Essay Instructions: Negotiating the Path of Abraham,
The text is in the resources, answer these questions according to the text.
1. The evolution of the enterprise over time? With the Abraham Path Initiative (API)
serving as the means to enable the realization of the Abraham Path (AP) itself, at least
two broad shifts were contemplated: 1) a shift of the center of gravity and emphasis
from the API in North America to AP-linked activities in the Middle East, and 2) a
possible shift??"over time--from largely autonomous in-country organizations
developing “their” Paths to a somewhat more regionally integrated entity. Were these
the right shifts, and, if so, how best could they be managed?
2. The right organization and governance? There are at least three emerging
organizational entities: the international “center,” the in-country operational entities,
and the supporting organizations in countries like Brazil and the UK (“Friends of the
Abraham Path”). What should be the right structure and governance among these
entities? With an eye toward its likely evolution, should the API be thought of as the
headquarters with country branches? As a holding company with national
subsidiaries? As a franchisor whose franchisees have more or less autonomy? As a
loosely coupled collection of strategic partner entities in North America and the
Middle East? In the right organizational structure, what functions are best
centralized? Devolved? Where should decision rights for various classes of choices
best be lodged?
3. Parallel v. sequential emphasis? With a sharp retrenchment in funding and varying
progress in different countries, were the organization’s resources spread too thinly
over too many in-country organizations? While the long-term goal of a
comprehensive Path throughout the region was unshakeable, should scarce resources
be more focused on one country such as Palestine, Jordan, or Syria? Were actual
results on the ground??"a successful “demonstration” project??"the most potent
“selling” tool for to get the rest of the Path up and running?
4. Scope and nature of API actions to create the AP? So far, the Initiative has mainly
acted to enable the creation of the Path in countries of the region, but has not sought
to become, for example, a tour owner/operator. Are there clear lines between
activities the API will itself undertake and those it will leave to others, but perhaps
catalyze? Where and on what terms should it partner with other entities?
“Open source” v. hierarchy to create the AP? With sharply limited resources when
measured against the challenge of creating the Path, how could the Initiative stimulate
and channel the keen interest of the many people in and out of the region who may
wish to contribute to the Path’s development in different ways (e.g., from cash
contribution, to working physically on a segment, to researching a site)? How could
eager volunteers contribute without over-burdening the already stretched international
and in-country staffs? To what extent should an “open source” model??"like
Wikipedia, Burning Man, or software projects such as Mozilla (Firefox)??"be pursued
in which a center heavily stimulates and coordinate efforts of others?
4. The Path as platform? As now contemplated, the Path itself is intended to enable
travel and economic development. Is it best designed for these kinds of specific
purposes or more as a platform for as-yet-unrealized activities by groups not yet
envisioned? If so, how?
5. Funding? So far, the API has relied heavily on large donors, with some smaller
donors and online initiatives. It is currently focused on gaining foundation support. Is
this the right financial model, especially given the sharp economic downturn? Should
the API depend more on revenues from walkers, licensing fees, royalties from
potential strategic partners, or something else? How can potential funds from
governments and multilateral institutions be tapped, especially for supporting cultural
tourism and economic development?
6. “Air” v. “ground” activities? More than twenty proposals for documentaries have
been received by the API. The keen appetite of reporters, producers, documentary
film-makers, and writers to produce programs on the Initiative and the Path could
lead to a potentially disconnect: major media coverage that stimulates worldwide
demand to walk the Path, while in-country organizations struggle to make the
fledgling Path an on-the-ground reality. How can this tension best be managed?
7. Risk management? What are the biggest risks to the successful development of the
AP and how can they best be managed? A terrorist incident? Damaging rumors
about the nature or “secret” purposes of the enterprise? Persistent efforts to frame the
enterprise in terms that have not resonated with, or have even offended, the interests
of local sponsors and supporters (e.g., peace, interfaith dialog) versus the framing that
has mainly attracted local support (e.g., economic development, tourism, youth)?
Insensitive actions by travellers (e.g., efforts to convert others)? Having the name
(“Abraham Path”) or other intellectual property hijacked or stolen for purposes
inconsistent with the vision?
