- Nabajyoti Das (PGP/1140/06)

Reflective memos on Sick Leave case- Kelly

I was the Negotiator for my group, and I was Mr. Higashi.
Analyzing your own Negotiation
● What did you do well? What did you not do well? What will you do
differently next time and why?
I attempted to calm Kelly (another team member) down throughout
the negotiation since she was insistent about upholding the contract,
and I informed her that once the paperwork had started, it couldn't
be reversed. Kelly, on the other hand, was stubborn and uncaring
about it. As a result, the procedure became stalled.
I was also resolute because I believed that bowing down would
convey the wrong impression to my Japanese colleagues.
I feel I should have been a little more sympathetic of her request and
reassured her that we would amend this paid leave with sick leave for
another occasion.
● Overall—how do you feel about the process? And about the outcome?
Overall, there are times when we are unable to reach an agreement,
and this occurs most frequently when both sides are insistent.
However, Kelly was unpleasant and obstinate in this situation, and
she refused to listen to anything, so we were unable to reach a
decision. As a result, in such instances, no option may be the best
possible conclusion.
● Reflect critically on your choices and actions.
In this situation, I intended to first soothe Kelly by explaining the
Japanese work culture and devotion. We don't get disrespectful or
speak loudly in Japanese society. We put in long hours and rarely take
paid vacations. We are both highly adaptable, so I was always

1
 pressuring Kelly to know all of these things and attempting to appease
her since she was stubborn and uncaring.
● Analyzing the Negotiations of the Other Negotiator (with whom you are
negotiating)
Kelly (another negotiator) was aggressive and insensitive in my
opinion since she was solely concerned with fulfilling the contract
and was unwilling to listen to my views. As I couldn't accomplish
anything outside of the Japanese work culture,
● Did the Other appear interested in your interests? In your
possible sources of power? Did the Other appear to listen
effectively? (Note examples if you like.)
In my view no as, she was very adamant on only reverting the paid
leave to sick leave. There was no other intention of Kelly apart from
this.
● Did the Other appear to you to know his or her own interests? If so,
to what extent were they clearly presented to you?
No, in my opinion, because she was emphatic about solely converting
paid leave to sick leave. Kelly had no other intentions than to do this.
● Did the Other appear to have a consistent strategy? What was the style of
the Other? Which sources of power did you feel the Other was using?
Kelly had no plan other than to convert the paid vacation to sick leave,
and she was nasty and disrespectful during the negotiation.
● Did you feel respect or disrespect from the Other? How did you feel
that the Other responded to your own strategy, tactics, uses of power,
successes or errors?
I experienced rudeness, indifference, and disdain during the discussion
because she was always pressing one issue, that she should be given sick
leave, and for that she was constantly referring me to her contract, and
she was not willing to listen to me during the process.

2
 ● Overall—how do you feel about the process? And about the outcome?
Would you trust the Other with an important negotiation of your own?
Overall, we were unable to reach any conclusions, but I believe that in
certain cases, this is the best consequence. I've learned that
individuals aren't always considerate and reasonable since they're
fixated on one issue and unable to listen to other people's situations or
reasons. As a result, in such a circumstance, one must be patient and
attempt to settle things down, lest the situation spiral out of hand.
In this circumstance, I would not entrust someone else with a
crucial deal.

Reflective memos on the Used Car Negotiation

(Third-party Observer)

Let us take A as buyer, B as seller

● Did A or B's opening statements reveal any true interests?

B's opening comment, indicating a price of $13,000, suggested that he had high
expectations.
● Did A or B share relevant information?

Even after constant questioning by B about the alternatives he had, A refused to

disclose information.
● What sources of power did each party appear to have?

A appeared to have a strong BATNA.

B appeared to have a psychological power.

● What sources of power did each party appear to use?

3
A utilised the same powerful BATNA strategy and eventually agreed to a price of
$10,000.
● Did either party try to exploit weaknesses of the other?

They didn't try to exploit others' flaws, and they weren't interested in noticing flaws.

● What tactics of either party were especially

noteworthy? A- Information withholding approach

B- Quoting high in order to develop a higher middle ground strategy

● Did either party seek to understand and respect the interests of the other?

B tried to understand the interests of A.

● Did either party help to develop new options?

Yes, all parties were eager to generate fresh possibilities in order to reach a
compromise as quickly as possible.
● Did either party emphasize the relationship as much as the settlement?

No, both parties did not place as much emphasis on the relationship as they did on
the settlement, as seen by their fiercely competitive bargaining.
● Subjectively speaking, do you trust either A or B?

We can trust B.

4
 Reflective memos on Hiring Cam Archer
(Third-party Observer)

● Did A or B's opening statements reveal any true interests?

