Post #10 Post Roleplay Canada China Panda Acquisition

Canada-China Panda Acquisition Negotiations

"How your family is going?" 

That was the first question asked by the Canadian zoos representers. Being a part of Chinese team in that game it was a good start for me because our opponents were very thoughtful for Chinese culture in which the family is an important subject to discuss even during a business meeting.

Anyway, the last roleplay was about giant panda acquisition and I played a role of MA Zhong, Deputy Secretary General of Chinese Association of Zoological Gardens (CAZG). So, my main goal was the well-being of the giant pandas and related research and conservation. I was responsible for delivery, duration of the contract and, of course, safety of giant pandas. I had many conditions to our Canadian friends. According to my role Chinese staff should accompany the panda and stay with them for at least three months and so on.

Honestly, after one hour’s preparation of our strategy, the negotiation meeting was very hard. Indeed, one of the Canadian Zoos (Calgary Zoo) had a really bad reputation due to the death of 214 animals in 2009. So I had a strong reservation about sending pandas there. Moreover, neither zoo had much money to offer for pandas loan per year. Our reservation price was $1 million, but the Canadians found this amount huge. Actually they did not understand that pandas for us were a national item and we could not rent it easily. We discussed a lot about loan price. 

The next misunderstanding was duration of the contract. Time for the Chinese is a very important thing, so we wanted the contract to last for 10-12 years. Of course, the Canadians wanted 8 years. Moreover, they wanted to share the term. Actually, we did not really care about this deal, so we were quite reserved in reference to our conditions. Moreover our BATNA was much stronger and we were in high-power position. Indeed, who does not want to get a panda ? Nobody! We had many other countries and zoos pretending to our giant pandas and which would be ready to pay even more than $1 million. After 30-40 minutes of our negotiation, my team wanted to make no deal. But we did not and at the end we agreed on 10 years and $1 million fee per year. 

That was our deal, but it was hard. ;)

Post #9: The Hidden Challenge of Cross-Border Negotiations + "This is crap" in different cultures

The Hidden Challenge of Cross-Border Negotiations

Do cultural differences matter in business negotiations? How to anticipate and overcome possible barriers on the road to get an agreement at international scale? I will try to answer these questions in this post.

Each time sitting at the negotiation table, we need to be sure who are the players. Often, there are not only two companies making decision but other higher substances which have their own interests to the table, as well as varying abilities to block or foster negotiations. Once the players are identified, we should analyze who owns which decision rights. It is very important and in case of failure could conduct to very dramatic consequences. Moreover, we should take in consideration the fact that some countries have organisations which are more powerful than two parties making a deal. These organisations usually do not have the formal standing of government agencies but can control or affect business decision making (Italy has powerful families, Russia has mafias and very corrupt systems).

Thus, only when we know exactly who these players are, we can develop a strategy of making a deal at international scale.

During negotiations, we are seeking to influence the outcome of an organizational process which is different in different cultures. So we have to adapt to them considering several forms, two of which are:
* Top down: there are no delegates but direct interaction with the boss. It almost always results in bigger contracts, and negotiation process is more effective. Top down authority is at one end of the decision-making spectrum.
* Consensus: in my opinion, it is the best way as a bargaining strategy in order to establish compatible goals and to protect interests of each side. However, it may require more time, relationship building, and information than expected. It is also about recognizing what we can’t do and setting realistic expectations.

To conclude, I have to say that before bargaining with people from different cultures we need to study carefully every single nuance of their cultures. The key to cross cultural success is to develop an understanding of, and a deep respect for, cultural differences. We should also move beyond stereotypes. Then, we must design your strategy and tactics so that we are reaching the right people, with the right arguments, in a way that allows us maximum impact on the process to yield a sustainable deal.

How to Say "This is crap" in different cultures

The last article was particularly interesting to me. It is about direct and indirect cultures regarding the manner of speaking to others. People with direct cultures like the Germans tend to be honest and to give the message straight in order to make sure the message registers clearly, while people with indirect culture tend to use words that soften the criticism like the British. 