8. The Name? Should the enterprise continue to be known as “The Abraham Path
Initiative” and the route as “The Abraham Path?” Is “the” a bit exclusionary? Should
it be more possessive, like “Abraham’s Path?” Inclusive of Sarah and Hagar? Ought
the “Initiative” suggest more of a network, like “Friends of Abraham’s Path??"Brazil”
or “Friends of Abraham’s Path??"International”? Or something else?
There are faxes for this order.
Excerpt From Essay:
Essay Instructions: * Note from student:
Hi, this is for a graduate-level course called ?Negotiating?, one of the courses for my graduate program, Arts Management. Attached below are the instructions on the assignment and the textbooks for you to refer to. To give you a better idea on what was covered in this class, I have also attached additional reading materials for you to refer to, such as the instructions and my reflections on the two simulations that I did in class, and the two assignments that I submitted. This will help you better understand some of the concepts and language covered in the class.
Write THREE double-spaced pages for Part I and II all together. (Perhaps 1 page for Part I and 2 pages for Part II??? Or allocate an equal amount of space for all 4 questions. It?s up to you.)
* For this assignment, you MUST refer to the following textbook:
Shell, G. Richard, Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People, Penguin Books (1999) Chapter 8-12 and/or
Lax, David and Sebenius, James. The Manager as Negotiator; Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York, NY: The Free Press. 1986.
* Instructions on the Assignment:
This exam has TWO parts. You are required to complete all of them. Further instructions are provided under each section below. You may certainly use short hand terms we have discussed in class, e.g., BATNA, ZOPA, interests and such. Page limits and points are specified in each Part.
Part I: PICK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS BELOW
Maximum Length: 1 double-spaced pages; 10 points
1. How do you think we should understand the term ?negotiating power?? Where does negotiating power come from? How are differences in power felt? What advice would you give to a party who feels they are at a disadvantage because the other side appears to have significantly more bargaining power?
2. One sound piece of negotiation advice seems to be to ?separate the people from the problem.? What would you do, as in many disputes, where the people are part of the problem? How would you negotiate differently? What communication principles would be relevant?
3. Characterize your style as a negotiator (competitive, collaborative, avoiding, etc.). To what extent do you think your effectiveness is a function of that style? What special considerations should you make when undertaking a negotiation? Support your answer with examples.
(* If you decide to choose this question, you should refer to the assignments I have attached below, especially assignment #2 and my reflection on Simulation I and II, and My conclusion from Simulation I and II. This will give you an idea on my negotiating style.
To give you additional information, my negotiation style is ?Compromise?. I tend to compromise to avoid conflict and tension, and tend to find a middle ground, which is not the best but okay for both parties. Maybe because of my Asian cultural background, I tend to be a bit less ?task-oriented? and less aggressive or assertive in claiming my value and positioning. Instead, I would like to maintain ?give and take? attitude in a way that I give up one and expect my partner to give up one for me to be fair. This leads me to find a middle ground, which is often an okay deal for both parties. I tend to focus on ?relationship-building? than winning the deal, so I can continue my business relationship with my partner, which tends to make me a bit passive in negotiating. Anyway, refer to the assignments and my reflections on the two simulations attached below if you want to choose this question.)
Part II: PICK THREE OF THE QUOTATIONS BELOW
For each of your choices, (1) explain how you understand/interpret the quotation using concepts and language from the course (2) explain whether you agree with the assertion and why or why not. Remember that a good critical evaluation includes raising potential objections to your viewpoint and addressing them.
Maximum Length: 1 double-spaced pages for each quotation; 10 points each
Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. John F. Kennedy
He who has learned to disagree without being disagreeable has discovered the most valuable secret of a diplomat Robert Estabrook
My father said: "You must never try to make all the money that's in a deal. Let the other fellow make some money too, because if you have a reputation for always making all the money, you won't have many deals.? J. Paul Getty
No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies Dean Acheson
Never forget the power of silence, that massively disconcerting pause which goes on and on and may at last induce an opponent to babble and backtrack nervously. Lance Morrow
If you're going to skin a cat, don't keep it as a house cat. Marvin S. Levin
Only free men can negotiate. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts. Nelson Mandela
Information is a negotiator's greatest weapon. Victor Kiam
Let every eye negotiate for itself and trust no agent. William Shakespeare
Flattery is the infantry of negotiation Lord Chandos (Oliver Lyttelton)
*ADDITIONAL READING MATERIALS
The Manager as Negotiator :
Creating artistic and financial value in commercial arts negotiations
According to the guidebook The Manager as Negotiator, the very essence of negotiation is creating and claiming value. Every person in a negotiation strives to advance his or her interests and maximize his or her advantages. The goal of the process is ultimately to attempt to bridge the gap, ideally, between two different points of view by creating a more equitable solution that improves upon either party?s narrowly advanced interests.
