Negotiation simulation and report analysis

Negotiation Overview: Theories Applied

The negotiations that took place between the group representing the city and the union representing ZAPO progressed far more favorably than had been anticipated early on. A deal that was amenable to both parties was achieved after only three meetings, with specific terms, actions, and responsibilities for all parties clearly defined and a contract presented for signing. This does not mean, however, that the negotiations went without any hitches and that all agreements were reached rapidly or easily. In fact, had negotiations actually progressed with this degree of ease they would necessarily have been somewhat suspect, as it would have implied that one if not both groups was truly aggressively advocating for their constituents. The degree of advocacy might have been somewhat questionable on at least one side of the negotiating table, but it certainly was not nonexistent.

One of the earliest and most intriguing proposals and revelations of character made by the side negotiating for the union was the suggestion of a rather unorthodox system of collaborative negotiation that resulted from the artificial nature of the exercise and the fact that a third party -- i.e. The professor -- would be judging the results of the negotiation based on a presumed set of criteria. The union negotiators -- or rather, their initial lead negotiator -- suggested an immediate collusion in determining original offers such that the end result would show reasonable concessions from both parties. While collaborative negotiation is definitely preferable in many instances, it was not deemed appropriate or advisable in these circumstances nor in the manner described, and was roundly rejected by the city's negotiators.

This possible ethical violation did not stall negotiations for long, however, as it was quickly determined that this course of action would not be pursued. Once real negotiations commenced, it became clear that the main goals for the union negotiators were increases in officers on duty, increases in vacation days, and a bolstered life insurance policy. These goals remained solid for the group throughout negotiations, and ultimately the city made certain concessions in these areas that were offset by both monetary and non-monetary goals for the city group. In addition to strictly maintaining the limited realistic budget that the city could afford for its police force, primary goals for the city's negotiators included the assurance that officers would not be able to refuse the conducting of their duties due to pay disputes or other operational issues, but rather that they would comply entirely with the contract once signed.

These goals were both content and identity-based for both sides, with remuneration and fiscal capabilities making up the motivation on both sides of the table along with a need to assert certain rights and expectations that existed on both sides, as well. The face-saving aspects of the deals that were worked out presented themselves initially as a major potential problem, but ultimately the content-based goals were of greater interest to both parties despite earlier posturing. Had this been openly acknowledged and recognized earlier on, which might have occurred with a greater aggressiveness on the part of the city's negotiators, the negotiation would have been far less time consuming and ultimately more efficient. This increased efficiency, of course, has benefits for both parties in the negotiations.