Negotiations under the Threat of an Auction - Essay Example

Customers Name: Tutors Name: Course Name: Course Code: Date: Introduction This essay sets out to assess the psychological events as well as dynamics that are encompassed in the takeover negotiations within the various groups in the class based on the fact that each of the group had a role to play. This will be done by the application of theories and research that have been covered in the course. The essay will in particular look at the psychology behind the negotiation and preparation with the other parties and in seeking to persuade and shift attitudes it will therefore look at not only what was actually done but also on what should have been done instead. Our group played the role as the staff members of Cadbury and thus our negotiations were more inclined to the potential benefits of Cadbury as opposed to Kraft. Discussion Negotiation is commonly termed as the communication that takes place between individuals who basically meet with the intention of forming a cooperative agreement. Each of the involved groups tend to have a number of conflicting interests and each of them must be expected to shift their positions or change there preferred threshold in the aim of reaching a mutually favorable agreement (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 550). Failure in negotiations in mostly linked to various issues, but the most common one is that the groups in the negations process tend to emotionally involved in the negation and they tend to take a certain position and thus they tend to treat the other party as their enemy. It is commonly believed that good negotiators tend to seek mutually beneficial benefits for both of the parties and thus they always avoid making unyielding positions. As a group we were able to divorce ourselves emotionally from the negotiation process and thus we focused more on what both groups that is Kraft and Cadbury can be able to accomplish together. As a group we understood that preparation before negotiation is an important aspect that members of the groups need to consider (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 252). The group members also understood that they needed to have an adequate amount of time before we met so as to think of the position we held, our needs as well as our wants. Irrespective of the fact that good preparation did not ensure success, it was a key aspect that we considered. As a group we clearly depicted aspect in that both groups were able to establish their own value propositions. In most instances, one of the parties involved in the negotiations at times do not establish the real and factual values of their services and thus they tend to sell on price and are left with no adequate space to sell their concessions and thus they tend to cave on price (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 262). Most negotiators in the modern day tend to take the assumption that the other group acknowledges and understands the true and real value of their services. The very notion that a benefit or a certain feature of the products that a group manufactures is beneficial to them does not mean that the feature will be beneficial to the other party. Thus both groups focused on the total value of the relationship that they were creating and not just focusing on the acquisition costs of their products as well as the possible degree of attempting to establish the real values for every aspect. Both groups should also understand that offering concession too readily seems not to be good idea in negotiations (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 262). Thus in reality, giving something and getting nothing in return seems to be a vital error that most organizations make since it forms a poor guide and it proves to be difficult to reverse it. Thus our group ensured that any concession that they offered no matter how seemingly invaluable a certain concession is invaluable to them it must be fought for in a hard manner. As the Cadbury group, we mentally maintained the ledger of concessions to ensure that there was a sense of fairness in from both sides. This ensured that the negotiation process run smoothly since every group did not accuse the other one of been unfair. As a group we also considered our mental preparation was the key difference between both the unsuccessful and successful negotiations. As a group we got it right when it came to the frame of our minds prior to the preparation plan (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 262). As a group we prepared for the negotiations and laid a lot of emphasis on the achievement of our core goals. In reality, twists and turns seems to be elements that cannot be done away with in negotiations since as a group we were not able to predict what could possibly happen. Thus thorough the preparation, the mind is mainly focused and thus as a team we were able to hold a strong position in the aim of achieving everything that was needed. Another key aspect that we considered prior to our negotiations was knowledge. It is commonly believed that the more a group or a corporation is aware of its position as compared to their core competitors the more likely they are to achieve a better outcome. Knowledge will not at all times ensure the success of the group, but the lack of Knowledge can mainly lead to failure of the group or the group may be placed at a disadvantaged position (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 248). Thus as a Cadbury group we ensured that we had adequate knowledge so as to outdo Kraft in the negotiations. We were also aware of the currencies that we used and that Kraft used. As a group we were also able to establish the correct rapport and thus we were able to establish a trusting relationship in the negotiations. As a group we understood the fact that most negotiations fails since there is no trust between the negotiating parties and since trust is a cornerstone in most business relationships we were keen to ensure that we had the trust of the partners that is Kraft. We were also able to manage our emotions since we understood the fact that the management of emotions was key issues in negotiations (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 240). Most negotiations may be characterized with fist pounding as well as counting in the negotiation process, but in most instances those who do it are usually crafted theatrical displayed that at times have been designed by either of the parties in the aim of creating a certain effect on the other party. As a group we were soft on the Kraft group and they were also soft on us, this made the negotiation process more easily for both parties. Those who engaged in such activities are mainly focuses on their interest, not positions and thus they are at all times exploring the mutual interests that they can gain from the negotiations. As a group we focused more on the outcomes and not individual positions. By doing so we were able to come up with unique solutions and at the same time expound the scope of our agreements which in turn increased the probability of achieving the agreement between us. The Kraft group was more fixated on their individual positions and they were less flexible (Aktas, De Bodt and Roll 240). They were more focused on the maintenance of their positions versus the creation of creating solutions to the existing problem. This mainly led to scarcity mentality against a profusion and it caused both parties choose their own sides. Conclusion After the negotiations, it was evident that both of the parties felt that they had achieved a fair result prearranged that each of them had their realistic expectations. From the assessment it is evident that negotiations is mostly determined by the fundamental philosophies of the groups that are involved in the negotiations. Each of the group had a philosophy that they brought to the negotiation table. Thus it is a great mistake to assume that both parties share a certain philosophy. In reality the only acceptable approach is an objective that has been measured in relation to the independent variable. This allows both parties to make the negotiations on the merits of the accord without involving the influence of their individual emotions. The common element in most negotiations is that conflict will always arise this is mainly attributed to the different behavioral characteristics that people have and thus they will in one way or another tend to cause some level of conflict. Based on these some people will tend to be overpowering and aggressive while other will tend to be quite and they will always aim at ensuring that there are peaceful negotiations between their parties. For groups to ensure that successful negotiations take place, groups must ensure that emotional aspects are separated from their respective tasks. They will aim at ensuring that there is a resolute when it come sot their quest for reciprocally beneficial agreement but they can be able to make and assess their decisions based on the independent merits of the issues that have been presented. These groups are not unemotional they can be termed to be adept and they are all times subordinated their individual emotions to the aspects through the negotiation process. Works cited Aktas, Nihat, De Bodt, Erick and Roll, Richard. “Learning, hubris and corporate serial acquisitions”. Journal of Corporate Finance. 15 (2009): 543-561. Aktas, Nihat, De Bodt, Erick & Roll, Richard. “Negotiations under the threat of an auction”. Journal of Financial Economics, 98 (2010):241-255. Print. Read More