David Lax?s and James Sebenius? illustration of this principle is that of bartering. For example, two persons with different material goods, such as bananas and pears, are able to come to an better agreement if they can arrive at a fair price, than they would be had they refused to trade at all, as both will have more variety of foodstuffs in the long run. However, this example can prove difficult when one party attempts to transpose this assumption onto the field of the arts. In business negotiations, finances tend to dominate. No matter how divided the two parties are in terms of how they see an issue, usually the crucial matter involves dollars and cents. Likewise, in a divorce settlement, emotions and the welfare of the children often dominate the proceedings, even though finances are also an issue. Regardless, both parties tend to view the proceeding from the same paradigm?either primarily from a professional or a personal standpoint.
However, when negotiating between artists and management, quite often the issues of professionalism and personal integrity become intermixed. Also, the two parties involved, labor and management, often come from very different worlds. While ?the money? or the producers may look first and foremost at the bottom line, artists frequently view their work?s artistic integrity as the main issue at stake in any negotiation.
For example, in 2003 Broadway musicians went on strike when the League of Broadway producers deemed that it was financially necessary to do away with requiring that a minimum number of musicians be mandated to staff most Broadway shows. Musicians regarded this as an example of a lack of consideration for the value the musicians brought to the shows, as well as a threat to their livelihood. They saw this as example of how producers undervalued their contribution to the quality of Broadway theater. The producers not only saw this as a cost-saving measure, given Broadway?s declining financial health. The producers believed it was necessary for this venue of employment to continue to exist at all for musicians. Some productions, the producers argued, should be allowed to use taped music, if it was financially necessary as well as in keeping with the spirit of the show. Also, the number of musicians should be more under the control of the producers, who presumably had a better idea of how many employees could be afforded by a particular show, as opposed to the Musician?s Union, which would only have one narrow interested party in mind, namely the musician?s collective welfare. (Hostetter, 2003)
Who owns the final product?the artist or the person funding the art? Neither can make art ?happen? without the other, yet both parties view art in very different terms. Creating value for both parties requires that the commercial theater on Broadway continue in a state of financial health?a view that seems to favor the producer?s point of view. The musicians had a point that, if the quality of music slowly declined on Broadway, this would have a long-term deleterious effect upon the quality of attendance in the long run. Using taped music rather than live musicians, a crucial element of the debate, would do away with one of the reasons people go to live theater in the first place.
But while theater is ultimately a commercial enterprise, a negotiator, in creating a final settlement that is equitable to both sides, must keep in mind both sides? artistic and financial concerns for control over the final product. He or she must understand the philosophical issues at stake. Certain exceptions were already allowed on Broadway for musical productions. Perhaps expanding these definitions might have been one way to stake out a middle ground between the two opposed parties that validated their artistic needs for control, but still allowed for some reduction of costs when a specific show?s music legitimately required fewer musicians for artistic as well as monetary reasons. Reducing the required numbers of musicians, but raising the minimum salaries for actively employed musicians might be one way to create value for both parties, while still making concessions to the producers.
Ultimately, the minimum number of musicians was reduced and an equitable solution was reached after Broadway theaters remained ?taped? for several days, when the unionized musicians went on strike. Regardless, this dilemma between the producers and the musicians highlights the difficulty of negotiation when two parties approach the issue not simply with two distinct interests, but from two different philosophical paradigms of who owns the art that is the essence of both side?s livelihood and lives.
Lax, David and Sebenius, James. The Manager as Negotiator; Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York, NY: The Free Press. 1986.
