Contract Simulation and Management Simulation
Memo: Chief Executive of Span Corporation
Re: C-S Negotiations
Situational Overview
At present, Span is in negotiations with the C-S Corporation to determine the particulars of a joint venture between the two organizations. Negotiations have come to an impasse because of what is perceived as C-S's stalling techniques, designed to extract further concessions from Span. C-S has been continually changing the originally defined requirements of the negotiations.
What should Span do when C-S continually adds to or changes their original contract requirements?
One way to cope with this frustrating situation, however, is to view this volatile period of negotiations as a potential plus rather than a minus. Now, it is time for both organizations to take stock, then to come back to the negotiating table with more clearly defined objectives, deploying the current conflict in a positive fashion, with an eye to achieving a final and collective agreement. To make such a change in negotiation strategy constructive, the two organizations must first conduct some mutual brainstorming, as all actors come together to list of all the potential requirements the two organizations might consider within the objectives of the contract, without criticizing or dismissing any options. Then, the organizations must define their mutual objectives for each contractual phase or issue, and anticipate and define the...
Thus, rather than engage in a concessionary strategy, it is better to view the possibilities within a negotiation in a 'win win' fashion, and an opportunity to clarify the original terms of the contract, rather than for one party to dominate the other.
Although immediate organizational objectives may differ, ideally, such an integrative negotiating strategy generates innovative potential future outcomes for both organizations' collective desires. Changes in original contract requirements must meet a single and clear objective. One should not view two organizations as polar opposites in their needs and interests. Thus, the organizations must take stock right now, and collectively decide what is the primary, singular aim of the contract. Why did C-S and Span wish to enter into the talks in the first place?
How do you think the results of the negotiation might differ if both sides followed a positional bargaining strategy vs. one that is interest-based?
Positional bargaining in contrast to the 'win-win' or integrative strategy advocated above, views organizational interests as incompatible. One organization has its goals, and concedes its objectives only to achieve other objectives, haggling over contract requirements much…
