Master Negotiation FRC

1. How easy or difficult it was to negotiate? Explain in detail? Answer: It was difficult to negotiate with the parties to negotiation. The information about the competitors was limited this made the negotiation process more difficult, moreover the competitors were unknown or strangers so it was difficult to get information about them due to lack of acquaintances. The competitors were from diverse occupations and so their expectations were different and difficult to comprehend, conditions of each member were different, as the result it was difficult to come to consensus with them. Example: Temperature for instance was a fact that was not that relevant to me but to all other parties it held relevance and was an issue of discussion. So the overall requirements of each person were different thus making the overall process of negotiation a complex process.

2. Briefly explain the decision making procedure followed in the negotiation discussion, i.e. how agreement on issues were reached viz. consensus, voting etc.? Answer: The decision was made by consensus and not by voting. The decision was very difficult to reach by consensus but all was reached amicably by discussion and getting aware of each other s requirements and the critical requirements for each others businesses. The fact that the issues are critical to ones business was given due considerations while making decisions. The issue was put forth by various members and then the need for the same was explained and then they explained the factors how the issue is critical to them and then where they are ready to compromise for it where they are ready for a trade off. In this way there was an awareness created for their respective issues and the parties tries to convince and later coming on consensus on the issue. In this way all the issues were discussed one by one and the discision were made on the basis of consensus.

Master Negotiation FRC

3. As compared to previous master negotiation, whether this negotiation discussion had more conflicts or less? Briefly explain the same and why do you think such a thing existed? Answer: Compared to previous master negotiation this had many and complex bargaining and conflicts. Earlier MAST NEG was based on tangible and intangible gains and this negotiation was different than the earlier negotiation as this involved only tangible gains to be made for business, earlier negotiation was a personal negotiation this was a business negotiation, their the relationship had also to be maintained and the overall process of the negotiation was to be taken care of unlike in this negotiation only gains in business were considered. Due to the above factors the difference exists and the conflicts were mainly due to the fact that here all was personal gain and trade off s to start the new business in the said building.

4. Whether there was an agenda formulated before starting the negotiation discussion? If yes, how it was arrived? Answer: A formal agenda was not spoken out and decided prior to the negotiation. Interestingly unanimous thought was accepted by all on the table, in which all members were determined to start her business and come on a consensus. All had agreed to sacrifice their personal gains in order to have a common benefit.

5. Was there any side dealings and coalitions formed by some of the counterparts in the negotiation? If yes, how did you manage them? Answer NO such side dealings or coalitions were formed but the benefits that were common to the pair of parties were known to all on the table and then while trading off for two issues the pair of parties who had a similar requirement were openly said to trade off and reach a satisfactory outcome, this was a nice strategy to avoid the coalition and side dealings.

Master Negotiation FRC

6. Was your pre-negotiation preparation sufficiently thorough? Did you finally understand your counterparts needs? Did you carefully estimate your opponents opinions? Answer: Yes I made significant efforts in preparation for the negotiation and evaluated all possible combinations and estimated the needs of the parties to negotiation, evaluated the benefits to tem and the critical issues they are in need of before the negotiation. I made efforts to understand the needs of the counterparts and they also try the same. As all were determined to start the business and they wanted the process to be amicable the parties were concerned about the needs of the other parties. There were certain critical issues of importance for each one of us and all were aware of it and cared for it. Yes I carefully estimated my opponents options that what were critical for the florist, the groceries and the bakery owner and

7. How adequate was initial proposal or offer developed? Answer Initial offer was initiated by the bakery owner (Aakansha) and followed by Grocer (Vignesh) the initial offer was of the form that they started with the issues that were relevant and important to them and according to the list the y stated with the temperature and the offer developed as the people started telling their constraints and requirements of their business and it appeared that the offers made did not match the requirements of the requirements of each one which led to the shifting to other issues as the single issue could consume a lot of time. The initial proposal

which was finalized after completion of the few aspects like the position and the clerks and when all the information and the critical requirements of the parties to negotiation were out. The offers developed as and when people were ready to trade off and the offers were getting accepted.

8. Were you successful in adequately communicating your position to the counterparts? Answer:
3

Master Negotiation FRC

Yes I was successful in communicating my position to the counterparts; in fact all the parties to negotiation were successful in communicating their positions and the critical requirements on the table. I conveyed to the parties that the position was of important to me I also told them that a separate ad campaign was more desirable to me as my business does not need a combined campaign. I did not communicate to them all the issues and my priorities on all the issues like the temperature was irrelevant to me but I did not show my disinterest for it instead showed as if I were making a sacrifice for it for them. Although I communicated the position to them the parties were mostly worried about their personal benefits and wants as well. 9. Whether handling the ploys, tactics, misrepresentations used by your counterparts was easier to handle? Briefly explain the same. Answer: No, I dont think that the ploys and the tactics were easy to handle as it was difficult to recognize if they were genuine or they were really in need of the issue for the start of their business and his happened because we all had very limited information about our [arties to negotiation. It was appearing as if the bakery owner was all the time concerned for not getting complete benefit in a single issue which later turned out that she got benefits in small amounts in bits and pieces everywhere and gained the maximum points n the table. The honesty aspect was difficult to guess from the conversations. Although I feel that the bakery owner and the grocers were a little competitive in nature whereas I and the flowrist Manju were honest. 10. If no settlement was achieved, what you might have done differently with respect to preparation and or bargaining developments to produce a different result. Answer: If no settlement was achieved I would have tried to give away the maximum benefits I could until I reached my resistance point and if it exceeded my resistance point I would have not negotiated further. If outcome couldnt be reached then I would have pre dicided to stay firm on my wants and push the other members to agree upon as I feel that I was lenient n my demands and that was the reason the outcome was reached.