Martha Hostetter (2003) ?The Musician?s Strike.? The Gotham Gazette. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20030304/1/298
Reflection on the Batmobile Negotiation
Although not an actual Batmobile, my son?s 1964 Plymouth Fury nevertheless has some salient selling features which I hoped to convey to potential buyers. The Fury may not be able to fly or perform any remotely fancy functions, but my son had diligently rebuilt the engine to mint condition and the car drives wonderfully. Even if the car is not a collector?s item, at least its buyer will be satisfied with a purchase that will be far less expensive than other used cars on the market. Moreover, the car retains some degree of panache as a vintage automobile, and in spite of its cosmetic flaws has an aesthetic appeal. Only one buyer appeared genuinely interested: my partner in the simulation. Our process of negotiation proceeded much as a typical by-owner sale would. We compromised on the price. I, the owner, asked for $500 and my partner, the buyer, offered $300 in keeping with the offer by the salvage company. Settling on $400 represented a bland compromise that did not involve true collaboration because of the nature of the deal. The simulation revealed several potential weaknesses in the negotiation process and revealed how surprisingly challenging a seemingly simple negotiation can become.
Before entering into negotiations in earnest, I should have refused to grow deterred by the lack of demand for the Plymouth Fury. Without an official market valuation of the automobile, such as through the Hemings listing, I floundered throughout the negotiations procedure. Essentially I based the automobile?s value on the salvage operator?s offer of $300. My undervaluing the car stemmed directly from my fears that I would be lucky to get a penny more than $300. As a motivated seller, I started my bargaining too low and assumed the car was worth much less than it actually was, at least to my son and me. The Best Alternative to Negotiation Agreement (BATNA) might have been $300, but a more skilled negotiator would have dismissed such as low BATNA price and confidently assumed the challenge of acquiring a more reasonable sum for the car.
Another surprising feature of our negotiations was the lack of back-and-forth collaboration and dialogue. In short, we did not engage in integrative bargaining or dynamic negotiation. I simply spat out my asking price based on what I had expected to receive based on the BATNA. Forgetting the condition of the engine and the other possible features my partner valued when he did spend time looking under the hood, I failed to probe my partner for his needs. I should have asked, for example, what he wanted to use the car for, if he has owned a similar automobile, and whether or not he was a collector. Had I gleaned some extra information about my partner, the two of us could have worked harder on ?creating? value than on ?claiming value.? As the case progressed I realized that I had succeeded at neither.
The brevity and lackluster nature of the negotiations was one of the most frustrating and surprising features of the simulation. I learned that the successful negotiator engages the partner in dialogue to create value and stimulate interest in the item at hand. Using a more integrative approach, advocated in the text, my partner and I might have embarked on a more dynamic and stimulating negotiations process. My confidence level was deplorably low entering into the negotiations; I had already assumed the car was next to worthless and was only too willing to sell fast at any price above the BATNA.
I also concluded that my negotiation style differs according to my partner?s. For example, my partner in the simulation was likewise passive and therefore we engaged in distributive bargaining rather than integrative bargaining. We failed to probe first and disclose later. When I have negotiated with more assertive salespeople or buyers, their confidence rubs off on me and I respond in kind, with elevated enthusiasm and more willingness to create value for mutual benefit.
Shell, G. Richard, Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin Books. 1999
SIMULATION INSTRUCTIONS - SIMULATION I & II
The Batmobile Negotiation
Seller vs. Buyer
My role: Seller
Your son, now serving overseas in the military, has asked you to sell his car, a 1964 Plymouth Fury. (see attached photograph.) This particular vehicle is a four-door hardtop manufactured by the Chrysler Corporation. Your son affectionately nicknamed the car the ?Batmobile.? The car body shows its age with rust spots on the trunk and small dents in the fenders, but your son has taken meticulous care of the engine and drive train, and the car is inn excellent operating condition. The odometer reads 46,231 miles but is likely to have ?flipped over? a few times given the car?s age. Knowing that used car purchasers are greatly influenced by exterior appearance, you wish your son had spent more time polishing than tinkering, but you realize that making major improvements in the body now would cost more than would be recovered by the increased selling price.
You have researched the market but have found no reliable published market value for the ?Batmobile.? Very few 1964 Plymouths are listed in the want ads. The few appearing were Sports Furies-a much sought after model selling for as much as $9,000 in mint condition. The four-door hard top, however, appears to have little current appeal to the collectors. It is not listed in Hemings-the encyclopedia for car valuation. Your insurance agent informs you that his company places a collision damage limit of $650 on the car, assuming it is in ?good? condition (which it is not); and a local salvage operator has offered you $300, explaining that the only saleable feature of the car is its parts. Hoping to find a buyer who would be interested in the car for its functional value, you placed the following ad in the local paper;
1964 Plymouth Fury,
Original equipment. Drives
Like new, best offer. PH:923-4579
Three people have come by to look at the car, but you did not receive an offer from any of them. Earlier today, you decided to bring the matter to a close. You called all three prospects and told them you had an offer for the car and intended to sell if they were no longer interested. One of the prospects expressed a continuing interest and stated that he would come by to see you later today.
