Negotiations in My Opinion, Vanessa Abrams Did

Negotiations

In my opinion, Vanessa Abrams did indeed get herself in that position because she had almost no other alternatives and was too much dependent on S & G.

Let's briefly refer to some of the circumstances that got her into a situation where she was forced to sign the agreement. First of all, this was not some silly obsession that Jerry had. Indeed, as we have seen in the case study, Vanessa was an important member of the management committee and probably the only one there that had not yet signed such an agreement.

It did not seem so unreasonable that she was asked to sign this, since she had a position where she could gather information she could use in her collaboration with direct competitors, had she left S & G.

Second of all, as we have seen, the agreement was demanded by the corporate headquarters. We are not to discuss at this point whether this agreement was ethical or not, but we are discussing why Vanessa was virtually in a position where she had no actual choice. Generally, if you work in a company, you abide by its rules or you leave if you don't like it. This was the case here as well: the corporate headquarters and top management had demanded that every employee sign a non- disclosure agreement. It was not an individual agreement that Vanessa had to sign.

This brings us to the alternatives Vanessa had. Indeed, the only viable alternatives seemed to be either to negotiate compensations in case she signed (which she did as we have seen) or leave the company and move to another one.

If we start with the latter alternative, we see why this couldn't have worked. In Vanessa's own words, "the money was nowhere near where it was at S & G. And the thing is, I loved S & G. I loved the people, loved the work." So, S & G. indirectly blackmailed Vanessa into signing the agreement because of excellent financial conditions and a pleasant workplace which she enjoyed. In this way, they were sure that she wouldn't succeed in leaving to another firm, because no competitors would offer her the same conditions. It would be interesting, however, to discuss whether the company was aware of the general market situation and of what conditions its competitors actually offered. If it was not, then its entire strategy was a simple bluff, which could have ended with Vanessa leaving the company.

As we understood from the case study, Vanessa has also tried the first alternative solution, which seemed to have had more results. Indeed, she obtained the fact that whether she was fired, she would receive one year's salary. However, she obtained none of the five conditions she had asked for.

2. In my opinion, a non- disclosure or confidence agreement is something an employee often comes across in a company. I have signed one myself in one of the previous work engagements I have had. This non- disclosure agreement stipulated that I could not work for any of my company's competitors for at least 18 months and there was the additional confidence clause attached to it.

If we look at this non- disclosure agreement and compare it to the previous one, we see that it is in many ways quite similar, except for the longer period of time that it involved. The choices that the employee (hence, myself) has are also similar. In my situation, for example, the company had also in no way manifested any restrictions in my leaving the firm if I didn't agree with the agreement and did not wish to sign it. Indeed, there were no additional fines or salary cut-backs. However, if I wanted to work with the company, I had to sign the respective agreement, which I obviously did.

My reasons for signing the agreement were similar to Vanessa's. I had searched a long time for an appropriate position and the right company for me. The company I had finally found had all these requirements, plus the advantages of a high salary and a relaxed work schedule. Having found the "perfect job," it was hard for me to give up on it, especially given the fact that I already knew what the other companies had to offer. So, it was something I had to agree with. Similar to Vanessa, I had my hopes high up that there would be no question of me being fired and I had no intention of leaving the firm in the near future.

3. In my opinion, Vanessa will never be in a good negotiation position with Jerry, because of several reasons.

First of all, she has already given in once, which will make Jerry confident that she can be convinced again, probably by using the exact same means. Vanessa finds herself in the worst negotiating position possible: she has not agreed to sign in the beginning, asked for several conditions, all of which the company refused. The only clause or compensation that the management had agreed to was the one- year salary clause. Additionally, Vanessa was somewhat bullied into signing the agreement (remember, for example, the fact that she was excluded from the board and could no longer participate to discussions) and, even more important, she actually put up with it. There is nothing to prevent the company and Jerry from using the bullying technique in the future as well, given the fact that it actually worked: she had signed, she had not left for another company and continued to produce excellent results.

Second of all, she cannot use the "I'll find something else" technique, because she knows there is not, at least for the moment, something better than S & G, financially and professionally speaking. As such, Vanessa is in a very dangerous for the future: she has given in once and she has virtually no other profitable alternative. This leaves her in a weak negotiating stance.