Role for Cam Archer - Assignment Example

Title: The Ivey Case Study “RetailSoft: Role for Cam Archer” Name Class Unit Introduction Negotiation involves shaping the counterpart decisions so that they choose what is in ones interest. It involves coming into an agreement between two parties with shared interests or interests that may conflict or are different (Lewicki, Bruce & David, 2010). This makes negotiations as one of the most basic form of interaction. In this case, I have been offered a permanent job by Vince Mangini the vice president of the Professional services in his department. Despite this, I had been promised by Regan Kessel who is the vice president of Product management and Marketing a marketing position three months earlier. This leads to two internal job offers at the company. This case study analysis is based on the best way to approach the negotiation in marketing job with Kessel. The negotiation will ensure getting the maximum compensation on the position chosen which best fist career aspirations. In this case, Kessel will be made aware of the alternative offer from Mangini (McGinn, Hannah and Dina, 2005). What is the best way to approach this negotiation? This is a job based negotiation aimed at reaching the best solution on career choice while at the same time maintaining the best value. The best approach to this negotiation should be based on a win-win situation. This is through use of an optimal approach which will be aimed at making concessions on both parties and looking for an amicable agreement. It will involve looking for mutual gains (Barry, Saunders and Lewicki, 2003). The approach will involve being fair while at the same time ensuring that no party is taken advantage of. This is a principled negotiation which will look at the issues based on merits rather than haggling approach that is not issue based (Rubin & Brown, 1975). For example, I will appreciate Kessel position and understand his points while giving my viewpoint to ensure that disagreements are not allowed over issues. This supports a win-win approach. The approach looks for a mutually acceptable solution for the parties involved. The parties will seek for an agreement through interdependent goals. This will be based on a problem solving approach to ensure that everyone needs are taken care of (Lewicki, Bruce & David, 2010). In this case, it will be ensured that the conflict is resolved in a manner that I get the best deal in compensation, personal life and career growth while maintaining positive relationship with both Mangini and Kessel. The solution obtained will be in such a way that all parties maintain a harmonious relationship even after the decision (Blomqvist, Hurmelinna & Seppänen, 2005). There will be moderate concern for obtaining own outcomes and moderate concern for the other party to obtain their own outcomes. Research shows that before entering into a negotiation, the negotiator must be clear on what they want and the available alternatives. This involves looking at what is an ideal situation and target an aspiration (Barry, Saunders and Lewicki, 2003). This also involves knowing the alternatives, dealing with uncertainty and having the appropriate level of confidence. There will also be need to know the situation in order to come up with the best strategy to use. While alerting the other party on the alternative opportunity being offered, there will be use of extreme care. This is aimed at ensuring that it does not appear to be a deliberate move of pitting Mangini and Kessel into a bidding war (McGinn, Hannah and Dina, 2005). For example, I will wait until near the end of discussion to give news on the alternative offer from Mangini. This will make it possible to be near decision making time. In addition, it will make Kessel to appreciate honesty and also make a better offer to avoid losing to the competitive position. What bargaining strategy will you use? Negotiation is caused by the fact that both parties have shared interests in attaining an agreement and also have other common interests. This is an integrative situation where joint parties seek a solution that would benefit everyone. Based on the issue being negotiated, collaborative negotiation strategy will be the most appropriate (HBS, 1980). To support collaborative strategy as the best negotiating strategy, it is important to look at the nature of the problem, characteristics of parties involved, relationship between them and the context of negotiations. In this case, the nature of the problem is based on job choices. The two competing offers require negotiating for the solution which leads to the best outcomes which will offer the best compensation and based on career aspirations. The problems are procedural rather than distributive and will benefit the involved parties. Thus, problem is of roughly equal importance to the organization and employee. In addition, the problem is uncertain and complex. This is due to fact that both job offers are lucrative and making a choice is complex. Moreover, the major issues are explicit and objective making it important for the use of collaborative approach (HBS, 1980). For example, while working for the marketing position under Kessel, the salary is lower but the