This one remaining prospect had inspected the car yesterday and spent a good deal of time examining the engine. He did not seem overly concerned about the body which you considered a good sign. He asked for a price; you asked him for an offer; and he responded that he would have to think about it. You are reasonably sure that you will find no other prospects. He asked for a Polaroid photograph of the vehicle which you supplied. You intend to sell the car to the salvage operator for $300 if you cannot strike a bargain today. The prospect is soon to arrive.
MY REFLECTION ON SIMULATION I
Simulation I (Batmobile negotiation)-
My position: seller
My partner (opponent) and I started negotiating after reading two different instructions, one for me and one for my partner, which was supposed to be confidential to each other. I was a seller and my partner was a buyer. My partner originally suggested $300 and I suggested $500. In the end, we reached an agreement at $400. Although both of us were willing to ?compromise?, I don?t? think we were willing to ?collaborate,? in a way that we were both flexible about finding a middle ground, but not about finding more creative and alternative solutions that will help bring in mutually beneficial outcomes. We both interpreted the instructions rigidly without some flexibility in ?creating values? that enlarges the pie, which is mutually beneficial. Rather, we were doing a ?distributive bargaining?, in which we focused more on splitting the pie, rather than creating a bigger pie for both of us. Thus, the question for us was ?who gets a bigger pie?? Rather than viewing the negotiating from a ?win-win? perspective, we viewed it as a ?win-lose? battle; I win and you lose or you win and I lose. This standpoint let us keep the typical ?you first, no your first? attitude throughout the negotiation, which make it even harder for us to share information and understand ?why? his or my offer is fair or not fair. As textbook says, we kept ?probe first, and disclose attitude?, which is important for any negotiators to keep in mind, however, this attitude didn?t work very well in our case since we lacked the sense of ?collaboration? to create a bigger pie. For me to win, I had to keep my words as minimal as possible, thereby, providing not enough reasons and information on ?why? this is important or not important to me, ?why? my offer is only fair to you. My partner kept the similar attitude, so I wasn?t neither convinced nor understood ?why? what he thought as important was important and whether or not his offer was fair. In short, we kept claiming ?what? we want, without explaining ?why? we want what we want. This only resulted in an exhausting repetition of ?claming? value, which brought us nowhere.
Further details on the simulation is as follows:
The negotiating process as a whole wasn?t very productive because I didn?t start with ?optimistic openings.? My problem was that I started with low expectation with my initial offer of $500. I think I did it because I was somehow stuck with the idea that the car was sellable at only $300 to the local salvage operator. (see attached below) My beginning offer was very low, and he offered $300. So, It was only between $300 and $500. We didn?t have enough ?room? to bargain; I insisted that the car was in an excellent working condition except for a minor damage on the exterior, and my partner said it was an old car with no market value, so he insisted to pay no mare than $300. I think I was suggesting $500 actually expecting $400-450. I knew I would end up finding a middle ground between $300 and $500. I was somehow stuck with the fact that the local salvage operator offered only $300, thinking that I can?t sell it at much higher prices. So, My BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement) was $300. I wasn?t willing to accept anything below $300 because I could sell it to the local salvage operator at $300. Another reason for me setting up low prices is because I didn?t have any prospects, except for the local salvage operator, who confirmed the purchase of the car. So, I felt I was in a desperate position, which I shouldn?t have revealed but I think I did to my partner unconsciously. That?s probably why he started with $300. My attitude wasn?t that confident and I think he noticed it as well. Both my partner and I were focusing more on ?claiming value? rather than ?creating value?, and were not too convincing in explaining ?why? the car is worth (from my standpoint) or not worth (from his point of view). I started too low, which was influenced by the offer of local salvage operator. I should have been more assertive and confident or at least pretended to be that way in order to convince him that the car had an ?antique? value, which I couldn?t come up with at the time. If I thought about this, I could have suggested a price much higher than $500 at the beginning. Anyway, I didn?t have much leverage to use against his offer, and not much room to negotiate. After a lengthy battle of negotiating, we decided to compromise at $400 not because we thought the outcome was the best in benefiting both of us, but because both of us felt it was better to close the case than waling away. It was not a dynamic negotiating. It was a passive and distributed, rather than integrative, bargaining. My expectation was too low, and I realized that I could have been more confident and more assertive. Since we couldn?t convince each other that well, we just ended up finding a middle ground, sales at $400, which wasn?t a striking deal for both of us. During the negotiation, we kept the ?you first, no you first? attitude, which even made the negotiating harder. I was reluctant to reveal any of my offers until he does, and he started first offering $300. As the textbook says, it is important to keep ?probe first, and disclose later? attitude, however, negotiating is about sharing information and find out ?why? certain things are important or not important to each party. I would definitely be more confident in doing ?optimistic openings? and convincing ?why? my offer is fair, instead of focusing on claming ?what? I am going to offer.