I am from Russia and even if I have been living in France for 6 years, many Russian cultural character traits stayed with me. Like all Russians I am very direct and prefer to be honest and say directly what I think about a situation or a person in front of me. It is foreign to me to soften words just to seem to be nice. Sometimes, people overestimate their capabilities and they need to be criticized to get back to earth. I, very down-to-earth person which other people often do not appreciate. Anyway, it is better to say directly that there is something wrong rather than hide it under beautiful words and make people think that everything is fine. Nobody likes being criticized, but sometimes it is necessary to understand mistakes and to try so to improve attitudes. If someone tells me that my work is total crap I would like him/her to deliver the message in direct form. 

Post #8: Roleplay CPA.Inc + Hiring A Newtonian

Roleplay CPA. Inc

This time the roleplay was about management conflict. 

Someone in CPA.Inc stole and cashed payroll checks. While handwriting experts and other investigators from City-Wade Forensic Services were conducting investigation, Roo Smith and Dana Petski, long-term employees of the company, accused new employee Sandy Brown of wrongdoing and wanted her to be fired. The CPA manager, J.T. wanted to resolve conflict and called co-workers for an appointment. 

Thus, I played the role of Roo Smith and Dana Petski. According to my instructions I was very loyal to CPA and its image and reputation were very important to me. I was absolutely convinced that Sandy was guilty and should be immediately fired. During the appointment, I had to show considerable righteous anger and to be very emotional interrupting the manager. 

I had not any prepared strategy, there were only emotions controlling and ruling everything during the meeting. My arguments were very subjective and did not prove Sandy’s culpability. The main arguments I was screaming again and again were: 

* Sandy has just bought a house, although she has been working for the company for a few months only;

* She has been staying late working alone, why?

* I grew up in that company and know everyone in CPA.Inc

After a hard and noisy discussion, we decided to call another investigator to make an examination again. Moreover, I said I would quit the company if they confirm that Sandy was still not culpable. 

I think that this roleplay taught us how to manage emotions during conflict while working collaboratively. The main role in that play role was actually the one of CPA manager who had to keep empathy, emotional intelligence and patience. In fact, guilty or not it did not matter. The most important was to eliminate conflict inside the company, to keep the CPA’s reputation and to find solutions. That roleplay was also about finding the compromise and how to handle angry public (previous post of November 25).

Hiring A Newtonian

I played the role of a computer programmer from Newtonia who had a job interview with the HR director of one company. According to my instructions I had to negotiate on three following issues:

* Salary: I could accept only a salary with odd numbers and above $53,000; moreover, it was very uncomfortable to talk about salary first.

* Benefits: I expected to get paid holidays in Newton’s birthday, my birthday and my mother’s birthday. 

Start date: I wanted to start the job on Friday but not on Monday (bad luck in Newtonia). 

Actually, I had a strong belief in good and bad luck. But I should not have spoken of this much since speaking of luck might invite bad luck. Moreover, I could not reveal the reasons for my decisions and needs to the HR director. 

Honestly it was hard to follow all those instructions. I was confused and seemed to be very stupid because I could not to explain any reasons of my requests. To my surprise my negotiator quickly agreed to all of them. 

Indeed, this exercise highlighted the cultural elements of negotiation and helped sensitize negotiators to potential cultural differences. This exercise also highlighted the potential discrepancy between intent by one party and impact on another party. Thus, for the Newtonian programmer apathy to his family and personal life from the director would be considered as a bad manner which is not the case for the director’s culture. In negotiation regarding cultural differences it is very important to pay attention to all habits and traditions of the culture of your negotiator. Every single detail is important and might offend your negotiator. If we manage cultural differences, it is important to move beyond stereotypes. 

Post #7: When an angry public wants to be heard + Mental errors

When an angry public wants to be heard?