job is in line with my career aspirations. On the other hand, the Professional services have higher salary but are not in line with my career goals (McGinn, Hannah and Dina, 2005). Looking at the contextual factors, both parties expect the negotiations to be collaborative. The corporate culture in the organization supports the approach. Also, the pressure from the CEO is consistent with the approach although he wants a fast decision. There have been sufficient time to explore all alternatives and resources are available. Apart from the time constraint and lack of a neutral site, other variables support collaborative strategy (HBS, 1980). For example, the negotiation discussions will take place in Kessel office which is not neutral but all other variables like organization culture, resources, relationship and type of issue supports collaborative approach. Based on the case, one can negotiate effectively by being honest since the firm already wants long term relationship (Barry, Saunders and Lewicki, 2003). The main aim is to have results which both sides win. Through this strategy, it will be possible to meet all needs and ensure there is creation of mutual value. To effectively utilize this strategy, there will be need for trust and creativity. It will also involve listening to ideas from both sides (HBS, 1980). For example, having not known Kessel well, there will be need to establish of trust and ensure both parties have smooth flow of information. This will make it easy to use the collaboration strategy since both parties are honest. Through the strategy, it will be easier to tell Kessel on the alternative job offer and hence can use it as a leverage point (McGinn, Hannah and Dina, 2005). Collaboration strategy makes it possible to invest time and energy to come up with an innovative solution. Moreover, it will lead to a secure feeling knowing that there is more value to share later (Jones & Dudley, 2005). Despite this, it will be important to treat the other party in a transactional manner. The information shared will be on the same level to avoid exploitation. Through this strategy, the focus will be on commonalities rather than differences. The solution being sought will ensure that the needs of both sides are met (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 2011). The problem of choice in the two careers will be stated in a practical and comprehensive manner. It will be stated as a goal and all obstacles in obtaining it identified. In addition, the problem definition will be separated from the search for solutions. The interest is based on doing what is fair, right and acceptable by all parties involved (HBS, 1980). Alternatives will be sought and evaluated to come up with the best solution (Soliman, 2001). Through collaborative strategy, it will be possible to maximize payoff for both parties, gain long term solution, promote authenticity and lead to long term solution. Since I plan to stay in the organization for long, the approach will promote trust, openness, and improve the organization climate (Rubin & Brown, 1975). This will reduce competition and job insecurity that can be brought by use of other strategies such as competitive approach. How can you negotiate to maximize your compensation in the position that best fits your career aspirations? I will take the marketing position and ensure that I negotiate maximum compensation. This is the best move based on career aspirations and ability to have work life balance. The professional services position requires a lot of travelling which interferes with work life balance despite the high compensation. Working in sales had led to loss of personal life and taking the marketing position will make it possible to cover it. Moreover, personal career goals are in the general management and joining the professional services would put the career path towards general management (McGinn, Hannah and Dina, 2005). Before coming to this decision, there will be negotiations to push for a maximum compensation in the marketing position. This is the first goal while negotiating with Kessel. An agreement will only make sense if it is better than the alternative and this will include having a reasonable salary. At the end of discussion with Kessel, I will inform him on the alterative offer by Mangini. This might help a lot in bargaining for a higher salary. The salary at Professional services position is higher than what will be offered by Kessel (McGinn, Hannah and Dina, 2005). Since I am already a significant investment in the organization, it is fair and realistic that the organization should invest in an equitable manner in me. It is hard for the employer to withdraw this offer due to negotiating for a better compensation package. This is due to fact that the salary package being requested is in a reasonable range and is based on the professional experience. I have more to offer in the marketing field hence need for a higher salary range in line with the level of experience and contributions to the organization. There will be need to use Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). This is the standard in which the offered salary should be compared against. It also determines the point in which one can walk