A's opening statement disclosed that he had high hopes by asking for a salary in the
area of 175000 since he had the advantage of having an option in case the
discussion failed and both parties became chilly.
B's opening speech demonstrated that he had a good grasp of how much pay is paid
for the post by first proposing 125000, and that he had the upper hand because
another individual could simply be recruited if Archer didn't accept the deal. After
all of the debates, it was evident from the opening speech that there was a lot more
room for bargaining, which they immediately began.
● Did A or B share relevant information?

Yes, both A and B included pertinent information in their opening statements,

were honest about their situations, and made their objectives and goals obvious in
their opening statements.
● What sources of power did each party appear to have?

Both had a high BATNA because they both had similarly high alternatives. In
the instance of Archer, he already had an inside offer set up, whilst in the case of
Kessel, he had the option of recruiting outside more readily and at a lesser cost.
Both sought to exploit their psychological power, with kessel using it because he
was in a position of authority, and archer using it because he was dedicated to the
firm and an exceptional performance.

● What sources of power did each party appear to use?

Both employed BATNA and psychological power in their negotiations, resulting

in a final offer of 145000$ in fixed salary plus 25000$ in variable pay, as well as a
6-month renegotiation based on performance.

5
 ● Did either party try to exploit weaknesses of the other?

No, they didn't try to exploit the weaknesses of others, and they weren't
interested in viewing them, because such a negotiation may jeopardise their long-
term partnership, which neither of them wants to jeopardise.
● What tactics of either party were especially noteworthy?

A- Having a backup plan and focusing on his goals and other possibilities strategy
B- Highlighting the non-monetary benefits of the current position, such as reduced
travel.
● Did either party seek to understand and respect the interests of the
other?
Yes, both sides sought to understand each other's wants and objectives, and
both were eager to negotiate so that they might keep their cordial relationship for
a long time.
● Did either party help to develop new options?

Yes, both sides assisted each other in developing new possibilities, and in the
end, a final pay of 145000$ fixed + 25000$ variable was successfully negotiated,
as well as a revision of the salary structure depending on Archer's performance.
● Did either party emphasize the relationship as much as the settlement?

Yes, both sides were eager on highlighting the settlement as much as possible,
because archer wanted to stay with the firm and kessel was dedicated to recruiting
him owing to his outstanding performance in his prior post. As a result, the focus
of the talks was on the monetary and non-monetary benefits archer would receive
in his new post. As a result, we may assume that both parties were motivated to
keep the connection going, and that the entire negotiation was exceedingly
cooperative.
● Subjectively speaking, do you trust either A or B?

Based on the facts and negotiations, we can trust both A and B.

6
 Reflective Memo Confidential Information for the
Barkley Representative
(Third-party observer)

● Did A or B's opening statements reveal any true interests?

A's first speech betrayed his high expectations by asking for a price in the
$18,00000 area.
B's first speech demonstrated that he had a good notion of how much the
property was worth by offering 14, 50,000 dollars.
Since the other plot salesperson had already finished the sale when we called them,
we were both keen to finalise the deal because we didn't have many alternatives in
the end other than to back out.
● Did A or B share relevant information?
Yes, in their opening statements, both A and B shared essential facts and
were quite honest about their situations.
However, both sides attempted to conceal the fact that this is the only interaction
accessible to them, which became clear after a few chats.
● What sources of power did each party appear to have?
Both had high BATNA at first because they had similar options.
However, beyond a certain point in time, it is determined by who acts first to
the middle ground, as the other party has already completed the deal.
● What sources of power did each party appear to use?
Both employed BATNA and psychological force in their negotiations, eventually
settling on a sum of $15,000,000.00.

7
 ● Did either party try to exploit weaknesses of the other?
No, they didn't try to exploit each other's flaws, and they weren't interested
in seeing them since they were both focused on closing the sale or finding an
agreement that would benefit both parties.

What tactics of either party were especially noteworthy?

A- Having a backup plan and focusing on his goals.
B- Emphasizing the cash and credit benefits that he will provide
● Did either party seek to understand and respect the interests of the
other?
Yes, both sides sought to understand each other's needs and objectives, and both
were eager to negotiate so that they might come to a mutually beneficial
arrangement.
● Did either party help to develop new options?
Yes both parties helped each other to develop new options and in the end
successfully negotiated for the end price of 15, 00,000 with 8,00,000 in down
payment and the other half at a rate of prime plus 1.
● Did either party emphasize the relationship as much as the settlement?

After the negotiation reached a stage where both parties realised they didn't have
any other options, they adopted a cooperative strategy and reached an amicable
conclusion.
● Subjectively speaking, do you trust either A or B?
We can trust both A and B based on the facts and negotiations.