Negotiated Development in Redstone
John Hammond vs. Angela Redstone
My role: John Hammond
I. General Information
The city of Redstone has a population of 30,000. Finally after a decade of almost no growth, developers are eager once again to build-especially in the downtown area. The number of building permit requests has suddenly skyrocketed.
The City Council and the Redevelopment Authority are at odds. The new Council was recently elected on a ?slow-growth? platform. The independently elected Redevelopment Authority has been actively encouraging development for quite some time.
The Council recently passed an ordinance requiring site plan review for all residential subdivisions or mixed-use projects involving parcels of more than 10 acres or construction of more than 30 units.
Angela Redstone, the greatest-grand daughter of the City of Redstone?s founder, would like to build a luxury condominium project on Main Street, at the edge of the central business district. She proposes to raze the old movie theater and supermarket, then build a series of four-story duplexes with a health club and street-level boutiques on the four-acre site. Rumor has it that she wants to construct five buildings (120 units), plus a separate parking structure.
A group of residents (called the Downtown Neighborhood Association) is upset about Angela Redstone?s plans. They claim that the proposed luxury project will trigger a process of gentrification- pushing prices well beyond what current residents could possibly afford. The project will also change the character of the neighborhood-from a family-oriented, owner-occupied area, to a ?Yuppie? rental enclave. The Association is also concerned that the new project will attract residents who will want more expensive public services that will push up the tax rate. John Hammond, head of Downtown Neighborhood Association, has been designated as the spokesperson for the group.
The City of Redstone?s inclusionary zoning laws specify that all residential projects or subdivisions must set aside 10% of their units as ?affordable housing.? The sale or rental price must remain at affordable levels established each year (based on the average statewide price of newly constructed units). Developers can subsidize units on an annual basis, sell them or lease them to the municipal housing authority, or find state or federal money to assist renters of buyers.
The city has ?downzoned? so that what a developer can build ?as of right? has been reduced. Redstone?s master plan (with the downzoning) was enacted four years ago. The goal of the downzoning was to entice developers to negotiate for the privilege of exceeding their ?as or right? densities, while ensuring that the overall level of development after negotiations would not exceed reasonable densities. Over the past 18 months, almost every development project has involved a negotiation for increased density. In each case, the city has been able to extract a commitment from the developer to do better than the 10% minimum inclusionary requirement. In addition, the city has been able to win promises from developers for additional amenities (e.g., landscaping, parks, day-care centers, additional public parking, etc)
You are about to enter a negotiation, either on behalf of Angela Redstone or on behalf of John Hammond and his group. The City Council and the Redevelopment Authority have encouraged the two of you to meet and work out something that you both can live with- hinting broadly that, if the two of you can reach an agreement, the city will accept it. If you do not reach an agreement, it is not clear what the outcome will be because of the tension between the City Council and the Redevelopment Authority.
The ?as of right? density that Angela Redstone is allowed under the downzoning is 50 units. If that were all she built, five of those units (10%) would have to be ?affordable.? The Downtown Neighborhood Association has indicated that it would prefer to see no more than 40 units and it wants at least half of those brought in at the affordable housing level.
II. Confidential Instructions for John Hammond
Downtown Neighborhood Association Representative
My role: John Hammond
You have been authorized by your membership to bargain with Angela Redstone. Our people trust you. You can make a commitment on behalf of the group if you want to.