Anger is a really powerful emotion. It can absolutely destroy relationship between two parties who after a moment seem to forget everything they know about finding joint gain. Confronted with negative publicity, negotiators become so focused on controlling public relations and managing the crisis that they forget to work for their own best interests. So, the given article gives some advice for negotiators dealing with an angry public. I will quote some of them:

• Encourage joint fact-finding—basically this process is about finding a set of respected experts (third party people) with different views and disciplinary backgrounds who take a neutral side in negotiation and so help to reach a consensus between two parties easier and a more effectively. 

• Accept responsibility, admit mistakes, and share power—this is exactly what angry public craves most of all especially because they do not want mistakes to be repeated. It is always easier to blame someone rather than to take responsibility and admit mistakes. However, it is necessary to reach a better result and relationship. 

• Focus on building long-term relationships—in order to create a strong relationship we are always concerned about the future of this relationship. Even if both parties are at odds, they should think of interests if dealing together. 

To conclude I will say that, in my opinion, the primary goal in negotiations is to search for tradeoffs that will lead to a mutually beneficial agreement in order to create value together. The two sides would never begin to negotiate if they both did not need each other. 

 Mental Errors

The next chapiter is dedicated to mental errors that parties commit during the negotiation process and was particularly interesting for me. There are some common errors mentioned in the article and that I personally found interesting to discuss: 

• Irrational Escalation—a human behavior pattern in which a negotiator facing increasingly negative outcomes from some decision, action, or investment nevertheless continues the same behavior rather than alter course which is very irrational. One of the reasons for this behavior may be a high ego, or unwillingness to be seen coming home empty-handed from a negotiation. People used to get everything they want are more likely to make this mistake. Personally I have never experienced this but I witnessed how people, losing their sanity, were ready to do everything to get what they want. 

• Irrational expectations—very common error in terms of negotiations. Sometimes we want something and we expect that it is easy to get. Unfortunately, most of the time this expectation follows disappointment. Negotiations have always wanted a strategic analysis and thoughtful actions. So we have to take off pink glasses and to be more realistic.

• Overconfidence—confidence itself is a very good thing which gives us courage to take risk and to tackle difficult and uncertain ventures. However, overconfidence encourages us to overestimate our own strengths and underestimate those of our rivals. Basically overconfidence can blindside you to dangers and opportunities. It is also related to mental errors known as groupthink. The last one is about making irrational decisions within a group of people desiring more to get harmony inside the group without any critical evolution. Personally it does not concern me because I am rather unconfident in making decisions. 

Post #6: Frequently Asked Tactical Questions

Frequently Asked Tactical Questions

Let’s continue the conversation about business negotiation. In my previous posts I have already mentioned that it was very important to ask right questions before and during negotiation. Thus, there are some FAQs about negotiating tactics which can be organized in three broad categories: price, processes and people. I will talk about only few of those, which I consider the most interesting to tackle.

Concerning the FAQs about price it was useful to know how to react to an incredibly unreasonable price opened by the other side. The most important is to stay neutral and not to get lost. We should come back to talking about interests, explaining our perspective on the deal. We should remember that we do not have to refer to the initial price or proposal of the opponent. This is quite difficult for me, because in most cases after realizing that the price offered by my negotiator is much higher than I expected I throw away the negotiation. 

Concerning the FAQs about process I was always wondering if we could bluff during negotiation. Indeed, when we imitate negotiations during play roles in the class we tend to lie not thinking about the consequences. In real life, we get it more seriously and lying about material fact is almost certainly grounds for legal actions. However, we do not need to reveal all the circumstances that make us willing to conclude a deal. We can so keep some details under scratch. 

Concerning the FAQs about people’s problems, I was most interested by the question on some means we use during negotiation. Indeed, by which way it would be better to communicate, over the telephone, via mail or face-to-face meeting? Personally, I prefer the last two ones. Mail communication may have a greater tendency to result in disputes and impasses. The person who receives an e-mail may interpret a comment negatively when the sender did not intend it that way. On the other hand, mail communication is devoid of emotions. We are more rational and carefully try to look for “right words”. Negotiating over the telephone, we are more likely to lie, because it is more difficult to understand the emotions of a person across the line. I prefer face-to-face communication, where I can see the reaction and observe reactions of my negotiator. I feel more confident. 

