Live-8, Electronic Negotiation

In this weeks blog, I'll be discussing the differences between electronic and face-to-face negotiation. In this past weeks negotiation, I was trying to purchase a web domain name because I had complications with my last domain name and needed it to be revolved around the name "Live-8." This domain name is critical because of the charity concert that I am orchestrating and utilizing a website to do a lot of my interactions with guest and ticket sales. Accordingly, I need it up and running immediately. However, the new domain name that I am trying to purchase is currently being used and we our in the process of exchanging a settlement over the domain name via "texting."

Some of the positives with using electronic negotiation as a medium is that you can plan out your responses more meticulously and not have emotion or pressure alter your decision making. Also, utilizing the silence tactic or anchor tactic can be more beneficial by making the other team reach a deal closer to your aspiration. 

However, there are also cons to electronic negotiation because you can't see facial expressions or pick up on situational ques through face-to-face negotiation. Furthermore, if you are on the receiving end of the silence tactic, like I was in the "Live-8 Negotiation," you become eager and impatient and might want to make concessions faster than you normal would, especially if you are on a strict deadline.

All in all, there are positives and negatives in negotiating through electronic mediums. I believe a good choice is to use electronic mediums to initiate negotiations, but then use face-to-face negotiating to hopefully result in a faster and more cooperative negotiation depending on the circumstances.   

Negotiation Biases

In this weeks blog I will be talking about biases in negotiation. Biases prevent us from acting rationally and getting as much as we can out of a negotiation. There are two main terms I can relate to involving negotiation biases. First being, "negotiators tend to assume that their gain must come at the expense of the other party and thereby miss opportunities for mutually beneficial trade-offs between the parties." Secondly, "negotiators judgments tend to be anchored upon irrelevant information, such as an initial offer."

I believe these are very common biases in negotiations and can relate to them using past negotiations done in class. For example, for the first biases relating to not finding the log rolling issues and being involved in more of a competitive negotiation can be shown through the "Bakery-Florist-Grocery-Negotiation." We each had our own goal, and wanted the most personal value out of the negotiation. We took a competitive route towards negotiating where we only cared about our personal outcomes and not the mutual benefit of the future partnership. With two parties gaining the most output and leaving the other party to diminish, ended up hurting every party in the long run. Since we didn't identify the log rolling issues, we missed out on maximizing our wealth collectively and could have created more value instead of reach the most individual value.

Lastly, when negotiators tend to be anchored by an initial offer is a biases that is used in majority of negotiations. This anchoring tactic is a great to use because you are making an irrational first offer that the other party will most likely not agree with, but will be biased to that offer and be fixated on that offer. Therefore, believing that your reservation point or BATNA is close to that original offer. Majority of the time, the negotiator using the anchoring tactic will receive a better settlement based off this anchoring bias.  

   

Final Offer Video Rating...Ripe Tomatoes 98%

On my version of Rotten Tomatoes, known as Ripe Tomatoes, there are things I liked and learned from the "Final Offer" video. I think this video really represented good examples of people's interest and positions in a negotiation. For example, the CAN GM, Rob Andrews was using pattern bargaining from the US agreement and was taken the position of setting up the same deal their American counterpart agreed to and applying it to the CAN UAW. However, the CAN UAW, Bob White disagreed with this contract because it went against the CAN workforce's interest and did not want profit sharing. 

The US UAW did not mind the same contract presented and agreed to profit sharing. They had different interest that aligned with job security and not so much towards hourly wage and yearly increases, which profit sharing would eradicate. On the other hand, CAN UAW interests did not correlate with the US UAW and the CAN workforce did not have to worry about job security, but more towards hourly wages and yearly increases. 

Rob Andrews believed that Bob White should accept the offer because following the same contract as the US did was normal procedure and was standard protocol since it was for the same company. In addition, the GM' s interest wanted profit sharing because they thought it would motivate workers to try harder and increase quality in their products. Both parties had different interest and were for moral and practical reasons, however, they couldn't see past each others positions and focused on the what instead of the why in the negotiation.  

Ripe Tomatoes: 98% "Final Offer"