Your group has a report from a very credible planner indicating that anything more than 80 units on the site would create absolutely unacceptable traffic impacts. Even 80 units would be an incredibly bulky and ugly project. Thus, you cannot accept a proposal of more than 80 units. Remember, the Association has come out in the local paper with a figure of 40 units as its target.
To insure that the new development does not become a high-priced haven for ?Yuppies,? the Downtown Neighborhood Association is insisting that more than 10% of the units be set aside for affordable housing. You are prepared to commit to more than 40 units on the site, but only if you receive substantial increases in the percentage of affordable housing.
Based on the group?s discussion, you can use the following scoring system as a rule of thumb:
FOR EACH UNIT ABOVE 50, SUBTRACT THREE (3) POINTS
FROM YOUR SCORE
FOR EACH UNIT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ADD FIVE (5) POINTS TO YOUR SCORE.
You may not accept an agreement worth less than 30 points.
Here?s an example of how to figure your point total: If you and Angela agree on a total of 70 units, 25 of which are subsidized, your score is 65. (For every unit above 50, you receive 3 negative points (70 is 20 units above 50. 20 units x 3 negative points= 60 negative points); for every subsidized unit, you add 5 points to your score (25 units x 5 points = 125 points.) Subtract 60 from 125, and your score is 65.)
You don?t have to do these calculations- they?ve been done for you on the attached chart, which also indicates (in the shaded area) agreements that you may not accept. Remember, you may not accept an agreement worth less than 30 points.
Try to get as high a score as you can.
You are free to throw in other issues and ask for other kinds of commitments, but they won?t be reflected in your score.
MY REFLECTION ON SIMULATION II
Simulation II (Negotiated Development in Redstone)-
My position: John Hammond
I had a different partner for this simulation, and although the contents were different, but pretty much the same thing happened in this simulation as in the previous one. My position was John Hammond, who tried to build as least unit as possible, within the range of 40-80 units, with willingness to commit to more than 40 units if I receive substantial increases in the percentage of affordable housing, within the range of minimum 10% of the number of total units to maximum 50%. In short, my best option in the number of units was 40 (however, I expected Angela to offer at least 50 units because this was ?as of right? density that she was allowed under the city down zoning) and my best option in the number of affordable housing was 50% of the total number of units. On the other hand, My BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) was 80 units and 8 units of affordable housing (10%). For me (John Hammond), the lower the number of units and higher the percentage of affordable housing, the better I am likely to win in this negotiation.
The result was 70 units and 21 affordable housing (30%). And my score from this negotiation was 45. My partner and I found a middle ground although my partner got a little bit of higher score. This was a typical case that shows a total ?compromise? in negotiating. We both were very persistent in claiming our ?deal?, but had a mutual understanding on ?willing to compromise? in a way that I give up this much so, you give up this much, so we become all equal. Both of our attitudes were rather soft than aggressive or assertive. I was better in explaining ?why? I can?t accept too many units mentioning three reasons listed in the instruction- gentrification, change of the character of the neighborhood, and the potential increase of tax rate, but my partner also had good reasons for ?why? this development plan is better for the community.
Her initial offer was 80, and I assertively said ?no? because that was my BATNA, which is the least option I could take, sort of like a ?walk-away? deal for me. My initial offer was 50, which she couldn?t take as well. We didn?t talk about the percentage of the affordable housing until we reached an agreement at 70 units. Then we started to negotiate about the percentage of affordable housing. I tried to get as much as possible, and she tried to get as least as possible. Anyway, we compromised to 21 units, 30% of the total number of units.
Even in this negotiation, I kept ?you first? attitude, which in a way helpful to figure out what is her best option. However, like the first simulation, this was also sort of like ?give and take? kind of negotiation, giving a bit and taking a bit. It was again a ?distributive? bargaining, splitting the pie. Instead of one person winning, we both decided to find a middle ground that appease both parties, but meeting each party?s initial needs and desires. However, one thing missed is the opportunity to get additional amenities, such as landscaping, parks, day-care centers, additional public parking, etc as described in the instruction. I realized that I didn?t talk about any of this. This is sort of like ?creating value? on the part of me, which I didn?t do at the time of negotiation. It?s either due to the lack of time and my lack of negotiating skills.