Post #5 Roleplay Sally Soprano + Game Theory "Win As Much As You Can"

Roleplay Sally Soprano

 

On behalf of my client Sally Soprano I had a meeting with Lyrica Opera’s Business Manager in order to get a title role for Sally in upcoming production of Bellini’s Norma. After losing her reputation and not having played in any opera performances, Sally Soprano was very eager to have this role that would probably lead to many other singing opportunities. So it would be her comeback opportunity. 

Therefore, my negotiation strategy was, of course, focused on my client’s experience in this role. Then, her household name and experience would require minimal preparation for the Norma’s production that is less than one month away. There are some of key arguments I used during the meeting:

1. Popularity and household name would draw an audience;

2. The performance is in less than one month;

3. She would not need much training because of her rich experience;

4. She has not played this role before, but performed it at Lyric Opera, so she has much more prepared and experienced for now than before. 

However, I knew that my negotiator has prepared his strategy which I guessed. Th major Lyrica’s Manager’s argument was that my Sally Soprano was not at her peak and might not generate enough ticket sales on her name. Moreover, she is no longer young which was not a strong point for her candidature. But the time was more important for Lyric because they did not have much time to look at other younger profiles. 

Our negotiation was quite balanced and showed an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation and positional bargaining. We both felt that we had a need in each other, but each side has her strong position and interests. Anyway, there was not a matter of life and death. 

Another aspect of our bargaining was money even though we decided it quite fast. Thus, I planned to get partnership with Lyrica Opera, because it was very first time I was working with Operas. So, it could be great for my personal career to continue dealing with it. Well, we stopped on an amount of $31,000 (my reservation price was $30,000) for the role for Sally Soprano. As the result, she got her role at Norma’s production and I got my partnership with Lyrica Opera. Great deal! 

Game Theory: Win as Much as You Can

I will never forget this game, not just because it was very interesting, but because I did not understand at all what was going on. Our class was split into groups. We were each asked to prepare 2 sheets of paper one of which we had to mark with an X and the other with a Y. For 10 successive rounds my partners and I had to choose either an X or a Y. Moreover, we were not to confer with the members inside the groups. Such non-verbal communication was applied during the game. Each round payoff depended on the pattern of choices made in the cluster, so each group must agree upon a single choice for each round. There were 3 rounds (out of 10) in which we c would speak. After each round we were asked to write our results in the score sheet.

Basically, the sense of this game was held on trust. It has to be very competitive activity that would show the impact of various win-lose situations on groups where we needed to make decisions compete with each other and on other instances co-operate with each other in order to win as much as possible. The game dramatizes the merits of both, competitive and collaborative models within context of intragroup and intergroup relations. 

Unfortunately, my group and I understood that after the game has already been finished. We were not playing in win-lose game by bluffing to our partners. On the contrary, we thought of each member of the group and wanted each to gain a penny. We did not even pay attention to the title “win as much as you can”. So that game was the most awkward among all that we have done. Honestly, I do not think that if we really understood the rules of the game, we would not have acted like we had done, playing on altruism or so on. If I could start that game again, I would have completely changed my strategy and would have thought of my personal profit. 

Post #4: Negotiation Analysis. An Introduction

Negotiation Analysis. An Introduction

“Questions are the gateway to knowledge. To obtain greater insight, ask better questions.” 

(c) Greg Williams, The Master Negotiator & Body Language Expert

Being successful in a negotiation comes from hard and long preparation. So one of the most important things before starting negotiating is to ask right and intelligent questions. In these posts I will talk about some approaches which I personally find important to apply while negotiating.

1. BATNAs: What will the respective parties do if they don’t come to agreement?

As I mentioned in my previous posts, BATNA is the Best Alternative To Negotiate Agreement. In other words, it is a Plan-B when an agreement is not reached. However, it does not mean that it is out the bottom line in which we have no other choice than accept the deal. It means that we have to identify and articulate our best or doable alternatives to a negotiated agreement. We should all foreknow the implication, the consequences, the risks, the time pressure and the costs of our and their BATNA. If we do not want the result to be “zero-sum”or distributive we must lead a deep and careful analysis to improve our BATNA. Moreover, we have to identify the best and worst alternatives open to the other side and to understand how we can make their Batna worse for them. 