away from the bargaining table due to lack of a deal. In this case, there is a strong BATNA which is based on the alternative job offer from Mangini which have a higher salary. In this case, Kessel will be aware that if the salary is not competitive enough, there is a better fall back plan in case there is no deal. The BATNA will help in coming up with the reservation price which is the lowest point where one can accept a deal. There will be need to assess a reservation point before accepting the offer. Through use of the BATNA, it will be possible to be aggressive in attaining a favorable settlement (Spangler, 2003). In addition, there will be use of ample justification to prove that the salary being asked is fair and reasonable. At the salary negotiation stage, an acceptable salary range is preferable. In this context, it will be important to negotiate a pay with Kessel based on experience and contribution to the company. The market value for the skills and contribution will be looked at in this stage. It will be important to tell Kessel that despite the interest to work in the marketing position there will need of the salary range to be competitive. In this instance, Kessel have already made an offer based on my worth as a prospective employee. For example, I will use my performance which includes being able to turn Toys N’ Stuff around and also increasing business through selling additional $700,000 worth of analytical consulting services (McGinn, Hannah and Dina, 2005). Before accepting the offer, there will be negotiation on the recurring expenses, travel budget and other benefits. Although there may be issues on the salary comparison based on the range that is paid for the marketing position, there will be a need to stand the ground and request for competitive salary. There will be use of work samples and measurable accomplishments in the company that will prove my worth. This will show how my work in marketing have added value to the firm accomplishments. For the salary negotiation to be mutually beneficial and maximum there is need to use both integrative and distributive tactics. This is through tradeoffs and information exchange and persuasive arguments (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 2011). The salary being agreed on should be based on equitable distribution of resources in such a manner that what is received does not have a negative impact on the organization. This is through a mutual feeling of fairness (Weber & Khademian, 1997). The salary negotiations will also reach a sustainable agreement where there will be feeling of mutual fairness. Thus, it will be possible to maximize compensation in the marketing position through use of a collaborative and problem solving approach. The main objective will be a win-win situation for all parties. Through a well managed salary negotiation, it will be possible to have a fulfilling personal relationship between the parties and ensure that the pay is competitive for the position taken. Conclusion To sum up, the best way to approach this negotiation is through optimal approach for mutual benefits between the parties involved. This is through upholding fairness in the discussion and ensuring that no party is taken advantage of. The best bargaining strategy to use is collaborative. This will be aimed in coming up with an innovative solution where everyone is involved. The solution will ensure that needs for every party is met. To ensure that negotiation maximize compensation in the position that best fits career aspirations, there will be use of BATNA and a salary range that is based on experience and job contributions. This will be based on the alternative offer and ensuring that the negotiated salary is in line with organization capability and win-win for all parties. References Barry, B. Saunders, D. M. and Lewicki, R.J. (2003). Negotiation. (Ed.). Boston: Irwin Professional Pub. Blomqvist, K., Hurmelinna, P., & Seppänen, R. (2005). Playing the collaboration game right—balancing trust and contracting. Technovation, 25(5), 497-504. Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. London: Penguin. HBS, (1980). Bargaining Strategies: Collaborative versus Competitive Approaches. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. 1-14. Jones, S., & Dudley, N. (2005). Negotiations and conflict management. In Forest Restoration in Landscapes (pp. 126-135). New York: Springer. Lewicki, R., Bruce, B., & David, S. (2010). Nature of negotiation. Essentials of negotiation, McGraw-Hill Education, Estados Unidos. McGinn, K. L., Hannah, R. B., and Dina R. P. (2005) "RetailSoft: Role for Cam Archer." Harvard Business School Exercise 905-004. Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New York: Academic Press. Soliman, I. (2001). Collaboration and the negotiation of power. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 219-234. Spangler, B. (2003). Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). Guy and Heidi Burgess, eds, Beyond Intractability. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, June. Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (1997). From agitation to collaboration: Clearing the air through negotiation. Public Administration Review, 396-410. Read More