MY CONCLUSIONS FROM SIMULATION I & II
I find it hard to negotiate when the opponent had a similar personality and approach as me; for example, ?probe first and disclose later?, ?claiming value? rather than ?creating value?, and maintaining ?distributive bargaining? tactics. Unfortunately, both partners were like me, a bit passive in asserting offers and confirming it by providing enough reasons and rationale behind them. To be strictly speaking I was ?claiming my positions? rather than ?claiming values? although I was highly aware of the fact that compromise is a reasonable way to end conflicts. Both my partners were also willing to compromise, but not good at supporting their claims.
Another reason that made the negotiations harder or maybe easier is that all of us were Asians, who tend to be somewhat less ?task-oriented? than most Westerners in negotiation. (I do not want to fall into a trap of generalization, but in general, Asians tend to value balance and harmony, and tend to avoid conflict). I didn?t want to create high tension, and neither did my partners. This resulted in a perfect ?compromise?; we found a more or less perfect middle ground, but no one really got the best outcome. The end result was just okay, but not great.
I could have tried to come up with more reasons backing up my claims and why they are fair, instead of keeping claiming my value. I need to take a more ?integrative bargaining? approach, where both parties can get the best outcomes by creating other options and alternatives that both parties can benefit from. I need to be more flexible in dealing with a variety of different scenarios, listen more what my partner has to say, understand what is important or not important to him or her, and find out what other options out there to satisfy both of us in the best possible ways. My ?win-lose? attitude kept the distributive bargaining going. When my partners kept the same attitude, it was hard to negotiate. In order to create a more productive outcome, I need to see negotiating from a ?win-win? perspective, which perfectly meets the needs and demands of ?integrative bargaining.? Because I only saw negotiating as a ?win-lose? battle, I took a very careful attention in revealing and sharing my information with my partner, (my partners took the same approach), however, this prevented my partner to understand ?why? I want ?what? I want, and ?why? and ?how? important it is to me, and vice versa. Without a sense of information sharing, it was almost impossible to have my partners an opportunity to create alternatives and options that can better accommodate me. As the textbook said, ?probe first and disclose later? is a great tactic, but when both parties take the same attitude, it is highly unlikely that both will produce mutually beneficial outcome. We had a mutual understanding on ?compromise? but not on ?collaboration? in a sense of creating a bigger pie for both of us.
In short, I learned that negotiation is not a ?win-lose? battle; it is about creating the best possible options that both parties can benefit from as much as possible. Integrative bargaining starts from this ?win-win? attitude, which I didn?t have at the time.
Excerpt From Essay:
Essay Instructions: * Note from student:
Hi, this is for a graduate-level course called ?Negotiating.? Attached below are the instructions on the assignment as well as the reading materials for Part I and II.
To give you a better idea on what was covered in this class, I have also attached additional reading materials for you to refer to, such as the instructions and my reflections on the two simulations that I did in class, and the two assignments that I submitted. This will help you better understand some of the concepts and languages covered in the class.
Excerpt From Essay:
Essay Instructions: Text Book: Lax, David and Sebenius, James. The Manager as Negotiator; Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain, New York, NY: The Free Press (1986).
ASSIGNMENT #1: Please read Chapters 2-6 of The Manager as Negotiator, and write a brief (2 to 3-page, double-spaced) essay on the following topic:
Topic: Describe, using the material presented in The Manager as Negotiator as a guide to your analysis, a challenging negotiation that you have been involved in or are otherwise familiar with. This negotiation could be drawn from your past or present professional life or from your reading of current or historical events. Highlight negotiating behaviors or strategies by yourself or other parties involved that contributed to a successful outcome or, alternatively, to the failure of the negotiation, depending on the circumstances you describe.
* Note from student:
I am a graduate student at the Arts Administration program, and this is an assignment for a class called ?Negotiating?. So, if you can write something related to the arts organizations or art galleries, it couldn?t be better although not necessary.
Excerpt From Essay:
I really do appreciate HelpMyEssay.com. I'm not a good writer and the service really gets me going in the right direction. The staff gets back to me quickly with any concerns that I might have and they are always on time.
I have had all positive experiences with HelpMyEssay.com. I will recommend your service to everyone I know. Thank you!
I am finished with school thanks to HelpMyEssay.com. They really did help me graduate college..