2. Interests: What are their fundamental needs and priorities?

Assessing interests is important before and during negotiation and even at the end when agreements are being refined and implemented. Unfortunately, getting an answer to this question isn’t always straightforward, so it’s important to identify potential stakeholders and their needs and motivators. There is not just those sitting at the table, but also parties who are unseen but clearly present. In sum, the more we understand the interests of every party involved, the better the chance we have to help them get what they want, which in turn, can often help us get what we want. 

3. Value: How can value be created—and who is likely to get it? 

After identifying our interests and those of our negotiators, the next question we will ask is how value is created. Value is generated in negotiation by capitalizing on differences, not necessarily by finding common ground. Differences may be in valuation, expectations, discount rates, or attitudes toward risk. Unless they are creatively exploited, the parties will squander opportunities that could benefit them both. 

4. Barriers: What obstacles might prevent agreement (or the maximization of value), and how can they be overcome?

One of the barriers is the high concentration on a strategic behavior and on value-creating opportunities trying to win at all costs. The second one is called a psychological and interpersonal barrier. It is very important to maintain control under emotions and not to judge your opponent according to some social stereotypes during negotiations. Careful negotiation analysis also means recognizing possible barriers to agreement as well as structural elements that might be advantageously rearranged. 

5. Ethics: what is the right thing to do? 

All mentioned tasks reveal important moral and ethical issues. It is something about what is wrong and what is right? Knowing the norms of ethics and negotiation can be useful whether we are negotiating for ourselves or on behalf of someone else. We should ask ourselves the following questions: would I advise anyone else in my situation to act this way? Do I want others to treat me in this way? It plays a lot on the emotional aspects and conscience of each negotiator.

Conclusion: 

This lesson helped me understand that rigorous negotiation analysis is necessary for success. However, it is not sufficient. In my opinion, it is not enough to make good negotiation strategies, a negotiator must have personal qualities and know how to persuade his/her counterparts. We have to listen to them in order to demonstrate to the others that we have heard and understood what they have said. We also must have the creativity ability because sometimes results depend on the counterparts’mood and attitudes with whom we will deal.

Post #3: Roleplay: Salt Harbor

Roleplay (Salt Harbor)

During the second negotiation class we once again played a game. It was as joyful and effective as during the first class except that this time we were all smarter and more analytical in the elaboration of our strategies. We tried to apply the four key concepts of negotiation we learned about last time. Nobody wanted to lose or make a mistake, so we paid very close attention to all details.

Description:

This time I was given the role of the owner of the Easterly, a successful inn, located in the seaside village of Salt Harbor. However, in the midst of my success I faced a challenge—Brims (a regional chain of coffee shops) bought the vacant parcel of land facing the harbor just near to my hotel. They already had a permit to build a one-and-a-half-story structure that would block the view from the best rooms of my hotel. That could have a bad impact on my business and its profit. According to my lawyer, if I went to court, I would have 50% chance of stopping the building of the Brims’ new coffee shop. Moreover, it would probably take many years and cost a lot of money. Thus, the best way to act was to purchase the lot from Brims and to prevent someone else from building on it keeping the value of the inn. 

Negotiations:

My objective was to purchase the land at the best price possible taking into account all details and following all prices mentioned in my role instructions. According to my data, Brims paid $100,000 for the given parcel 3 months ago. Even if an alternative site for Brims would probably cost $200,000 my first price offer was $120,000. I thought that real estate market at the moment of purchase could be higher and I did not want to offer more because it is always better to start with a little amount. Moreover, at my heart I was hoping my opponent would agree. A rough “no” for the last offer brought me back to earth. The first offer of my opponent was $250,000 which was a lot for me even if my reservation price (or walk-away price) was $350,000. Of course, I could agree with the opponent’s first offer because technically it suited me! However, shake hands without even trying to negotiate for a lower price would be a bad idea. Moreover, my assignment was to purchase Brims’ land at the BEST price, so the last one I realistically hope for was $220,000. In this case, my BATNA would be to purchase the Brims’ land for $350,000 if its manager did not agree with my best price. 

