and suggests thoughts on how to develop an effectual multiple offer scheme.
Thompson (2004) lists package trades and doing coincident multiple offers as a good scheme for win-win dialogues. Constructing bundle trades avoids the error of individual issue dialogue, which makes tradeoffs hard, impasse more likely, and “lure negotiants into via media agreements” (Thompson, 2004). By developing a good bundle, a negotiant can besides guarantee that he/she claims resources while spread outing the pie, For illustration, in our dialogue we decided that achieving the maximal figure of local contractors was an of import issue to us with respects to claiming. If we decided to negociate that individual issue. we would hold decidedly failed because we were dickering for the maximal sum. If we asked for the maximal sum, the negotiated sum would stop up being someplace in between the maximal sum they were willing to profess and the minimal sum we were willing to accept.
In order to accomplish the maximal figure of local contractors. we created a packaged offer that included leting the developer to construct to their maximal tallness. The height issue was of far less fiscal importance to the metropolis. than usage of local contractors. However we suspected that tallness was really of import to the developers because it allowed for more residents. which translates into more paying renters. Packaging allowed us to claim much more financially. than we would hold if each issue ( local contractors and tallness ) were negotiated individually.
There are five benefits to doing multiple offers in a dialogue ( Thompson. 2004 ) . The first benefit is the ability to sharply ground the dialogue by being the first to offer. Second. utilizing multiple offers allows the negotiant to derive better information about the other side by detecting the reactions to each offer. Next. holding multiple offers allows the negotiant to be more relentless. He/She does non hold to blow clip working on a new offer if the first is rejected. Another benefit relates to the persuasive power gained sing the value of the offer. The other side is more likely to believe in the value of your trade if they know you have taken the clip to make multiple offers. Finally. supplying multiple offers to the other party allows them to “overcome grant aversion” . which means that by supplying picks they are more likely to come to an understanding.
I believe another benefit from using multiple offers in dialogue relates to the facet of claiming resources. Developing multiple offers encourages negotiants to utilize some of the 10 basic schemes to better claiming ( pie-slicing ) discussed by Thompson ( 2004 ) . For illustration. two of the schemes say that a negotiant should “set high aspirations” and “make the first offer. ” By utilizing a multiple offer attack. a negotiant can include an offer that aims high on all the issues. and utilize this offer as the initial offer to ground the dialogue. For illustration. in the “Cascade Manor” simulation. one of our offers was focused on acquiring the maximal sum of money possible. We used this offer as our opening ground tackle point. to the full anticipating a rejection. Afterwards. we followed up by at the same time subjecting two more offers that asked for less. but that really contained much of what we truly wanted in the first topographic point. In add-on. planning to profess on some issues and trying to be just are besides good resource claiming schemes. Negotiators use both of these schemes when developing multiple offers. For case. we knew that we needed to do grants to the development corporation in order for them to hold to a trade. By developing our multiple bundle offers we were forced to make up one’s mind which issues we were willing to profess on for each bundle. Having these grants included in each offer besides made us look to be just to the other side.
Harmonizing to Thompson ( 2004 ) there are three parts to the multiple offer scheme: create multiple packaged offers ( i. e. more than one issue in each offer ) . do certain each offer is equal in value to you. and subject all the offers at the same clip. After working through the “Cascade Manor” simulation. I would merely hold to one of these strategic points. It is important. when claiming resources. that negotiants create multiple bundle offers. alternatively of multiple individual issue offers for grounds discussed antecedently. However. I would differ that each bundle must be of equal value and all made at the same clip.
I found that our scheme of holding one offer that went for the most fiscal addition on all issues. and offering this as our first individual offer. was a good manner for us to calculate out what the other side valued the most. For illustration. one of the issues concerned who the edifice inspector should be. While we were puting out the issues of our first offer. I noticed that they had a positive reaction when we stated who we wanted as inspector. which was a hint that this was perchance a compatible issue. The antonym was besides true. we could state which issues hurt them the most financially. and could utilize this information for make up one’s minding what issue ( s ) to utilize for possible tradeoffs. I think if all the offers were equal in value and submitted at the same clip. we may non hold figured out the compatible issues as easy.
Alternatively of the three portion scheme for multiple offers discussed by Thompson ( 2004 ) . I would propose a six portion scheme. First. make an gap packaged offer that is composed of the most profitable pick for each issue. If an issue has no set bounds. so take a maximal sum that is within ground for that issue. Second. carefully analyze each issue as if you were the other side. The intent of this is to make up one’s mind which issues you can profess on that more valuable to the other party than they are to you. i. e. the edifice height issue antecedently discussed. Next. create at least two bundles of equal value that contain the most profitable picks on half of the issues. Lower your net income on the staying issues. which are those you antecedently decided to profess on. The 4th measure involves run intoing with the other party and subjecting your opening bundle. If possible. read aloud your offer for each issue in the bundle.
Carefully observe the other party’s reaction as you read. The intent here is to seek and “read” the other side. looking for hints to compatible and incompatible issues. Next. after they have rejected your first offer. subject your equal value offers all at the same clip. Since these offers are lower than your first. you have already made the first move of the “negotiation dance” ( Thompson. 2004 ) . Finally. be prepared to do alterations to your equal value offers. but do certain the alterations are tradeoffs so the overall value does non alter. In the terminal. you should be able to come to a win-win understanding in which you have claimed a ample sum of the pie.
Thompson. L. ( 2004 ) . The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. 3rd Edition.