Learning points Everything is negotiable Some groups do not understand why there is a discussion b/w Jones & Roland

because Cardoza owns the oranges Process of negotiation involvesone or more of the following phases 1. Angels vs. Devils perspective 2. Original view as classic zero-sum distributional situation

3. Can reach Impasse/Compromise/Integrative agreement a. If agreement, then planing how to implement agreement because of prior hostile relationship i. Hire third party ii. Implement contract

For those who reached integrative agreement Focus on interest vs. positions Position=I need all of the oranges Interest= I need the rinds/juice of all the oranges Effective communication Information exchange is power

Good questioning/good revealing

e.g,. Why do you need oranges? What do you need it for? oAccidental disclosure Luck

For those who reached agreement 1. Exchange of information when asked what do you need the oranges for, the answer I need the juice came a. Accidentally b. From further elaboration getting really specific (e.g., not just I need it to help people, but I need x to create y). Info disclosure may be inhibited if parties are suspicious of each other stealing company secrets etc. Also, other party may not be paying attention because of the stress of the hostile relations b/w the two parties c. When they were cornered by the threats made by the other party

d. Some asked What part of the orange do you need? which resulted in the solution (This was based on previous experience of the negotiator). 2. Sub-optimal agreements (e.g., 50-50 compromise; 7030 agreements) were made when a. parties used their status (I am with the government), b. seemingly rational arguments (loss of adult lives is worse than loss of infant life) to persuade the other, c. Spoke of their positions only in abstract e.g., I am saving pregnant women vs. I am saving infants or d. Answered the why question in the abstract (e.g., I need the oranges to save pregnant women vs. I need

the oranges to save infants) rather than in the concrete (I need the juice/rind to make the serum). e. Engaged in unethical behavior while making agreements (e.g., one party offered the other negotiator a job if that negotiator gave in to the first partys wishes)

Implementation of agreement 1. Is important because of prior hostile relationship 2. After reaching agreement, both parties made a contract in which they could (one or more of options below): a. Decided to make the bid together (rather than compete for the bid so they could negotiate for a lower price). b. The savings from joint bid was used to pay for the 3rd party to remove rind and deliver the juice and rind to the different parties. This 3rd party

could be Cordoza, which would give them an advantage in the bidding. c. Oranges would be delivered to one party that would extract the juice and deliver the rinds to other party
d. Some would under-bid and over bid so that they could jointly sabotage the bidding process to favor each other and eliminate the competition e. Agreements and discussion were video recorded to ensure implementation

How to obtain win-win solutions? Information: Ask why questions, give detailed info to the same question from your own side (rather than giving info in the abstract, or waiting for the other party to answer why). Make the pie bigger In ugli orange
Withdrew the lawsuits against each other as part of the agreement, The party that would do the processing & make the product first would give the other party credit in name and in their Press releases

 e.g., House purchase (adding furniture into house purchase; save broker fees) e.g., Mortgage broker (add aeroplan points instead of lower interest rate) e.g., Salary negotiation (e.g., lower base vs. higher bonus) Think about the situation in new ways engage in creative problem solving (e.g., think about orange as 2 (or more) objects, rather than as one object) think of the objects under negotiation in a different way

 Present disagreeable options first, make other party feel guilty who then agrees to last option (not sure this will lead to win-win solutions) Get progressive agreement on little issues, and then move on to larger issues What are examples of win-win solutions in real-life? 1. Franchise-franchiser agreements one party gets local control whereas other party benefits from national advertising 2. TTC employee wage negotiation they negotiated for a tax cut rather than a salary raise

3. Some real-estate agencies offer higher percentage of the sale price to the broker whereas others offer perquisites as part of completing sale instead of a higher percentage. 4. Recent (04-05) Raptor trade Vince Carter traded to NJ and money left over plus two more players 5. Governments persuade companies to be more environmentally friendly by giving them tax-relief 6. Army recruits low SES youth into low paying jobs by promising to teach them skills and provide them with work experience. In return, such recruits do defense and humanitarian work. 7. Government sells immigration policy to the public by arguing that migrant workers do jobs that

no citizen wants to do, at low wages. This benefits not only the migrants who benefit from a job and from living in the country but also the citizens of the country who can purchase services/products of low paying jobs. Is this exercise realistic? 1. Yes, issues would be the similar in real life in terms of morality of positions 2. Yes, party inequalities would be the same -- some will have more or less power (e.g., provincial vs. federal negotiations)

8. Yes, parties negotiating will often have prior hostile relationship and seemingly conflicting agendas 3. Yes, parties have to negotiate because they are accountable to their organizations e.g., constituencies 4. Yes, parties perceive self-importance of their own cause 5. No, not realistic bec. doctors would never negotiate w/each other-- lawyers and governing bodies would be involved

6. No, some parties would use a mediator

For parties that didnt come to agreement 1. Prior hostile relationship between parties prevented information exchange, although they understood each others situation, their own priorities came first. Info exchange was mainly for own priorities (e.g., what the other party will be bidding) rather than to come to an optimal agreement

9. Although there was open communication, a. the personality of one party (selfish, arrogance, inability to look at the overall situation) prevented parties from coming to a compromise/agreement, b. particular ways of viewing the negotiation situation (e.g. made negotiation out to be about money & compromise) c. too stressed to listen to the other partys detailed communication 3. Lack of trust because of prior hostile relationship

4. Framed it as a moral dilemma: between death of children vs. death of people which cause is worth more? 5. Deception/lying prevented optimal agreement in that the person who lied had to compromise in the end 6. Both parties tried to exercise leverage on each other moral vs. information leverage 7. Some parties did not compromise because they felt they had a legal/moral right (e.g., Im from the government)

8. Time pressure prevented agreement