Thus, I was quite calm and emotionless during the negotiations. I asked many questions in order to find some arguments and make Brims’ negotiator change her mind and agree with my price offer. At the end of our negotiations I raised my price to $190,000 and Brims’manager finally agreed and we shook hands. Both sides were absolutely satisfied by the deal because we both found our zone of possible agreement. 

Post #2: Four Keys Concepts : BATNA

Four Key Concepts: BATNA

The article about Four Key Concepts of negotiation was very useful to read in order to complete my understanding of the last Negotiation class. Moreover, it allowed me to think better of my attitudes on this subject. So, I was wondering about how I could apply these concepts in the professional world. Such as good explanation and clear examples of some negotiation cases mentioned in the article also brought me back into my personal life and allowed me to think of my mistakes I have done when I had to negotiate. In this post I will mostly deal with BATNA concept because it is more complex and complicated among other concepts regarding my experience. 

BATNA:

Concerning BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement), the main idea of which is to have a good analytical Plan-B in the case if the first negotiations fail, I thought of the search for an internship. When I was looking for an internship for the first time at the end of my Bachelor’s, my BATNA was very weak. Due to stress and pressure put by university teachers (all students will understand) I hurried and accepted an offer in a local company in Strasbourg just because I wanted to finish with the this as soon as possible even though I have a plenty of time for research. It was my huge mistake, which led me to a bad first experience in my professional life. That internship was not paid and was not even interesting to me and I’m sure that I would have another better offer to accept. So I was in a bad and weak position and I was not satisfied by the “deal”. This year I will not repeat mistakes previously made. I will, first of all, follow my own interests. I will be more strategic and confident and less fast in deciding. I will try to analyse more all possible issues. As an example. I already have an internship offer from UNESCO but I continue searching and analysing other propositions. Anyway, I think it is a good strong BATNA for instance. 

Post #1: Roleplay The Two-Dollar Game

Roleplay: The Two-Dollar Game

Within the framework of our Business Negotiation classes in Paris-Sorbonne University we had an occasion to play the two-dollar game. The last one was consisting in a bargaining simulation between two people in order to divide $2 found on the ground. There were 2 rounds of the game. Before starting negotiating we were given a secret play card, which described a play role for each participant. Our partner had not to know the role of another one. Our goal was to make up any story we wanted to get as much of $2 as possible. That game was an objective to understand some basic tools of negotiation theory. 

In the first case we were all best friends with our partners. According to my secret play card I needed only 50 cents to take a bus to get home. Being a gambling person and having an objective to get as much money as possible, I bargained about getting all penny. As I knew, later, it was a competition strategy which was considered as a negative bargaining range. For real, I created incredible stories about everything coming to my mind, sometimes I was absolutely illogical so all my reasons were not much convincing which made me lower my sum in order to get at least something. This was my strategy mistake. Even if at the end I got only 50 cents (money I needed), I was not satisfied by the deal because I wanted to get more. I can consider that our first round of negotiations had the nature win-lose bargaining, in which my gain was the loss than my partner’s gain. 

However, I was “smarter” in the second round of the game. The general instruction was the same but the roles of the participants were different. The second round was more intangible which above all played on emotions. I had to act as an important famous person for whom the reputation was extremely important, so I had to get as much of the $2 as I could and at the same time to keep my reputation. If in the first round, I was concentrated on the amount of money I could win, this time my objectives were more concerned about the emotional aspects. Honestly, I felt a big difference and I realized that it had prevented me from negotiating. At the end, in order to finish our discussion, my partner and I broke the rules and came up with collaborative side deals. As a result we were both satisfied (win-win bargaining).