Analysis Of The Federated Science Fund I Represented The Stockman Company

A) In the negotiation for the Federated Science Fund I represented the Stockman Company. The meeting started with a caucus between Turbo and I which set the tone for the negotiation. In the five-minute caucus, we understood that we get the highest payoff by working together and decided to only form a deal with United if it benefited us. This was the main turning point in the negotiation as we returned to United with only high-ball offers: we opened with $220,000 each for Stockman and Turbo, and went only as low as $200,000 each, with $80,000 for United. United presented counter offers throughout, but all of them were below our $200,000 reservation point. Even though United continuously demanded a more inclusive deal, we saw no real benefit and made a deal by splitting $440,000 evenly.

B) The most important takeaway for me was that bargaining power has a truly significant effect on the negotiation process. Since the coalition gave Turbo and I the highest payoff, I learned that a strong power imbalance can heavily reduce the fairness of the process, as it became a take-it-or-leave-it situation for United. Prior to the negotiation I did not realize how strong of an effect an imbalance can have, as United’s pleas for a fair deal were completely ignored by us. Based on the lectures and readings, I believe this occurred because the power imbalance created contrasting frames; the coalition took a resource-based outcome frame to get the best payoff, while United took a needs-based aspiration frame to get more of a fair payoff. This is a strong reason why the final agreement did not involve United as the outcome frame took a win-loss approach and had a stronger effect in determining the final outcome, even though the aspiration frame took...

... middle of paper ...

...at the funds should be allocated based on need. With this in mind, and after hearing other deals in class, it is clear that United had a greater need for the grant than the coalition. I wish I had not let the power imbalance influence my decisions as it did.

F) In the future, I will change my approach by focussing on the long-term. To do so, I will not start similar negotiations with a caucus because of the power imbalance created. Instead I will look to be more open-minded by avoiding a selective perception and by considering an aspiration frame. I can achieve this if I consider receiving a bigger piece of the pie in the long-term by giving a company like United more money in the short-term. This will maintain positive relations with the parties I negotiate with so that we can all gain in the present and conduct further negotiations to gain in the future as well.